4 ms·
Idea of centralized and universal interpenetration of information soon or later bump into boundaries. By definition, it's impossible approach. Interpretation va
by t0bia_s 3y ago
Idea of centralized and universal interpenetration of information soon or later bump into boundaries. By definition, it's impossible approach. Interpretation vary with knowledge, culture and is shaped by politics, religion, regime, etc.
- whatshisface 3y agoThat's why you don't interpret it, just list it: encyclopedically.
- moate 3y agoThat’s literally impossible. You’re consciousness trapped in meat, everything you experience is an interpretation of your environment and entirely subject to that meat. “The Republican Party exists” is an interpretation of each word, and is controversial on some axis. “2” is a concept, it literally does not exist outside of the mind. This is to say: your desire for objectivity has failed, the best we can ever get are “well defined and explained rationalizations that many people agree with”.
- whatshisface 3y agoAn objective, encyclopediac approach to philosophy would be listing the views on whether or not the word exists applied to a political party.
- t0bia_s 3y agoUntil someone called it toxic, disinformation, hoax, etc.
- t0bia_s 3y agoHistory is written by winners. If you agree, then there is a lot of unlisted informations. If you don't agree, then you are on the winners side.
- whatshisface 3y agoI don't see why it's so philosophically difficult to say the information that makes the winners look bad belongs in the encyclopedia.
- t0bia_s 3y agoBecause for some, it's called hypothesis, hoax, disinformation, toxic... and needs to be "corrected".
- whatshisface 3y agoIf you can't get people to agree on what happened, you can list who said what about it, and what they said.