Such a website would be straightforward to toss together. There are versions of wiki software that would seem ideal for such a task.

Of course, a Research Paper Wiki would have all the same strengths and weaknesses of better known projects such as Wikipedia. Namely, you create the potential to democratize knowledge, accelerating the process of peer review and the spread of new discoveries. In practice, however, the project might ultimately reflect the biases of a few dedicated/stubborn sperglords. This could take the form of wikigroaning or of more serious methodological and philosophical bias.

Despite their flaws I still tend to use and appreciate various wiki websites. I like to think that I can acknowledge their limitations and biases while still getting pieces of information that would be much more inconvenient to track down otherwise. I'd support the general principle of the project, though I'd pay close attention to the execution of and the culture surrounding it.

>>12989
> mean to you
I prefer its universal uses, that the traditional persons can use. Liken that, I am a fan of its' enforcing freedom to navigate without authoritarian (read; consequentialists) implications come down from businesses or governments...

But personally, I prefer it for the opportunity of original thought. Casting off the shackles of moderate conformity to speak, some people say a person is known when they have skin in the game and I say the only test is power and freedom.

I would say that the libertines are correct, but I prefer rationalism with my egoism and hedonism.

Ignoring what the older posters focused on and getting to the heart of the issue, signs and symbols are a convenient way to categorize and generalize people and their positions, which the human brain likes because that allows it to be more efficient about its usage (see cognitive biases and heuristics); however, these things can also contribute to a muddled up view of the world and the individuals that comprise it, which is shown by identity politics and discrimination running rampant throughout the world. People may learn that you identify as part of a group or carry around a symbol representing a loosely-defined ideology, and they may assume things about you that aren't true. What this quote tells us, if anything, is that people focus more on the title of a person's worldview than the content.

>>12990
Or rather, that's what it would mean if the quote wasn't misattributed or mistranslated.

>>12413
Yeah? You see some fundamental concepts in math. There is a thing caused an Is-Ought Problem. Liken that, the sophists had a concept called a praxim (simple reflexive trained doing) which seems to reflext the individuals' connection of manifesting meaning from a thing. Circumstance to action, kinda like the buddhists' concept of "right action" except minus the mysticism or implied autistic morality.

>>12414
Absurdism is the impotent rubbery one of philosophies, abject denial of reality means irrelvance. At least (real) skeptics start measuring things and acknowledge that something can be approximated.

I prefer relativism, even moral relativism can acknowledge the axioms of an objective reality and logic. So, I firmly take the stance that the inconsistency (past literal language barriers) of communicating ideas is because intelligence can be used to create elaborate justification for complexes and wisdom isn't needed for happiness, so emotional honesty (to oneself at least) is not guaranteed or necessarily desired by the other person.

You're already in dangerous intellectual territory with "Abrahamic religions are far from my ideal belief system, but fuck it I'll give one a go regardless." That makes for an uphill battle to maintain any sort of consistent long term belief and fulfillment.

That being said, mainline Protestant churches in general are the ones where it seems easiest to enjoy the social club aspect of church without having to go too deep into actual beliefs. Individual congregations vary, but that can be a good thing insofar as it lets you pick and choose the best fit for you. Another choice to consider is the Episcopal Church, which contains within it a wide variety of beliefs and practices that you could get away with.

>>12787
Because insight can be reduced to banality, that's why it's wisdom, and not knowledge. Continental asks the question regressively, from abstract banality, towards an infinitely specific why. The product is delivered in the shortest form. Keep digging, heideggers concept of opening is like digging deeper and deeper into a wound, whilst you don't notice that the wound is closing together around your finger while you go deeper. Hence it bears a certain identity with analytical philosophy. Which is often overlooked in the latter tradition. They all rely on the same tradition, which includes Kant. Don't forget. Sometimes analytical philosophy is characterized by a desire to try and give answers, where as the continental tradition is said to be asking the same question over and over again. Something that both traditions might benefit from, is pondering the notion that giving an answer in many a sense is presupposing, and furthermore asking a question, and that asking a question equally in many ways is an answer. For example, "philosophy is asking questions!" is giving an answer to the philosophical question "What is philosophy", and saying "philosophy is giving answers!" is presupposing the same question, and assuming that there are more philosophical questions that need be posed before an answer can be given.

The distinction is being destabilized, not that it is outright idiotic, or unfruitful just looking at the division of labor, and the fruitful aspect of disagreement. Ideally you read and try to understand both.

Also, if you read Heideggers "modern science, metaphysics, and mathematics" and all you get is "hang in there", you should consider picking up another plato dialogue and some Aristotle before reading any more post-scholastic philosophy, which is a sincere point, and not a dick move. Or spend a little more time with a couple of anthologies.

There's a reason why Carnap spent his time trying to refute Heideggers "What is metaphysics".
You don't reduce on a guy you think an idiot.

>>12882
>because insight can be reduced to banality
I don't know if that's true in all cases. I think these philosophers offered more specific insights that are invaluable and perhaps impossible to reduce.

I'm more frustrated that I can read dozens of these books and not know what to do with myself. *My* interest in them is supposed to be practical, not scholarly.

Maybe I didn't learn anything, because I already share their mentality. I did read a philosophy book written by a Muslim in the year 1100 or so, and that actually gave me something to chew on.

Hopefully I'm being clearer now. You guys all had great points anyway.

It's to get it to take affect. Being in analysis paralysis, sophmore slump, depression, writer's block, what have you involves those things we encounter in them to be reconciled or coped with. Or in general the existential crisis or the thing that pushes you into the examination in the self examined life. Either way that's also going to include taking on a million common sentiments found in that struggle.

No. I don't. Obviously as someone with legs and thumbs there is nothing in the infinite universe that is slightly smarter.

>>12910
I don't agree with everything that you said, but that was beautiful

>>12516
I've followed the path of righteousness.. there must not be anything that much smarter than me.. There is only one God, really, and he's Jesus also for some reason. If you don't believe me ask the holy ghost.

>>12966
because it is obvious that females and minority groups are disadvantaged in many ways, but whether or not this should be society's main focus or your life's main focus is what's really up for debate

>>12963
"Get out of my way you blithering twerp or I'll show you the meaning of pain."

File 149678025372.jpg - (28.29KB , 520x294 , 12861551_f520.jpg )

Feminist uses *THREAT OF VIOLENCE*

What will Nietzsche do?

You might be confused because you never thought about it before, but it's very logical, you're not made from special stuff, little human bricks, you're part of the material world that surrounds us all. As it keeps on changing, it will eventually change that little part of it you're making, leading to bad consequences

>>12357
The only way anyone could formally establish an anarchist (insert anarchist unit of polity here) would be to simultaneously abolish all other governments with any interest in the territory, because they'd be defenseless (no nation, no army) and they'd be overrun (no government, no negotiations).

Now if you want to have some autonomy, and live in your hippie commune and worship satan with minimal government interference, we can talk about that. Anarchy is a fantasy born from our ancestral memories of pre-civilization, grow up.

Anarchy is 5% more practical than the philosophy you support

It's been proven that primates (including humans) cannot form a social bond with more than a small number of other individuals; with humans it's around 250 people. A small commune can live in anarchy via mutualism, but an entire country of millions will immediately fracture into gangs once any centralized government is deposed. These gangs will ruthlessly steal from, slaughter, and recruit from the rest of the population, until one of them gains enough power to form a new government.