Checkout Substrate from Unsupervised Learning. Though slightly different, both projects are tapping into the power of open-source collaboration and structured thinking to tackle complex ideas-might be worth exploring potential synergies.
Well, trolls and information manipulation would have to go through an editor, so we don't envision that to be a serious problem. As for Brainrot... can your brain really rot when it's thinking about the Idea? Food for thought. ~ A
This is a fun idea. I could imagine it working best with Analytic philosophy though, given how an analytic approach to philosophy tends to start from a first principles and work up, and thus doesn't require as much literary context. I'm imaging an open source version of the Tractatus Logico Philosophicus (Wittgenstein) or Reasons and Persons (Parfit) could be really cool. Starred ⭐ :)
Sounds like a great idea, we would love to have a Wittgenstein and/or Parfit section in the encyclopaedia. Get in touch with us via email if you want to start to setup that page.
Hi guys, I started self-learning philosophy this year and I'm really excited about this project. I don't have much experience in the field yet, but I would like to contribute (if possible) with my area of expertise, which is Product Design and Web Development. So, If you are looking for help in this area, I would really like to get involved.
Hi @juliocesarfs15 Awesome to hear you're excited! Yes! There's lots to do on the web and product front. We already have some responsiveness bugs to squash! Let's discuss this further over email contact@systemphil.com ~Filip
@@sphildotxyz like Hegel wrote in German. So it should be possible to switch from Being to Wesen and add a corresponding page in German. Same for the translations.
@@pauldruhg2992 Yeah, it's a great suggestion, It's something we have thought about doing, but it will have to be integrated further down the line. We just don't have the capacity to think about implementing that right now. But thanks for raising it! ~ A
Hi, thanks for the question. So, with regard to Wikipedia, I think the main differences has to do with the detail of the material. Wikipedia is a great source for getting started on your research journey, but it won't be the end-point of your research journey. Unlike Wikipedia, SPhil aims to provide expert and critical analysis of philosophical ideas and our aim is for this level of analysis to be on the same level as any journal article or book published on the matter. With regard to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, whilst it does a great job of giving you a detailed summary of a particular philosopher's ideas or of the coordinates of a particular debate in philosophy, it does not critically analyse the texts themselves. The aim of our encyclopaedia is to provide paragraph-by paragraph, or section-by-section, analysis of a particular philosopher's system. For example, I have published a couple of articles on the opening development of the section on Mechanism from the Science of Logic. What I do in these articles is not to just give a summary of what Hegel is arguing. Rather, I give an exegesis of the text so that the intelligibility of the claim can be laid out for everyone to see and scrutinise. Perhaps I missed something, and that's when a helpful contributor will ask to edit the text and hopefully improve it. I hope this helps to clarify our particular goals ~ A
I love the concept! However, may I ask why you are going by a per-philosopher categorization strategy to boot and not by a per-idea categorization? It's much easier for people to contribute their ideas on philosophical topics rather than knowing the work of specific philosophers necessarily.
Hey, thanks for the positive feedback. That's an interesting suggestion, and it's definitely something that we could look into incorporating further down the line. But the impetus behind our approach is the desire to elucidate the thought of systematic philosophers. As fans of Hegel, we think systematic philosophy is the way to go, and the most important thing in any system of philosophy is internal coherence. But in such big systems, like Hegel's (though, of course Hegel is not the only one), getting agreement on the internal coherence of the whole system requires a lot of work on the minutiae of the system - and that's what we hope SPhil accomplishes ~ Ahilleas
Just a further follow-up, we made an issue about this here. You're very welcome to add further suggestions and ideas to this thread :) github.com/systemphil/sphil/issues/84 ~F
Yes, this is something we'll be setting up in due course. We have to figure out a way to do this that works both for readers and writers of the encyclopedia. But given our strong focus on exegesis, it makes sense to expand from individual philosophers first and then start building branches and networks between them (and then even develop that further). ~F
@@yoavco99 Actually, I've made an issue about it so that it's on our radar more explicitly but it'll probably take a while before we get the ball rolling on this. Feel free to contribute further suggestions here :) github.com/systemphil/sphil/issues/84 ~F
Mate I dont know that this is about, but come on you could have done better in the name. I saw your video on my feed and mistakenly read it as syphilis.
Open Source philosophy sounds amazing! I'll definitely be paying attention to this project
Woohooo, looks fantastic! A new dawn for Philosophy
Gentlemen, this is great news. This is Geist calling! I am looking to participate in the project as much as I can!
Thank you so much 🙏 looking forward to your contributions, Baris! ⚡~Filip
Checkout Substrate from Unsupervised Learning. Though slightly different, both projects are tapping into the power of open-source collaboration and structured thinking to tackle complex ideas-might be worth exploring potential synergies.
Nice way to involve the community
Sounds really promising and exciting good luck.
Question: How do you plan to fight things like Brainrot, trolls, and information manipulation?
Brainrot?
@@gwnbw -plato
Well, trolls and information manipulation would have to go through an editor, so we don't envision that to be a serious problem. As for Brainrot... can your brain really rot when it's thinking about the Idea? Food for thought. ~ A
This is a fun idea. I could imagine it working best with Analytic philosophy though, given how an analytic approach to philosophy tends to start from a first principles and work up, and thus doesn't require as much literary context. I'm imaging an open source version of the Tractatus Logico Philosophicus (Wittgenstein) or Reasons and Persons (Parfit) could be really cool. Starred ⭐ :)
Sounds like a great idea, we would love to have a Wittgenstein and/or Parfit section in the encyclopaedia. Get in touch with us via email if you want to start to setup that page.
Great initiative guys
Ok, perhaps I haven't exactly thought this through, but isn't this just a wiki with extra steps?
We aim not only to gather existing knowledge but to create new knowledge as well. In that respect we're closer to nLab. ~Filip
Hi guys, I started self-learning philosophy this year and I'm really excited about this project. I don't have much experience in the field yet, but I would like to contribute (if possible) with my area of expertise, which is Product Design and Web Development. So, If you are looking for help in this area, I would really like to get involved.
Hi @juliocesarfs15 Awesome to hear you're excited! Yes! There's lots to do on the web and product front. We already have some responsiveness bugs to squash! Let's discuss this further over email contact@systemphil.com ~Filip
Have you considered releasing a .ZIM file to make your database available offline?
We have not! Do please make an issue or a discussion thread about it, and we can look into it! ~F
How do you propose the support for the translations?
Hi, thanks for your message. What exactly do you mean by support for the translations?
@@sphildotxyz like Hegel wrote in German. So it should be possible to switch from Being to Wesen and add a corresponding page in German. Same for the translations.
@@pauldruhg2992 Yeah, it's a great suggestion, It's something we have thought about doing, but it will have to be integrated further down the line. We just don't have the capacity to think about implementing that right now. But thanks for raising it! ~ A
@@sphildotxyz I'm interested in the technical side of the repo 😄
This is very nice! I am going to see if I can contribute to software.
This is amazing
How is this differentiated from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or Wikipedia?
Hi, thanks for the question.
So, with regard to Wikipedia, I think the main differences has to do with the detail of the material. Wikipedia is a great source for getting started on your research journey, but it won't be the end-point of your research journey. Unlike Wikipedia, SPhil aims to provide expert and critical analysis of philosophical ideas and our aim is for this level of analysis to be on the same level as any journal article or book published on the matter.
With regard to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, whilst it does a great job of giving you a detailed summary of a particular philosopher's ideas or of the coordinates of a particular debate in philosophy, it does not critically analyse the texts themselves.
The aim of our encyclopaedia is to provide paragraph-by paragraph, or section-by-section, analysis of a particular philosopher's system. For example, I have published a couple of articles on the opening development of the section on Mechanism from the Science of Logic. What I do in these articles is not to just give a summary of what Hegel is arguing. Rather, I give an exegesis of the text so that the intelligibility of the claim can be laid out for everyone to see and scrutinise. Perhaps I missed something, and that's when a helpful contributor will ask to edit the text and hopefully improve it.
I hope this helps to clarify our particular goals ~ A
Cool😮
woot woot
I love the concept! However, may I ask why you are going by a per-philosopher categorization strategy to boot and not by a per-idea categorization? It's much easier for people to contribute their ideas on philosophical topics rather than knowing the work of specific philosophers necessarily.
Hey, thanks for the positive feedback. That's an interesting suggestion, and it's definitely something that we could look into incorporating further down the line. But the impetus behind our approach is the desire to elucidate the thought of systematic philosophers. As fans of Hegel, we think systematic philosophy is the way to go, and the most important thing in any system of philosophy is internal coherence. But in such big systems, like Hegel's (though, of course Hegel is not the only one), getting agreement on the internal coherence of the whole system requires a lot of work on the minutiae of the system - and that's what we hope SPhil accomplishes ~ Ahilleas
Just a further follow-up, we made an issue about this here. You're very welcome to add further suggestions and ideas to this thread :) github.com/systemphil/sphil/issues/84 ~F
nice
I dislike the Idea that this is separated only into philosophers. Perhaps adding a section for topics which are not philosopher-specific.
Yes, this is something we'll be setting up in due course. We have to figure out a way to do this that works both for readers and writers of the encyclopedia. But given our strong focus on exegesis, it makes sense to expand from individual philosophers first and then start building branches and networks between them (and then even develop that further). ~F
@@sphildotxyz Thanks for the response.
@@yoavco99 Actually, I've made an issue about it so that it's on our radar more explicitly but it'll probably take a while before we get the ball rolling on this. Feel free to contribute further suggestions here :) github.com/systemphil/sphil/issues/84 ~F
this is the way
Yes it is :)
@@sphildotxyz can i hop on a call with someone? i'm just a solo leveler lookin to help
i can tell which one is the developer 🤣
Amazing!
Whhere is the proof that logic exists?
come on board and find out. ~ A
Too many cooks spoil the broth.
Yes, but the head chef is Gordon Ramsey ~ A
Wikipedia shows quite the contrary when it comes out to encyclopedic-type writing. The truism is more applicable to original content.
Edit: typos.
Hi, guys and thank you.
Mate I dont know that this is about, but come on you could have done better in the name. I saw your video on my feed and mistakenly read it as syphilis.
Phew, we were about to call it sysPhilosophilis. Dodged a bullet there!
@@sphildotxyz yea m8 you dodged a elephant there. 😂 Keep up the good work. Anything open source is God's work.
@@zeusolympus1664 Praise be OSS 🙏