Can somebody explain this?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Try going on Wikipedia and choose something. Then do the following - click the first embedded link in the main text and then so again for the next text.
Here I start with K-pop:
K-pop - Wikipedia and end with philosophy
Ant - Wikipedia and end with knowledge, a part of a series on philosophy.
Mahatma Gandhi - Wikipedia and end in epistemology, a part of a series on philosophy.

Now this is not my observation. I just tried 3 examples. The claim is that all the entries end in philosophy using the rule above.
Rule - Wikipedia and you guessed, right! Knowledge, a part of a series on philosophy.

Here is my explanation and it is not that everything is philosophy. Rather it is this: When you explain a word, you use other words and all words in the end connect to how we understand and that ends in philosophy, because we end with - How is it known? And for better or worse, that is philosophy.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[PureX]

An interesting observation.

 

[Left Coast]

Try going on Wikipedia and choose something. Then do the following - click the first embedded link in the main text and then so again for the next text.
Here I start with K-pop:
K-pop - Wikipedia and end with philosophy
Ant - Wikipedia and end with knowledge, a part of a series on philosophy.
Mahatma Gandhi - Wikipedia and end in epistemology, a part of a series on philosophy.

Now this is not my observation. I just tried 3 examples. The claim is that all the entries end in philosophy using the rule above.
Rule - Wikipedia and you guessed, right! Knowledge, a part of a series on philosophy.

Here is my explanation and it is not that everything is philosophy. Rather it is this: When you explain a word, you use other words and all words in the end connect to how we understand and that ends in philosophy, because we end with - How is it known? And for better or worse, that is philosophy.

Regards
Mikkel

I tried the first Wiki page that came up in my bookmarks: Comparison of codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus - Wikipedia

That leads to: Codex Sinaiticus - Wikipedia

And that leads to: Greek language - Wikipedia


My most recent Wiki search in my history was for: Freedom fries - Wikipedia

That leads to: List of politically motivated renamings - Wikipedia

And that leads to: World War I - Wikipedia

It doesn't exactly work out as billed, but I see where you're going, and it was a fun exercise.

 

[LightofTruth]

Try going on Wikipedia and choose something. Then do the following - click the first embedded link in the main text and then so again for the next text.
Here I start with K-pop:
K-pop - Wikipedia and end with philosophy
Ant - Wikipedia and end with knowledge, a part of a series on philosophy.
Mahatma Gandhi - Wikipedia and end in epistemology, a part of a series on philosophy.

Now this is not my observation. I just tried 3 examples. The claim is that all the entries end in philosophy using the rule above.
Rule - Wikipedia and you guessed, right! Knowledge, a part of a series on philosophy.

Here is my explanation and it is not that everything is philosophy. Rather it is this: When you explain a word, you use other words and all words in the end connect to how we understand and that ends in philosophy, because we end with - How is it known? And for better or worse, that is philosophy.

Regards
Mikkel

It's too bad they took the study of philosophy and logic out of required education. At least mathematics is still required

history of philosophy frederick copleston - Google Search

An excellent read

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I tried the first Wiki page that came up in my bookmarks: Comparison of codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus - Wikipedia

That leads to: Codex Sinaiticus - Wikipedia

And that leads to: Greek language - Wikipedia


My most recent Wiki search in my history was for: Freedom fries - Wikipedia

That leads to: List of politically motivated renamings - Wikipedia

And that leads to: World War I - Wikipedia

It doesn't exactly work out as billed, but I see where you're going, and it was a fun exercise.

I figure it out.
You are in "m" Comparison of codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus - Wikipedia I.e. en.m.wiki...
If you switch to en.wikipedia.org and only do first link not in a parents as for the main text, you even for
Comparison of codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus end with philosophy.

So you tested it and it doesn't work in en.m.wikipedia but it works for the non-mobile version.

Good day - I learned something fun.

 

[Polymath257]

War of the Roses >> English Civil Wars >> Civil War >> War Studies >> Interdisciplinary >> Academic Disciplines >> Knowledge (which is Philosophy)

Neanderthal >> Species >> Biology >> Natural Science >> Branch >> science >> Knowledge (philosophy)

Hmmm....I propose that taking the *second* links will inevitably lead to biology.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Try going on Wikipedia and choose something. Then do the following - click the first embedded link in the main text and then so again for the next text.
Here I start with K-pop:
K-pop - Wikipedia and end with philosophy
Ant - Wikipedia and end with knowledge, a part of a series on philosophy.
Mahatma Gandhi - Wikipedia and end in epistemology, a part of a series on philosophy.

Now this is not my observation. I just tried 3 examples. The claim is that all the entries end in philosophy using the rule above.
Rule - Wikipedia and you guessed, right! Knowledge, a part of a series on philosophy.

Here is my explanation and it is not that everything is philosophy. Rather it is this: When you explain a word, you use other words and all words in the end connect to how we understand and that ends in philosophy, because we end with - How is it known? And for better or worse, that is philosophy.

Regards
Mikkel

Cool! I went from Fundamentalist christianity stuff to Hermeneutics in just a few clicks.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

War of the Roses >> English Civil Wars >> Civil War >> War Studies >> Interdisciplinary >> Academic Disciplines >> Knowledge (which is Philosophy)

Neanderthal >> Species >> Biology >> Natural Science >> Branch >> science >> Knowledge (philosophy)

Hmmm....I propose that taking the *second* links will inevitably lead to biology.

No, because biology leads to science which leads to knowledge, which is what?

 

[Polymath257]

No, because biology leads to science which leads to knowledge, which is what?

Except that if you take the *second* links, it tends to go into biology and cycle there.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Except that if you take the *second* links, it tends to go into biology and cycle there.

Okay