| While a monotonic graph can tend to zero the area under the graph can still be infinite. using blanket terms to be filled with meaning is a valid strategy. With that in mind, I didn't specify that OP's claim was meaningless. I just handed back the ball. Provocation is maybe not the best discurs strategy (and provocation is maybe not the most precise term for it), but it worked out well for me. Your response gave me something to think about. Alas, I won't be able to summarize it. I can only sum up that I am not going to indulge in an argument about who and what should be considered "high-level contemporary research". If that is the main concern of your comment, you are just making my point. More over, if philosophy is eventually a blanket term that is continuously redefined, then I tried to take as much out of it as possible by marking CS and maths as a huge contrast, however not disjunct (nor independent, authark) fields, which should leave huge room for interpretation that is topical to this venue, as a counterforce to the popular view that sees all humanities emerging from the tradition of philosophy--conversely: e.g., the meme of all link trials in Wikipedia ending at the philosophy article--equivalently: philosophy subsuming all... which is a grandious claim. High-level in that sense would be philosophy of philosophy, perhaps, for which there is no authority that I'm aware of. It's an interesting topic indeed, but in critique of OP's remark about held believes I was trying to get at something slightly different (hoping that it aligns eventually). Namely that truth is often enough that which doesn't need saying, which is however indistinguishable from void. Everything else is climbing towers of abstractions. I'm a C-Programmer. return
|