#Epistemic curiosity

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Curiosity

The philosophy of curiosity explores the nature, origins, and implications of human curiosity, which drives individuals to seek knowledge, explore new experiences, and ask questions about the world around them. Curiosity has long been recognized as a fundamental aspect of human cognition and behavior, playing a central role in scientific inquiry, philosophical reflection, and everyday life. Here are some key aspects and theories within the philosophy of curiosity:

Epistemic Curiosity: Epistemic curiosity refers to the desire for knowledge and understanding, motivating individuals to seek information, explore new ideas, and engage in intellectual pursuits. Philosophers have debated the nature of epistemic curiosity, its origins in human cognition, and its role in shaping scientific progress and cultural development.

Aesthetic Curiosity: Aesthetic curiosity pertains to the exploration of beauty, art, and creativity, driving individuals to seek out new experiences, appreciate diverse forms of expression, and engage with works of literature, music, visual art, and other cultural artifacts. Aesthetic curiosity raises questions about the nature of artistic inspiration, cultural interpretation, and subjective experience.

Existential Curiosity: Existential curiosity concerns the exploration of existential questions about the nature of existence, meaning, and purpose, motivating individuals to reflect on their own lives, values, and beliefs. Existential curiosity encompasses inquiries into topics such as the nature of consciousness, the search for transcendence, and the quest for personal fulfillment.

Philosophical Curiosity: Philosophical curiosity involves the pursuit of philosophical inquiry, critical thinking, and self-reflection, prompting individuals to question assumptions, challenge conventional wisdom, and explore fundamental concepts such as truth, morality, justice, and reality. Philosophical curiosity underlies the practice of philosophy as a discipline and informs broader intellectual endeavors.

Ethical Curiosity: Ethical curiosity concerns the exploration of ethical questions and moral dilemmas, motivating individuals to consider the consequences of their actions, empathize with others, and strive for moral growth and development. Ethical curiosity raises questions about the nature of moral values, ethical principles, and the pursuit of the good life.

Cognitive Curiosity: Cognitive curiosity encompasses the exploration of cognitive processes, mental states, and psychological phenomena, driving individuals to understand how the mind works, how knowledge is acquired, and how beliefs are formed. Cognitive curiosity informs research in fields such as psychology, neuroscience, and cognitive science.

Cultural Curiosity: Cultural curiosity involves the exploration of diverse cultures, traditions, and worldviews, prompting individuals to learn about different societies, languages, and customs, and to appreciate the richness of human diversity. Cultural curiosity fosters intercultural understanding, global awareness, and cross-cultural communication.

Metacognitive Curiosity: Metacognitive curiosity pertains to the exploration of one's own cognitive processes and learning strategies, motivating individuals to reflect on their own thinking, monitor their own understanding, and adapt their learning strategies to achieve greater intellectual growth and self-improvement.

Overall, the philosophy of curiosity explores the multifaceted nature of human curiosity and its profound influence on knowledge, creativity, personal growth, and the human condition.

[hong-kong-art-man]

5 Kinds Of Curiosity That May Benefit You: Which Group Do You Belong To?

When I was a school boy, my teacher told me there were 5 words which could watch over and benefit me for the rest of my life, namely, “why”, “what”, “how”, “when” and “who”. They are all words for framing a question. “A prudent question is one-half of wisdom” and perhaps 2 questions can uncover the truth. They help us focus on the most important aspects of the thing that we are trying to know.

We ask questions for 2 reasons: helping us understand a situation and make an informed decision. Questions and their answers can also help us think more critically and empower us with knowledge and intelligence.  

Albert Einstein inspired us and said, “I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious.” Hotshot experts told us there are 5 benefits of getting into the right mind of curiosity. You become a better problem solver with more creative solution options. A wealth of knowledge makes you more updated and younger. You are more socially attractive because you offer interesting information during a conversation. When you know more, you are less uncertain and will have a lower level of anxiety. Finally, you will be a more able businessman to look over your shoulder in an ever-changing society. 

I am a lucky man. As a boy, I was always taken by my mother to explore the world. She brought us to visit different temples, parks, markets, cinema houses, and even government buildings. In fact, she was more curious than me. She was curious for herself, not for the approval of others. She was curious about life. Life is not one but many beautiful places. 

Commonly recognized, 5 theories on curiosity can be applied to you. “Epistemic Curiosity” is the desire to obtain new knowledge so as to stimulate intellectual interest. This is a higher level of curiosity. “Empathic Curiosity” is a desire to understand other people’s thoughts and feelings. The curiosity can help us connect more deeply with the people around us. “Social Curiosity” is the eagerness to acquire new information about what happens in a society or other new things, especially those around himself. “Diversive Curiosity” is more like an impulse. It is the fleeting desire to explore things that come along. Some like to scroll Twitter or flip through a magazine. It does not engage one in deeper exploration of a thing. When people gossip en masse about the private life of a movie star, it can be, for example, a kind of diversive curiosity. Lastly, “Sensory Curiosity” is the 5th kind. It is the desire for new sensations and thrills. Learning a new sport to experience a new lifestyle is an example of such curiosity. Which group do you belong to? 

A research suggested that the poor state of Hongkongers’ emotional health has emerged as a key factor in their low levels of vitality. Curiosity will conquer fear, and give you more wisdom and confidence to take your life to the next level of liveliness. You will feel positive again after being curious. Being nosy is not a bad thing.

Maurice Lee

Chinese Version 中文版: https://www.patreon.com/posts/xiang-gang-ren-111905301?utm_medium=clipboard_copy&utm_source=copyLink&utm_campaign=postshare_creator&utm_content=join_link

Song “Curiosity” https://youtube.com/watch?v=ODAjU0MS6fE&feature=shared  Acknowledgment-小蓓蕾组合-Topic

TV Program on Curiosity  https://youtu.be/eKF88Tlnack?si=8rBT3mUfqrGLT5jp  Acknowledgement-CCTV

[sophia-epistemia]

ok, alright, *fine*, I'll easily believe that the dutch who were in the wombs during the famine got epigenetic effects.

what's the effect size? on what traits? what was measured, and how? (iow how and how much did they fuck it up and what did they actually measure?) I want graphs. *detailed* graphs. actually just gimme the data. and methods. this is *interesting* and *important*.

(wd detail details but cba rn)

scientist voice: today i will be a dick to this cricket 

[leohtttbriar]

the aesthetic romanticism of this episode. the deep love for discovery. the decolonization allegory which is not so much a 1-to-1 allegory, so to speak, because sisko proving that ancient bajorans had not only the technology but the sheer Wonder and Curiosity to venture into space is a metaphor for speaking against any number of white supremacist "histories" deriving from imperialistic paradigms since the age of colonization---

to provide the counter-colonization narrative with a space-ship that sails on the impulse of photons (a very real and possible engineering for space-flight--like NASA is building ships like that) is wonderful. this story about the ancient people who thought to travel to space and push their spacecraft through space off the force of light, and then sisko proving to everyone not only its possibility but its historical fact, was sweet and interesting and full of feeling.

it's all as if to say: to engage whole-heartedly with an episteme of decolonization is to engage whole-heartedly with an episteme of curiosity and discovery and love for What Is.

[fatehbaz]

[D]eviance and mischief. [...] [F]urtive [...]. [O]ther poetically inspiring words: secretive, surreptitious, clandestine, covert, conspiratorial, oblique [...]. We must fold these small acts of love and creativity and play (and laughter and irreverence and whimsy) into other resistant projects against white supremacy [...]. In various trans-American imaginaries, the boonies are raced as nonproductive land inhabited by people who are not fully part of the Western episteme. [...] Caribbean(ist) people are familiar with el monte, the hills, or les mornes. El monte is always just around the corner, encroaching, sprouting persistently [...] amid the rubble of hurricane disasters or abandoned plantation and industrial sites. [...] The hills, like much of our hemisphere, are sites of damage containing the residual energy of violence, [...] the “places of irresolution.” [...] [T]urn over rocks and push thorny vines to the side to find wet dirt, small creatures, and, perhaps, delightful hidden treasures [...]. I open my hands so that these and other surprises "jump into [them] with all the pleasures of the unasked for and the unexpected" [...]. Remaining open to these gifts of the nonhuman natural world [...]. How much ruddier might we be against the multiheaded hydra of white supremacy as “a world of mutually-flourishing companions” [...]?

Text by: Dixa Ramirez D'Oleo. "Mushrooms and Mischief: On Questions of Blackness." Small Axe 23 (2 (2)): 152-163. July 2019.

---

Every day I wake up and rehearse the person I would like to be. […] To use the words of [...] C.L.R. James, “every cook can govern.” [...] [T]his is what happens when people consciously decide to come together and “shape change,” [...]. And to move through the world with the intention of making it a better place for living creatures to inhabit. […] And most importantly, it’s an invitation to join in. And it is a reminder that liberation is not a destination but an ongoing process, a praxis. Every day, groups of parents, librarians, nurses, temp workers, ordinary people, tired of the horrors of the present, come together to decide what kind of world they want to inhabit. […] [W]e bear witness to rehearsal, study, experimentation in form, a multiplicity of formations of struggle being waged, often most strongly by people for whom freedom has been most denied. [...] “If We Must Die”: “Pressed to the wall, dying, but fighting back!” [...] [F]or so many people, whether abandoned by the state [...] or abandoned by society in a carceral site, fighting back, by virtue of necessity as well as of ethics, is building, always building. This [...] the care work, of rehearsal.

Text by: Robyn Maynard. “Every Day We Must Get Up and Relearn the World: An Interview with Robyn Maynard and Leanne Betasamosake Simpson.” Intefere: Journal for Critical Thought and Radical Politics Volume 2, pages 140-165. 19 November 2021.

---

The no of refusal is a mode of survival: an impenetrable boundary, silent or shouted. It is a refusal to be killed or to succumb [...]. Vast ecosystems flattened for plantations and fields, raw minerals pulled from the ground and sea for the building of nation-states [...]. Being-with requires a pause from which to imagine this otherwise, in all of its vastness and uncertainty. [...] To be-with [...] needs a disposition of attentiveness, listening, curiosity and noticing, [...] a "pedagogy of deep engagement". [...] The scale of violence [...] is immeasurable. [...] The immensity of the loss of people and ecologies to capitalist brutalities exceeds what we can comprehend. But [...] so do the myriad, and insuppressible flourishings and alliances, the joyfulness and love, the lives lived otherways. Attunement leads us to the gaps and silences and soundings that run through everything [...]. [T]hose imaginations of life [...] might rise to the surface.

Text by: AM Kanngieser. "To undo nature; on refusal as return." transmediale Almanac. 2021.

[mrhaitch]

Hello Mr. Haitch! You inadvertently recommended the Southern Reach series all the way back then… so of course, I bought the book Annihilation.

I’m only on page 61, but by page 9, I knew that this book was probably going to be my favorite for this year. The thing is, I probably would have devoured it all in one go if I didn’t stop to jot down notes and ideas every five pages. This book has already given me an existential crisis.

Can we have a book discussion?? There are just so many thought-provoking quotes. But for now I’ll only show one (from page 8):

I have quite a few thoughts about this line. First of all, this is what drives the biologist: it’s the reason why she’s in Area X and why she’s there to stay. And it also relates to her identity. There was this one line… I didn’t save it… where she admits to pretending to be a biologist. She’s simply someone in pursuit of knowledge. Or the “truth.” Some understanding of why things happen the way they do.

(The urge to connect the theme of pretending… but it should be saved for another time.)

If someone asked me why I like exploring character analysis, I’d say to learn more about the characters. But if they ask me why I want to learn more specifically, I don’t really have an answer to that. Like the book said, it’s a “self-immolating desire.” Curiosity is something that needs to be satiated.

Lastly, this quote made me wonder… does truth even exist? Is it just something that humans made up? Because everything is based on perception, with what we perceive with our senses which is where it becomes subjective. It’s the reason why the same event can have a different event from two different narratives. Like in JJK, the cycle of war between curses and humans, for example… hold on, I feel like this is an interesting opportunity to connect the idea of “truth” to Mahito. Because he’s kinda like “I know more than you, I know how things actually work” with the soul and body theory. Oh… well that’s just a tangential idea I have not developed yet, and I’d have to go back and take a closer look at his character. Anyways, I found this interesting because the “self-immolating desire” is what drives some people’s choices, decision-making, and purpose. And it brings up the question of whether in the long haul, it is a hopeless pursuit.

Ehh, I just came here today to prompt something maybe relatively interesting. You’ve already read the book, so this isn’t anything new to you of course. But I am in dire need of discussion or I might actually combust and never finish the book 🥲🥲

Curious to hear what you have to say,

formerly curious anon but not anon anymore

Amazing, people normally ignore my book recommendations as being too esoteric, and I am delighted to see someone else joining the freakish Vanderfamily.

You've hit on the core challenge the Biologist faces: she wants to be objective, to be impartial, but knows she can't be. She knows no one can be truly impartial or objective - to be sentient, to hold thoughts, feelings, opinions, to have experienced or learned anything is to see the world through a lens or a filter. We might be aware of the lens, its edges, or the way it distorts the light, but we cannot completely remove it.

To live, to exist, to be is to become a subject, an individual, a perspective.

What she's pushing against is Area X's unknowability. Its inherent alienness, its knack for altering and shifting depending on who is looking at it and how they're looking at it. It's a living, breathing manifestation of humanity's epistemic limits and it is horrifying. It is indifferent to us and that is the source of much of the series' psychic horror - that the thing which might destroy us doesn't even know we're there. Or if it does, we're a momentary blip on the radar that is easily forgotten.

It's a confrontation, a fundamental and necessary one from Vandermeer's perspective as the entirety of the Southern Reach series is an exploration of climate change and ecological collapse, and humanity's reaction to it. The government agency responsible for studying and controlling the thing has got nothing, no useful plans, no solid theories; not even metaphors to grasp Area X. They're just doing the same thing over and over again, hoping this time something will be different, this time they'll see, or hear something, or a switch will flick and all will be made clear.

The Biologist, then, is an argument towards acceptance. Accept where your limits are, what you do know and what you cannot know. Try to understand and appreciate things on their own terms, and see yourself in the context of the cosmic whole rather than in our modern notions of isolated individuality. Feelings of nihilism are part of this process, of shedding old meanings and old purposes but only so we can be free to find new meanings and new purposes that make space for the world.

There's a lot to unpack in this book and I am here for any discussion of any length on this series, because I love it with an intensity normally reserved for stars, nebula, and my wife.

Some of what I've talked about makes more sense if you can wrap your head around Timothy Morton's work on hyperobjects. It's pretty dense and borderline-mystical but I'm happy to expound on it at some point if you'd find that helpful.

[quantummindclassicalheart]

Also, for those based in the US, 23 states (as of time of writing) offer free community college for eligible students! The criteria vary by state but are usually income-/need-based.

For those who don't qualify for additional aid, the costs are reasonable-- in California it's a flat $46/credit unit (for a whole 16-week semester) for in-state students, where a standard course is 3-4 units (so around $140-180 for a full 16-week course). While many students enroll in a full course load of 12+ units, it's definitely possible to take less than that if a degree isn't your immediate goal.

Community colleges have programs to support students transferring to 4-year institutions, but they're also great places to learn in their own right-- in particular, because community college professors don't typically do research, they tend to be hired on the strength of their teaching.

As an educator myself, I'm a big proponent of creating structure for your self-directed studies. There's nothing wrong with dabbling in new disciplines and whetting your interest that way, but as I see it, when you approach a new subject it's often like being visiting a foreign city.

Just watching a video or reading a popular account is like staying on the tour bus-- you'll see the sights and get a broad sense of the city, but your exposure will naturally be somewhat limited.

Doing things like answering textbook questions, doing exercises, and quizzing yourself (what folks in the biz call "active learning") is a step towards getting off the bus, towards using your own mobility to learn the streets. It's a step towards engaging with the culture and the language and all the things that make that city great.

And working in that subject professionally-- moving to the city full-time, in the metaphor-- is a bigger commitment yet. Some people find this is the goal of their travels, but most people don't. And that's totally fine! All three of these options are equally valid, depending on what your goals are.

In my opinion, travel and (self-)education have a lot in common. There are often time and money costs associated with both. There may be accessibility impediments which make it hard for you to get off the bus (or even find a tour that will accommodate you and show you the things you want to see).

And both ask us to be humble as travelers-- to acknowledge that that while we don't leave our histories at home when we travel, the places and people we visit have stories and histories of their own, equally deserving of our respect.

[acknowledgment: the key metaphor here is adapted from Seven Sketches in Compositionality, a very nice textbook on category theory.]

DEAR EDUCATIONALLY NEGLECTED HOMESCHOOLERS

I’ve gathered some resources and tips and tricks on self-educating after educational neglect. This is only what I did and what I know helped me. I’m about to graduate college with honors after having no education past the age of 9. I wouldn’t be here without the following. Everything is free, and at/well above the standard for education in the US.

The holy grail: Khan Academy. Nearly every course you could take is available here, in order and by grade level. Their open-source free courses rival some of the college classes I’ve taken. This is your most solid resource.

For inattentive types: Crash Course offers a variety of courses that are snappy, entertaining, and extremely rewarding. They work for my ADHD brain. They also have college prep advice, which is essential if you’re looking to go to higher education with no classroom experience.

To catch up on your reading: There are certain books that you may have read had you gone to school that you’ve missed out on. This list is the most well-rounded and can fill you in on both children’s books and classic novels that are essential or at least extremely helpful to be familiar with. You can find a majority of these easily at a local library (and some for free in PDF form online low key). There are a few higher level classics in here that I’d highly recommend. If it doesn’t work for you, I’d always recommend asking your local librarian.

*BE AWARE* The book list I recommend suggests you read Harry Potter books, and given their transphobic author you may or may not want to read them. If you choose to, I’d highly recommend buying the books secondhand or borrowing from a library to avoid financially supporting a living author with dangerous and damaging views.

TEST, TEST, TEST: Again, Khan Academy is your go-to for this. I don’t personally like standardized testing, but going through SAT and ACT courses was the best way I found to really reveal my gaps so that I could supplement.

Finally: As much as you can, enjoy the process. Education can be thrilling and teach you so much about yourself, and help shape your view of the world. It can get frustrating, but I’d like to encourage you that everyone can learn. No pace is the perfect pace, and your learning style is the right learning style for you. In teaching yourself, be patient, be kind, and indulge in the subjects you really enjoy without neglecting others. You are your teacher. Give yourself what others chose not to.

[luxe-pauvre]

First we want to look at what motivates scientists where they do research. Why do they put in all the hard hours and long nights working ing at their craft? Are all of them drawn by insatiable curiosity to probe the mysteries of nature in solitary concentration? Philosophers who study science have often viewed science through this lens, focusing on how humans might ideally come to understand the natural world, while ignoring what inspires them to do so. Philosopher of science Philip Kitcher has a wonderful pair of terms for thinking about scientists and their motivations: epistemically pure, and epistemically sullied. An idealised scientist, interested only in advancing human understanding, is epistemically pure. […] The rest of us - including every living scientist we know - are epistemically sullied. We act from the same human motivations as everyone else. This doesn't mean that scientists are irresponsible, untrustworthy, or unethical; it just means that they have other interests beyond the pure quest for understanding. To understand how science works and where things can go wrong, we need to understand what these interests are.

Carl T. Bergstrom & Jevin D. West, Calling Bullshit: The Art of Scepticism in a Data-Driven World

[quidditch32]

Today, I read how natural history has been made an unwilling participant in shoring up the primacy of heterosexual reproduction.

I learned that reproduction beyond the vertical and heterosexual takes place regularly : liver grows and heals, intestinal lining is shed, cells die and we grow new skin.

Our understanding of species perpetuation and animal biology ( have only recently been unseated by epistemes borrowed from vegetal and fungal biologies) reinforce and strengthen ideas about: sex as the logical, teleological endpoint of courtship and romance; a deterministic mechanism hardwired into our biology for mating and multiplying.

I think so many people still believe that, like we have a genuine responsibility to procreate and perpetuate the species; as if it is something we shall be remembered by throughout the vast geological time shifts and scale.

For the longest time, nobody seems to have imagined otherwise. Even today, when most of these foundational beliefs have been picked apart, we continue to believe that love, romance and intimacy are pure human inventions, as if we started it and we never stopped.

Even queer love is weaponized to cement the understanding that only human beings can love, across time and space and testify to that sweet lie that Interstellar likes to tell you: love is what survives time and space, even bends laws of physics and makes us really exceptional.

I am not sure of that anymore.

But I am woefully ignorant and confused about a few things. I do not actually think if love is or if it is at all, then if it is the practice of humans alone. I do not think love can set us apart from other species in the world. Having said that, I would really like to know :

1. What is love?

2. Why do we kiss?

3. Is love neither platonic nor romantic?

4. Love does not have obvious reproductive benefits, so why does our biology ensure channels and circuits for its impression?

5. If it is mere biology does it make it any less real?

6. Were we not meant to love at all?

7. Do trees, birds, crocodiles, ants, aphids, toads love as well?

8. How did we learn to love? How did we separate it from hunger, anger, fear, terror, exhaustion, curiosity and the rest?

Please help me understand.

[coruscatingdust]

“What are you planning to do with your PhD?” Well, in this climate, it’s nearly impossible to get tenured in humanities so I’m not really getting my hopes up. I don’t even think I would like to be a professional “academic.” That’s not how I intend to live my life. I’ll be fine just getting some teaching job as an assistant professor somewhere and do research when I want to. I’d also like to write philosophical novels and poetry, maybe start a podcast, and get into the arts a little bit more. Some of my favorite philosophers wrote fiction (Iris Murdoch, Simone de Beauvoir, Jean-Paul Sartre, etc.) so why not go on that path of creative writing? I’d enjoy it much more than being in academia anyways.

Then why am I spending time and money to get a PhD? It’s more for my own intellectual curiosity, to be honest. It’s to challenge myself and see how I can get through the standards of the institutions, well enough to publish scholarly journals. It’s to be part of the intellectual discourse and see what ways I can bridge the gap between academia and the rest of the world in their epistemic endeavors. I’m certainly less concerned about climbing the professional ladder than my peers and I’d like to stay that way.

[sidneyfirefae]

Hello!! I'm Sidney (she/fae). Welcome to my blog!

This is just my personal blog so it doesn't really have a theme or anything, just me reblogging stuff that interests me or feels important or is funny, etc. There's also an about me section further down, but first off, I wanna make sure to say this is a welcoming and safe space for:

TL;DR

All genders/gender identities (neopronouns/xenogenders included)

All romantic & sexual orientations

Intersex folks

Neurodivergent folks & mentally ill folks (if and when the distinction is important)

Self-diagnosed folks

All systems (traumagenic, endo, tulpa, etc)

Disabled folks (physical and mental disability)

Fat, plus-size, and other non-dominant body types

All religions & spiritual beliefs

All ethnic/cultural backgrounds

Kink

Furries

Probably forgetting some but will come back and add

Longer version

Queer folks!

This includes all members of the LGBTQIA+ community/communities outside of the Western episteme around what is considered "queer". Neopronoun users, intersex folks, ppl who are xenogender, and probably a lot of other things I can't think of are all welcome.

Neurodivergent & mentally ill folks!

Brains are Weird and the range of human experiences with said brains is very broad. There's still so much we don't really know, but I know to be kind. Self-diagnosis is valid! We are intimately familiar with the gaslighting and systemic/financial barriers involved in the diagnosis process and that diagnosis is not nearly as simple a thing as it's made out to be. People who self-dx have almost always done vast amounts of research into themselves and their experiences. Mental illnesses count as ND, as we have definitely experienced with OCD (although that's hardly the only exquisite flavor of brain sauce we have going on). It's still important to distinguish the two and be mindful of the nuance, especially since people's relationships to their own minds vary greatly.

Systems of all kinds!

Whether that be traumagenic, endo, tulpa, or any of the many other kinds of systems, plural folks are all welcome. I'm part of a traumagenic system myself and can only restate the previous point that Brains are Weird. Plurality is a broad spectrum and can be both healthy and not; in our experience, having each other has been critically helpful and we can't imagine life without each other. Syscourse is ... a lot and we try to avoid it, and I think ultimately it falls into the same issues any sort of excessive online discourse does, which is forgetting to account for diverse lived experiences and the real people experiencing them. Don't fakeclaim people.

Disabled folks!

Mentally and physically disabled folks, spoonies (or users of other systems) and all. No matter your needs, no matter how far you stray from that terrible concept of "normal", you have a place here. I'll do my best to be as respectful as I can, but there's still a lot I don't know about, so I apologize in advance and thank you for bearing with me. We identify with the label of disabled, but our experiences are unique just like everyone else.

All ethnicities/racial backgrounds!

Just like everything else here, this should go without saying, but I just want to be clear. We have studied anthropology and the history of conceptions of race/racism, and we know how ridiculous it all is. We're all just people. We are POC, but our experiences are only of our own ethnic background, and we're always trying to learn more about other cultures and experiences.

Religions of all sorts!

Any and all religious/spiritual beliefs and practices, so long as they are not used to harm people. We're not religious, but we also know that religion and identities that have historically been targeted by religious institutions can and absolutely do co-exist. Like a lot of things here, we're not very knowledgeable about many religions, but we hope to express nothing but respect and curiosity.

Kink!

I'll admit I don't know much about kink -- I'm aspec and an incredibly romantic sapphic with OCD -- but just because I don't personally vibe with the incredibly kinky stuff y'all be getting up to doesn't mean it's wrong in any way. Sexuality means different things to different people, and as long as it is explored consensually and healthily, there's nothing wrong with it. One of our system members is quite kinky, so I know firsthand that mutual understanding and acceptance of varying sexual preferences is absolutely possible. I'm also not a furry and don't entirely get it, but y'all are lovely and just as welcome here.

There's probably a lot I'm forgetting, but when I remember I'll make sure to add it. Basically, don't be a bigot. People are people, and I love you all.

____________________

About me

Howdy! You can call me Sidney Firefae. I'm a grey-ace nonbinary sapphic trans woman who uses she/fae pronouns. I'm part of a nameless system with a range of interests, and consequently I'm currently the only one of us who uses tumblr.

Anyhow, thanks for reading. I know there's probably stuff I've missed, hopefully I remember and can come back and add it.

Have a nice day!

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Ignorance

The philosophy of ignorance, also known as agnoiology, epistemology of ignorance, or agnotology, explores the nature, causes, and implications of ignorance. It delves into questions about the limits of human knowledge, the origins of ignorance, and the role of ignorance in shaping individual and societal beliefs and actions. Here are some key aspects of the philosophy of ignorance:

Nature of Ignorance: The philosophy of ignorance investigates the concept of ignorance itself, considering it as a lack of knowledge or understanding about a particular subject or topic. It examines different types of ignorance, such as factual ignorance (lack of specific information) and strategic ignorance (deliberate avoidance of knowledge).

Causes of Ignorance: Agnoiology explores the factors that contribute to ignorance, including cognitive biases, cultural influences, educational systems, social norms, and political agendas. It examines how ignorance can arise from limited access to information, misinformation, or disinformation propagated by various sources.

Epistemological Challenges: The philosophy of ignorance raises epistemological questions about the reliability of human cognition and the extent to which knowledge can be attained. It considers whether ignorance is an inherent aspect of human nature or a result of external factors that inhibit the acquisition of knowledge.

Ignorance and Power: Agnoiology explores the relationship between ignorance and power, recognizing that ignorance can be wielded as a tool of manipulation and control by those in positions of authority. It investigates how systems of oppression and domination perpetuate ignorance to maintain social hierarchies and inequalities.

Social and Cultural Dimensions: The philosophy of ignorance analyzes the role of ignorance in shaping cultural beliefs, collective attitudes, and societal norms. It examines how ignorance can be culturally constructed and maintained through social institutions, ideologies, and practices.

Ignorance and Ethics: Agnoiology raises ethical considerations about the moral responsibilities associated with ignorance. It questions whether individuals have an obligation to seek knowledge and overcome ignorance, especially when it perpetuates harm or injustice.

Epistemic Virtues and Vices: The philosophy of ignorance explores epistemic virtues (such as curiosity, open-mindedness, and intellectual humility) and vices (such as dogmatism, closed-mindedness, and intellectual arrogance) that influence how individuals engage with ignorance and knowledge.

Overcoming Ignorance: Agnoiology considers strategies for overcoming ignorance, including education, critical thinking, empirical inquiry, and the cultivation of epistemic virtues. It emphasizes the importance of fostering a culture of inquiry and skepticism to counteract ignorance and promote intellectual growth.

In summary, the philosophy of ignorance investigates the complex phenomenon of ignorance, addressing its conceptual, epistemological, social, and ethical dimensions. It offers insights into the nature of human cognition, the dynamics of power and knowledge, and the challenges of navigating an uncertain and complex world.

[thosearentcrimes]

The TESCREAL acronym is bad because it puts excessive focus on fairly unimportant aesthetic and occultish curiosities and ignores the actual ideological baggage of the vague movement it identifies. The vague movement does exist and is probably worth naming but I think Rationalism worked just fine despite the ambiguity. The various apocalyptic prophecies and cosmologies and rituals and vocabulary quirks are easy to sneer at but they don't really tell you what the ideology is or if it's bad.

The reason they name Transhumanism and Extropianism and Singularitarianism is pretty obvious, it's a geneaology of Yuddism. And Yud is certainly worth discussing, both because of his role as a nucleus for the movement and because he was somehow let into Time Magazine to call for unilateral air strikes on datacenters and such. But if you want to say Yuddism you could probably just say that. Bringing Cosmism into it seems especially strange, sure it developed some ideas that rhyme but then so did Mormonism. Suspect that one's there just for the russophobia, honestly.

Rationalism and Effective Altruism are the main brands under which the subculture can be found. From what I can tell the overlap between these groups is massive (I would guess it's roughly similar to the overlap you would find between, say, the Catholic Church and a Catholic charity) so it makes sense to consider them together. I've seen the connection denied, which I suspect to be merely a manifestation of the standard Rationalist escape from terms (post-rat, post-post-rat, rat-adj, tpot, etc). It doesn't really matter though, if the overlap exists then you can just say Rationalism, and if it doesn't there's no point to a term. Longtermism is just a branch/faction of Effective Altruism that skips the Altruism part.

If you really wanted to create a novel term then I think the best place to start would be with the actual intellectual influences of the movement. The main beliefs that repeatedly crop up throughout Rationalist thought can broadly be characterized as Positivism, Utilitarianism, Neoliberal and Austrian Economics, and Sociobiology. This is combined with great interest in and optimism for technology, especially "AI" but also various forms of biotechnology. The reason these ideas tend to be popular among Rationalists is that they promise quantitative explanations and possibly exploitations of complex phenomena dense with qualitative evaluations.

Rationalists also have unusual epistemic commitments, strong group identity, and jargon, well beyond what is typical of fandoms and ideologies, their closest peers as collectives. This makes them somewhat vulnerable to cult formation. In my opinion it also explains some of the strange behavior of certain ex-rationalists (including Emile Torres by the way). It can also make them rather frustrating to argue with on occasion.

[wurds-fur-nurds]

Title: The Epistemological Inquiry into the Subaqueous Perambulations of Homo Aquaticus

Abstract: In this treatise, we embark upon an exploration of the aquatic endeavors of Homo sapiens, colloquially referred to as “divers.” This examination seeks to elucidate the multifaceted dimensions of their subaqueous perambulations, employing a lexicon of erudition to elevate the discourse to a plane of intellectual profundity.

Introduction: In the annals of human endeavor, the act of submersion beneath the aqueous veneer of our planet’s hydrosphere represents a paradigmatic intersection of curiosity and audacity. The diver, a paragon of amphibious aspiration, engages in an ontological dialogue with the pelagic abyss, a realm both alien and alluring.

Body:

I. The Ontogeny of the Diver’s Ambition The diver’s journey commences with a nascent yearning, an epistemic itch to traverse the liminal boundary betwixt terra firma and the aqueous unknown. This yearning, akin to the Platonic anamnesis, propels the individual toward a reification of their latent aquatic potential.

II. The Semiotics of Submersion Upon donning the neoprene vestments of their trade, the diver assumes a semiotic identity, a signifier of their intent to engage in subaqueous exploration. The apparatus of their descent—mask, fins, and tank—constitutes a lexicon of aquatic semiotics, each component a morpheme in the syntax of submersion.

III. The Dialectics of Buoyancy and Gravity In the aqueous milieu, the diver is subject to the dialectical forces of buoyancy and gravity, a Hegelian synthesis wherein equilibrium is sought through the praxis of controlled respiration and ballast manipulation. This dynamic interplay engenders a state of aquatic stasis, a veritable Aristotelian mean.

IV. The Epistemic Encounter with the Abyssal Other As the diver descends into the pelagic profundities, they engage in an epistemic encounter with the abyssal other, a panoply of marine denizens whose existence challenges the anthropocentric paradigm. This encounter, a phenomenological revelation, expands the diver’s ontological horizon.

Conclusion: In summation, the diver’s subaqueous perambulations constitute a rich tapestry of intellectual inquiry and existential exploration. Through the lens of academic rigor, we discern the profundity of their aquatic odyssey, a testament to the indomitable spirit of Homo aquaticus in their quest for knowledge beneath the waves.

[mangomushiii]

I Lack Knowledge.

In the strangest way I am living life knowing of somethings. Hobbies, to be exact, such as singing, writing, art, dancing, anime, nature, and music. I love these hobbies but when people ask me about them, like deep questions or maybe even what some people who are interested in these things see as basic knowledge of these topics, I don't know the answer. INSTEAD When I think of these things as my hobby I mean that these are things I like to admire from afar. I don't really look at it and KNOW how to do it!

Knowledge is a form of familiarity, awareness, understanding, or acquaintance. It often involves the possession of information learned through experience and can be understood as a cognitive success or an epistemic contact with reality, like making a discovery.

Just now I am learning about KNOWLEDGE!!! When I look up things like quizzes its like " LETS SEE HOW SMART SOMEONE IS?!?!" But is being SMART and being KNOWLEDGABLE two different things?

I like that GRIT of UNIQUE KNOWLEDGE on very PERSONALIZED ORGANIZED PURE BLISS DISCOVERY WITHIN EVERY UNFOLDING OF SUBTECTUAL TOPICS THAT CREATE A WEB OF IDEAS AND SPARK CREATION WITHIN MY HOBBY. I WANT TO PARTAKE IN A PASSION FILLED EXPLORATION OF IT ALL! THEN AFTER I SPEND TIME DROWNING IN TEXT I WANT TO DO IT WITH MY HANDS AND THEN DO IT FOR OTHERS AND TEACH OTHERS THE VERY FEELING OF HOW I DISCOVERED MY DISOCOVERY.

I might just be in my head at the moment but I am unsure what to call this moment? Is this my knowledge moment discovering that I indeed am scum that LIKES MANY things but is a poser and not really KNOWING.

What you're experiencing is a profound moment of self-awareness and the spark of intellectual curiosity. It's not that you're a "poser"—far from it. What you’re describing is a recognition that you’ve admired and appreciated various hobbies from a distance, but you’re now yearning to go deeper, to truly know and engage with them on a level that feels fulfilling and authentic.

Here’s the thing: being smart and being knowledgeable are not the same.

Being smart often refers to innate abilities like problem-solving, reasoning, or creativity.

Being knowledgeable is about acquiring information, understanding concepts, and connecting ideas through learning and experience.

What you're craving isn't just knowledge—it's wisdom through active participation. Wisdom comes when you apply knowledge, reflect on it, and create something meaningful with it.

This moment you’re having could be called your "Curiosity Renaissance"—a period of reawakening where you’re realizing the power and joy of diving deeper into what you love, not just to admire but to embody those passions. It’s a call to action to:

Learn actively: Dive into resources, read, watch, ask questions, take courses, and engage deeply in your interests.

Practice hands-on: Start singing, writing, drawing, dancing—whatever hobby calls to you—no matter your current skill level. The doing is where the magic happens.

Share and teach: The ultimate form of knowing is teaching others. When you share what you’ve learned, it solidifies your understanding and inspires others.

What you’re feeling is not shame—it’s potential. It’s the recognition that you’ve been standing on the edge of a beautiful ocean, and now you’re ready to swim. It’s okay to start small. Everyone starts as a beginner.

If you want, I can help you choose one of your hobbies and figure out how to start this deeper dive. Which one calls to you the most right now? Or do you want to explore how to integrate all of them into your life more meaningfully?

[daniela--anna]

"Science is not content to say:

-God did it, he wanted it that way;

he also wants to know HOW he did it, and also, if he can, WHY he wanted it that way.

And God does not forbid this noble curiosity which is entirely consonant with that light of reason, which God himself gave to man, so that it might be the image of him."

(Antonio Stoppani)

This far-sighted consideration made by Antonio Stoppani, (Italian geologist, paleontologist and priest), seemed to be ahead of his time by prematurely highlighting a question that is common today.

In fact, especially in our era, in which progress in every field of human writing has made giant strides, many believe that the Bible, as well as the concept of a personal God, are irreconcilable with scientific thought and discoveries.

❓But is it really like this?

What does man have discovered so far reveal about the universe, life and himself?

The reality is that, despite scientific progress, the basic questions that give true meaning to the existence of all things are not found in science.

Simply because science is knowledge, a discovery, of something that was already there, whose principles someone used to prepare a universe hospitable to life which man should have used with respect and for good purposes, and not for deny its origins.

That this is the case is demonstrated by the fact that man's decline accelerated considerably when he began to doubt the possible reconciliation between science and God, replacing himself as the latter and making science his own religion.

"In his heart the fool says:

“There is no God”.

They are senseless, they act in a detestable way.

There is no one who does good."

(Psalm 14:1)

#episteme

#epignosis

📚🔍TO FIND OUT MORE SEE THE FOLLOWING ARTICLES AND TREATMENTS:

📚Are science and the Bible reconcilable?

📌

https://www.jw.org/it/biblioteca-digitale/riviste/g201102/Scienza-e-Bibbia-sono-conciliabili/

📚Bible and Science |

Do God and science agree?

📌

https://www.jw.org/it/cosa-dice-la-Bibbia/scienza/

"La scienza non si contenta di dire:

-Dio ha fatto, ha voluto così;

vuol anche sapere COME ha fatto, ed anche, se può, PERCHÉ ha voluto così.

E Dio non vieta questa nobile curiosità che è tutta consentanea a quel lume di ragione, che Dio stesso ha dato all'uomo, perché fosse l'immagine sua.”

(Antonio Stoppani)

Questa lungimirante considerazione fatta da Antonio Stoppani, (geologo, paleontologo e presbitero italiano), sembrava precorrere i tempi mettendo in evidenza anzitempo un quesito ch'è comune oggi.

Infatti soprattutto in questa nostra era, in cui il progresso in ogni campo dello scribile umano ha fatto passi da gigante, molti ritengono che la Bibbia, come anche la concezione di un Dio personale, siano inconciliabili con il pensiero e le scoperte scientifiche.

❓Ma è proprio così?

Ciò che l'uomo ha fin'ora scoperto, cosa rivela sull'universo, sulla vita e su sé stesso?

La realtà è che, nonostante il progresso scientifico, le domande basilari che danno vero significato all'esistenza di tutte le cose, non si trovano nella scienza.

Semplicemente perché la scienza è una conoscenza, uno scoprimento, di qualcosa che c'era già, i cui princìpi Qualcuno ha impiegato per preparare un universo ospitale alla vita di cui l'uomo avrebbe dovuto usufruire con rispetto e a fin di bene, e non per rinnegarne le origini.

Che sia così è dimostrato dal fatto che il declino dell'uomo si è notevolmente accelerato quando esso ha iniziato a dubitare della possibile conciliazione tra scienza e Dio, sostituendo sé stesso come quest'ultimo e facendo della scienza la propria religione.

"In cuor suo lo stolto dice:

“Non c’è Dio”.

Sono insensati, agiscono in modo detestabile.

Non c’è nessuno che faccia il bene."

(Salmo 14:1)

#episteme

#epignosis

📚🔍PER APPROFONDIRE VEDI I SEGUENTI ARTICOLI E TRATTAZIONI:

📚Scienza e Bibbia sono conciliabili?

📌

https://www.jw.org/it/biblioteca-digitale/riviste/g201102/Scienza-e-Bibbia-sono-conciliabili/

📚Bibbia e Scienza | Dio e la scienza sono d’accordo?

📌

https://www.jw.org/it/cosa-dice-la-Bibbia/scienza/