/lit/ - Literature

>>9351160

>Yes, obviously. No one doubts this, and my post included this in its connotation

You've focused too much on shared histories and not enough on shared structures of those histories, or how those histories, when outlined correctly, provide context, provide understanding, solve problems, and inspire further investigation.

>Are you honestly suspecting us able to draw upon this and expand it to something substantial with no shared text or availability of meeting and discussion?

No. Which is why I made observations, and asked whether other people have shared them in the beginning.

You asked for a book that would best mirror what I was trying to accomplish. I provided one on the trivium, which I felt is the best and most robust way to learn to grapple with these shared structures, even if it does not explicitly name them or cover all of them. Grammar, logic, rhetoric. That's a large arsenal to convey ideas clearly, with the subject remaining interchangeable.

You also keep referring to the problem of relative weight, but I don't know what specific qualms that you have. I don't even have any special attachment to the books that I've picked, only the functions that they serve.

>Again, if you have evidence of this rather simple interpretation of academia (or philosophy) and all it's subordinate subjects please unveil it!

If you think this is an attempt to "simplify" knowledge, then you are mistaken. Complex structures exist, you know. But the building blocks of concepts and schemas, interestingly enough, don't change.

I think the evidence is everywhere that ideas tend to be structured in certain fundamental ways, regardless of the focus. This includes the fact that analogies are such effective ways of comparison, that subjects can be thematized into certain patterns of thought by method, that the correspondence theory of truth is intuitive and robust, that skills in one subject transfer to another, etc.

Are you telling me that calculus didn't improve your ability to understand dynamic systems, or that philosophy didn't improve the rigor of your scientific writing?

>The possibility of some universal, or common, law between subjects is something we both understand and I feel as though our discussion could simply be reduced to the dissonance between our own customs in regards to proper execution.

You've made an unwarranted assumption. Who's to say that presenting your own side wouldn't result in an even more robust system? What does "relativism" truly entail? I don't even care if this is a "relativistic" project if we can get to "good enough" for practical purposes.

I've presented my side of the argument. Now, I'm waiting for an honest critique from you, and not just another empty post. What is your position? Do you think there's an infinite amount of discrete ways to organize knowledge, besides scaling the combinations of any sort of "fundamental", atomistic unit?

Bump. Really like this thread.