Five years ago—a lifetime in internet years—I wrote about a defining feature of the digital age: 'The End has no End' The idea was that conversations on social media are effectively open-ended; you never know who will join, when they will chime in, or how a discussion you started might evolve.
There is this difference between continental and anglo-sphere philosophy: in the continental version not everything is explicit and closed whereas it tries to be closed and fully explicit in the anglo version. In a weird way a philosophy book is clopen, it is closed (because finite object) but open at the same time, because it opens doors, more in the continental version at least. Of course the aim is to close thing in order to be able to manipulate them, but this is an eternal quest which doesn’t mean that it is wortheless, on the contrary, trying to close what can’t be is the closest allegory of life itself.
> any progress in your understanding of an issue never reaches a conclusion about that issue.
I've had this with philosophy books, working on a solution
There is this difference between continental and anglo-sphere philosophy: in the continental version not everything is explicit and closed whereas it tries to be closed and fully explicit in the anglo version. In a weird way a philosophy book is clopen, it is closed (because finite object) but open at the same time, because it opens doors, more in the continental version at least. Of course the aim is to close thing in order to be able to manipulate them, but this is an eternal quest which doesn’t mean that it is wortheless, on the contrary, trying to close what can’t be is the closest allegory of life itself.
You can interpret continental ( Deleuze) through analytic lens ( Land)