The Philosophy is: Continental and Analytic

First of all Entity Oriented Philosophy is a coherent mode of philosophy that fits the web well. Keeping hypertexts short allows them to be modular and easily to refer to. And what is lost in size, is gained in easy and fast linking, and thus in better integration, and more precise definitions in context. Also modularity and linking lead to more opportunities for direct use of work by others, and for inter-disciplinary connections, or at least for analysis across schools. The entities - whether abstract or concrete - under scrutiny can become the gathering point, not just traditions or philosophers. In addition it is an open system in which everyone can publish, but a multitude of meritocratic, market-like systems, are in place to provide efficient and transparent quality control, and author-ranking. In addition, writing short hypertexts that can be finished and disseminated over the web within a few hours, keeps thinking agile, and reduces the time spent on ideas that appeal to no one. Thus combining the advantages of conversations and writing, and harnessing the specific advantages of the web.

It is a form of philosophy especially suited for quickly exploring many new ideas, without losing too much time on every individual one. Those many ideas that otherwise would have ended up in a dusty note-book, or would be forgotten again, can now receive feedback, be credited, and used by others. Showing things in a different light, or philosophizing near the edges of language, is also much easier in EOP. This because complex concepts can quickly be defined or explained in context. And even new language can be created, as new concepts can of course also be described or defined, and be used immediately. Not just by oneself, but also by other authors. Offline this would burden such authors with summarizing it, or waiting until it has become general knowledge among the target-audience, while on the web - requiring only a link - useful concepts can spread much faster. This also works for concepts from other disciplines, and thus inter-disciplinary work will also win by it. In addition EOP is also valuable for describing or examining ideas with many subtle inter-connections and/or circular constructions, such as the thinking of Niklas Luhmann, and many other continental philosophers.

At the same time we should acknowledge that it is not suitable for every kind of philosophical endeavour. Calmly designing, building or reconstructing a cathedral of philosophical thought on LogiLogi, can be difficult. Not because the site or EOP does not allow for it, but because the many questions, and/or criticisms that one's work might receive while it is still incomplete, can make it very difficult for an author to remain determined. While this may have advantages, such as when the cathedral really is of bad design to begin with, or when the ideas and motivation interaction provides, could help towards a better piece, something will be lost nevertheless. But contrary to what Lyotard said, large, abstract stories, in the sense of macro-descriptions will not be lost. As it is not necessary to go ever closer to the parts, or to the things themselves. Macro-abstractions are still possible. Just their hierarchical connection with the smaller ones - grounded in logic is - and the illusion that they would be valid outside the macro-level (their life-form).

Where foundation, linearity and priority were important in scholasticism, and to some extent in logical positivism and similar philosophical methods, EOP is about connection and local coherence, about showing things in a new or different light, instead of pinning them down in a final synthesis, poiesis instead of mimesis, and simulation instead of calculation. It thus is probably more lateral-thinking, and creative, and thus close to continental philosophy, but at the same time it also has many of the virtues of analytic philosophy. While determining their exact relations requires more research, the use of local, contextualized meanings in EOP, and the central position that texts and stories take are rather continental, while the creation of new language, the precise definition of concepts, and its pragmatic approach to truth are more analytic. The main difference with both is, though, that EOP explicitly tries to approach truth in an empirical sense. Not by testing them against the things in themselves, a-priori truths, or facts as logical atoms, but against philosophers, against thinkers. Through this it stays in contact with the collective sense.