Channel
@PhilosophyCafe
On this record: Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Telegram's recommendations · Cite this entry
3,332subscribers
-2 since we began measuring on 5 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 3,162–10,000.
| Telegram ID | -1001048418525 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @PhilosophyCafe |
| Created | 24 February 2016 — measured — cross-checked against a third-party dataset (TGDataset) |
| First recorded | 6 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 11 August 2026 |
| Measurements held | 4 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 11 August 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/PhilosophyCafe |
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 11 Aug 2026, 19:33 | 3,332 | -8 |
| 8 Aug 2026, 21:22 | 3,340 | +6 |
| 6 Aug 2026, 04:46 | 3,334 | no change |
| 5 Aug 2026, 23:20 | 3,334 | first reading |
23 posts held, back to 1 August 2026 — the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 3 pagesof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
ERR is average views per post over the last 30 days divided by subscribers, the definition TGStat uses, so this figure is comparable with the one you will see elsewhere. It falls structurally as a channel grows: a high ERR on a small channel and a low one on a large channel describe reach mathematics, not quality. We publish the figure and the sample it came from and pass no verdict on it.
ER is defined industry-wide as (forwards + reactions + comments) ÷ views— note the denominator is views, not subscribers. Telegram’s public web preview carries views and reactions but not forward or comment counts, so the reaction rate above is the reactions term only and is therefore a floor: the true ER for this channel is higher by an amount we have not measured and will not estimate. It is computed over the 10 of 21 measured posts that carry a reaction reading, and over those same posts' views.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 7 August 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 23 (1 August 2026 – 7 August 2026) |
| Views total | 5,251 |
| Reactions total | 48 |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 7 Aug 2026, 23:28 UTC |
Views are a single reading per post, taken at the time above. A post published in the last day or two is still accumulating views, which pulls the 30-day average down slightly. That is a property of the standard definition rather than a fault in it, so we keep the definition rather than “correcting” the number into something nobody can reproduce.
Precision. Telegram publishes view counts on its public widget in short form — 8.12K, 3.7M — so any reading at or above 1,000 reaches us rounded to three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. Averages and rates derived from them are shown to the same precision rather than to the unit: a figure like 3,701,250 would assert digits nobody measured.
Reaction counts are published per emoji and rounded the same way, so a total below 1,000 is exact and a larger one is a sum that may carry a rounded component from each emoji above 1,000. Because it is a sum, it does not look rounded — read a large reaction total as three significant figures per contributing emoji rather than as the figure it prints.
42 reactions across 9 posts, in 10 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 45.2% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| ❤ | 19 | 45.2% | |
| 🤣 | 6 | 14.3% | |
| 👍 | 5 | 11.9% | |
| 👏 | 3 | 7.14% | |
| 😢 | 3 | 7.14% | |
| 🙏 | 2 | 4.76% | |
| 😍 | 1 | 2.38% | |
| 😘 | 1 | 2.38% | |
| 🤨 | 1 | 2.38% | |
| 🤬 | 1 | 2.38% |
No sentiment is inferred, and none should be read in. This table is ordered by count and by nothing else. Emoji do not carry stable meaning across languages or communities — 🙏 is thanks in one channel and mourning in another — so we publish which ones were pressed and how often, and pass no judgement on what an audience meant by them.
Precision. Telegram publishes reaction counts per emoji and short-forms each one — 4.34K, 1.2M — so any single kind at or above 1,000 reaches us at three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. The shares above are ratios of those figures and carry the same error. This is also why the total here can differ slightly from a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page: both are sums of the same rounded parts, taken over samples with different edges.
Coverage. Reactions were read on 10 of the 23 sampled posts in this sample. Summed by Telegram’s own count on each post — not by adding up the per-emoji breakdown above — those same posts carry 48reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 23 most recent posts we hold, published 1 August 2026 to 7 August 2026, using the newest reading held for each. Telegram Stars are excluded: they are a payment, not a reaction, and they have their own section.
بدان که گروهیاند از ملاحده لعنهم اللّه که مر ایشان را سوفسطائیان خواننـد و مـذهب ایشـان آن است که:«بـه هیچ چیز علم درست ناید و علم خود نیست.»با ایشان گوییم که: «این دانش که میدانیـد کـه بـه هـیچ چیـز علـم درست نیاید، درست هست یا نی؟» اگر گویند: «هست»، علم اثبات کردند و اگر گویند: «نیست»، پس چیزیکه درست نیاید، آن را معارضه کردن محال باشد و با آنکس سخن گفتن از خرد نبود. #کشف_المحجوب_ص۱۴ #علی_بن_عثمان_هجویری @Philos…
Signed ĂГΣ₣
🗯 «بایگانی» یه فیلم علمی-تخیلی بریتانیایی به کارگردانی گوین راتری هست که سال 2020 منتشر شد. داستان یه خطی فیلم به این صورته که توی سال 2038 یه دانشمند به دنبال اینه که هوش مصنوعی رو به یه گام فراتر از انسان ارتقا بده. یه دغدغۀ شخصی پشت تلاشهای این دانشمند (جورج) هست و اون دغدغه اینه که همسرش رو از مرگ برگردونه. جورج و جولز یه تصادف رو از سر گذروندن که جولز توی اون تصادف کشته شد. آگاهی جولز توسط شرکت «آرکایو» (یا همو…
❤4
Signed علی سلطان زاده
در جلسه دیروز تا بند پنجم به گفت و گو نشستیم. جای همه دوستانی که به هر دلیلی نبودن خالی بود. امیدوارم در جلسه پنج شنبه هفته پیش رو شما، رو هم ببینیم. چون و اقعا جاتون خالی بود.
https://dailynous.com/2026/08/06/anthony-kenny-1931-2026/
😢3
7. در جریانِ کاربرد زبانِ (۲) یک طرف واژهها را فر یاد میزند، طرف دیگر طبقشـان عمـل میکنـد؛ ولی در تعلیم زبان این فرایند در میان خواهد بود: یادگیرنده اشـیا را نام میبَـرد؛ یعنـی، واژه را به زبان میآورد وقتی معلم به سـنگ اشـاره میکند. ــ بله، در اینجا این تمرینِ بازهم سادهتر در میان خواهد بود: شاگرد کلماتی را که معلم میگوید تکرار میکند ــ هردو فرایندهایی زبانمانند. میتوانیـم هم خیـال کنیم کل فرایند کاربرد کل…
👍2
6. میشود تصور کنیم که زبانِ نکته ۲ کل زبان الف و ب باشد؛ حتی کل زبان یک قبیله. کودکان چنان بار میآیند که این فعالیتها را انجام بدهند، این واژهها را در آن حال به کار ببرند، و اینطور به کلمات دیگران واکنش نشان بدهند. بخش مهمی از آموزش در این خواهد بود که یاددهنده به اشیاء اشاره کند، توجه کودک را به آنها جلب کند، و در آن حال واژهای را به زبان بیاورد؛ مثلاً واژه «تخت» را در حال ارائه این شکل. (این را نمیخواهم «تعر…
۵. با نگاه به مثال نکتۀ ۱ شاید ذهنیتی ایجاد شود از اینکه تا چه حد مفهوم کلی از داللتِ کلماتِ طرزِ کارِ زبان را با دو دوبغباری احاطه میکند که دیدِ روشن را ناممکن میسازد. ــ میوهپراکنده میشود اگر ما پدیدارهای زبان را در انواع ابتدایی کاربردِ آنها مطالعه کنیم، انواعی که در آنها میتوان به غرض و طرز کار واژهها دیدی روشنو فراگیر داشت. چنین شکلهای ابتدایی از زبان را کودک به کار میبرد وقتی حرف زدن را یاد میگیرد. د…
File, posted without a caption
Signed ĂГΣ₣
۴. خط الفبایی را خیال کن که در آن حروف برای نشانگری اصوات به کار بروند، و نیز برای تأکید و نقطهگذاری. (خط الفبا را میتوان زبانی تلقی کرد برای توصیف تصویرهای صوتی.) حال خیال کن که فردی آن خط را چنان بفهمد که انگار ماجرا صرفاً تطابق یک صوت با هر حرف است و انگار حروف کارکردهای کاملاً متفاوتِ دیگری هم ندارند. همانند چنین تلقیِ زیادی ساده از خط است تلقی اگوستین از زبان.
۳. میشود بگوییم اگوستین نظامی ارتباطی را توصیف میکند؛ منتها همهآنجه ما زبان مینامیم این نظام نیست. و این را باید در موارد متعددی گفت که این پرسش پیش میآید: «آیا این شرحووصف کارآمد است یا ناکارآمد؟» آنوقت پاسخ این است: «بله، کارآمد است؛ ولی فقط برای این حوزه خیلی تحدیدشده، نه برای کل آنچه وانمود میکردی داری شرح ووصفش میکنی.» انگار کسی چنین توضیح بدهد: «بازی کردن به این است که چیزها را، مطابق قواعدی، بر یک سطح…
۲. آن مفهوم فلسفی از دلالت جای مناسبش در تصوری ابتدایی از شیوه کار کردن زبان است. ولی میتوان هم گفت که تصوری است از زبانی ابتداییتر از زبان ما. زبانی را خیال کنیم که توصیفِ دادهشده توسط اگوستین دربارهاش درست است: آن زبان قرار است به کار ارتباط میان یک بنّا، الف، و یک شاگردبنّا، ب، بیاید. الف دارد با سنگِِ ساختمان بنّایی میکند؛ این سنگها موجود است: مکعبی، ستونی، تخت و چارگوش. ب باید سنگها را، به ترتیبی که الف ن…
1. اگوستین در اعترافات، یک، ۸: «وقتی بزرگترها شینی را نام میبردند و همزمان به آن رو میکردند، من این را متوجه میشدم و درمییافتم اصواتی که به زبان میآورند نشانگر آن شیء است، چون آنها میخواستند به آن اشاره کنند. ولی این را از ایماواشارههاشان برداشت میکردم، یعنی زبان طبیعی همۀ مردمان، زبانی که بهواسطۀ حالات چهره و چشم، حرکات اعضاوجوارح و طنین صدا حاکی از احوال نفس است وقتی میل چیزی را دارد، یا به چیزی می…
😘1
Showing the 12 most recent of 23 posts we hold for @PhilosophyCafe. View and reaction counts are the latest single reading for each post, not a live figure, and a recent post is still accumulating both. A view count marked ≈ was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints views in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈1,200,000 means somewhere between 1,150,000 and 1,249,999. Unmarked counts are exact. Text is reproduced from the public post preview and truncated for length.
Citation-graph rank — 136,284 of 1,183,361entries in the measured graph. A weighted position computed from the forward and mention edges below — republished posts weigh more than named mentions — and recomputed periodically, over the whole graph. Published only as this ordinal position, never as a score: a position is a fact, and a score printed beside one channel’s name would read as a verdict this register does not make. The two counts beneath stay separate for the same reason mentions are never summed with forwards anywhere else on this page — a named-by count costs nothing to manufacture. The top 100 by this measure, or how it is computed.
Republished by
Channels on the register that have forwarded this channel's posts into their own feed.
Republishes
Channels on the register whose posts this channel has forwarded.
Built only from forwarded posts we have actually read, on both sides. Coverage is early and deliberately incomplete: a missing link means we have not read the post that would prove it, never that the relationship does not exist. Counts are distinct forwarded posts observed, so they only ever go up as we read more.
Named by 5 registered channels — every channel on the register whose own posts have named this one, by its current username or any other username it currently holds, merged from two separately captured readings of the same fact so a namer caught by only one of them is not missed and a namer both caught is not counted twice. A username this channel has since dropped is not matched — that handle may belong to someone else now, and crediting today’s namer to yesterday’s owner would misattribute it.
Named by
Channels on the register whose posts name this channel's handle.
Names
Channels on the register whose handles appear in this channel's posts.
A mention is a weaker signal than a forward and is counted separately for that reason — naming a channel is not republishing it, and a handle in a post body is easy to place deliberately. The post counts beside each row below are distinct posts in which the handle appeared, from posts we have read on both sides — the “Named by N registered channels” figure above is a different count, of distinct NAMING CHANNELS rather than posts, and is not the sum of the rows under it.
The reverse of the list above, and a different kind of signal. This does not require this channel to have ever been asked about directly — each row below is a channel we DID ask Telegram about, whose Telegram-generated list happened to include this one. A channel can appear here with an empty list above it, because being named by someone else’s query is independent of having been queried itself.
This channel appears in 1 seed channel's Telegram-generated recommendation list in total. Each is Telegram’s list for THAT channel, not this one — see how this is measured.
A live page changes as we take new readings, so a citation should name the measurement it is based on, not just the URL. The line below cites the subscriber count as measured 11 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Philosophy Cafe ♨️” (@PhilosophyCafe), 3,332 subscribers as measured 11 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/PhilosophyCafe.
Full measurement history, CC BY 4.0. Every reading this register holds for this entry, not just the latest one, as a dated, downloadable record: CSV · JSON. Free to use with attribution to tgregister.com. Each file carries its own generation timestamp, which is the figure to cite for exactly when the data was retrieved.