Channel
@philosophy5
On this record: Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Stars · Posts · Citations · Cite this entry
7,098subscribers
+11 since we began measuring on 7 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 3,162–10,000.
| Telegram ID | -1001179421391 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @philosophy5 |
| Created | Between 1 April 2018 and 30 June 2021— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 7 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 13 August 2026 |
| Measurements held | 3 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 13 August 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/philosophy5 |
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 13 Aug 2026, 22:38 | 7,098 | +11 |
| 7 Aug 2026, 09:01 | 7,087 | no change |
| 7 Aug 2026, 08:55 | 7,087 | first reading |
20 posts held, back to 20 June 2025 — the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 10 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.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 15 July 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 20 (20 June 2025 – 15 July 2026) |
| Views total | 1,550 |
| Reactions total | 15 |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 12 Aug 2026, 02:26 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.
600 reactions across 20 posts, in 8 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 57.7% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| ❤ | 346 | 57.7% | |
| 👍 | 123 | 20.5% | |
| 🔥 | 80 | 13.3% | |
| 👏 | 20 | 3.33% | |
| 👌 | 13 | 2.17% | |
| 🤔 | 9 | 1.50% | |
| 👎 | 7 | 1.17% | |
| 🙏 | 2 | 0.333% |
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 20 of the 20 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 600reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 20 most recent posts we hold, published 20 June 2025 to 15 July 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.
A paid reaction is a reader spending Telegram Stars — bought with money — on a post by @philosophy5. Telegram publishes the count on the public post preview alongside ordinary reactions, and this register reads it there. It is the only figure on this site that measures money moving rather than attention.
Stars are not reactions, and the two are never added. They are rendered in the same strip on Telegram and counted in the same shape, but one is a tap and the other is a purchase. The reaction totals and the engagement rate elsewhere on this page exclude every figure in this section, and no rate here is computed against a reaction count.
This is not revenue, and we publish no currency figure. What a Star costs a reader and what it pays a channel are different numbers, Telegram takes a share we cannot observe, and the terms have changed. Converting a Star count into money would be an estimate dressed as a measurement, so the count is where we stop.
Counted over the 20 most recent posts we hold for this entry, published 20 June 2025 to 15 July 2026. Star counts above 1,000 reach us in Telegram’s short form and carry the same three-significant-figure rounding as everything else on this page.
Without sensibility no object would be given to us, without understanding no object would be thought. Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind. It is, therefore, just as necessary to make our concepts sensible, that is, to add the object to them in intuition, as to make our intuitions intelligible, that is, to bring them under concepts. These two powers or capacities cannot exchange t…
❤15
In our reasonings concerning matter of fact, there are all imaginable degrees of assurance, from the highest certainty to the lowest species of moral evidence. A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding David Hume
👍7❤3
Liberalism is the transformation of mankind into cattle. Friedrich Nietzsche
❤15👎5👏5
No man ever threw away life while it was worth keeping. Essays on suicide and the Immortality of the Soul. David Hume
❤3👍3👎2
Photo, posted without a caption
👌5🔥4👍2
⚪️ ⚪️ ⚪️ Time stays long enough for anyone who will use it. Leonardo da Vinci
🔥26❤15👌7👍2
⚪️ ⚪️ ⚪️ ⚪️ Most of the mistakes in thinking are inadequacies of perception rather than mistakes of logic. Edward de Bono
❤22👍6
⚪️ ⚪️ ⚪️ ⚪️ ⚪️ And precisely in these latter cognitions, which go beyond the world of the senses, where experience can give neither guidance nor correc tion, lie the investigations of our reason that we hold to be far more preeminent in their importance and sublime in their final aim than everything that the understanding can learn in the field of appearances, and on which we would rather venture everything, even at…
❤16👍1
⚪️ ⚪️ ⚪️ ⚪️ ⚪️ But what says still more is this, that certain cognitions even abandon the field of all possible experiences, and seem to expand the domain of our judgments beyond all bounds of experience through concepts to which no corresponding object at all can be given in expenence. The Critique of Pure Reason Immanuel Kant
❤7👍1🤔1
⚪️ ⚪️ ⚪️ Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve. Karl Popper
❤29🔥5🤔3🙏2
⚪️ ⚪️ ⚪️ ⚪️ ⚪️ The idea of transcendental philosophy Now, what is especially remarkable is that even among our experiences, cognitions are mixed in that must have their origin a priori and that perhaps serve only to establish connection among our representations of the senses. For if one removes from our experiences everything that belongs to the senses, there still remain certain original concepts and the judgment…
❤15👍5🔥3👏1
⚪️ ⚪️ ⚪️ ⚪️ ⚪️ Experience is no doubt the first product of our understanding, while employed in fashioning the raw material of our sensations. It is therefore our first instruction, and in its progress so rich in new lessons that the chain of all future generations will never be in want of new information that may be gathered on that field. Nevertheless, experience is by no means the only field to which our understa…
❤19🔥8👍4
Showing the 12 most recent of 20 posts we hold for @philosophy5. 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.
Stars beside a post are paid reactions — Telegram Stars, bought with money and spent on that post. They are a different unit from reactions and are never added to them, here or anywhere else on this page.
Citation-graph rank — 585,848 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.
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.
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 13 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Quotes of Philosophy” (@philosophy5), 7,098 subscribers as measured 13 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/philosophy5.
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.