On ''what there is''

Nobody has ever mentioned Engels , Marx best friend, as
scientist. However he was the only one who stated that
''each discipline'' ( science) has its own philosophy. 
Everyone with an academic degree must know that in
his first semester (aka ''first year'') the so called ''subject
of study'' is learned as  ''introduction to...''
In this ''introduction'' are formulated basic assertions of
the science involved and those ''basic assertions'' or
''premise of the discipline involved''  can be seen as 
philosophy of this science. The curious thing is that such
''meta theory '' about own subject matter is learned in
the first year when students have no idea about their study.
The ''place'' of the ''meta theory'' should be placed in the
last year of the study when students ''got some idea''
about their study. Who can expect ''critical mind'' or ''critical
attitude '' by students in their first year of study? 

'Meta''-and ''object language''. We now know(?) that Frege
considered ''ordinary language'' as  not suitable for science
and try to ''invent'' an scientific language which is called
''new logic''. Less known is Tarski's attempt to avoid paradoxes
which origin when we speak in the same language about our
language. To avoid this ''difficulty'' he invented the separation
between ''object language'' and ''meta language'' the later
as being ''about'' object language. The problem is that we get,
say, many , or even worst, too many meta languages.
This is, uh, my introduction to ''meta theory'' as mentioned in
my previous post. 

Now it's just plain boring.

roxy, ''it is boring'' is very different from 'boring according to me''.
Why are you assuming that ''it IS boring'' is , uh, ''general feeling''? 
Do you think that you represent human kind by your statement? 
Your are not ''the king'' of communist North Korea who even
surpassed the French king who stated ''the state that is I''. 
''Assumed assumptions'' is a way of speaking . Economy of
language use is that many things are assumed to be known''
A : ''Federer won of course''. B: ''who is Federer? ''
X ''has the right'', etc , but why does he need to prove his
right to judge when Y claims ''the same right''. What does ''the
same right'' mean?  Well the judge has, so to speak, an list
of legal conditions which need to be satisfy in order for X to get
the right which is assumed a priori to be already his . Something
like new owners of an home for which first payment is made.
That is when bank owns 99% of the home or its value while 
 the new buyers have the illusion to own a home.  So it seems
much of our believes is ''based'' on sand? 

Yes nandric, I meant boring according to me, although I will bet that there are others. You see, I was using "economy of language".
You may now continue with your pointless monologue...