Give me one(1) raisin why I should read anything other than scientific and analytical literature

I mean like meh. I've always been a science and philosophy asspie. Even when I was a toddler I would demand to read animal encyclopedias instead of storybooks for bedtime. As far as so called "spiritual" fulfillment I think understanding things has always been more than enough. Ecology and ontology have given me more of that than anything else ever could.

peirce*
If you have autism, sure.

what's with all the presuppositions?

Precisely to answer your own question.

>his axiom is based on pragmatism
You clearly know nothing about this.
No, it's based on the triadic model of signs, it's pretty much a non-classical logic of how we interpret externalities. You make fun of the rational people for "enlightenment memes" but post-modernism is infested with an obfuscated dogma of Cartesian dualism. A semiotic is a sign logic and semiotics is the science of these. Sign logic is the axiomatic basis, of pragmatism.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce-semiotics/#BasSigStr

Are you fucking illiterate?
The LOGIC is based on an AXIOM
THAT AXIOM CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED BY ITS OWN LOGIC
READ POSTS BEFORE YOU POST YOU STUPID SHIT
I've probably read more of Peirce than you, you stupid cunt.

>rational people
Why is rationality good?
Muh memes? Muh axiom as justified by logic as justified by an axiom, ad infinitum?
But yes, keep circle-jerking somebody because it is 'practical'. Disgusting dogmatists.

It's a tautology.
Reguardless you still haven't told me how what you are saying offers any explanatory value. You just got mad and started ripping on pragmatism.

I just explained why it's wrong, are you really this illiterate?

This isn't a problem if you understand complex realization(ala semiosis) and downward causation(ala semiotics). If you are denying that we interpret information representing things that exist outside of the system doing the interpretation(the axiom that semiotics rest on) then you are no different from a solipsist.

>proved me wrong
>but you still can't tell me how post-modernism explains anything.
Lol, nope. You told me why you think 'it' is wrong, and it was a stupid telling I tell ya what.

would you rather study nature?

or the nature of nature

explain this meme at once

>presupposing metaphysics
Cancer
>explanation is good
Pragmatism is invalid
I'm not a post-modernist; not everything existent besides epistemological cancer is post-modernist.

They provide a different avenue of thought. Piecing together parts of a story and seeing characters develop and interact is a different form of analysis, really.

this but unironically

So you are saying that you are a solipsist? When you read these words that I have written, do you believe everything you are interpreting is a product of internal mental processes? or do you believe you are interpreting information from signs that represent a thing in a place outside of your own internal experience?
If the later, you accept the axiom for sign logic, and by implication you accept the axiom for pragmatism. If the former, you are actually retarded.
>explanation isn't good
Wew lad

>I'm not a post-modernist; not everything existent besides epistemological cancer is post-modernist.
If it looks like shit and smells like shit.....
But you probably don't accept the axiom that shit is a thing that can be seen or smelled.

>haha anybody who criticizes muh ideology-metaphysics IS JUST A FUCKIN SOLIPSIST DESTROYIN WHITE CIVILIZASHUN
>explanation is good BECUZ WE NEED IT TO SAVE WHITE CIVILIZASHUN CLEAN UR ROOM

>if i dont like something it is post-modernist BECUZ ITS DESTORYIN WHITE CIVILIZASHUN

>>haha anybody who criticizes muh ideology-metaphysics IS JUST A FUCKIN SOLIPSIST DESTROYIN WHITE CIVILIZASHUN
>gets BTFO with a thought experiment
>gets mad and circles back to the statement that was just BTFO without paying any attention.
>
I want to believe that you are just an expert at tomfoolery and are only acting like a retard to upset me.

>btfo
Why do you think I accept your logic and your axioms, still?

Give me an answer. It's not hard.
When you read these words that I have written
>do you believe everything you are interpreting is a product of internal mental processes?
Or
>do you believe you are interpreting information from signs that represent a thing in a place outside of your own internal experience?
Or
>..?

Are you still choosing to be illiterate?

Let me clarify for you as I might not be doing a good enough job
>do you believe you are interpreting((READING COMPREHENSION)interpertant)information from signs((WORDS)sign vehicle) that represent(representamine) a thing((MY THOUGHTS)object) in a place(MY MIND) outside of your own internal experience?
I understand what you are saying
>you can't know nothing
And I'm telling you that is retarded

I didn't say that. Why is it retarded? Muh white civilizashun?

Goodnight dumbo.

>anybody who disagrees with me is le dumb!

Answer anons question dumbo

Haha long boy

>the universe and its contents can be observed
>the universe has laws governing it that are invariant over space and time
>we can approximate these laws with models of varying accuracy

>delusional

>spiritually stunted

They're the same thing

you might enjoy it

Dostoievsky

1. Fun
2. >analytical literature
without reading literature?

Give me one(1) raisin why I should read any literature.

All three statements you made are wrong. Again, you're caught up in enlightenment memes.

>pragmatic
>understanding

These are at odds with one another. An instrumentalist does not seek to understand but maximize utility. Someone who wishes to understand wishes to attain comprehension of a particular subject, an explanation that necessarily refers to ultimate causes. Analytic philosophy is far more rationalist than you seem to be aware of, but I would start there

the truth.
right here

Because if you're bad at imagination, critical thinking and logic you will not be able to get much use out of them.

Pfft, sophists.

>All three statements you made are wrong.
Proof

Give me one(1) raisin why I should read.

Understanding is not the direct goal of instrumentalism, but in building the ultimate theory, you need to understand what goes on in the natural world.

Give me one(1) raisin.
Also, in order to understand what goes on in the natural world you need to understand your own perception, language and mental functions.

>not give me one raisin why I
You could have gone for the opposite of solipsism, missed opportunity

but I excel at all of those things.

Give me a fucking raisin! Have you no compassion?

>Understanding is not the direct goal of instrumentalism, but in building the ultimate theory, you need to understand what goes on in the natural world

No, you don't. Take the double slit experiment for example. An instrumentalist doesn't need to understand what is actually going on in the experiment in order to perform it and reproduce the results, and indeed no physicist knows what is "actually going on". Understanding involves a correct interpretation and thus a final comprehension of what the world is like for our best theories to be true. Any such "ultimate theory" does not occupy the purview of the pragmatist

i was using pragmatic in its original sense(Pierce) which is quite different from the pragmatism and pragmatic ethics that followed
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_maxim
nevertheless the word "pragmatic" doesn't quite fit in that statement, and i recognized that almost immediately after posting
>Analytic philosophy is far more rationalist than you seem to be aware of, but I would start there
thats what im into nigga

Absolutely terrible example, you don't understand where utility comes from. Simply reproducing results doesn't give utility in any sense that it would usually mean. Utility is in theories and the predictions they can make, that's what instrumentalism is about.
And an ultimate theory, that is a theory which makes the best predictions and give the best explanations, would have the maximum possible utility, so no, it is within the purview of pragmatists. And formation of the ultimate theory requires forming better and better theories until no improvements can be made, so you get more utility as time goes on

You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about

>proof
Begging the question, aren't you? Silly systematizer. There is no 'order'.

DURKA DURKA ITS SELF EVIDENT

>WE CAN'T NO NUFFIN

That's not what I said.
I'm an empiricist, not the STEMsperg meme of it though.

You should just read scientific literature.

I spent a long time only caring about mathematics and hard science, and when I did finally get interested in philosophy it helped me cut through all the bullshit.

I recommend reading some Borges short stories, in particular The Library of Babel, The Garden of Forking Paths, and Blue Tigers.

I consider those short stories to be reasons that answer your question; of course, like all complex questions, the answer is also complicated.

There's something in literature that captures a numinous quality of life that really can't be replicated by anything else. Your question is like asking "Why listen to music?", or perhaps "Why tap my foot along to a beat?"

For real though go read Borges, thank me later.

This.

If you're an empiricist, then you've admitted to skipping skepticism. If you are really intellectually honest, you would be a rationalist; from there, a subjective idealist. Berkeley got it right.

All wrong. Try again, reddit man.

>reddit man
lel, I think you skipped the Greeks, pleb churl.

Project harder.

Right, so having read Anaxagoras, Parmenides, Zeno and Zeno, Democritus, Empedocles, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, and Sextus Empiricus counts as skipping the Greeks. You're pathetic.

Lying is easy online. Go back to /r/eddit

You've yet to wage a single thoughtful point; stop acting tough.

>what is is/ought