Pragmatism

What Hacker News says

1. PlatoIsADiseaseJan 2026
   These are ~1 layer removed, but it shook me from an epistemological perspective. Basically it destroys the idea of metaphysical truth.

   I'll start with the easy one that was written in native English, William James's Pragmatism. Its only 4 hours long, and teaches 1 of the 3 branches of metaphilosophy(Pragmatic). For ROI in philosophy, it doesn't get better than this. It teaches one of the 3 theories of Truth.

   Next is significantly more difficult, but everyone only understands 10% of Wittgenstein. Read both early and late Wittgenstein. If I remember correctly, its ~12 hours of pain as you will barely understand him. However, it shakes foundations of math and science as you will find these are mere constructs of language. This will also teach you 1 of the 3 branches of metaphilosophy(Analytical), and teach you how language works. You really need to read both early and late. But I imagine reading early Wittgenstein will convince you to read late. Its super painful, but you should deal with the pain.

   (the remaining branch of philosophy is Continental... that takes a long time to learn, but its mostly nonsensical rebuttals to Plato, take it from someone who read this for 8 years...)

   Regarding that initial thought on the Problem of Priors, here is a quick youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xy6xXEhbGa0

   Show morethread
2. resource_wasteAug 2025
   You could have an existential crisis if you keep reading about ontology and epistemology. I'm 50/50. Def sad there is no universals, but its also liberating.

   You would be classified as a Platonic Realist or Scientific Realist. I am a Fallibilist and Instrumentationalist. Its not that we are denying the usefulness of these claims, we are denying the certainty of our knowledge being divine.

   If you want an extremely short book, easy to read, natively English, and the Magnum Opus of a field: Pragmatism by William James.

   Separately:

   >2 x pi x r = c is a also tautological if that is what you defined c to be. That's obviously not useful.

   Idk, I find it useful.

   Show morethread
3. resource_wasteAug 2025
   I'm not entirely sure how to do this, but I think it would benefit society to have Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus taught, and probably William James's Pragmatism.

   Wittgenstein is a difficult read, Pragmatism is not difficult, but I feel like many people wouldn't understand what is being said.

   The goal of this would be to teach how language is the basis for all science, and as a result cannot explain what is realistically happening, but rather a useful estimation.

   But right now, the majority of the population believes in scientific realism and have no idea that biology/medicine are systems with rough edges that cannot understand everything.

   I imagine the humility for doctors would be a benefit. The general population would be more likely to work towards developing solutions and trying things rather than expecting a simple solution.

   But again, I have no idea how to actually do this. It took almost a decade of reading to learn about these concepts, and it took humanity ~2400 years since Plato to figure this out.

   Show morethread
4. resource_wasteJul 2025
   What about the area that isnt part of the circle, is that a property of the universe?

   What about when I drop crumbs on a table and they scatter, is there something special about their location?

   Is there something more special about a circle than a triangle? Or a square?

   And when you say its a property of the universe... what shape is that property? What color is it? If I give you a microscope, can you point me to the property? If it the same kind of property as gravity? Is it the same kind of property as when I say 'Capitalism is the most efficient economic system'?

   Anyway, this is a question of ontology. You have an almost religious view of mathematical existances, but so do most non-philosophers. Plato corrupted us.

   For further reading, Ontology is the greater branch, but William James's Pragmatism is only a 2.5 hour audiobook and basically caused the divide between your traditional Ontology, and analytical philosophy.

   Show morethread
5. filoelevenFeb 2022
   Don’t read about William James, just read a bit of William James! His book Pragmatism is short, freely available, and has his signature writing style: a clarity that is nearly unmatched anywhere, and especially when discussing philosophy. An excerpt:

   Of whatever temperament a professional philosopher is, he tries when philosophizing to sink the fact of his temperament. Temperament is no conventionally recognized reason, so he urges impersonal reasons only for his conclusions. Yet his temperament really gives him a stronger bias than any of his more strictly objective premises. It loads the evidence for him one way or the other, making for a more sentimental or a more hard-hearted view of the universe, just as this fact or that principle would. He trusts his temperament.

   https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5116/5116-h/5116-h.htm This version replaces italics with CAPS, which can be distracting.

   Show morethread
6. ethanbondDec 2021
   When that happens go to William James and read Pragmatism, then realize you can just decide what you want to believe based on what is adaptive for you. (Easier said than done, and first requires convincing yourself that “true” is often less valuable than “useful.”)
   thread