/lit/ - Literature

Continuing from >>1679633
>IT'S NONSENSICAL, YOU FUCKWIT. NOT mEANINGLESS. I'm getting a lot of meaning from it, so are other people, maybe not you because you've got a peanut brain; not my fucking fault.
This was my favorite fallacy sandwich: word quibbling as if refutation followed by an ad hominem, all backed up by an argument from popularity. Consulting the OED, we find that nonsense means "spoken or written words that have no meaning or make no sense". Nonsense, or "[having] no meaning", is equivalent to being meaningless, or can you not read? I'm starting to suspect the latter since you seem to be having trouble with very simple words.

>more conducive to maximal human flourishing, ultimately. But I don't even need to extend my argument that far, I simply need to say that any token of its type will be superior to any other token in that type insofar as it is constituted by properties which are considered superior for its type.
In other words, better things are better so long as they increase one's wisdom in some way. Do you have any way to quantify that, or will you justify it with the fuzzy feelings you get when finishing a book? I hope the former for your own sake, but I'm not holding my breath. Once again, there's nothing wrong with reading for pleasure, but you shouldn't turn it into a pseudo-mystical experience that gives off unquantifiable gobbledygook.