31 ms·
I think Popper's cred comes primarily from one of his acolytes getting very very rich, and using that money to amplify a low-information signal. "If to argue l
by georgia_peach 4y ago
I think Popper's cred comes primarily from one of his acolytes getting very very rich, and using that money to amplify a low-information signal.
"If to argue like [Professor Popper] should ever become a frequent practice among writers on serious subjects, all cool and rational discussion would quickly come to an end. . . . His manner towards Aristotle is the sort that an unkind man sometimes adopts towards someone whom he believes to be his intellectual inferior; and, as is usual in such cases, it tells us more about the contemner than the object of his contempt. . . . There is here a failure of sympathy . . . on Professor Popper’s part; and he is the poorer for it."
- John Plamenatz
"Karl Popper is philosophically so uncultured, so fully a primitive ideological brawler, that he is not able to even approximately to reproduce correctly the contents of one page of Plato. Reading is of no use to him; he is too lacking in knowledge to understand what the author says"
- Leo Strauss
I decided to launch my big question: Is his falsification concept falsifiable? Popper glared at me. Then his expression softened, and he placed his hand on mine. “I don't want to hurt you,” he said gently, “but it is a silly question." Peering searchingly into my eyes, he asked if one of his critics had persuaded me to pose the question. Yes, I lied. “Exactly,” he said, looking pleased.
- John Horgan
- work_ta_220503 4y agoIf 2 out of 3 critics that you found are ad-hominem attacks, I can rest tranquil that Popper is a safe read. "Is the falsifiable concept falsifiable" -> why yes of course, just prove that something not falsifiable can be provably false...
- georgia_peach 4y agoThe ad hominems were entirely called for. He was just another academic bully playing word games--his entire gimmick based upon a reading of things into Plato that weren't there. Of course Wittgenstein would be the one to immediately see through him, and act accordingly--like Jesus did with the moneychangers.
- work_ta_220503 4y agoYou know what, you're right, I won't dispute his incapacity to correctly read the classics. I took offense to the attack on the question of falsifiability, which is philosophically miles ahead of anything else that came out of Europe in the last 2 centuries (barring, of course, wittgenstein himself)
- georgia_peach 4y ago“I don't want to hurt you” seemed like a cop-out to me. Someone who was legit would see that as a wonderful opportunity to spread the light. No need to hurt anyone.