Episode
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 มิ.ย. 2024
- Philosophize This! Clips: / @philosophizethisclips
Get more:
Website: www.philosophizethis.org/
Patreon: / philosophizethis
Find the podcast:
Apple: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/2Shpxw7...
RSS: www.philosophizethis.libsyn.org/
Be social:
Twitter: / iamstephenwest
Instagram: / philosophizethispodcast
TikTok: / philosophizethispodcast
Facebook: / philosophizethisshow
Thank you for making the show possible. 🙂
Why aren't people talking about Popper's work?
I ask myself this all the time. He was a complicated character. Read "Wittgenstein's Poker" and you'll get an idea of his personality and his relationship to other philosophers. He was a bit of a mavrick, and it didn't help that he criticized a few sacred cows of the academy: Plato, Marxism, linguistic philosophy, and psychoanalysis.
Hi I can’t tell you how important this topic is and summarizing it for the general public in easy words is truly helpful.
Your work is fascinating. Thank you for uploading
Thank you. I too have been bombarded recently with endless news of war. I’ve read this book, listened to the audio book qnd was about to go back to my ratty, dog eared text. Then I this.. all condensed into 30 minutes before dinner. Feeling better as only Popper can do some times.
god I love how this channel's narrator delves into the topic and hop-scotches the standard beats, excellent stuff
Greatest series out there. So glad, I found it. Listened to so many episodes. And sent some money. Such content is too be supported
14:00 that is the highlight
Even Popper's viewpoint is totalitarian......a grand way that human beings should conduct their affairs. Vanity of vanities: All is vanity. Ecclesiates Chapter 1. All of human philosophy wraps around to condemn itself. We are confounded......always.
No, that's not true. He doesn't require that people act this way, he just wishes they would. He knows they don't, that is the point of the open society. Letting people do what they do and making sure our systems are set up so that bad actors can't do too much damage. Totalitarianism does not allow this level of freedom. If you mean he stands by his viewpoint and thinks he is right, that doesn't make it totalitarian by the way he describes it in the book.
Thanks for doing this, Stephen.
All of poppers ideas destroy poppers ideas
Many thanks for your work!
Glad to have you. I love what you do. Please keep doing it,
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU
I'd read about Karl Popper and falsification, but I think this is at least as profound and important. Thank you, for the fabulous explanation, Stephen!
How will you prove this point ?
@@omalone1169 Self evident.
@@jamessheffield4173 it is not clear how Popper would deal with a statement like "for every metal, there is a temperature at which it will melt". The hypothesis cannot be falsified by any possible observation, for there will always be a higher temperature than tested at which the metal may in fact melt, yet it seems to be a valid scientific hypothesis
@@TheOpenSociety777 The melting point of iron alloys and the melting point of steel, occur at higher temperatures, around 2,200-2,500 Fahrenheit (°F) / 1,205-1,370 Celsius (°C). Melting points of Copper Alloys (including bronzes, pure copper, and brass) are lower than iron, at ranges around 1,675-1,981°F / 913-1,082°C. Aluminum Alloys have a lower temperature range than copper alloys. Pure aluminum melts at about 1,218 °F / 659 °C, but alloying with other elements can raise this.
Check out our quick answers on the highest and lowest melting points of metals, a video guide, and a table including more common metals found in our catalog, as well as an extensive table of all metals and their melting points. Bing search
Only 7 minutes in but I can tell this is very well explained already!
Remember what a joke Fukiyama's The End of History was. Any of these totalizing political theories--even classical economics--necessarily ignore the messiness that is human behavior. Anyone who thinks they have all the answers is crazy and dangerous. Ayn Rand and Karl Marx were maniacs. Always love hearing what you have to say. Listened to them all.
This is exactly the point to make here. And what Popper addresses in his books. Prophecy, "knowing" what will happen to human society - and influencing thoughts especially of politicians - is what causes all the problems on earth. Fukuyama was totally wrong and so were all other prophets. We all have seen what Socialism has brought to the world - all these ideologies destroy the peaceful life between humans on earth. Today, one can "choose" between what is bad and what is worse. I am glad that popper wrote these books - yet, my feeling is that even if people read it, they tend to misunderstand his thoughts and intentions. While i cannot claim to fully understand him (i am not Popper) , having talked to others that have the "Open Society" in their "arguments" repertoire, i can say: they all got it wrong and misuse it for their one ideology (Open Society == Open Borders == Everything goes == unlimited Tolerance and so on.) Popper needs to be thaught in Schools !
What is wrong with Ayn Rand?
Plato's idea of philosopher kings was wrong, but our leaders should be wise as if they were philosophers, and that I think is the correct Platonic rulers.
@@silversurfer493 the poverty of historic ism
@@zhengyangwu8289 the myth of mental illness
@@omalone1169 Is this your argument?
Wonderful! Thank you!
great work
You talk about how Popper writes about the stressors Plato was under while he wrote the Republic. What about the stressors Popper was under while he wrote the Open Society and its Enemies? What was Poppers psychology at the time?
Facts. He’s ideology is based on his fear of totalitarianism, however in effect he has created liberal totalitarianism which has seen the drop of moral values and is slowly opening pandoras box.
There is and always has been one problem - SIN.
Open societies doesn’t work and neither does utopian totalitarianism.
Jesus is King. Humans are fallen beings. And there is only one way back to paradise:
Deny yourself, pick up your cross and follow Christ.
But I must emphasise… this cannot be forced.
The book of revelation is slowly unfolding.
when in New Zealand he saved money from food to get writing materials or so it is told....he was sick and if Nietzsche is right such states are an essential part of creating such a masterpiece of philosophy...sick from working with deep delving into what he wanted to say....it was written against still active Hitler and Stalin...but also it was a delve in an history of political thought...very exhausting indeed
Excellent analytical summation of Popper's two volume study. (UK)
Thank you
Good stuff
i am literally addicted to this channel lol
Thank you 👍
The way things are unfolding brings up this question: How is organizing a society around "scientific democratic freedom" not also a (false) UTOPIA?
Maybe it's not a utopia, because it's open-ended; it doesn't pretend to know where it will lead humankind. That doesn't make it attractive to many, who want "security", or a definitive, concrete ending to the "story."
@@RobertoAFernandez That it is "open-ended" is certainly not a value-neutral position. And since this position will impact how humans interact, it most certainly DOES change "humankind" in potentially radical ways.
More specifically, the idea of "science" requires a radically high level of "skepticism." And this can DESTROY human relations.
And, what is the "goal" of science? It seems like many take it to mean "more freedom." And "more freedom" radically changes society and obliterates valuable traditions.
@@ozzy5146 "Open-ended" is not "value-neutral" in the sense that it doesn't dread the fact that we don't know how things will continue to unfold. That is always true, anyway, for individual human beings, because we are mortal, live relatively short lives, and thus we never know how humankind (or our particular nations, groups or tribes, even our families) will do after we die. The "skepticism" of science is limited to its theories which, if they are good theories (good explanations), are subject to be falsified or confirmed by experimentation and observation -or by its inability to solve or explain new problems. Scientists make friendships, have families, fall in love, and so on, like every other human being. Their "skepticism"' is limited to their jobs, and doesn't destroy their relationships with other humans, whether they are colleagues, friends, children, or spouses.
There's a need to keep separate some elements in that society, church and state, state and legal system, and these are organizational elements. There is a more tangible element which is the interface with the physical environment. The former needs to bow to the latter imo, but there's another business element that is the joker in the pack, one that uses human fallibility to assert a quasi-religious point of view that is ultimately an expression of control. The strength of science is also its weakness as a lack of identity, for some a vacuum waiting to be filled. Medical science tends to be quasi-religious also in the quest for perfect health at all costs. All of this is irrelevant almost when the initial suffering (that the alleviation of is the major design element) is examined. Get that major part wrong and all the control utopias come along, to "fix" the "problem".
Because it is the literal opposite of the conception of a utopia, which is perfection essentially in stasis; the idea that if everyone just does things this way, everything will be perfect (and we can purge anyone who doesn't do things this way).
Organizing society around "scientific democratic freedom" poses the only realistic expectation on society: problems will arise because people will always disagree (even if tradition and tyranny will try to force them to agree); an open society accepts disagreements and tries openly to find the best ways to solve them rather than force humanity into an enclosure decided by people in the past who can't understand what actual conflicts will arise in the future due to a growth in knowledge, in understanding, and just in general regarding how society works.
Of course, even this open society can be criticized for results of erosion of valuable traditions and traditional values and can lead to a form of existential suffering, this is a fair point. But it does not mean that a "scientific democratic freedom"-centred society is utopia; quite the opposite.
Such a good episode! Absolutely love the idea of negative utilitarianism.
Thank you sir
Very relevant to our times..
I can listen to him describing assembling Ikea furniture. He should be making Audiobooks.
Love your work, love Popper. And I still want more Stoicism. :)
参考になりました
ありがとう
First intel I ever got on this dude after reading about him in a Tweet. This shit is based. Thanks for the recap, you enriched my life
Even though it’s one of the best Science Fiction series of all time, Asimov’s Foundation is exactly what Popper is warning against. Foundation was also the inspiration for the bizarre Japanese cult that released Sarin gas in the Tokyo subway.
the Dune Series comes to mind where "The golden Path" is to become a God-Emperor and stopping progress for political stability forced upon the Universe
Karl Popper has such a fitting name. Y'know... the way he keeps poppin caps in those totalitarians
15:15 I appreciate this one
Thx
Hi Stephen, I absolutely loved this episode. And I have listened to most of your podcasts, most of which I have enjoyed. I wanted to send you an email - but there doesn't seem to be any option on your website to either 'comment' or to send you an email, so here we are. The "bone i want to pick" with you is your very strong anti-Christian bias. Fine, believe what you want, I have no problem with that - BUT you do say you are open minded and open to discussion on whatever, and that you are eternally curious.... That being the case, I can't understand your (to me anyway) obvious vitriol towards Christianity. & you're not shy to present a 'Christian" perspective when in actual fact you are so far off what Christians believe. More than happy to have a discussion about this - however you would like. Richard
You could also just leave it at this. Accept his view as he (if he is open to diverse thinking) accepts your view.
You had your opinion expressed and at least I read it and replied. I think with his knowledge in this field, he has a profound understanding and knows where such a discussion would lead, to a stalemate. So if I was you, I'd just drop it.
This is a very most familiar one in the modern 21st century era for it's the warning that was sent down through the ages, but forgotten out of not being about pleasant things like birds, nature, fun, and delicious nutritious food. History doesn't perfectly repeat the past, but rhymes with old eras where the swastika is unlikely to be used, but regularly shown to us referencing WW2 indicating WW3 is arriving in plain sight yet most are in denial and trying to ignore there's any problem which was called Stockholm Syndrome, again referring to a horrible past era of history when civilization collapsed out leaving lots of people suffering, terrified, hungry, homeless, at war, and dead.
Very good summary. I am plowing through Popper's book. You may have saved me a lot of time. He is a good writer but he does do a lot of unnecessary replication of his points.
The Open Society is not a good book. The style is turgid, and Popper has all kinds of preconceived ideas that are morally better (according to himself) than those of Plato, Hegel & Marx. Why are his ideas better? Because they are essentially better. So he falls into his own anti-essentialist trap.
When I was young, I was all into Wittgenstein, the Vienna Circle, Popper, Carnap & analytical philosophy. Now in older age I think it was only a constant drip drip of turgid scholastic word drivel. Of True Believers in Mathematical Logic.
The linguist George Lakoff has explained how and why he lost faith in this stuff.
Thank you for speaking out. Not sure if it's explicit enough, but that'll have to do.
A very good talk. Thank you. One thing about tyranny though... What about "tyranny of the mob"? Why should we treat one tyranny for another? Isn't every categorical statement here patently wrong? I wouldn't mind tyranny under Marcus Aurelius. But I would be very much opposed to tyranny of the mob that kills Socrates. Isn't this about "measure" then? When something breaks you fix it. Tyranny or democracy being just the tools in your toolbox.
Some actually did take up arms against the Wehrmacht, ie, the French historian Marc Bloch did even serve the army and the resistance.
Democracy is the form of government that affords uneducated people an equal voice in determining the public policy which guides human civilization in engineering its future. 'Open' cannot mean 'equal' - not if we want humanity to endure. We need to change our mind about democracy.
open data for an open society
Superb analysis, got a question for you though. In modernity many of our western democracies are being run by a cabal of political parties that hold wildly divergent views and beliefs from the majority of the population and are now causing suffering by inflicting their vision of a perfect society upon them, the main opposition parties aren't that different and broadly support the same agenda whilst small, new parties lack the cash and by extension the voice to make a big difference. If you vote out one leader, you just get his replacement who is wearing a different colour tie and the elite's agenda goes on as before which is showing signs of ever greater amounts of totalitarianism. For example our leaders all seem to want 15 minute cities whilst the populace in the main don't because they fear that their liberties are being removed from them. How do we get rid of this type of establishment? If we refuse to vote their minority of support within the populace will guarantee that they are elected so we wind up with minoritarian rule.
Totalitarianism is unfortunately inevitable.
It comes from original sin - following Satan and believing we can be our own God.
The only solution is to recognise we are all fallen sinners and must repent. Jesus has already done the work, all he asks is to believe in him and follow him and we will be saved.
We all know the perfect Utopia must exist… but fail to recognise the only way to it is by reconciling with our creator, through the sacrifice of Christ our redeemer.
🙏🏾
I have just one correction. Popper always maintained that the goal of science is objective truth. But we approach it through reducing error. So the contrast you make between being right and being less wrong are not really in conflict. He repeatedly emphasized this. What causes the confusion is that people think denying certainty or confirmation of theories leads to adjusting our aim from truth, but this is a non-sequiter. Since truth and verification or confirmation aren't linked.
That USB thing is a universal problem.(sorry).
a design problem
"the strain of civilization" - it seems to be too much for us
So he says don't be totalitarian and then goes and hints at eradicating the very essence for people to thrive towards growth, change, innovation and manifestation: adversity aka suffering.
The open society and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
Why do you think so?
An Open Society that respects Chesterton’s Fence and writes sunset clauses into all Legislation is my idea of a good time.
The end is a bit too Schopenhauerian, I as a Nietzschean cannot digest it
❤❤❤❤❤
One wag called the Upen Society by one of its enemies.
"...Twenty centuries of stony sleep were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle.... " Oh yeah ... I dread the slouching rough beast. And AI seems to be its midwife. We're screwed.
10:50. 2008. Anyone? Anyone? 2008? Too big to fail. 😮
Socrates loved Sparta and was actually an enemy of the Athenian democracy both in theory and in action. Socrates was a nihilist, constantly dismantling anyone's foundation, without ever offering an advocated alternative foundation, only attacking, but never taking the challenge of committing himself.
I read in a book by Vladmir Soloviov about how Socrates was never a member of either group, Conservatives or Sophists. I would say that the sophists were nihlistic. They learned the art of arguement soley for love of gain. They could argue against the conservatives who praise the old family gods when it became profitable for them to do so. The conservatives held to the established order but could not justify their values by arguement so Socrates accused both groups of doing what they were doing poorly and Socrates was the first one on the scene who appeared as a synthesizing third party. You are accusing Socrates of being a sophist, dismantling society with arguements for whatever reason which is false but I can see how it would appear that way to the conservatives who accepted things blindly. Socrates was attacked by both groups.
Come on man, we all know USB plugs in on _third_ attempt.
Teach is whats thee rites posishonions an profesgions
Idea of open society is something that is close to me and has lots of sens. Only in open society you can have feedback lops that informs goverments what is wrong. And only in such society ther are peaceful ways to remove people in goverment that are not doing correct job. Solving real problems to minimize suffering instead of building ideal utopia !! This is super idea.
But did Karl think about building open society in countries like Afganistan and Somalia ? Or rather like Germany and USA? How open society can be created in Afganistan? Probably it can not be. Open society can be create and maintained only in educated society. Where people made more or less informed decisions.
Let's be fair to Plato. In his day, societies and states were more like Somalia not like the USA today.
Thank goodness for your utopian podcast. Stephen
The philosophy of centrism.
Germany is effectively under the neo colonial regime led by UzA ... yet its inside the open society... I love the world 😂😂😂😂
Let’s see what one of the most renowned Philosophers of the 20th Century learned about Socialism , who brought us both the Open Society concept , (beloved by socialists ) and Falsification Principle :
“I remained a socialist for several years, even after my rejection of Marxism; and if there could be such a thing as socialism combined with individual liberty, I would be a socialist still. For nothing could be better than living a modest, simple, and free life in an egalitarian society. It took some time before I recognized this as no more than a beautiful dream; that freedom is more important than equality; that the attempt to realize equality endangers freedom; and that, if freedom is lost, there will not even be equality among the unfree.”
- Karl R. Popper, Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography
Seems trivially true when phrased in such a concise fashion.
This is the reality of socialism - a pseudo-religion that is an infantile disorder , grounded in pseudo-science and enforced by political tyranny through confiscatory taxes & government control of all industries , resulting in a feudalistic economy run by the Perpetual Ruling Elites who’s main goal is to enrich themselves and maintain their power in perpetuity.
I'm yet to see the dangers of enforcing equality. Seems like he was a privileged guy who is too comfortable to have it disturbed.
@@mitscientifica1569 I think you are talking about Capitalism here.
I don't know anything about socialism, but what do you think about the already existing capitalist feature of workplace democracy like worker co-ops? Do you think that the widespread implementation/legal and financial encouragement of democratized work spaces is something worth pursuing, while nothing else changes about the fundamental structure of capitalism and free markets?
I think the issue with Western liberalism has been it's deracination from it's Christian roots, which is why alienation is so high. Liberalism, science, rationale, skepticism and individualism do not create value or meaning, and these are it's biggest flaws.
I think the issue with Western liberalism.....oh I guess you mean the human rights based on humanitarian ideas...or you mean Old Testamentian ideas of morallity...the idea humanitarian ethics (aka not christian based beliefs) have no values or meanings is itself a lie...christians lose ground where thoise ideas spread and thats all...and if you were not a sheep in a herd you would find there are dogs about, telling you what to do and think and you don't even question it....whereas Mr Popper said....question me...distrust me....i tend to believe such persons easier as your saviour figurines you pray too
The Philosso-Pfizer?
Second
Popper doesn’t sound wrong, but Soros appears to fight against the actual meaning of poppers deduction
Plsase will you elaborate
All the Asian bots who are paid to comment on this vid ... I got you 😊
The open society must be destroyed
You too
Didn't we look down on the kgb, or the Nazis, does your organization feel your different, your on the the right side of history, I'm sure Hitler and Joseph Goebbels felt the same.