The first principle of philosophy is that human wisdom is worth little or nothing. This was understood by Socrates, and it is the beginning of philosophy itself. This is because once you understand that human thinking is, for the most part, unwise, then you will be open to QUESTIONING IT. The thought that all human 'wisdom' is fallible leads to a natural desire for true wisdom, hence the LOVE OF WISDOM. This love or desire leads to the second principle of philosophy: The unexamined life is not worth living. No man wishes to live without the hope of acquiring what he loves, thus he naturally seeks to acquire true wisdom by examining his life, and life itself as a whole, in his desire for acquiring true wisdom. While little true wisdom is ever actually acquired, nonetheless, a deeper understanding that promises the hope of acquiring more true wisdom in the future is obtained by means of philosophy. Philosophy is not an academic subject, it's a never-ending Quest !
The moderator, Fons Elders hosted a series of philosophical dicussions back in the 70s and the Chomsky-Foucault one is the most well known and widely available. In fact for years it was the only one available until this one with Eccles and Popper was uploaded and I am glad this finally happened!
I love Popper! If I remember correctly he says in Utopia and Violence, or perhaps Towards a Rational Theory of Tradition, that he chooses rationality because he cannot stand violence. I find that beautiful. Thank you for the upload.
Loved Popper too. But he was incredibly naive (or cynically deceptive) about liberal democracy’s ability to coexist with capitalism. His Austrian economist buddies who also skedaddled out of the German speaking countries in the the early 20th century and founded the Chicago school of neoliberal capitalism (Hayek for example) unleashed the worst kinds of exploitation upon liberal democracy (in the name of economic “freedom” of course … the crypto-aristocrat’s best friend … “FREEDOM!!!”). Popper pretended the logic of the liberal democratic “individual” was a political principle so sound and wise only the “evil” unfalsifiable “historicism” (that the fascists and the communists both believed in according to Popper) was its only enemy worth considering. And the only valid role of government was to steadfastly defend the radical liberal individualism as he defined it in his very naive way. At the same time Hayak et al the liberal philosopher economists stubbornly argued that it was the role of government to regulate capitalism, the supposed ideal economic partner of liberal democracy, to reign in its monopolistic and oligarchic tendencies. Which left the rich capitalists in western liberal democracies the the convenient opportunity to refuse to accept the socialist economic class critique of the radical individualism of Popper, using the fear of socialism and communism borrowed from Hayak, and the rights of freedom of individuals borrowed from Popper to argue against any limitations being placed upon the neoliberal capitalism of Hayak. A one-two punch against the working people and against egalitarian principles whenever the rich or the aristocrats ever felt themselves cornered by a leftist materialist or socialist politician who wanted to support the interests of the working class. Once upon a time I loved the simplicity and the clarity of the “freedom” offered by Popper and Hayak and classic liberal politics allied with capitalist free market dogma. But all we end up with when it’s allowed to run it’s course is a brutal class war against the working class (despite the individualism the capitalists always claim to love … they always band together to protect their minority interests with vicious and unscrupulous tactics justified by that most unscrupulous of words … “freedom”.
Fear of violence, or the avoidance of open violence at any cost just leads to the “rationality” of exploitation, and more exploitation within the current ruling hierarchy. Popper is the apologist extraordinaire for the bourgeois capitalist “liberal” democratic society. His own Austrian buddy Hayak is the key proponent of the “rational” violence of capitalism, rationalized as the the ultimate expression of human “freedom”. The freedom to exploit others for profit. Popper refused during his whole life ever to critique this form of violence, the threat of violence which maintains the order within a hierarchical state, and only saw violence where there was revolutionary change.
@@B_Estes_Undegöetz What you’re saying is informative, legitimate and necessary in discussing Popper. Thank you! There is much to be said on both Popper and the concept of freedom, the rights of the individual, liberal contra republican freedom and so on; however, the answer, if there is one, is very complex and neither liberal nor republican, but probably somewhere in between (I use of course ’liberal’ and ’republican’ in regard to the overall theoretical concept of freedom). Popper believed in change from within the existing system/the status quo, much like Kant did, which may seem contradictory to what often is perceived as ’true’ freedom, but if the alternative is revolution, revolutions historically result in disappointment. I think you’re exactly right about Popper’s neoliberalism (the Chicago school, Friedman, and of course Reagan, Thatcher, and I’ll leave it at that as you seem to know this much better than I do). It is indeed interesting that an expert in violence, who rightly says that violence has many different forms and occurs when a belief becomes dogma, is totally fine with economic violence. Thinking and consequently thinkers are always a product of their time, and ’Man is fallible’ as Mill put it, and so are the times.
@@B_Estes_Undegöetz If you value "freedom" it is better to live in the worst outcome of capitalism than to live under the rule of a socialist or communist government.
Haha, how interesting for me . I recently listened on audible to the autobiography of Daniel Dennett, the cognitive scientist and philosopher of mind , biology and science, called I've been thinking (2023); In a passage he claims that the book by J.Eccles and K.popper the Self and it's Brain(1977) is the worst book written by eminent men 😁😁(I find it funny when intellectuals get raw in their critics and let go of any gallantry ). The book defends a trialists view of the Mind-body-brain problem while Dennett who is famous among other things for an essay called "where am I" (1978) defends very strongly physicalism . Being a fan of K.popper's philosophy of science and Dan. Dennett independently and also quite fascinated by neuroscience and adjacent branch thus making me quite interested in why a Nobel prize laureate who made a breakthrough in brain mechanisms such as Eccles is dualist makes me very intrigued by these two people's discussion.
@@rodrigosilveira2525 thanks for the recommendation, but I actually saw it last year ; that's actually where I saw Eccles for the first time. But thanks for the action of spreading tips to further knowledge 🙌🏼🙌🏼.
I think Popper is very strong in epistemology so this almost mystical ”dualism” is suprising. I see it as he is giving argument that hard problem of consciousness is unsolvable by science, not super strong but it has some traction.
@@w4ris I too find it quite odd that the greatest philosopher of science of the 20th century is not only a dualist but a trialists (Kuhn and Hempel's name sometime appear in the most cited but his always appear to be the most widely accepted ). I guess one has to read thoroughly to understand how his ideas came together as such , I for one look forward to it .
I liked this for its urbane rationality, its acceptance of terms used not uncritically: it may not represent the height and depth of knowledge, but it sets some good parameters, with some good counters of sense.
It is interesting it was the natural philosophers who pushed for the change. After the scientific revolution many "natural philosophers" believed that people doing science (experiments) were not worthy of being called philosophers. Hence, the word "scientist" was coined to differentiate them by Whewell.
@@SeanAnthony-j7fwe are talking about the point at which they split. Of course nobody was using the term before Whewell *invented* it. People started referring to "scientists" and thinking about the difference a few years later after it gained usage
@@Danyel615 I think Whewell coining the term is not the only point. The apparent specializations and rise of more sub-specialized fields like biochemistry, physical chemistry, semi-conductor physics etc. Provoke universities to present lectures and materials to specific divisions of labor and the emphasis on innovation and exact explanations lead us to not challenge our basic assumptions nor debate about it; present alternatives or make metaphysical assumptions from it at the age of secularization is not anymore apparent.
35:10 no, to say that everything is reducable to physics means that world 2 and world 3 are based in and limited to the laws of physics. Biology is a complex system that emerged within the confines of chemistry, there are no laws of biology that contradict the laws of chemistry, and the same happens between chemistry and physics. Psychology emerged from biology. So in the end psychology is an extremely complex physical structure. This means there is no real free will, only an illusion of free will and of course no eternal soul because consciousness is an emergent phenomenon withim biology and in biology there is death, so consciousness alao dies (probably, I think, I don't know).
Once upon a time back in the 1980s I loved Popper too. But he was incredibly naive (or cynically deceptive) about liberal democracy’s ability to coexist with capitalism. His Austrian economist buddies who also skedaddled out of the German speaking countries in the the early 20th century and founded the Chicago school of neoliberal capitalism (Hayek for example) unleashed the worst kinds of exploitation upon liberal democracy (in the name of economic “freedom” of course … the crypto-aristocrat’s best friend … “FREEDOM!!!”). Popper pretended the logic of the liberal democratic “individual” was a political principle so sound and wise only the “evil” unfalsifiable “historicism” (that the fascists and the communists both believed in according to Popper) was its only enemy worth considering. And the only valid role of government was to steadfastly defend the radical liberal individualism as he defined it in his very naive way. At the same time Hayak et al the liberal philosopher economists stubbornly argued that it was the role of government to regulate capitalism, the supposed ideal economic partner of liberal democracy, to reign in its monopolistic and oligarchic tendencies. Which left the rich capitalists in western liberal democracies the the convenient opportunity to refuse to accept the socialist economic class critique of the radical individualism of Popper, using the fear of socialism and communism borrowed from Hayak, and the rights of freedom of individuals borrowed from Popper to argue against any limitations being placed upon the neoliberal capitalism of Hayak. A one-two punch against the working people and against egalitarian principles whenever the rich or the aristocrats ever felt themselves cornered by a leftist materialist or socialist politician who wanted to support the interests of the working class. Once upon a time I loved the simplicity and the clarity of the “freedom” offered by Popper and Hayak and classic liberal politics allied with capitalist free market dogma. But all we end up with when it’s allowed to run it’s course is a brutal class war against the working class (despite the individualism the capitalists always claim to love … they always band together to protect their minority interests with vicious and unscrupulous tactics justified by that most unscrupulous of words … “freedom”.
This is what Progressives are proposing today, in essence. Are you a traditional Liberal, a Conservative, or a Progressive? Most Conservatives and Liberals of today would be for mixed classrooms. Most Progressives would not be for mixed classrooms because of their acceptance of CRT. The talk took place in 1971. Back then most everyone thought that mixed classrooms were best. But people of that time were just becoming aware of the issues involved and trying to work their way through them. Historical events are something like internal thought: they cannot always be judged until the process completes. In the end, we had mixed classrooms and most all were happy about it. Now the questions are reappearing and the proposed answers turn our previous thinking on its head. We'll just have to see how things play out.
Comments 157 Add a comment... @MrCounsel 0 seconds ago Discovery of how consciousness works will mark a fundamentally different era in human existence. Ethical treatment of such discovery will be critical. Otherwise, its possible uses evince terrifying ramifications. Convergence of advances of quantum computing, AI, and fusion energy may speed up the process toward that upcoming era.
39:11 we do not really control our thoughts, they come to us automatically. We don't really🎉choose our words, they appear to us. Our actions are also not chosen but occur.
@@bjrnhagen4484 first of all I don't know if what I wrote is correct but it seems that way to me at this point in time. Second of all I think that while at a certain level I seem to hqve control but at a deeper level I do not because my thoughts and inner experiences are also determined for me.
You must ask yourself why a universe that is generated by the principle of least action would produce a redundant consciousness to simply observe events that have already been decided or have already occurred.
@@JackPullen-Paradox I'm not sure about the principle of least action (I don't think I understand what you mean by it) I don't think decisions are actually made though they seem to be. Consciousness emerges when there is a unified nervous system that forawrds all of its input into one place (a brain). Our conscious experience is this system that receives input, interprets and reacts to it in a unified manner. The universe does not have a reason to create this, there is no intention here only emergent outcomes and what seems to work in a darwinian manner. Have I answered your objection/question? I'm not sure I have...
@@arnonsha1 I mean that the physical world is made to be very efficient by certain measures and that it seems strange that such efficiency would lead to such manifest inefficiency as having the mechanism to generate and carry out a thing and also have another mechanism which views the results of the first mechanism and even believes it has produced them. If that were the case, I would expect consciousness to eventually become something that not all people have. The effects of added efficiency might lead to the complete elimination of consciousness. We receive input at the unconscious level also. One would think that certain events such as pain bubble up from the unconscious to the conscious when, for instance, the person is fast asleep. Again, it would seem that the conscious mind contains the executive functions. I.e., the functions of choice and initiation of action. The unconscious has no higher level response to pain. From what I've said here, I would also say that consciousness is the hallmark of humanity; not necessarily thought or language per se. I would like to think my pets are conscious, but i think if the are, they are at most as aware as a two year old child. But you were saying that the decisions and initiation of action took place before the conscious mind was aware of the activities. This I cannot agree with.
By the way for the Popper's fans, would you please shed dome light on George Soros's admiration of Popper to help us understand the relationdhip 🤔🤔😂 ? Thanks
There’s no “relationship.” Popper is primarily an epistemologist and philosopher of science. But he’s also a classic “liberal”. Individuals as the primary and sole legitimate unit of political analysis. Equality of individuals before the law; freedom for all individuals to own property and have rights to use and dispose of that property as they choose and use and control their body as they choose so long as these liberties do not interfere with the liberties of others to enjoy their own property and liberties, etc. etc. Choose political leaders by democracy. Live free of tyrannical rule by monarchy, aristocracy, oligarchy, or dictatorship, etc. Popper taught at the London School of Economics so his theories meshed comfortably with mainstream capitalist views of his day as well and he was friendly with fellow liberal (and prominent theorist of neoliberal capitalism) Hayak, although it’s less clear how Popper felt exactly about capitalism itself, he was a vocal critic of Marxism, but NOT as an economic theory, or even a political theory, but more so because Popper took issue with what he called the “historicism” of Marxism … which he claimed was illogical and unscientific therefore not a valid theory upon which to base any good governance. I’d say most of today’s liberals you’d care to castigate would be attracted to Popper due to his thoroughgoing liberalism founded as it was on a rather rigorous, if naive but easy to understand epistemological theory Popper called “falsificationism”.
I was very surprised when I opened a copy of Popper's "Open Society" and found the intro was written by Soros. The fundamental difference is that Popper emphasized Rationalism while Soros emphasizes Empiricism. Simply put Popper believed in public criticism and allowing people to change their own minds and then behaviors and then society. Soros does the inverse and believes in top down changes that change society and behaviors and minimizes the freedom of individual thought.
Popper was a mentor of Soros. One difference is Popper found his visits to the U.S. to be a source of optimism and Soros has never had anything but disdain for the U.S. I was very surprised when I opened a recent edition of Popper's “Open Society” and found Soros had written the Foreword. Soros parted with Popper basically because he needed to justify making billions of dollars by ignoring the resultant cost to other people. He explicitly admitted this when he made his billions by helping to destroy the British pound in 1992. He had dealt with previou “guilt” by transferring a large amount of his wealth to his “Open Society Foundation”. To date they say he's given $32 billion to what is now “The Open Society Foundations”! This way he can undermine the U.S. and other road blocks to his globalist billionaire network as a “philanthropist” by promoting Leftist politics. His goal is to come across as a good person trying to make the world better. Better for him to keep and increase his wealth and influence. Viktor Orban was once associated with Soros until he saw his true intentions. You can watch a 1990's interview of Soros by Steve Croft on 60 minutes to get some quick insight into Soros.
Popper was a mentor of Soros. One difference is Popper found his visits to the U.S. to be a source of optimism and Soros has never had anything but disdain for the U.S. I was very surprised when I opened a recent edition of Popper's “Open Society” and found Soros had written the Foreword. Soros parted with Popper basically because he needed to justify making billions of dollars by ignoring the resultant cost to other people. He explicitly admitted this when he made his billions by helping to destroy the British pound in 1992. He had dealt with previou “guilt” by transferring a large amount of his wealth to his “Open Society Foundation”. To date they say he's given $32 billion to what is now “The Open Society Foundations”! This way he can undermine the U.S. and other road blocks to his globalist billionaire network as a “philanthropist” by promoting Leftist politics. His goal is to come across as a good person trying to make the world better. Better for him to keep and increase his wealth and influence. Viktor Orban was once associated with Soros until he saw his true intentions. You can watch a 1990's interview of Soros by Steve Croft on 60 minutes to get some quick insight into Soros.
John, we've tried your "whole child" form of instruction here in California for the past 40 years. It has failed. Our test scores are among the lowest in the United States, and instead of reevaluating the policy, we are now doubling-down on them. Your theory has become dogma, one that is difficult to realign to facts. SEL (Social Emotional Learning) the Casel agenda, has inhibited the transition from child to adult, and why so many still either live at home or on our streets here in California. BF Skinner was not entirely wrong.
Than you for shares this video (I have seen) One it's ideology Others pragmatic What philosophy it's? For how I have read .my opinions it's Philosophy it's esthetic of minds * Which starts and ends with both sides ideas and pragmatic What science it's? Art* Which can use for good or bad..reason. depending on ethics and morals Truth * It's resive of lies or end of consciousness.. Now society how are ? They can change depending on powers political system on stage and educational purposes. Untouchable it's the characters of cultural of geopolitical of climate regions How society have a critical or none critical relationship between residents This it's in everything one political power to other send outside for interest..of course out morals. Just for money How society can charge someone with out know but just the spread of political people used to excuse them self's? So society doesn't not have value critical or min critical thinking A healthy society have healthy people A sick society created sick people. Now Excistence of God* ? We don't know .for better explanation it's Brains *we can see or not .. Physics Chemica are materia.. Experiments. You can use in economy (all) kind of money From tech to pharmaceutical What its right? Everything with measure..and there we find ourselves * Birth and death are one.way street 🎉
@@suntzu7727 He made a truth claim, which is a claim that he knows something to be true - ie knowledge. And the claim was ABOUT knowledge. And that ALL KNOWLEDGE (including by definition his claim) comes from our senses. However, the claim itself doesn’t come from his senses, does it? See? So if his claim is true, it’s also false. That’s inconsistent. Equally if his claim is false, his knowledge is false.
@@deanodebo I believe all knowledge comes from the senses, that doesn't mean it ends there or we can't deduce more than that. How else do you begin to know anything? I don't think he claimed that all knowledge ends with senses, did he?
True, we have paid a terrible price for all the revolutions, which were supposed to usher in a better world where rivers of milk and honey flew but nothing of the sort happened.
@@anthhhess3477 If it weren’t for the political revolutions throughout history we’d still be living with economic systems that relied upon up to 50% of the labor being accomplished by “disposable human” slave labor, as things were done in the Classical Greek and Roman world. A vast, often violent and bloody revolution and economic reorganization across Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire ended the era in which slavery was the dominant form of labor in the “civilized” world. This required revolutions … and it was violent … and yes … peoples’s lives were better for it, since slavery in Europe was no longer just a normal accepted practice for land owners to acquire their requisite labor. Fuedalism replaced the Ancient world’s slavery. I’m sure a peasant with some rights and the ability to own land and keep food he grows sees this as milk and honey compared to the life of slave labor just a couple centuries earlier under the Romans. And eventually after many centuries this feudalism of medieval Europe created its own contradictions and problems. So under the oppressive and arbitrary and completely inefficient economic systems created to benefit the monarchies and aristocracies and their supporters and enablers and parasites the Catholic Church / State Religions, revolutionaries began to look for ways out and to improve their increasingly unbearable lives. For example, following the advice of some of the “new men” in his inner circle, Henry VIII overthrew the Catholic Church around 1540, not so much so he could marry Anne Boleyn (like we’re taught … an insipid lust story) as much as it was to grab the vast wealth of the Catholic Church in England and keep 1/3 for himself and allow 2/3 to be redistributed to the nobility but also, thanks to Cromwell much of it went to the rising and ambitious and clever merchant class in England; this was revolutionary! Milk and honey indeed for thousands of newly wealthy entrepreneurs in England trying to establish vast merchant trade and financial relationships across England and Europe, and with wealth stolen from the Catholic Church they could now set about doing that. Milk and honey for tens of thousands of English commoners with a mind for trade and business just lacking in the … what would a few centuries later be called “capital”. And of course in England all this action under the guise of “religious freedom” for Puritans was soon followed by the birth of genuine powerful parliamentary representative democracy in England allied with the first glimmers of capitalism (the English Civil War / Revolution of the early 1600s caused by the intransigence regarding the “divine right of kings” and “personal rule” by Charles I) and later still the total acceptance of both these principles … democracy and capitalism together by the ruling class Founding Fathers in the USA who decided they didn’t want to pay any more taxes to England but at the same time they wanted to steal ALL the wealth and the ownership of the colonies and keep almost all of it for themselves and a small elite group of families, and buy off the commoners with limited democracy, access to weapons like they were European aristocrats, and a land redistribution scheme that allowed anyone to buy small patches of ground none of the elite families wanted for cheap (The American Revolution). Can’t say there wasn’t a lot of milk and honey flowing there if you were white and spoke English! The French Revolution was also primarily an economic reorganization too in order to redistribute the vast hoarded wealth of the French nobility. The Black Jacobin Revolution in Haiti (although the criminal European slavers forced the emancipated ex-slaves of Haiti to pay France back for lost assets! Under threat of naval bombardment. This criminal treaty kept Haiti in debt to France for 122 years. And there’s the Russian Revolution and the Chinese Revolution… the Cuban Revolution… the Vietnamese Civil War … there’s so many more … all of them fought to remedy a broken and unjust economic system and redistribute the wealth that had been unjustly stolen from the working people who whose labor had created it. You must understand that these new modes of economic production, accumulation and re-organization or redistribution didn’t just appear and get accepted with open arms by those who stood to lose, often spectacularly and in huge amounts by accepting these new systems, right? These new settlements required VIOLENT REVOLUTIONARY CHANGE. And yes … despite what we get taught in our conservative-hierarchy ruling class loving school systems, ALL of these revolutions produced quite a lot of MILK AND HONEY going into the hands of people who formerly had none, and little or no control over their own economic future. All revolutions are fought over economics comrade! And when the revolutionaries succeed then there’s a lot of redistribution of wealth … or milk and f’n honey as you put it … flowing into the hands of the formerly poor and exploited. We get taught to fear and hate revolutions. We get taught that throughout history revolutions are “violent and accomplish nothing” except a “change of culture” or “style of government”. And now that we have the “perfect” kind of government … liberal democracy … the only thing a revolution can accomplish is to replace the perfect system with something worse. We get taught this throughout history by the rich oppressive conservative ruling class and the schools they control and the books they write and now the TV shows and movies they make and the media they own, because they stand to lose the most when any new revolution comes. But the fact is, until the final socialist revolution comes and produces the classless society, economic class conflict and economically redistributive and reorganizational revolution are inevitable. The current ruling class will always say revolution is violent and pointless because to them, it is. History proves quite the contrary however, comrade!
Very few revolutions have yielded improvement. The few which have yielded improvement still exacted an enormous toll on almost all involved. I would prefer reform even if it was slow
No one is stopping you from running a utopian company that doesn't require bloodshed. THE problem is Marxist utopianism is rooted in destruction, NOT creativity. It inevitably destroys itself.
Popper should have read Hegel. He may have learned a few things. Yes, I know he has written on Hegel, but his understanding of Hegel is as deep as James Lindsay's, who clearly hasn't read Hegel either. Philosophy isn't a science. It is a unique discipline with its own content. Measuring it against how science operates is sheer folly.
"Popper should have read Hegel" would be a more powerful criticism if one of Popper's greatest works was not devoted in part to exploring Hegel's ideas, with quotes and cogent reflections as well as fierce criticism. It's possible to prefer Hegel to Popper without making claims that no serious Popper scholar would accept.
@@thespiritofhegel3487 popper never understood Hegel and never had any in depth discussion about it. Popper is all about doom and gloom without really offering anything the way Hegel did.
Even a street light is smarter than a human. That too without network. Because of AI and the Nano tech. Almost a million eyes for visuals stored for almost 50 to 60 years. Cellphones are inferior category. Not even a CCD is better.
@@theophilus749 it is uninteresting which is all. We know from history that white anglosaxon males horded the power in their hands when they had it (also back in 1971), so it ain't surprising that in 1971 there are not young female of trans people of color sitting in these chairs. Think about it!
@@leonlx564 Very amusing, though I hate to think where that leaves me. I am not only an old, white, Anglo-Saxon male but I don't even have the philosophical track record of either of these two guys. I suppose that I must have naive brain rot. Not that I much agree with either of their ways of philosophical thinking I have to say - at least on one or two important points.
![[TH] 2024 PMGC League | Survival Stage วันที่ 1 | PUBG MOBILE Global Championship](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FVFT-PFwU80/mqdefault.jpg)
![[MV] A leap of faith...ความเชื่อใจครั้งสุดท้าย (From "Petrichor the series")](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/U1piZH2CNXA/mqdefault.jpg)
This is one of the greatest things Ive ever seen or listened to in my life!!!
I couldn't agree with you more!
That’s a rather mediocre life then.
@@eriontufa please share a few things that would make my life more richer. Thanks😇
@@ashikpanigrahi start with the classics. An audio book of Plato's Republic is free on youtube
It was so nice to watch this discussion. I read their book " the self and its brain"
What a truly delightful discussion immersed in wisdom.
This is gold , thanks for your efforts ❤
Those two do have friendship. I read the festschrift of Sir Karl Popper and I always find a positive review of Sir John Eccles.
As a physicist, this meeting between two amazing personalities talking about the nature of science is absolutely worthy.
As a landscaper, I agree. 😂
Great upload!
Great Scott!!! Legends!!!…..😮
The first principle of philosophy is that human wisdom is worth little or nothing.
This was understood by Socrates, and it is the beginning of philosophy itself.
This is because once you understand that human thinking is, for the most part, unwise,
then you will be open to QUESTIONING IT.
The thought that all human 'wisdom' is fallible leads to a natural desire for true wisdom,
hence the LOVE OF WISDOM.
This love or desire leads to the second principle of philosophy:
The unexamined life is not worth living.
No man wishes to live without the hope of acquiring what he loves,
thus he naturally seeks to acquire true wisdom by examining his life,
and life itself as a whole, in his desire for acquiring true wisdom.
While little true wisdom is ever actually acquired, nonetheless,
a deeper understanding that promises the hope of acquiring more true wisdom
in the future is obtained by means of philosophy.
Philosophy is not an academic subject, it's a never-ending Quest !
Chomsky and Foucault looking strange🤨
Oooh my God , me too I have noticed it was the same moderator from the Chomsky-Foucault debate.
The moderator, Fons Elders hosted a series of philosophical dicussions back in the 70s and the Chomsky-Foucault one is the most well known and widely available. In fact for years it was the only one available until this one with Eccles and Popper was uploaded and I am glad this finally happened!
Thank you for uploading this.
I love Popper! If I remember correctly he says in Utopia and Violence, or perhaps Towards a Rational Theory of Tradition, that he chooses rationality because he cannot stand violence. I find that beautiful. Thank you for the upload.
He wrote about irrationality. That the conclusion of irrationality is violence.
Loved Popper too. But he was incredibly naive (or cynically deceptive) about liberal democracy’s ability to coexist with capitalism. His Austrian economist buddies who also skedaddled out of the German speaking countries in the the early 20th century and founded the Chicago school of neoliberal capitalism (Hayek for example) unleashed the worst kinds of exploitation upon liberal democracy (in the name of economic “freedom” of course … the crypto-aristocrat’s best friend … “FREEDOM!!!”).
Popper pretended the logic of the liberal democratic “individual” was a political principle so sound and wise only the “evil” unfalsifiable “historicism” (that the fascists and the communists both believed in according to Popper) was its only enemy worth considering. And the only valid role of government was to steadfastly defend the radical liberal individualism as he defined it in his very naive way.
At the same time Hayak et al the liberal philosopher economists stubbornly argued that it was the role of government to regulate capitalism, the supposed ideal economic partner of liberal democracy, to reign in its monopolistic and oligarchic tendencies.
Which left the rich capitalists in western liberal democracies the the convenient opportunity to refuse to accept the socialist economic class critique of the radical individualism of Popper, using the fear of socialism and communism borrowed from Hayak, and the rights of freedom of individuals borrowed from Popper to argue against any limitations being placed upon the neoliberal capitalism of Hayak.
A one-two punch against the working people and against egalitarian principles whenever the rich or the aristocrats ever felt themselves cornered by a leftist materialist or socialist politician who wanted to support the interests of the working class.
Once upon a time I loved the simplicity and the clarity of the “freedom” offered by Popper and Hayak and classic liberal politics allied with capitalist free market dogma. But all we end up with when it’s allowed to run it’s course is a brutal class war against the working class (despite the individualism the capitalists always claim to love … they always band together to protect their minority interests with vicious and unscrupulous tactics justified by that most unscrupulous of words … “freedom”.
Fear of violence, or the avoidance of open violence at any cost just leads to the “rationality” of exploitation, and more exploitation within the current ruling hierarchy. Popper is the apologist extraordinaire for the bourgeois capitalist “liberal” democratic society. His own Austrian buddy Hayak is the key proponent of the “rational” violence of capitalism, rationalized as the the ultimate expression of human “freedom”. The freedom to exploit others for profit. Popper refused during his whole life ever to critique this form of violence, the threat of violence which maintains the order within a hierarchical state, and only saw violence where there was revolutionary change.
@@B_Estes_Undegöetz What you’re saying is informative, legitimate and necessary in discussing Popper. Thank you! There is much to be said on both Popper and the concept of freedom, the rights of the individual, liberal contra republican freedom and so on; however, the answer, if there is one, is very complex and neither liberal nor republican, but probably somewhere in between (I use of course ’liberal’ and ’republican’ in regard to the overall theoretical concept of freedom). Popper believed in change from within the existing system/the status quo, much like Kant did, which may seem contradictory to what often is perceived as ’true’ freedom, but if the alternative is revolution, revolutions historically result in disappointment. I think you’re exactly right about Popper’s neoliberalism (the Chicago school, Friedman, and of course Reagan, Thatcher, and I’ll leave it at that as you seem to know this much better than I do). It is indeed interesting that an expert in violence, who rightly says that violence has many different forms and occurs when a belief becomes dogma, is totally fine with economic violence. Thinking and consequently thinkers are always a product of their time, and ’Man is fallible’ as Mill put it, and so are the times.
@@B_Estes_Undegöetz If you value "freedom" it is better to live in the worst outcome of capitalism than to live under the rule of a socialist or communist government.
Priceless!!
Fantastic personlties ❤
Haha, how interesting for me .
I recently listened on audible to the autobiography of Daniel Dennett, the cognitive scientist and philosopher of mind , biology and science, called I've been thinking (2023); In a passage he claims that the book by J.Eccles and K.popper the Self and it's Brain(1977) is the worst book written by eminent men 😁😁(I find it funny when intellectuals get raw in their critics and let go of any gallantry ). The book defends a trialists view of the Mind-body-brain problem while Dennett who is famous among other things for an essay called "where am I" (1978) defends very strongly physicalism .
Being a fan of K.popper's philosophy of science and Dan. Dennett independently and also quite fascinated by neuroscience and adjacent branch thus making me quite interested in why a Nobel prize laureate who made a breakthrough in brain mechanisms such as Eccles is dualist makes me very intrigued by these two people's discussion.
There’s a discussion between Eccles and Searle, in this channel, about this problem. Check it out!
@@rodrigosilveira2525 thanks for the recommendation, but I actually saw it last year ; that's actually where I saw Eccles for the first time.
But thanks for the action of spreading tips to further knowledge 🙌🏼🙌🏼.
@@rodrigosilveira2525Very interesting, thank you for recommendation.
I think Popper is very strong in epistemology so this almost mystical ”dualism” is suprising. I see it as he is giving argument that hard problem of consciousness is unsolvable by science, not super strong but it has some traction.
@@w4ris I too find it quite odd that the greatest philosopher of science of the 20th century is not only a dualist but a trialists (Kuhn and Hempel's name sometime appear in the most cited but his always appear to be the most widely accepted ).
I guess one has to read thoroughly to understand how his ideas came together as such , I for one look forward to it .
Awesome upload 👌 👍
Thank you for uploading this
I liked this for its urbane rationality, its acceptance of terms used not uncritically: it may not represent the height and depth of knowledge, but it sets some good parameters, with some good counters of sense.
thank you
yay! a new upload!!
Theories in physics can be falsified, but physics cannot be falsified if we assume materialism. That means that physics is unscientific.
Read the correspondence between Thomas Szasz and Karl Popper.
I wish we still called science "natural philosophy."
It is interesting it was the natural philosophers who pushed for the change. After the scientific revolution many "natural philosophers" believed that people doing science (experiments) were not worthy of being called philosophers. Hence, the word "scientist" was coined to differentiate them by Whewell.
Which also a philosopher... (Whewell)
@@SeanAnthony-j7fwe are talking about the point at which they split. Of course nobody was using the term before Whewell *invented* it. People started referring to "scientists" and thinking about the difference a few years later after it gained usage
@@Danyel615 I think Whewell coining the term is not the only point. The apparent specializations and rise of more sub-specialized fields like biochemistry, physical chemistry, semi-conductor physics etc. Provoke universities to present lectures and materials to specific divisions of labor and the emphasis on innovation and exact explanations lead us to not challenge our basic assumptions nor debate about it; present alternatives or make metaphysical assumptions from it at the age of secularization is not anymore apparent.
Popper and Eccles were both about 70 years old then.
Today, everyone in the audience (37:13) are older than 70...
I never knew Popper was so funny.
"The way the world.... humanity make is not truth , but perhaps the way the world makes humanity is truth...".......👋😄
That's a beautiful space - anyone know the hall?
Nice table
35:10 no, to say that everything is reducable to physics means that world 2 and world 3 are based in and limited to the laws of physics. Biology is a complex system that emerged within the confines of chemistry, there are no laws of biology that contradict the laws of chemistry, and the same happens between chemistry and physics. Psychology emerged from biology. So in the end psychology is an extremely complex physical structure.
This means there is no real free will, only an illusion of free will and of course no eternal soul because consciousness is an emergent phenomenon withim biology and in biology there is death, so consciousness alao dies (probably, I think, I don't know).
Once upon a time back in the 1980s I loved Popper too. But he was incredibly naive (or cynically deceptive) about liberal democracy’s ability to coexist with capitalism. His Austrian economist buddies who also skedaddled out of the German speaking countries in the the early 20th century and founded the Chicago school of neoliberal capitalism (Hayek for example) unleashed the worst kinds of exploitation upon liberal democracy (in the name of economic “freedom” of course … the crypto-aristocrat’s best friend … “FREEDOM!!!”).
Popper pretended the logic of the liberal democratic “individual” was a political principle so sound and wise only the “evil” unfalsifiable “historicism” (that the fascists and the communists both believed in according to Popper) was its only enemy worth considering. And the only valid role of government was to steadfastly defend the radical liberal individualism as he defined it in his very naive way.
At the same time Hayak et al the liberal philosopher economists stubbornly argued that it was the role of government to regulate capitalism, the supposed ideal economic partner of liberal democracy, to reign in its monopolistic and oligarchic tendencies.
Which left the rich capitalists in western liberal democracies the the convenient opportunity to refuse to accept the socialist economic class critique of the radical individualism of Popper, using the fear of socialism and communism borrowed from Hayak, and the rights of freedom of individuals borrowed from Popper to argue against any limitations being placed upon the neoliberal capitalism of Hayak.
A one-two punch against the working people and against egalitarian principles whenever the rich or the aristocrats ever felt themselves cornered by a leftist materialist or socialist politician who wanted to support the interests of the working class.
Once upon a time I loved the simplicity and the clarity of the “freedom” offered by Popper and Hayak and classic liberal politics allied with capitalist free market dogma. But all we end up with when it’s allowed to run it’s course is a brutal class war against the working class (despite the individualism the capitalists always claim to love … they always band together to protect their minority interests with vicious and unscrupulous tactics justified by that most unscrupulous of words … “freedom”.
Do you list toward socialisms?
Why does every video at 1971 screams 1971
Intelligence!!!!
Science needs ideas, even false ideas
39:59 these things emerged in a Turingish manner as complex systems based on cruder systems.
where was this? town and building..
Tankyo lern me ting
Did Eccles just outright say that he'd prefer not to have mixed race schools? Really embarrasing. I remember him from his weird debate with Searle.
This is what Progressives are proposing today, in essence. Are you a traditional Liberal, a Conservative, or a Progressive? Most Conservatives and Liberals of today would be for mixed classrooms. Most Progressives would not be for mixed classrooms because of their acceptance of CRT. The talk took place in 1971. Back then most everyone thought that mixed classrooms were best. But people of that time were just becoming aware of the issues involved and trying to work their way through them. Historical events are something like internal thought: they cannot always be judged until the process completes. In the end, we had mixed classrooms and most all were happy about it. Now the questions are reappearing and the proposed answers turn our previous thinking on its head. We'll just have to see how things play out.
How can world three and world two influence world one? if they can connect with each other than sure either part of a whole?
Comments
157
Add a comment...
@MrCounsel
0 seconds ago
Discovery of how consciousness works will mark a fundamentally different era in human existence. Ethical treatment of such discovery will be critical. Otherwise, its possible uses evince terrifying ramifications. Convergence of advances of quantum computing, AI, and fusion energy may speed up the process toward that upcoming era.
They started off well, but then rapidly went downhill when they started on the boat other worlds metaphysics guide et cetera.
39:11 we do not really control our thoughts, they come to us automatically. We don't really🎉choose our words, they appear to us. Our actions are also not chosen but occur.
Are you in control of what you just wrote? How do you know what you wrote is correct?
@@bjrnhagen4484 first of all I don't know if what I wrote is correct but it seems that way to me at this point in time. Second of all I think that while at a certain level I seem to hqve control but at a deeper level I do not because my thoughts and inner experiences are also determined for me.
You must ask yourself why a universe that is generated by the principle of least action would produce a redundant consciousness to simply observe events that have already been decided or have already occurred.
@@JackPullen-Paradox I'm not sure about the principle of least action (I don't think I understand what you mean by it) I don't think decisions are actually made though they seem to be. Consciousness emerges when there is a unified nervous system that forawrds all of its input into one place (a brain). Our conscious experience is this system that receives input, interprets and reacts to it in a unified manner.
The universe does not have a reason to create this, there is no intention here only emergent outcomes and what seems to work in a darwinian manner. Have I answered your objection/question? I'm not sure I have...
@@arnonsha1 I mean that the physical world is made to be very efficient by certain measures and that it seems strange that such efficiency would lead to such manifest inefficiency as having the mechanism to generate and carry out a thing and also have another mechanism which views the results of the first mechanism and even believes it has produced them.
If that were the case, I would expect consciousness to eventually become something that not all people have. The effects of added efficiency might lead to the complete elimination of consciousness.
We receive input at the unconscious level also. One would think that certain events such as pain bubble up from the unconscious to the conscious when, for instance, the person is fast asleep. Again, it would seem that the conscious mind contains the executive functions. I.e., the functions of choice and initiation of action. The unconscious has no higher level response to pain.
From what I've said here, I would also say that consciousness is the hallmark of humanity; not necessarily thought or language per se. I would like to think my pets are conscious, but i think if the are, they are at most as aware as a two year old child.
But you were saying that the decisions and initiation of action took place before the conscious mind was aware of the activities. This I cannot agree with.
Anyone else see Bryan Magee at 14:27?
No
37:04 I didn't get it
40:12 not of the lie, of the error, then the option to say a mistake deliberately emerged.
By the way for the Popper's fans, would you please shed dome light on George Soros's admiration of Popper to help us understand the relationdhip 🤔🤔😂 ? Thanks
There’s no “relationship.” Popper is primarily an epistemologist and philosopher of science. But he’s also a classic “liberal”. Individuals as the primary and sole legitimate unit of political analysis. Equality of individuals before the law; freedom for all individuals to own property and have rights to use and dispose of that property as they choose and use and control their body as they choose so long as these liberties do not interfere with the liberties of others to enjoy their own property and liberties, etc. etc. Choose political leaders by democracy. Live free of tyrannical rule by monarchy, aristocracy, oligarchy, or dictatorship, etc.
Popper taught at the London School of Economics so his theories meshed comfortably with mainstream capitalist views of his day as well and he was friendly with fellow liberal (and prominent theorist of neoliberal capitalism) Hayak, although it’s less clear how Popper felt exactly about capitalism itself, he was a vocal critic of Marxism, but NOT as an economic theory, or even a political theory, but more so because Popper took issue with what he called the “historicism” of Marxism … which he claimed was illogical and unscientific therefore not a valid theory upon which to base any good governance.
I’d say most of today’s liberals you’d care to castigate would be attracted to Popper due to his thoroughgoing liberalism founded as it was on a rather rigorous, if naive but easy to understand epistemological theory Popper called “falsificationism”.
Yes, open society in the way of Soros globalism. I am aware if it 😂
popper and Soros falsification of philosophy of history ...
I was very surprised when I opened a copy of Popper's "Open Society" and found the intro was written by Soros. The fundamental difference is that Popper emphasized Rationalism while Soros emphasizes Empiricism. Simply put Popper believed in public criticism and allowing people to change their own minds and then behaviors and then society. Soros does the inverse and believes in top down changes that change society and behaviors and minimizes the freedom of individual thought.
Popper was a mentor of Soros. One difference is Popper found his visits to the U.S. to be a source of optimism and Soros has never had anything but disdain for the U.S. I was very surprised when I opened a recent edition of Popper's “Open Society” and found Soros had written the Foreword. Soros parted with Popper basically because he needed to justify making billions of dollars by ignoring the resultant cost to other people. He explicitly admitted this when he made his billions by helping to destroy the British pound in 1992. He had dealt with previou “guilt” by transferring a large amount of his wealth to his “Open Society Foundation”. To date they say he's given $32 billion to what is now “The Open Society Foundations”! This way he can undermine the U.S. and other road blocks to his globalist billionaire network as a “philanthropist” by promoting Leftist politics. His goal is to come across as a good person trying to make the world better. Better for him to keep and increase his wealth and influence. Viktor Orban was once associated with Soros until he saw his true intentions.
You can watch a 1990's interview of Soros by Steve Croft on 60 minutes to get some quick insight into Soros.
Popper was a mentor of Soros. One difference is Popper found his visits to the U.S. to be a source of optimism and Soros has never had anything but disdain for the U.S. I was very surprised when I opened a recent edition of Popper's “Open Society” and found Soros had written the Foreword. Soros parted with Popper basically because he needed to justify making billions of dollars by ignoring the resultant cost to other people. He explicitly admitted this when he made his billions by helping to destroy the British pound in 1992. He had dealt with previou “guilt” by transferring a large amount of his wealth to his “Open Society Foundation”. To date they say he's given $32 billion to what is now “The Open Society Foundations”! This way he can undermine the U.S. and other road blocks to his globalist billionaire network as a “philanthropist” by promoting Leftist politics. His goal is to come across as a good person trying to make the world better. Better for him to keep and increase his wealth and influence. Viktor Orban was once associated with Soros until he saw his true intentions.
You can watch a 1990's interview of Soros by Steve Croft on 60 minutes to get some quick insight into Soros.
What is Time? One good God, One Conscience, One Holiness! Amin!
How is Popper 69 years old in this video? His ears looks to be at least 93
what are they drinking?
Apple juice, apparently :D
@@MofoWoW damm, though it was whisky
@@cailsd782I thought it might be beer.
@@CesarClouds it might
47:40 based no?
It is so sad not to have Donald Trump’s point of view to enrich the conversation!!!
Healing agents in the age of Trump... Great!
John, we've tried your "whole child" form of instruction here in California for the past 40 years. It has failed. Our test scores are among the lowest in the United States, and instead of reevaluating the policy, we are now doubling-down on them. Your theory has become dogma, one that is difficult to realign to facts. SEL (Social Emotional Learning) the Casel agenda, has inhibited the transition from child to adult, and why so many still either live at home or on our streets here in California. BF Skinner was not entirely wrong.
Than you for shares this video (I have seen)
One it's ideology
Others pragmatic
What philosophy it's?
For how I have read .my opinions it's
Philosophy it's esthetic of minds *
Which starts and ends with both sides ideas and pragmatic
What science it's?
Art*
Which can use for good or bad..reason. depending on ethics and morals
Truth *
It's resive of lies or end of consciousness..
Now society how are ?
They can change depending on powers political system on stage and educational purposes.
Untouchable it's the characters of cultural of geopolitical of climate regions
How society have a critical or none critical relationship between residents
This it's in everything one political power to other send outside for interest..of course out morals.
Just for money
How society can charge someone with out know but just the spread of political people used to excuse them self's? So society doesn't not have value critical or min critical thinking
A healthy society have healthy people
A sick society created sick people.
Now Excistence of God* ? We don't know .for better explanation it's Brains *we can see or not ..
Physics
Chemica are materia..
Experiments.
You can use in economy (all) kind of money
From tech to pharmaceutical
What its right?
Everything with measure..and there we find ourselves *
Birth and death are one.way street
🎉
“All of our knowledge of the world comes to us from our senses”
This claim refutes itself. This claim cannot come from the senses.
Where does it come from?
@@suntzu7727 the claim? The claim is inconsistent. Do you see that?
It’s like saying “there is no such thing as truth claims”, which is a truth claim.
@@deanodebo It is inconsistent with what? The claim does not deny the reality of claims. What are you getting at?
@@suntzu7727
He made a truth claim, which is a claim that he knows something to be true - ie knowledge.
And the claim was ABOUT knowledge.
And that ALL KNOWLEDGE (including by definition his claim) comes from our senses.
However, the claim itself doesn’t come from his senses, does it?
See?
So if his claim is true, it’s also false. That’s inconsistent. Equally if his claim is false, his knowledge is false.
@@deanodebo I believe all knowledge comes from the senses, that doesn't mean it ends there or we can't deduce more than that. How else do you begin to know anything?
I don't think he claimed that all knowledge ends with senses, did he?
T
Popper's espousal of reform as opposed to revolution is typical of bourgeois intellectuals, we have paid a terrible price.
True, we have paid a terrible price for all the revolutions, which were supposed to usher in a better world where rivers of milk and honey flew but nothing of the sort happened.
All revolutions lead to totalitarian and dogmatic societies, including Cuba.
@@anthhhess3477 If it weren’t for the political revolutions throughout history we’d still be living with economic systems that relied upon up to 50% of the labor being accomplished by “disposable human” slave labor, as things were done in the Classical Greek and Roman world. A vast, often violent and bloody revolution and economic reorganization across Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire ended the era in which slavery was the dominant form of labor in the “civilized” world. This required revolutions … and it was violent … and yes … peoples’s lives were better for it, since slavery in Europe was no longer just a normal accepted practice for land owners to acquire their requisite labor. Fuedalism replaced the Ancient world’s slavery. I’m sure a peasant with some rights and the ability to own land and keep food he grows sees this as milk and honey compared to the life of slave labor just a couple centuries earlier under the Romans.
And eventually after many centuries this feudalism of medieval Europe created its own contradictions and problems. So under the oppressive and arbitrary and completely inefficient economic systems created to benefit the monarchies and aristocracies and their supporters and enablers and parasites the Catholic Church / State Religions, revolutionaries began to look for ways out and to improve their increasingly unbearable lives. For example, following the advice of some of the “new men” in his inner circle, Henry VIII overthrew the Catholic Church around 1540, not so much so he could marry Anne Boleyn (like we’re taught … an insipid lust story) as much as it was to grab the vast wealth of the Catholic Church in England and keep 1/3 for himself and allow 2/3 to be redistributed to the nobility but also, thanks to Cromwell much of it went to the rising and ambitious and clever merchant class in England; this was revolutionary! Milk and honey indeed for thousands of newly wealthy entrepreneurs in England trying to establish vast merchant trade and financial relationships across England and Europe, and with wealth stolen from the Catholic Church they could now set about doing that. Milk and honey for tens of thousands of English commoners with a mind for trade and business just lacking in the … what would a few centuries later be called “capital”.
And of course in England all this action under the guise of “religious freedom” for Puritans was soon followed by the birth of genuine powerful parliamentary representative democracy in England allied with the first glimmers of capitalism (the English Civil War / Revolution of the early 1600s caused by the intransigence regarding the “divine right of kings” and “personal rule” by Charles I) and later still the total acceptance of both these principles … democracy and capitalism together by the ruling class Founding Fathers in the USA who decided they didn’t want to pay any more taxes to England but at the same time they wanted to steal ALL the wealth and the ownership of the colonies and keep almost all of it for themselves and a small elite group of families, and buy off the commoners with limited democracy, access to weapons like they were European aristocrats, and a land redistribution scheme that allowed anyone to buy small patches of ground none of the elite families wanted for cheap (The American Revolution). Can’t say there wasn’t a lot of milk and honey flowing there if you were white and spoke English! The French Revolution was also primarily an economic reorganization too in order to redistribute the vast hoarded wealth of the French nobility. The Black Jacobin Revolution in Haiti (although the criminal European slavers forced the emancipated ex-slaves of Haiti to pay France back for lost assets! Under threat of naval bombardment. This criminal treaty kept Haiti in debt to France for 122 years. And there’s the Russian Revolution and the Chinese Revolution… the Cuban Revolution… the Vietnamese Civil War … there’s so many more … all of them fought to remedy a broken and unjust economic system and redistribute the wealth that had been unjustly stolen from the working people who whose labor had created it.
You must understand that these new modes of economic production, accumulation and re-organization or redistribution didn’t just appear and get accepted with open arms by those who stood to lose, often spectacularly and in huge amounts by accepting these new systems, right? These new settlements required VIOLENT REVOLUTIONARY CHANGE. And yes … despite what we get taught in our conservative-hierarchy ruling class loving school systems, ALL of these revolutions produced quite a lot of MILK AND HONEY going into the hands of people who formerly had none, and little or no control over their own economic future.
All revolutions are fought over economics comrade! And when the revolutionaries succeed then there’s a lot of redistribution of wealth … or milk and f’n honey as you put it … flowing into the hands of the formerly poor and exploited.
We get taught to fear and hate revolutions. We get taught that throughout history revolutions are “violent and accomplish nothing” except a “change of culture” or “style of government”. And now that we have the “perfect” kind of government … liberal democracy … the only thing a revolution can accomplish is to replace the perfect system with something worse. We get taught this throughout history by the rich oppressive conservative ruling class and the schools they control and the books they write and now the TV shows and movies they make and the media they own, because they stand to lose the most when any new revolution comes.
But the fact is, until the final socialist revolution comes and produces the classless society, economic class conflict and economically redistributive and reorganizational revolution are inevitable. The current ruling class will always say revolution is violent and pointless because to them, it is.
History proves quite the contrary however, comrade!
Very few revolutions have yielded improvement. The few which have yielded improvement still exacted an enormous toll on almost all involved. I would prefer reform even if it was slow
No one is stopping you from running a utopian company that doesn't require bloodshed. THE problem is Marxist utopianism is rooted in destruction, NOT creativity. It inevitably destroys itself.
Popper should have read Hegel. He may have learned a few things. Yes, I know he has written on Hegel, but his understanding of Hegel is as deep as James Lindsay's, who clearly hasn't read Hegel either. Philosophy isn't a science. It is a unique discipline with its own content. Measuring it against how science operates is sheer folly.
Please convey your tremendously deep understanding of Hegel with plenty of quotations from Hegel.
Popper was never at the level of Hegel. Period.
"Popper should have read Hegel" would be a more powerful criticism if one of Popper's greatest works was not devoted in part to exploring Hegel's ideas, with quotes and cogent reflections as well as fierce criticism.
It's possible to prefer Hegel to Popper without making claims that no serious Popper scholar would accept.
I agree
@@thespiritofhegel3487 popper never understood Hegel and never had any in depth discussion about it. Popper is all about doom and gloom without really offering anything the way Hegel did.
Even a street light is smarter than a human. That too without network. Because of AI and the Nano tech. Almost a million eyes for visuals stored for almost 50 to 60 years. Cellphones are inferior category. Not even a CCD is better.
old white Anglo-Saxon men...
nothing new to be impressed by
oh, yeah, and I realize that "sir" karl is rather Teutonic... he is Anglo-Saxon nevertheless
What have age or race got to do with an assessment of the correctness or falsehood of the philosophy of these two?
Brainrot
@@theophilus749 it is uninteresting which is all.
We know from history that white anglosaxon males horded the power in their hands when they had it (also back in 1971), so it ain't surprising that in 1971 there are not young female of trans people of color sitting in these chairs.
Think about it!
@@leonlx564 Very amusing, though I hate to think where that leaves me. I am not only an old, white, Anglo-Saxon male but I don't even have the philosophical track record of either of these two guys. I suppose that I must have naive brain rot. Not that I much agree with either of their ways of philosophical thinking I have to say - at least on one or two important points.
Interesting hystorical discussion , but what are they drinking ?
One hoped it was Whisky and one claimed it being Apple juice
They started off well, but then rapidly went downhill when they started on the boat other worlds metaphysics guide et cetera.
Metaphysics is an important subject despite the Anglo-American distaste for it.