He won. The last 40 years of history back him.
>>25261782Popper was an intellectual hatchet-man. He could not understand one single page of Plato let alone Hegel. I can't express my contempt for him in words alone. I don't doubt that there are some "good" analytic philosophers but the ones I've read (Moore, Popper, Quine, Russell) have all been rank sophists, basically wannabe STEMfags who don't think anyone outside their circlejerk is worth understanding and cloak per accidens fallacies in pseudo-rigorous logical symbolism. (For example: Moore's 'refutation' of the idealists amounts to - 'being perceived is in the passive voice. Therefore, it's impossible for being and being-perceived to be the same because a passive verb inherently involves a second term.' First, it's a fucking retarded argument. Second, none of the German idealists denied that cups and hands and chairs were real).
>>25261782What, you mean the open society? Gee sure feels great being masochistic in absolutely every organizational regard because walls are offensive.Do feel free to elaborate though if that's not what you meant.
>>25261792Cope and seethe, Russell outlines how Idealism has been entirely demolished in "The Problems of Philosophy"
>>25262222He didn't even know what idealism was. He could read German and majored in philosophy studying under Hegelians but it's like he didn't understand a single word. The whole 'x doesn't *understand* y thinker' is really played out especially with this school in but Russell really didn't understand anything on even the most basic, say honors-undergrad level. And neither did Popper. There are posters on this very board who know the history of philosophy better than Russell or Popper.
>>25261792Popper was a massive fraud. All personality no substance. The war and Holocaust wiping out all his contemporaries was the best thing that happened to his career. Disagree on Russell though.
>>25261782Everything I've read from this guy makes him come off as a gigamidwit, I genuinely think he would be a common reddit contributor if he were born 50 years later
>>25261782The hoooook brings you back
>>25262725>>25261792itt midwits seething. Fancy Hegelian language doesnt make you right, you PostModern Conventionalists!
>>25261792>Therefore, it's impossible for being and being-perceived to be the same because a passive verb inherently involves a second term.'Not seeing a counterargument here on your end.
>>25262237Russell understood Hegel and Bradley far better than you did I would assume. Just because he noted the sophisticatal arguments and you were enchanted by them doesnt mean he didnt understand it.
>>25261782
>>25263797Fascism is liberalism in crisis.
>>25263797>You should suppress your enemiesHuge brain. The biggest.
>>25261782Maybe I'm missing something, but how does the paradox of tolerance make any sense? It's like making a paradox of pacifism, saying that if we let people be violent then it's impossible to be nonviolent as a society, so we have to then either imprison or eliminate people who are violent, which is itself violent, thus obviously not achieving pacifism. And people aren't either tolerant or nontolerant, they generally oscillate, so you can't really divide people into the 2 groups then act accordingly, because once all the ones you thought were intolerant are gone, more intolerant ppl will naturally arise since it's more of a mood anyways. Ya feel?
>>25263871John Stuart Mill solved this in "On Liberty". If we value freedom as an absolute principle, can a man be permitted to sell himself into slavery? In this case, we can still adhere to our principle in denying him this liberty, since if we allow it, it forecloses all possible future liberty. So it may appear as a paradox to the unsophisticated thinker, but denying freedom in that case preserves more freedom over all. The same principle can be applied to tolerance, pacifism, etc, I.E. "How do we set up society to sustainably maximize tolerance/peace?" and the answer may required limited intolerance or limited violence, which can be considered legitimate only in as far as it reasonably advances the over all decrease of those things.
>>25264020>If we value freedom as an absolute principle, can a man be permitted to sell himself into slavery? In this case, we can still adhere to our principle in denying him this liberty, since if we allow it, it forecloses all possible future liberty. So it may appear as a paradox to the unsophisticated thinker, but denying freedom in that case preserves more freedom over all.Brilliant stuff. I only have 59 units of freedom today though and it's bumming me out. English philosophers are so smart it's almost scary.
>>25264020Forbidding a guy his agency is limiting his freedom though, and even freedom to yourself by orienting your own behavior around his. By claiming to preserve more freedom or tolerance or peace overall by repression, you are just transferring abuse of principles from others to yourself, demonstrating you don't actually have principles.
>>25261782Have you ever heard of a thing called a confirmation bias
>>25263834This is the problem: they aren't "your" enemies, they're the enemies of life itself. Suicidal retards. No, this doesn't apply to people with Tourette's who cannot control what they say at times.Popper was right.
>>25261782He was a reactionary garbing himself as a liberal. Total establishment cuck
>>25264078We should all say we have tourettes to get brownie points from the woke brigade.
>>25261782Popper can't win, he can only not lose when his testable predictions are put to experiment.
>>25264023>>25264067>Pfft, you make investments? But you want to grow your money, how can you do that by spending it on an investment!?! You're violating the principle of growing your money if you spend it on an investment!God the average IQ on this board is double digits.
>>25264272>The only way to stop murder is by murdering all the murderers!Brilliant
>>25264351>The only way to stop murder is by murdering all the murderersUnironically yeah
>>25261782But I thought he stood against history?
>>25263797tolerance is good or bad depending on whether its out of charity or out of callous disregard for the perceived sin>>25264020>can a man be permitted to sell himself into slaveryGod allows people to sell themselves into slavery to sin but also allows slaves of sin to arbitrarily become free by acknowledging Jesus
>>25263797>>25264020The thing that gets me about the paradox of tolerance is that it basically admits his ideas are weak and ineffectual. If you tolerate any “intolerant” ideas to proliferate, then it’ll just sweep aside all of your arguments and ideas and take control? Doesn’t the entire concept admit that there’s at least some validity to the intolerant ideas? People don’t just pick up ideas for no reason. There’s usually some reason people believe something even if the reason is emotional.
>>25263797>>25263871>>25264905Somehow this is what Popper is famous for, as if it's his main idea, when it comes from this single -footnote-
>>25264905I think Eric Hoffer sums up as to why. I made a slight critique of him years ago but I've come around.
>>25264917The actual footnote seems more reasonable, at first, but it still seems like cope to me.But isn’t Popper also known for the whole you could’ve been born at the lowest rung of society so we should elevate the lowest run because that’d suck if it were you thing?
>>25264950Maybe you're thinking of Rawls with the Veil of Ignorance?
>>25264917I'm not deep into this political philosophy, but I don't see what's so difficult for him about this. If a group is conspiring to overthrow the laws of your country, then they are enemies and can be treated like any foreign enemy or traitor. On the other hand, if their aim is to lawfully build public support for a constitutional degeneration to a despotic form of government, then they would have the consent of the governed on their side, and that is the final authority. You can't build a political security system that is finally invulnerable to bad wills of humans; humans run the system!Maybe his point is that the use of force even against criminal political conspirators is politically counterproductive, since it spends your moral authority and gives them martyr status.
>>25264953You’re right. That’s what I was thinking of. I guess Popper really is best know for a footnote that got distorted into a retarded version for a reddit infographic. That’s just sad. Your entire life’s work overshadowed by a distorted footnote used by redditers to justify being retarded.
>>25264958Well, he's also remembered maybe even more for falsifiability, which might not be better given its track record among "I fucking love science" types.
>>25264968The alternative is way worse with the "it came to me in a dream" types.
>>25261782I tried to read this book about the open society, and it was terrible. It falls intellectuall very short.The book about science is something that has been debunked by Thomas Kuhn, Feyerabend and later the serious historians of science.
>>25261792>I was to stupid to understand basic logic, therefor I call it 'pseudo-rigorous logical symbolism'Loughts in Gödel and Hilbert.>>25262237You have no idea what you're talking about, right?Russell was Hegelian in part of his early life, he spokes German very well and, in addition, during his times, the British idealism peaked and was influenced by Hegel.>>25263797I hate this midwite trap so much...
