[lit-ideas] How Impopper Can Popper Be
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 12:50:28 -0400 (EDT)
In a message dated 10/21/2013 8:03:54 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx plays with D. C. Dennett's definitions:
http://www.philosophicallexicon.com/
popper, adj. Exhibiting great moral seriousness; impopper, frivolous.
Popper, McEvoy claims, "is capable of combining high moral seriousness with
impopper humour: not many philosophers would devote a footnote entirely to
the following: fn.8 to "The Autonomy of Sociology" - "I wish to apologize
to the Kantians for mentioning them in the same breath as the Hegelians"".
The thing is that Dennett would hold that possibly:
Popper is being impopper is contradictory (even if not self-contradictory).
Or not.
Cheers,
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] How Impopper Can Popper Be - Jlsperanza
