[lit-ideas] Re: New Program in Psychoanalysis and Culture

--- On Wed, 23/7/08, Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx> wrote?"

> When I wrote the question, I was wobbling and wafting
> between two
> notions of belief:

Popper might suggest this was because you is-a "wobbling and wafting
between two notions".

To stop "wobbling and wafting between two notions" you may need, even as a mere 
heuristic, a theory such as Popper's of the 'Three Worlds'. 
(Anyone who knows his work well, rather than second-hand or based on some 
selective aspects thrown in as part of their syllabus, will know he is flexible 
as to how many 'worlds' etc. we admit: but he sees it as what others might call 
"conceptual confusion" in talking as if there were no distinctions to be 
potentially drawn here).

Popper does not, btw, believe in belief. (As per EMF quotn.).

In what sense?

He does accept that people have beliefs. He accepts that, for example, given 
proposition 'p', people might have a sliding scale of 'belief' in 'p' (i.e. 
scale of "attitude" to 'p', where one attitude is belief).

He _argues_ this is misconceived insofar as it is taken as fundamental to any 
epistemology. 

He _argues_ it is only taken as fundamental by those who think epistemoly. can 
be erected as an objective concern, or equally collapsed as a subjective 
concern, on the basis of a fundamentally _subjective_ theory of knowledge.

His theory is "objectivist" through and through (albeit not Platonic): 
knowledge was "objective" long before the (human) 'subject' came into the 
picture. See his "Objective Knowledge" as a starting-point perhaps. What humans 
added was a W3 to the process of feedback between the 'subject' and its W1 (and 
subsequent W2) environment.

He argues that so-called 'epistemic logic' - the idea of exploring the 
conceptual links between belief, truth, and justification - is misconceived. 
That 'JTB=knowledge' is mistaken and relies on a traditional 'subjectivist" 
conception of 'knowing' [that X] as having a 'justified true belief' [that X].

There's more, much more.

But few are taught Popper's stuff in any serious or fair or knowledgable way 
(my contact with this list corroborates that): compare with Popper someone who 
got a First from Oxford because of their understanding of Hume/Berky/Loc by 
tutors who said dismissively "Though its not essential to your course, you 
perhaps should be aware there is this chap called Kant - not compulsory study 
of course - but chucking a few dismissive comments like you have actually read 
him closely, can impress the kind of traditionalist numb-nuts who will mark 
your papers." 

Who's in charge now of overseeing the fairness of academic philos.? And who 
does/doesn't get a fair hearing in this field so wide it is impossible to do 
justice to all?

Popper's W321 theory was dismissed by one Oxbridge Prof. as "a mule".

Brilliant. And I supppose I'll get as far as you have by calling you an ass.

D


      __________________________________________________________
Not happy with your email address?.
Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at 
Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
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: