[lit-ideas] Re: The continued mistreatment of Karl Popper by academics
- From: John Wager <jwager@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 21:53:27 -0600
Robert Paul wrote:
If I were Donal, I'd probably feel the same as he about the
mistreatment of one of my philosophical heroes. I'm not sure thought
that I'd see this as having, so to speak, moral overtones.
OK, I can't resist this opening. Who ELSE, besides Popper, would those
on the list propose as being "poorly-treated" by other thinkers? In
EITHER being ignored, OR in being badly mis-understood?
I would propose Karl Jaspers. Mostly because I did a dissertation on
Kant's influence on him, and nobody else seemed to give a darn about
Jaspers, even when I was working on it back in the 1970's. Since then,
he's gotten even less popular and less influential, while everybody is
still gaga over Heidegger.
Why is Jaspers still worth attention?
Well, his background in psychiatric medicine and science is not typical
for someone labeled as from the "existential" branch. He has more
sympathy and understanding of clinical practice and the practice of
medical science than almost any other 20th century philosopher.
Also his indebtedness to Kant, in ways that creatively transform Kant's
three critiques into his own three-volume PHILOSOPHY. His insistence on
the role of reason and science runs counter to most subsequent
continental philosophy, and seems to me to be an attractive path to
those of a more linguistic or analytical bent.
Lastly, his political and social views of the nature of "mass culture"
and responsibility, particularly the nature of the Nazi movement and its
expansion into German society. Jaspers and Heidegger stand poles apart
here, and I'm always astounded at this and how much more influential
Heidegger was despite our uncomfortableness with his politics.
So who else do we add to the list besides Popper and Jaspers?
Other related posts:
