[lit-ideas] Guy from Seinfield ruins it for Donal
- From: "Donal McEvoy" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "donalmcevoyuk" for DMARC)
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 01:30:08 +0000 (UTC)
I will use this post to slip in something.>
And I will use this post (btw, a while ago I really did slip in something as my
dry-cleaning shows).
I received an email yesterday that told me of Sir Paul Nurse's lecture of
months ago. It served as a useful reminder that I had missed it - or would have
if I had not been completely unaware of the lecture until the email.
You can listen to the lecture (at least I can). But that is not the point.
Before the point I wish to say one thing - I know many of you are hoping it's
"Sorry" but it isn't. It's that email also alerted me to the fact that Stephen
Thornton's Stanford Entry on Popper has been "substantively revised" - using
the scare quotes. Rightly.
Many years ago I had correspondence with Professor Thornton that ended
acrimoniously, at least on his part - I was more forgiving of myself. The
criticisms of his entry that I put to him I also put on the old list, the one
before Larry went to Theoria. The criticisms are right btw - but right or not,
I can assure you that the relevant parts that I criticised have been
"substantively revised" not one jot. Professor Thornton will go his grave
giving a quite misleading picture of the problems with Popper's philosophy (and
there are many, it is full of problems). The only thing Thornton gets right is
that there is an ongoing problem in defining verisimilitude but it is way
premature to think this problem shipwrecks Popper's theory of knowledge and
even his theory of versimilitude.
Ignoring my criticisms, Thornton does however have this to say - and I'm
beginning to realise I'm digressing - on a topic on which I never previously
have said a bad word about Thornton's entry (at least not that I remember).
"Popper holds, [the open society] is not autopian ideal, but an empirically
realised form of social organisationwhich, he argues, is in every respect
superior to its (real orpotential) totalitarian rivals. But he does not engage
in a moraldefence of the ideology of liberalism; rather his strategy is the
muchdeeper one of showing that totalitarianism is typically based
uponhistoricist and holist presuppositions, and of demonstrating thatthese
presuppositions are fundamentally incoherent."
Well blow me down. You see afaik every form of social organisation that ever
existed has been "empirically realised", including that in Nazi Germany - so I
am unclear what the contrast might be between any social organisation in terms
of it being "empirically realised" or not. But do social organisations actually
ever exist in terms of their ideal? The truth is that there was a fact to Nazi
Germany but also ways it didn't live up to the Nazi ideal, and the same is true
of open societies - even where they are some sort of fact or "empirically
realised" they also always fall short of their ideal, and in this latter sense
are never fully "empirically realised". The term "empirically realised" is just
academese really: can there be social organisation that is "non-empirically
realised"? (I think Wittgenstein, who Thornton follows, would have a fit at
this nonsense). What is true, according to Popper, is that the open society is
an ideal but a significantly realisable ideal. So what? We kind of knew this.
The question is why we should prefer an open to a closed society - and it's not
as simple as it looks.
To really understand Popper's view of the open society we have to understand
Popper's theory of knowledge - and Thornton doesn't.
Btw, Popper is quite clear that there is a price to be paid for living in an
open rather than closed society and Prof Thornton is again talking through his
chapeau when he asserts that Popper thinks open societies are "in every respect
superior" to closed ones. No, no, no. In fact, it would be possible to have a
closed society that was in many ways morally better than a possible open
society - and historically we may imagine there were relatively closed
societies which were morally better than parts of New York in 1973, though
those parts were in an open society. Thornton makes Popper sound childish in
his defence of the open society.
But the biggest laugh is that Popper allegedly refutes totalitarianism as
"fundamentally incoherent" in its presuppositions. Only a professor of the
worst type would, I suggest, think the real problem with totalitarianism isn't
how it wastes lives, leads to murder and torture and war, but that it is
"fundamentally incoherent" in its presuppositions. Thornton is on another
planet to Popper, intellectually and morally, in writing this rubbish. Popper
does not argue that historicism is "incoherent" but false. Nor is holism
incoherent: it has many coherent versions and some are even true - but "holism"
as a form of social explanation is mostly bunk. Again "incoherent" is just
academese. Perhaps Thornton should "interrogate" the "concept" of "incoherent"
as part of his next substantial revision?
Popper "does not engage in a moraldefence of the ideology of liberalism"? Well,
yes and no. Popper doesn't defend the ideology of anything. He's deeply against
ideologies. But if he were to defend an ideology, "liberalism" might be one:
but it would not be the "liberalism" of 'market fundamentalists' or of radical
libertarians or anarchists - in would be the liberalism needed to keep
societies as "open" and non-violent as possible. And that liberalism is as
anti-ideological as any ideology gets.
But Thornton has just thrown me off my point and into depression.
The point is this: if you follow the link you will find that the guy that
played George in Seinfield is a Popperian. That's it. I'm off. I'm outta here.
How Philosophy Drives Discovery: A scientist's view of Popper [Audio]
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
| |
How Philosophy Drives Discovery: A scientist's view of Popper [Audio]
| |
|
|
From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, 6 January 2017, 18:05
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Intelligence, emotional sophistication, and social
interaction - move over, Rover
I will use this post to slip in something.
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] Guy from Seinfield ruins it for Donal - Donal McEvoy
