[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:

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.

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