[lit-ideas] Re: Patrick and the Snakes: the logic of falsification [errata]

  • From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 06:52:47 -0700 (PDT)




________________________________
 From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 12:57 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Patrick and the Snakes: the logic of falsification 
[errata]
 


Btw, when I was still at school I wrote to Popper having come acrossThe Open 
Society in my school's library [it had 'Marx' in the title and Marx was one of 
the thinkers we studied in 'Politics']: and my letter criticised Popper's 
treatment of Marx among other things. He replied, and a gist of his reply was 
that my specific criticism might be answered and he might have written more to 
me by way of an answer but the answer relies on the "over-optimistic" 
assumption that all two volumes of The Open Society had been read and digested. 
At the time this seemed somewhat unsatisfactory, even evasive: but I think I 
understand now what Popper meant and what he meant also applies, I later 
thought, to the kind of paper Kaufmann has written.

*And certainty this rejoinder could apply to Popper himself who, as Kaufmann 
points out, uses a fairly limited selection of Hegel's work, which has quite a 
bit more than two volumes. (Especially if we include also the published 
lectures, which I find to be a more 'user-friendly' portion of his work, but 
which Popper doesn't seem to touch.)

Other related posts: