[lit-ideas] Re: Popper and Impopper
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 13:03:46 +0100 (BST)
There is a high moral seriousness in Popper's work in so far as his work bears
on moral, social and political philosophy; one of his passages runs that
humankind has created many new worlds, including the world of art and the world
of music and the world of science, but the most important of these new worlds
is the world of morals and of ethical demands.
OTOH, he thought many of our ethical mistakes arise from a misguided moralism
(as opposed to our individual foibles and shortcomings in living up to our
standards) - particularly in the field of political and social philosophy where
misguided moralism can lead us by the nose into all kinds of dangerous and
ethically wrong commitments.
He thought it very difficult to write on moral philosophy without merely giving
off "hot air" and that the most important kind of moral discussion typically
concerns not generalities of moral philosophy but practical moral problems.
OTOH, his own philosophical arguments for indeterminism, rationality based on
critical discussion, and the 'objective' or World 3 status of 'knowledge', are
in defence of humans as having sufficient freedom and intelligence to be moral
beings.
Some might say his own moral views clouded some of his philosophical judgments
to a point where these are misguided - his view that Hegel was an insipid
charlatan meant he was unable to give Hegel a more charitable reading than as
a historicist precursor of Fascism; his view that Marx was an essentially moral
man devoted to enlarging human freedom meant he was far too charitable in his
reading of Marxist philosophy; he quite seriously dismisses Heidegger's
philosophy because Heide is someone who should be simply blackballed for his
ethical failings. Another strand of criticism, well conveyed by Bryan Magee, is
that in some practical political matters Popper could be blinded by morals -
for example, in Popper's belief that the Britain ought to militarily resist the
Argentinian occupation of the Falklands - though others might say Popper was
not blinded but merely had views on responding to the acts of military
dictatorships that were formed in the
crucible of the rise of Nazism and Communism and the resulting World War - (to
use the demotic) that force is "the only language they understand".
He 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".
Donal
London
On Monday, 21 October 2013, 8:49, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
“Popper is not usually regarded as contributor to moral philosophy, although
someone compiled a lexicon of technical philosophical terms with an entry
"Popper, (verb):- As in 'To philosophise in a tone of high moral seriousness,
the converse of which is Impopper'."
Rafe Champion, 'A Guide to The Open Society and its Enemies (The Popular
Popper)'.
Other related posts:
