[lit-ideas] Re: The De-Exctinction of Post-Modernism

  • From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 10:32:53 +0100 (BST)




________________________________
 From: Walter C. Okshevsky <wokshevs@xxxxxx>

>I couldn't see why dead or mistaken philosophies could not be part of P's Third
World on the criteria he gives. Some of Bach's boring musik could surely make
it past P's pearly gates, as could the theory of phlogiston, Rembrandt's
self-portrait with Aristotle in attendance, Hitler's *Mein Kampf* and poorly
played games by the Montreal Canadiens.>

There aren't "criteria" as such for entering World 3: that is part of the 
point. Something becomes part of World 3 because its existence - its content, 
particularly considered from a logical POV - has a status logically independent 
of World 2 and even World 1. 

There is not any 'quality control' test, by way of "criteria", for content of 
this sort to satisfy before it attains its World 3 status. In this way, World 3 
status tells us about the metaphysics of knowledge, and from this important 
considerations as to the theory of knowledge may be drawn. But the fact that 
'content' [whether Bach's or Einstein's or Rembrandt's or Hitler's] has World 3 
status of itself tells us nothing about its epistemic status in the sense of 
its epistemic value. 

So Walter's remarks and tone are misplaced; and Walter will struggle to find a 
passage where Popper uses "criteria" in relation to the theory of World 3 as 
Walter uses the term, which of course indicates that Walter does not understand 
Popper's theory that well (though Walter clearly thinks he understands it well 
enough to write about it): World 3 is not "P's pearly gates"; and while it 
would be correct to regard the content of Mein Kampf as inhabiting World 3, it 
is hardly to the point to do this with a sneer at the theory of World 3, or to 
think such a sneer amounts to any worthwhile criticism of P's theory of World 
3. 

Walter is not at all clear as to how "poorly played games by the Montreal 
Canadiens" have World 3 status, and this is surely because what constitutes 
"poorly played games by the Montreal Canadiens" is an interactive hybrid of 
physical World 1 acts, World 2 understandings and the World 3 content of the 
"games" and their rules. To think such an interactive hybrid is in World 3 or 
has World 3 status is to perpetuate the very confusions between World 1, World 
2 and World 3 that Popper, as a first-rate logician and philosopher, is keen to 
differentiate.

Also there is no such thing as "Bach's boring musik", and, as there is no such 
thing, no such thing exists in World 3. 

There is, however, misplaced and ill-considered philosophical criticism, and - 
yes - this does attain World 3 status despite its poor quality.

Donal
England

Other related posts: