[lit-ideas] The Worlds of Sir Karl Popper
- From: "" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx" for DMARC)
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2015 08:23:47 -0500
In a message dated 2/5/2015 9:11:22 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
D
Waiting for time and space
Ldn
Well, space seems to be encompassed by Ldn, although it is a tricky
referential expression, if ever there was one. I think Mill discusses the
denotation (never connotation) of "London" in System of Logic (the logical
textbook for any nineteenth-century Oxonian student) and concludes that it
overlaps with what the Romans called "Londinium".
While Donal is 'waiting for time and space', one wonders about Popper.
Sometime, Popper decides that there are three worlds. He wasn't _waiting_. He
wasn't waiting for the solution of problems that the invocation of these
three realms would create. Perhaps he even relished the fact that his
invocation of three worlds would create problems.
That would be odd, since he thought, Popper did, that solvable, and
reasonable, problems arise in _science_, rather than philosophy; yet the
invocation of three worlds, as McEvoy might agree, pertains to _metaphysics_,
where
'progress' is, if I may use a mixed metaphor, more obscure.
There are paradigmatic items for each world as appealed by Popper. W1 is
the physical world of 'material objects', such as ... Eddington's Table. But
Eddington was never sure what his table consisted of. He concluded:
wavicles.
W2 is the world of the Psyche -- something so ethereal that the Greeks
represented as a female with eternal curiosity (as per Canova's statue -- I'm
actually studying the libretto to Bartok's "Bluebeard" where the references
to this topic may be seen to re-appear). W2 is the world of the soul, 50%
of philosophers agree that does not exist.
W3 is the world of objective knowledge, when Popper knows that most
philosophers take 'knowledge' to pertain to psychology, and avoid 'objective'
like the rats (This English expression, 'like the rats', shows little sympathy
for this species of mammals). It is perhaps Popper's most controversial
world.
There was once a film (a flop in London): "The World of Beatrix Potter". It
is in this spirit that I have entitled this post as I have.
So what was Popper thinking when he comes with this which he KNEW was going
to be 'controversial'. Was there progress in his view of this. Did he ever
acknowledged that perhaps he was (let's say, 'falsificationally')
mistaken?
Cheers,
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
