/lit/ - Literature

>>4169429
Stop. No one cares about you.

Hegel was merely intellectualizing mysticism, prove me wrong

>>3048299
Oh boy, would I like to Popper cherry, amirite guys?

So /sci/ is a bunch of brain dead faggots.

What do you think of Mr Sir Popper /lit/?

I've been reading his stuff lately and he is quite the chap.

The best religion is so vague about God, and rightly so, that one can hardly say there is anything tangible which can be tested. It is only something which appeals to our feelings. So far as religion is testable, it seems false. This is not an accusation because religion is not science. This is an accusation against theologians who go on treating religion as if it were science.

I have introduced the falsification criterion in order to distinguish science from what is not science. Because something isn't science, however, does not mean that it is meaningless. We stand naked before God. In a sense that is quite right... When l look at what I call the gift of life, I feel a gratitude which is in tune with some religious ideas of God. However, the moment I even speak of it, I am embarrassed that I may do something wrong to God in talking about God.

~ Karl Popper, Skeptic Magazine

>>904706
>in epistemology, we just call that a fact.

Uh, well that's wrong. I'm not a philosophy major but even I am aware of the term "epistemological fact." e.g.:

"Paradigmatic epistemological facts are expressed by sentences using terms such as those on the following list provided by Alvin Goldman:

justified,
warranted,
has (good) grounds,
has reason (to believe),
knows that,
sees that,
apprehends that,
is probable (in an epistemic or inductive sense),
shows that,
establishes that
ascertains that.
(Goldman, 1979: 1-2)

The crucial thing about sentences using these terms are that they seem to do more than merely describe how things are. They say or imply how something is to be evaluated from an epistemological perspective. Traditional epistemologists take these evaluative epistemological sentences to be objectively true or false, and thus they are committed to there being epistemological facts."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-naturalized/

>universal axiom
>no, it's an empirical claim

No, it's a claim about epistemology, not ontology. It is not a positivist "empirical" claim. However, by many usages such as that of Popperian critical rationalism, logic is "empirical" insofar as it rests on reasonable ontological, empirical assumptions. Subjective value is deductively true by definition given these assumptions - things like volition, cognition, existence of the physical world, etc.

Seems the ignorant one is you, anon.

{Political Science}

Escape from Leviathan by JC Lester
Beyond Politics
For a New Liberty
The Enterprise of Law

{Economics}

Machinery of Freedom
Man, Economy, and State
From Marx to Mises
Mind of the Market

{Philosophy}

The Evolution of Morality by R. Joyce
The Retreat to Commitment by W.W. Bartley
Introduction to Logic by H. Gensler

>>642913
>Thomas Hobbes

Once you look at it critically, the gaps and loopholes and inconsistencies in Marxism become obvious. Take its central point with respect to violence, the dictatorship of the prols: who were to be the prols? Lenin, Trotsky, and the other leaders? The communists had never formed a majority. They did not even hold a majority among the workers in the factory. Take the heart of the Marxian argument - It consists of a broken historical prophecy, combined with an implicit appeal to the following moral law: Help to bring about the inevitable!

~ Karl Popper

>>469727

Once you look at it critically, the gaps and loopholes and inconsistencies in Marxism become obvious. Take its central point with respect to violence, the dictatorship of the prols: who were the prols? Lenin, Trotsky, and the other leaders? The communists had never formed a majority. They did not even hold a majority among the workers in the factory. Take the heart of the Marxian argument - It consists of a historical phrophecy, combined with an implicit appeal to the following moral law: Help to bring about the inevitable!
- Karl Popper

U mad?