/lit/ - Literature

Is there any philosophy of science book that doesn't feel like the physical embodiment of Reddit?

reddit: the philosopher

Any books on modern "democracy" and the ideology of the current ruling class? Picrel seems to be influential, since he formulated the idea of defending liberal open society against actual democracy ('populism').

How the hell can you think tolerance is meaningful in light of the paradox of tolerance?

What the fuck do progressives even tolerate?

Why is anglo philosophy such absolute shit?

Did it ever occur to him that his Paradox of Tolerance could be used to show that progressives or tolerant people are not actually tolerant?

Think about it, who is Popper, a progressive, actually tolerant towards? The answer is obviously just other progressives. They might speak different languages or cook weird foods and say that god exists, but at the end of the day, their political opinions just happen to align with him. It's progressives and conservatives who are "kept in check"

He says that so long as he can keep the intolerant in check with "rational argument" and "public opinion" then suppressing the intolerant won't be necessary until they start to actually do something about their ideas, or "refuse to listen to reason." One can wonder just how exactly someone can argue with a Taliban fighter to convince him that women should not be forced to wear a Burqa. One can also wonder how the Taliban could convince him that they should. Do either of them hold the final argument to the ultimate truth of the universe? If critical thinking, something that is championed by progressives, has taught me anything then no. And if we don't actually have certain truth about anything, to think so would require one to be uncritical, then what even is the point of arguing? Rhetoric? Persuasion?

>Karl Pooper
OH NO NO NO


Looks like The Open Society and It's Enemies has been refuted

If Wittgenstein had killed this goblino, the world would be a much better place.

>>20666293
>>20666317
Tldr: a falsifiable, scientific historicism (theory of history) CAN be created.

My vision: this Theory of History is monist. It belies a realization that the last 2,500 years of philosophical thought, and really thousands of thousands of years of perennial philosophy (even beyond the Dead Sea scrolls) belie 3 fundamental problems (from most significant, to less)
>1. dualism vs monism
>2. Is there objective Truth?
>3. Is there free will?

The logical framework for my treatise:
>Reactionism is an intellectually bankrupt exercise. To create coherent thought, we need to look beyond. The question of objective Good does *not* present a fourth fundamental problem of perennial philosophy because the question of objective Good is ultimately reactionary. To what it is a reaction? To the question of objective Truth. In this sense, ultimately, objective Truth and objective Good are expressions of each other. This is the axiom of my thinking, which I shall dub "monistic" or "neo-Popperian"

1. Dualism is part of the reactionary framework. I believe that dualism begins in the very beginning of abstract thought in any individual human. Dualism is first represented in the behavioral development of an individual human between the ages of 3 and 8. This representation is basically an unconscious internalization of the master-slave dialectic. We arrive in the world (in the Heideggerian sense) with abstract thought and are thus completely alone with how to organize our conscious lives. So we unconsciously internalize the master-slave dialectic (in the Hegelian herrschaft und knecht sense, but also kind of in the Nietzschean sense) as a means of securing our initially extremely insecure selves (Dasein). Then what follows throughout behavioral development is first a fracture of dualism at the age of 8-10 when we begin to question external (outside of the Family) meta-narratives/grand narratives, and then at the age of 14-16 starts the questioning of the meta-narratives/grand narratives of our own parents, and whether they have any. And we tend to realize, because that's the case for most people, that our parents don't really have an epistemological narrative which fully explains their Dasein themselves. And so, what follows from here, is an existential crisis for the adolescent. And from there on, behavioral development diverges into either of 2 things:
>(a) obscurantism in the Popperian sense
>(b) enlightenment in the Popperian sense
most people, unfortunately, fall into (a). those lucky few who fall into (b) have a realistic possibility of becoming Nietzschean Ubermenschen

Unironically the hitherto greatest philosopher in History (and I get how ironic this sounds)

I believe that through his critique of pseudoscience and hitherto attempts at historicism, a true historicism based on Heidegger can be created

discuss

Is liberal democracy worth defending?

FUCK Karl Popper

https://aeon.co/essays/how-popperian-falsification-enabled-the-rise-of-neoliberalism
leftists are coming after popper now. leftists are coming after popper because he was a champion of intellectual honesty, whereas leftists reject objective reality and want science to be nothing more than a tool of leftism (trust the SCIENCE).

Popper was a philosopher and an AUTHOR, ok? Therefore, a discussion about Popper is pertinent to this board. You illiterate fat trannie jannies. Open a book.

>I think that we shall have to get accustomed to the idea that we must not look upon science as a "body of knowledge", but rather as a system of hypotheses, or as a system of guesses or anticiptations that in principle cannot be justified, but with which we work as long as they stand up to tests, and of which we are never justified in saying that we know they are "true"...
Why is that "I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE" types of people still exist in the year of our lord 2021? Haven't they read POPPER?

Popper's critic of Plato's philopher king is the worst shit I have ever read holy shit.

>leave Hegel to me

>>17922508
Retroactively refuted by Karl Popper, which is embarrassing.

>if society is tolerant towards all ideas then it gets overtaken by intolerant people so we should not be tolerant towards ideas we disagree with at all

Why do so many leftist brainlets take this guy seriously? Don't they realise that their analogy with fascism can be also applied to radical islam and communism?

How did he misinterpret Plato?

"Scientism" isn't false because "scientism" isn't a thing. It's a pejorative used by faggot psueds and you're a faggot pseud for using the term.

Could someone kindly summarize for me what the fuck people like Karl Popper and other Open Society faggots are trying to say? I go down the rabbit hole of research and the road always ends with these unfinished concepts and theories like moral universalism and normative ethics. Am I just too low IQ to understand these concepts? I am open minded and trying to see the place they are coming from.

What's the point of studying any philosophy besides Popper?
Also, is metaphysics dead?