/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15073105]

>The most underrated philosopher of 20th century


It’s a real shame people tend to look over this guy

[Anonymous No.15073114]

>>15073105
replace underrated with overrated and you're right

[Anonymous No.15073567]

Another Jewish guy who started off as a Marxist, then later stealthily switched tactics and spent his life critiquing and finding fault with everything, except "liberal democracy", and taught that we must be tolerant goyim!-- but only up to a certain point, we can't be tolerant of radicals who want anything other than multi-culturalism and liberal democracy, because they might get their way and have something other than a state of permanent argumentation and unhappiness run by people who are permanently arguing and unhappy-- no we can't let anyone actually get their way from here on out, we can only allow them to present their points of view and value systems that we will never, never accept-- let them keep telling us what they want, so we can tell them they're misguided and can't have it, let them tell us what they believe so we can tell them they're wrong and flawed for believing it. Clever guy. In his own words:

"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."

[Anonymous No.15073603]

>>15073105
He's insanely overrated. Do you have any idea how much influence his "falsifiability is a necessary and sufficient criterion for demarcating science" has had over scientists, lay people, and even philosophers of science? It's genuinely shocking. Surely you've seen the threads here and all around the 'net in which some guy comes and says something like "mathematics is falsifiable" when someone points out falsifiability isn't the beginning and end of knowledge?

Tolerate my anus t. Marcuse

[Anonymous No.15073632]

>>15073603
>Marxist defending his pseudoscience
Calling out Marx and Freud was one of the few things Pooper did that were undisputably correct.

[Anonymous No.15073878]

>>15073632
>Calling out Marx and Freud was one of the few things Pooper did that were undisputably correct.
What Popper did was correct if you overlay his conception of what science is and should be anachronistically onto Marx and Freud. Much has been written on Marx's theory of scientific knowledge (there are at least two books by that title, in fact) but Popper gave little to no consideration of any of it.

As for Freud,
>Popper’s charge about the unfalsifiability of key Freudian claims is anyhow highly questionable. He himself focused on Freud’s claim that all dreams are wish-fulfillments, arguing that one can always find grounds for maintaining such a claim but one cannot specify what evidence would falsify it. This is incorrect, as I have argued at greater length elsewhere (Michael 2015). There are numerous logically possible observation statements that would falsify Freud’s wish-fulfillment claim (at least, if one accepts certain background theories, as Popper’s theory requires). For example, if it were found that the limbic system and associated neural structures essentially involved in motivation were (even relatively) inactive in the dreaming brain, that would falsify Freud’s wish-fulfillment claim in the sense required by Popper’s theory. Similarly, if it were found that no or few young children (ages 2–4) had straightforwardly wish-fulfilling dreams, that would falsify Freud’s claim in Popper’s sense. Indeed, it has been claimed that Freud’s theory has been falsified by just such evidence, as certain studies seem to show that young children’s dreams are bland, with no discernible wish-fulfilling meaning (Foulkes 1982). More recent studies show the opposite (Colace 2010), but the fact that this evidence was brought against Freud’s theory argues in favor of its falsifiability.

The whole paper is pretty good: "Why Aren’t More Philosophers Interested in Freud? Re-Evaluating Philosophical Arguments against Psychoanalysis" by Michael T. Michael.

[Anonymous No.15074760]

>>15073105
uh who

[Anonymous No.15074786]

If you think he's underrated it's because you haven't read any recent academic philosophy in fields related to his

>>15073567
I know you'll think I'm part of some conspiracy when I tell you this, but it truly is out of the kindness of my heart: you need to take your meds

[Anonymous No.15074822]

>>15073105
*teleports behind you*
psssh...nothin personnel...kid...

[Anonymous No.15074840]

>>15073105
His political philosophy is extremely bland. He doesn't touch metaphysics or any kind, so it's not even objectifiable.
On the other hand, his contributions to philosophy of science are kind of interesting, but i think Bayes has made him obsolete.
There's really no point on reading Popper anymore. Forget this old hack, and move on to something more interesting.