Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Seb_Maya · 10-28-2002, 09:39 AM

in the book "The Poverty of Historicism" by Karl Popper he says:
" i will confine myself to the explanation of certain anti-naturalistic and pro-naturalistic doctrines that form part of a characteristic approach in which both kinds of doctrines are combined."

How can this be possible? is the definition of historicism still (or at the time of his writing the book)debated? how can the combination of pro and anti-naturalisitc be combined? would it not contradict itself?
Help!

Primal · 10-29-2002, 02:14 PM

SO far it seems he is contradicting himself unless he means he will combine the epistemic methods of both.

Keith Russell · 10-30-2002, 10:30 AM

Greetings:

It's an odd sentence, but I don't think it means that Popper is going to do the combining--only that he is going to focus on theories in which the combination already occurs.

Keith.

Seb_Maya · 11-02-2002, 01:18 PM

SO far it seems he is contradicting himself unless he means he will combine the epistemic methods of both.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 204 | From: San Marcos | Registered: Sep 2002 | IP: Logged

Keith Russell
IIDB Regular
User # 7336
posted October 30, 2002 11:30 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greetings:
It's an odd sentence, but I don't think it means that Popper is going to do the combining--only that he is going to focus on theories in which the combination already occurs.

Keith.

Thanks for the assistance, it seems you are both right, some historicist beliefs vary in their use and acceptance of anti and pro naturalistic doctrines.
Historicism does often combine both. I got confused because in the first half of the book he makes the case for historicism and in the second he repudiates it. However whilst making the case for historicism he does not refrain from criticising it and sometimes confusingly (for me) it was unclear whether he was speaking his own mind or that of a supposed historicist.

Keith Russell · 11-02-2002, 06:21 PM

Greetings:

I am currently reading part I of Popper's The Open Societies and its Enemies.

He makes it clear that he is utterly opposed to historicism, in all of its various forms.

Keith.

Seb_Maya · 11-24-2002, 02:17 AM

Thanks Keith

beausoleil · 11-25-2002, 11:42 PM

"The Open Society, by One of Its Enemies" as Imre Lakatos quips. (one of his lectures transcribed in 'For and Against Method' - edited by Matteo Motterlini). Absolutely brilliant book, BTW. Why is Popper still so popular?

Rusting Car Bumper · 11-26-2002, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by beausoleil:
<strong>"The Open Society, by One of Its Enemies" as Imre Lakatos quips. (one of his lectures transcribed in 'For and Against Method' - edited by Matteo Motterlini). Absolutely brilliant book, BTW. Why is Popper still so popular?</strong>

I don't know how anyone can possibly say that Popper is against an open society.

Have you read his butchering of Plato?

One can disagree with Popper for philosophical reasons but against an open society with liberal freedoms he ain't.

DC

Keith Russell · 11-27-2002, 07:10 AM

Greetings:

The problem is that Popper was more than a bit of a grouch, in person. He was not a very 'nice' person, and he often made demands on his friends, family, and students.

So, the title The Open Society, by One of its Enemies is a clever joke; Popper not really being tolerant of dissent, even from friends.

But (and this seems to be the case with Ayn Rand, too), people seem to want to believe that philosophers should live by their political philosophies, in their personal lives.

I've never understood why...

beausoleil · 12-01-2002, 04:22 PM

As I mentioned, it was a quip made in a lecture by someone who knew Popper.

However, Lakatos might also have been referring to an aspect of his critique of Popper, that Popper's philosophy of science ultimately relied on an elite to distinguish 'important' falsifications of theories from 'unimportant' ones.

10-28-2002, 09:39 AM	#1
Seb_Maya Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: London Posts: 28	Karl Popper: The Poverty of Historicism in the book "The Poverty of Historicism" by Karl Popper he says: " i will confine myself to the explanation of certain anti-naturalistic and pro-naturalistic doctrines that form part of a characteristic approach in which both kinds of doctrines are combined." How can this be possible? is the definition of historicism still (or at the time of his writing the book)debated? how can the combination of pro and anti-naturalisitc be combined? would it not contradict itself? Help!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-29-2002, 02:14 PM	#2
Primal Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Marcos Posts: 551	SO far it seems he is contradicting himself unless he means he will combine the epistemic methods of both.

10-30-2002, 10:30 AM	#3
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Greetings: It's an odd sentence, but I don't think it means that Popper is going to do the combining--only that he is going to focus on theories in which the combination already occurs. Keith.

11-02-2002, 01:18 PM	#4
Seb_Maya Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: London Posts: 28	SO far it seems he is contradicting himself unless he means he will combine the epistemic methods of both. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posts: 204 \| From: San Marcos \| Registered: Sep 2002 \| IP: Logged Keith Russell IIDB Regular User # 7336 posted October 30, 2002 11:30 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Greetings: It's an odd sentence, but I don't think it means that Popper is going to do the combining--only that he is going to focus on theories in which the combination already occurs. Keith. Thanks for the assistance, it seems you are both right, some historicist beliefs vary in their use and acceptance of anti and pro naturalistic doctrines. Historicism does often combine both. I got confused because in the first half of the book he makes the case for historicism and in the second he repudiates it. However whilst making the case for historicism he does not refrain from criticising it and sometimes confusingly (for me) it was unclear whether he was speaking his own mind or that of a supposed historicist.

11-02-2002, 06:21 PM	#5
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Greetings: I am currently reading part I of Popper's The Open Societies and its Enemies. He makes it clear that he is utterly opposed to historicism, in all of its various forms. Keith.

11-24-2002, 02:17 AM	#6
Seb_Maya Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: London Posts: 28	Thanks Keith

11-25-2002, 11:42 PM	#7
beausoleil Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: US and UK Posts: 846	"The Open Society, by One of Its Enemies" as Imre Lakatos quips. (one of his lectures transcribed in 'For and Against Method' - edited by Matteo Motterlini). Absolutely brilliant book, BTW. Why is Popper still so popular?

11-27-2002, 07:10 AM	#9
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Greetings: The problem is that Popper was more than a bit of a grouch, in person. He was not a very 'nice' person, and he often made demands on his friends, family, and students. So, the title The Open Society, by One of its Enemies is a clever joke; Popper not really being tolerant of dissent, even from friends. But (and this seems to be the case with Ayn Rand, too), people seem to want to believe that philosophers should live by their political philosophies, in their personal lives. I've never understood why...

12-01-2002, 04:22 PM	#10
beausoleil Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: US and UK Posts: 846	As I mentioned, it was a quip made in a lecture by someone who knew Popper. However, Lakatos might also have been referring to an aspect of his critique of Popper, that Popper's philosophy of science ultimately relied on an elite to distinguish 'important' falsifications of theories from 'unimportant' ones.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.