Karl Popper the Paradox of tolerance

[Rascal]

A really interesting piece that, thanks for sharing.

This sent a shudder down my spine

'surplus population'

And this

"A similar oversimplification allows Popper to blame German
communists for the phenomenon of Hitler's Nazi Party."

Which I would argue is very wide of the mark, capitalism was as much if not more to blame for the rise of Nazism than the threat of Communism.

 

[ZenHalfTimeCrock]

This is tangential to the ongoing discussion but the former MP, TV presenter and polymath Bryan Magee (who died very recently) knew Popper very well.

A lot of his wonderful and cheaply available book Confessions of a Philosopher is devoted to their relationship. Magee's prose is elegant, compelling and very clear. Personally, up until I read it, I had felt rather intimidated by the writings of the great philosophers and was wary of engaging with them because I feared that I simply would not understand what they were trying to say.

Several years further down the road, I have had chapters published in a couple of pop philosophy books alongside other contributors who are mainly professors of Philosophy. I very much doubt that I would have gained the confidence to do this had it not been for my encounter with Magee's intellectual autobiography and I cannot recommend it highly enough.

His little study of Popper in the old Fontana Modern Masters series is also worth tracking down.

Unfortunately, I never got around to reading The Open Society and its Enemies, not because it seemed threateningly formidable but simply because of its length. Plus, I haven't read any Plato or Marx.

Is this an omission that I should correct?

Also, is Popper's Conjectures and Refutations worth acquiring?

 

[aguero93:20]

This is tangential to the ongoing discussion but the former MP, TV presenter and polymath Bryan Magee (who died very recently) knew Popper very well.

A lot of his wonderful and cheaply available book Confessions of a Philosopher is devoted to their relationship. Magee's prose is elegant, compelling and very clear. Personally, up until I read it, I had felt rather intimidated by the writings of the great philosophers and was wary of engaging with them because I feared that I simply would not understand what they were trying to say.

Several years further down the road, I have had chapters published in a couple of pop philosophy books alongside other contributors who are mainly professors of Philosophy. I very much doubt that I would have gained the confidence to do this had it not been for my encounter with Magee's intellectual autobiography and I cannot recommend it highly enough.

His little study of Popper in the old Fontana Modern Masters series is also worth tracking down.

Unfortunately, I never got around to reading The Open Society and its Enemies, not because it seemed threateningly formidable but simply because of its length. Plus, I haven't read any Plato or Marx.

Is this an omission that I should correct?

Also, is Popper's Conjectures and Refutations worth acquiring?

Everyone should read Plato and Marx.

 

[Ban-jani]

Everyone should have the right to any view they have and they should have the right to express such view, up until the point that it endangers other people.

I appreciate this gives a grey area that’s open to interpretation but I fail to see how we can maintain relatively free speech and keep people safe.

A far right hate preacher trying to gain support in Piccadilly Gardens for a terror attack should be dealt with by the law but we shouldn’t be stopping a neo Nazi march if they aren’t being violent or specifically calling for violence on the march.

 

[ZenHalfTimeCrock]

Everyone should read Plato and Marx.

I've got Plato's Republic and Peter Singer's books on Marx and Hegel. Will hopefully get around to them eventually.

Everyone should have the right to any view they have and they should have the right to express such view, up until the point that it endangers other people.

I appreciate this gives a grey area that’s open to interpretation but I fail to see how we can maintain relatively free speech and keep people safe.

A far right hate preacher trying to gain support in Piccadilly Gardens for a terror attack should be dealt with by the law but we shouldn’t be stopping a neo Nazi march if they aren’t being violent or specifically calling for violence on the march.

It looks to me that your views are based on John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle. The general idea is that we are at liberty to do and say whatever we want as long as we're not putting people at direct risk of being physically harmed in doing so.

I like Mill's point but one of my students (I am a semi-retired teacher) once pointed out that as she has a high tolerance for pain but dislikes being bullied psychologically (and she had been), that she wasn't entirely convinced.

 

[George Hannah]

This is tangential to the ongoing discussion but the former MP, TV presenter and polymath Bryan Magee (who died very recently) knew Popper very well.

A lot of his wonderful and cheaply available book Confessions of a Philosopher is devoted to their relationship. Magee's prose is elegant, compelling and very clear. Personally, up until I read it, I had felt rather intimidated by the writings of the great philosophers and was wary of engaging with them because I feared that I simply would not understand what they were trying to say.

Several years further down the road, I have had chapters published in a couple of pop philosophy books alongside other contributors who are mainly professors of Philosophy. I very much doubt that I would have gained the confidence to do this had it not been for my encounter with Magee's intellectual autobiography and I cannot recommend it highly enough.

His little study of Popper in the old Fontana Modern Masters series is also worth tracking down.

Unfortunately, I never got around to reading The Open Society and its Enemies, not because it seemed threateningly formidable but simply because of its length. Plus, I haven't read any Plato or Marx.

Is this an omission that I should correct?

Also, is Popper's Conjectures and Refutations worth acquiring?

Conjectures etc is a collection of difficult papers written principally for philosophers of science. I agree with you that Bryan Magee is a reliable and readable guide to all modern philosophy and Wittgenstein in particular but I enjoyed the The Fly & The Flybottle by Ved Mehta more. Ernst Gellner's Words & Things and Arthur Koestler's The Sleepwalkers were popular among Popper enthusiasts when I were a lad.

 

[ZenHalfTimeCrock]

Conjectures etc is a collection of difficult papers written principally for philosophers of science. I agree with you that Bryan Magee is a reliable and readable guide to all modern philosophy and Wittgenstein in particular, but I prefer the The Fly & The Flybottle by Ved Mehta on Ludwig. Ernst Gellner's Words & Things and Arthur Koestler's The Sleepwalkers were popular among Popper enthusiasts when I were a lad.

Thanks for the Ved Mehta recommendation! I didn't know about that and will look into it.

I do have Ray Monk's study of Wittgenstein, though once again, I haven't got around to it yet.

Buying books on philosophy but then not actually reading them seems to have become my main hobby.

Currently, I have my eye on Jonathan Ree's Witcraft.

Popper's falsifiability principle has a certain appeal. For example, it exposes creationist thinking for what it is. But when it comes to something like Freudian theory, I am less certain.

For example, the behaviour of Hamlet makes sense from an Oedipal perspective. Hamlet's impotence is all to do with the fact that Claudius has done something that Hamlet secretly desires to. So unscientific theories can still retain some explanatory power in certain cases in spite of that.

 

[Ban-jani]

I've got Plato's Republic and Peter Singer's books on Marx and Hegel. Will hopefully get around to them eventually.



It looks to me that your views are based on John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle. The general idea is that we are at liberty to do and say whatever we want as long as we're not putting people at direct risk of being physically harmed in doing so.

I like Mill's point but one of my students (I am a semi-retired teacher) once pointed out that as she has a high tolerance for pain but dislikes being bullied psychologically (and she had been), that she wasn't entirely convinced.

I completely get that point and she’s right to make it. I think harassment would fall under putting people in danger but again I appreciate it’s a grey area.

 

[George Hannah]

Thanks for the Ved Mehta recommendation! I didn't know about that and will look into it.
I do have Ray Monk's study of Wittgenstein, though once again, I haven't got around to it yet. Buying books on philosophy but then not actually reading them seems to have become my main hobby. Currently, I have my eye on Jonathan Ree's Witcraft.

Ha Ha, that's the peril! I suppose this should be mentioned in that context and that of the thread

"On 25 October 1946, in a crowded room in Cambridge, Ludwig Wittgenstein and Karl Popper came face to face for the first and only time. The encounter lasted only ten minutes, and did not go well. Almost immediately, rumours started to spread around the world that the two philosophers had come to blows, armed with red-hot pokers. But what really happened?"

 

[aguero93:20]

I've got Plato's Republic and Peter Singer's books on Marx and Hegel. Will hopefully get around to them eventually.

If you're going to get into western philosophy (and I'd recommend immersing yourself in one branch at a time as switching back and forth can be unsettling), Kant, Nietzsche, Aquinas, Aristotle, Epicurus, Cicero, Machiavelli, More, Descartes (really think you'd enjoy this guy), Godwin, Von Schelling and Engels are all well worth looking into from the various schools of thought.