Karl Popper the Paradox of tolerance

[Rascal]

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.

?

I still do, I even read a book on the philosophy of Batman (seriously) and it blew my mind. It was brilliant, but really hard work. Questions such as is Batman's hatred virtuous had me reeling.

I feel I am too old now to take a real interest and wish I had at a much earlier age, although one of my best mates got a first in Philosophy and I am convinced it turned him to drink, we did have some great conversations though. He eventually moved to China to teach English.

 

[Damocles]

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?

Absolutely but as others have said you need to do the prep reading. Open Society V1 is a discussion and challenge of Plato's ideas whereas V2 deals with Hegel and Marx. So while you don't technically need to read them beforehand it would certainly increase your interest in the book.

Plato's Republic is a bit of a dense read but it's worth it. One of those books where the overall points been made are pretty long winded but you get one liners in it that spark you off on a train of thought.

Marx is a must read just due to how badly it is commonly understood by the general populace. So many things get call Marxist that aren't, and are defended as not being Marxist when they are. The current SJW movement for example has a Marxist based world view underpinning its logic but not a Marxist viewpoint on the world.

 

[ZenHalfTimeCrock]

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.

Workplace bullying might be another example.

With free speech, it's very difficult where to draw the line and maybe each case has to be taken on its merits.

I also find it difficult to believe that in free speech as some kind of absolutist principle. If, a few minutes from now, in cleaning the kitchen I accidentally stumble across a way of making a dangerous WMD from blending together a few household chemicals, it would surely not be right for me to publish the recipe here.

The back story on Rex Feral's Hit Man is also worth a read as it provides another salient example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit_Man:_A_Technical_Manual_for_Independent_Contractors

By the way, I also have Wittgenstein's Poker and that book the same authors wrote on Hume and Rousseau. But guess what....?

But I have that other book one of them wrote on the Trolley Car problem.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

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.

The point that it endangers other people is a difficult thing to determine though. If we're to believe that MP that lambasted Boris Johnson yesterday, then his comments about Muslim women looking like letterboxes led to an increase in attacks on Muslim women, so it had a concrete effect of causing more violence. But I doubt anyone would argue that Boris Johnson shouldn't be allowed to say that, even if they argue that he shouldn't say it. But we have this rather paradoxical situation where I could explicitly call for the murder of Muslim women, and it would be very unlikely that that would incite any violence whatsoever, whereas a far more innocuous statement (arguably a joke) from someone like Boris Johnson can actually incite violence against Muslim women.

But I'm not sure you can hide behind the "well I didn't tell anyone to go out and attack anyone." That could be an equally valid excuse to those people in India that have been spreading rumours about certain men being rapists or paedophiles on Whatsapp in the knowledge that it will likely result in them getting attacked and killed. They surely can't hide behind the excuse that they didn't explicitly ask anyone to kill him? To be fair, the law does recognise this, which is why we have laws for example against inciting racial or religious hatred that don't have to include incitement to violence. It's also why (I believe) threats of violence have to be vaguely credible to be sanctioned.

 

[ZenHalfTimeCrock]

One of the criticisms of the draft of the chapter I wrote for one of the pop philosophy books was that I didn't know the history of western philosophy well-enough. And the editor who said so was spot-on.

That's something that I will be putting right shortly, again with the help of Magee (and Peter Adamson).

Weirdly, I started off with Indian and Chinese Philosophy decades ago and it is only in the last few years that I have been getting to grips in an unsystematic way with their Western equivalents. For anyone who wants to go down that path, Jan Westerhoff is the go to guy for Indian/Buddhist thought, while Arthur Waley, A.C.Graham and Bryan Van Norden are all impressive on ancient Chinese Philosophy.

This somewhat controversial book by Van Norden is another one that I am thinking of getting:

There are also some pretty impressive Islamic philosophers: Ibn Sina (a sort of Muslim Descartes - see his 'Flying Man' thought experiment) and Ibn Arabi are worth investigating.

 

[George Hannah]

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.

You're just trying to hook that Monty Python song again.....I really hope nobody bites. Meanwhie we eagerly await the next volume of "Great Irish Philosophers' ...;-)

 

[ZenHalfTimeCrock]

I'm With Stupid: that was a thought-provoking post.

Most of what I am about to briefly say about Johnson's article is speculative but it would take a lot of persuasion to convince me that I am wrong.

1. He is a narcissist. All he is interested in is advancing his own personal interests. This is evidenced by his flip-flopping over Brexit and by his constant lying ever since he started off in journalism.

2. Although he actually did not wish to ban Salafi women from wearing the niqab, his modus operandi in this instance was to pick an easy target (as Salafis of the quietist variety are apolitical) and write about them in a manner that plays well with the types who twirl their batons and shake their pom poms in support of characters like Tommy Robinson. So I reckon that might have been his real agenda as it helped to broaden his appeal and support his grab for power.

I wouldn't have wanted his article banned for those reasons, though.

 

[Ban-jani]

The point that it endangers other people is a difficult thing to determine though. If we're to believe that MP that lambasted Boris Johnson yesterday, then his comments about Muslim women looking like letterboxes led to an increase in attacks on Muslim women, so it had a concrete effect of causing more violence. But I doubt anyone would argue that Boris Johnson shouldn't be allowed to say that, even if they argue that he shouldn't say it. But we have this rather paradoxical situation where I could explicitly call for the murder of Muslim women, and it would be very unlikely that that would incite any violence whatsoever, whereas a far more innocuous statement (arguably a joke) from someone like Boris Johnson can actually incite violence against Muslim women.

But I'm not sure you can hide behind the "well I didn't tell anyone to go out and attack anyone." That could be an equally valid excuse to those people in India that have been spreading rumours about certain men being rapists or paedophiles on Whatsapp in the knowledge that it will likely result in them getting attacked and killed. They surely can't hide behind the excuse that they didn't explicitly ask anyone to kill him? To be fair, the law does recognise this, which is why we have laws for example against inciting racial or religious hatred that don't have to include incitement to violence. It's also why (I believe) threats of violence have to be vaguely credible to be sanctioned.

I don’t disagree it’s a massive grey area and it’s incredibly difficult to determine.

For the record, as much as I dislike the man and whilst I think the comments were disgraceful, I don’t think Johnson should have been dealt with by the law for those comments, he should be allowed to say them but then I expect society to condemn him.

 

[aguero93:20]

You're just trying to hook that Monty Python song again.....I really hope nobody bites. Meanwhie we eagerly await the next volume of "Great Irish Philosophers' ...;-)

George Berkeley, Peter Coffey, John Eriugena, Robert Boyle would all immediately come to mind, although 90% of the populace being banned from receiving an education here for 100s of years didn't really help it's development.

 

[George Hannah]

George Berkeley, Peter Coffey, John Eriugena, Robert Boyle would all immediately come to mind, although 90% of the populace being banned from receiving an education here for 100s of years didn't really help it's development.

You've got the good Bishop and there it ends, Boyle was a scientist and the other two, fine fellows no doubt, hardly qualify. Puzzled about your education point, 10% literacy seems quite good in pre-20th century Europe.