I have always loved Karl Popper. It is so nice to hear him in German with English captions as my ability to translate German fast is mediocre. I first came across him many years ago in a philosophy of science class. This little clip is so timely. It relates so well to what has been happening and continues to happen.
Thank you for making this available. Popper's committment to the pursuit of truth, clarity, and productive critical exchange come across in what he says and how he says it. For example, he makes it clear that he's talking about what he calls 'vulgar Marxism' rather than all Marxism or Marxism in general. Similarly, in describing the philosophical prejudice he calls 'conspiracy theory of society' as 'uncritical' he leaves the door open for critical discussion on the problem of how far complex social structures are explained by conscious intent.
From 9:00 onwards is very prescient. Particularly in this time where Peterson claims post-modernists dressed up Marxist ideas in different language. ( 1) claiming we can dismiss postmodernists 2) misrepresenting postmodernists) Caveat: I actually don't know about the doctrine, I've just seen criticisms on Peterson for severely misrepresenting it.
0:57 this is how philosophy on the internet is taken. It especially it stupid as fuck how politics just becomes a world-building exercise to some people. Though I think it is a naive to believe thought tends towards truth/problem solving rather than self-indulgence
Sacrilege ! Nobody worked harder and more meticulously than Hegel to discover what is the Truth. As for the claim that evil things do happen without a specific conspiracy of some to aim for them, I'd like to agree with Popper, for what he claims could be true, but it takes a conscious, sober effort to avoid fearing these conspiracies.
You can actual conspiracies if you want, as long as you are critical, for the majority of the time, it is not a conspiracy that's to blame, but simply human error or hubris. Conspiracies are too much effort for most.
I do not understand how you can hold such a view on conspiracies. I guess if you lived before the age of the internet, when video and audio recordings of various conspiracy agreements were not available, you could blame things like war on incompetence instead of on greed and the lust for power.
I do not understand how you can hold such a view on conspiracies. I guess if you lived before the age of the internet, when video and audio recordings of various conspiracy agreements were not available, you could blame things like war on incompetence instead of on greed and the lust for power.
So, you don't count Fitche or Hegel as great philosophers because you mistrust their devotion to truth. How much less a philosopher must you think Nietzsche to be, since he dares to question the value of truth itself.
I think Nietzsche would agree that what you say about Popper's likely attitude towards him is true. Philosophy comes in a variety of genres and modes. Popper should have understood this. Fichte and Hegel, like Schelling, were philosophizing in a creative mode informed by a religious sensibility or spiritual consciousness. This doesn't mean they were less devoted to pursuing truth.
@@anonymoushuman8344 Yes, every philosopher is devoted to truth in his own way. It's not like Hegel or Fichte set out to write works of pure fiction without trying to reveal some fundamental truths about reality and the human condition. Plato's 'Dialogues' are basically works of fiction, but few would doubt Plato's and Socrates' devotion to truth. In questioning the value of truth, Nietzsche is likewise devoting himself to truth, and it can even be argued that he is even more devoted to truth than most philosophers because he is willing to question truth itself. In other words, Nietzsche dares to seek the truth about truth itself by questioning its value. This is philosophy taking itself to task. Philosophers are so much interested in the justification of everything else, what exactly is the justification for their search for truth. Why not untruth ? Nietzsche dares to ask this question. But even here he shows he is devoted to truth by questioning the value of philosophy itself. So, Popper is right, after all, philosophers are devoted to truth. But Popper is also wrong, if he really thinks that there is only one way of devoting oneself to the search for truth. Hegel, Fichte, and Nietzsche are no less philosophers than are Socrates, Plato, and Popper. They are all devoted to truth, each in their own way.
Popper is striking out at Wittgensteinianism, ordinary language philosophers, speech-act theorists, structuralists, and post modernists. I find Popper very boring, and his open society conceptualizations are extremely naive and dull-headed. He will fall into the ash-heap of history and be completely forgotten.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank god this channel is back
I have always loved Karl Popper. It is so nice to hear him in German with English captions as my ability to translate German fast is mediocre. I first came across him many years ago in a philosophy of science class. This little clip is so timely. It relates so well to what has been happening and continues to happen.
Thanks for being back! I sadly lost 70 hours of planned content, but I trust you to bring back the good stuff
Feel free to make suggestions as well! I don't even remember many of the videos from the former channel.
Liked the point of how people look motives rather than the truth of the matter. Thanks for posting
Thanks for this upload!
Thank you for making this available. Popper's committment to the pursuit of truth, clarity, and productive critical exchange come across in what he says and how he says it. For example, he makes it clear that he's talking about what he calls 'vulgar Marxism' rather than all Marxism or Marxism in general. Similarly, in describing the philosophical prejudice he calls 'conspiracy theory of society' as 'uncritical' he leaves the door open for critical discussion on the problem of how far complex social structures are explained by conscious intent.
Popper is a must. Very good !!!
From 9:00 onwards is very prescient. Particularly in this time where Peterson claims post-modernists dressed up Marxist ideas in different language. ( 1) claiming we can dismiss postmodernists 2) misrepresenting postmodernists)
Caveat: I actually don't know about the doctrine, I've just seen criticisms on Peterson for severely misrepresenting it.
0:57 this is how philosophy on the internet is taken. It especially it stupid as fuck how politics just becomes a world-building exercise to some people. Though I think it is a naive to believe thought tends towards truth/problem solving rather than self-indulgence
We don’t need, to undo a fact, just to represent, the factors!
Wann wurde das gesprochen?
Popper says why philosophy should remenber William of Ocham's razor blade: plurarity must be avoid using only clarity descriptions of reality
Sacrilege ! Nobody worked harder and more meticulously than Hegel to discover what is the Truth. As for the claim that evil things do happen without a specific conspiracy of some to aim for them, I'd like to agree with Popper, for what he claims could be true, but it takes a conscious, sober effort to avoid fearing these conspiracies.
You can actual conspiracies if you want, as long as you are critical, for the majority of the time, it is not a conspiracy that's to blame, but simply human error or hubris. Conspiracies are too much effort for most.
I do not understand how you can hold such a view on conspiracies. I guess if you lived before the age of the internet, when video and audio recordings of various conspiracy agreements were not available, you could blame things like war on incompetence instead of on greed and the lust for power.
The task of philosophy is multfunctional in 2 major groups: ones are necessary, others are always present
I do not understand how you can hold such a view on conspiracies. I guess if you lived before the age of the internet, when video and audio recordings of various conspiracy agreements were not available, you could blame things like war on incompetence instead of on greed and the lust for power.
So, you don't count Fitche or Hegel as great philosophers because you mistrust their devotion to truth. How much less a philosopher must you think Nietzsche to be, since he dares to question the value of truth itself.
I think Nietzsche would agree that what you say about Popper's likely attitude towards him is true.
Philosophy comes in a variety of genres and modes. Popper should have understood this. Fichte and Hegel, like Schelling, were philosophizing in a creative mode informed by a religious sensibility or spiritual consciousness. This doesn't mean they were less devoted to pursuing truth.
@@anonymoushuman8344 Yes, every philosopher is devoted to truth in his own way. It's not like Hegel or Fichte set out to write works of pure fiction without trying to reveal some fundamental truths about reality and the human condition. Plato's 'Dialogues' are basically works of fiction, but few would doubt Plato's and Socrates' devotion to truth. In questioning the value of truth, Nietzsche is likewise devoting himself to truth, and it can even be argued that he is even more devoted to truth than most philosophers because he is willing to question truth itself. In other words, Nietzsche dares to seek the truth about truth itself by questioning its value. This is philosophy taking itself to task. Philosophers are so much interested in the justification of everything else, what exactly is the justification for their search for truth. Why not untruth ? Nietzsche dares to ask this question. But even here he shows he is devoted to truth by questioning the value of philosophy itself. So, Popper is right, after all, philosophers are devoted to truth. But Popper is also wrong, if he really thinks that there is only one way of devoting oneself to the search for truth. Hegel, Fichte, and Nietzsche are no less philosophers than are Socrates, Plato, and Popper. They are all devoted to truth, each in their own way.
He should have read Kapital more thoroughly. There is no conspiracy theory in Marx writings.
Listen thoroughly: He's talking about "vulgar Marxism".
Popper is striking out at Wittgensteinianism, ordinary language philosophers, speech-act theorists, structuralists, and post modernists. I find Popper very boring, and his open society conceptualizations are extremely naive and dull-headed. He will fall into the ash-heap of history and be completely forgotten.