About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3


Post 60

Saturday, August 17, 2013 - 10:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In other words, the cat is blind (to 'reality-as-it-really-is'), because it has eyes.
I wouldn't hang that one on Popper. He was a realist, more or less, and didn't endorse Kant's noumenal world.

Post 61

Saturday, August 17, 2013 - 6:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
he was a modified Kantian, no?

Post 62

Saturday, August 17, 2013 - 7:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Merlin,
... the biologically most important situations between which it has to distinguish. Thus the disposition to distinguish between these situations is built into the sense organ, and with it the theory that these, and only these, are the relevant situations for whose distinction the eye is to be used.

The fact that all our senses are in this way theory-impregnated shows ...
That's, as Michael says, modified Kantianism. Popper may not have claimed to be explicitly Kantian, but he is so implicitly -- or operationally. He is, functionally, a Kantian. He may not overtly champion a noumenal-phenomenal dichotomy, but he inadvertently does just that. He is a Kantian by (his) accident.

Ed


Post 63

Sunday, August 18, 2013 - 8:55amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Implicitly Popper was an accidental, modified Objectivist. :-)

Incidentally, the Wikipedia page on Popper shows him as influenced by many philosophers. But as I recall, he was most influenced by members of the Vienna Circle and logical positivism, somewhat in a negative way, e.g. falsification versus verification.

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 8/18, 12:33pm)


Post 64

Sunday, August 18, 2013 - 9:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Merlin,

Seriously? You're coming back with that rejoinder?

:-/

Popper never broke free from the grotesque tentacles of logical positivism, even if he tried like hell to do so. Philosophers are not to be judged by their intentions, but by their products.

Ed


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3


User ID Password or create a free account.