- 出版社: Princeton University Press (1985年2月1日)
- 平装: 480页
- 语种： 英语
- ISBN: 0691020310
- 条形码: 9780691020310
- 商品尺寸: 14 x 2.7 x 21.6 cm
- 商品重量: 558 g
- ASIN: 0691020310
- 用户评分: 分享我的评价
- 亚马逊热销商品排名: 图书商品里排第1,344,629名 (查看图书商品销售排行榜)
Popper Selections (英语) 平装 – 1985年2月1日
"These pieces taken from Anglo-Austrian philosopher Sir Karl Popper's brilliantly expounded oeuvre of political, social, and scientific thought should stimulate anyone seriously interested in twentieth-century ideas."--The Washington Post
Poppers method is to identify the mistakes made by the "great men" and therefore clear the way for further inquiry. Of all the western philosphers Plato receives the most attention. Popper finds much to admire in Plato but also much that needs amending. In an essay on "subjective" and "objective" knowledge Popper evolves his idea of a third "world" of knowledge. This autonomous third world of knowledge is reminiscent of Plato's theory of ideal forms with one essential difference. For Popper all knowledge is man made and so his third world of knowledge contains not ideals(in Popper's world ideals do not exist) but "problem situations" -- the state of a discussion or the state of a critical argument at the present time and these "states" make up the "objective contents of thought".
In the world according to Popper thought ( in the philosophic and scientific realms) evolves because a variety of thinkers make a variety of creative propositions that are then examined and found to be true or false. Popper calls this method "critical rationalism".
In each of these essays Popper addresses a key philosophic issue and discusses it with his signature grace, eloquence and humor. His contribution to social theory seems especially significant and on this topic he is especially eloquent. Being no great believer in the great man theory of history and knowing full well that all of mans ideas as well as social theories are riddled with mistakes Popper thinks the best way to advance socially is in a piecemeal fashion. This limits the harm any one man or theory or institution can do. For Popper society like philosophy and knowledge is the result of an ever renewed inquiry.
This is clearsighted and jargon free writing and these are model essays!
Recommended for the open-minded and inquiring types.
After reading it, I have subsequently added a new section to my Golden Notebook, which features 'golden thinkers'.
I admit, however, that it is not my favorite book, and I somewhat wish Popper were more quotable without deep interpretation.
I love books of aphorisms, and that is not what this is, although it is not 100% opposite of what I prefer. It is more appreciable in line with models of critique than in terms of obvious genius. Many beginning students will have trouble making use of the book, and at an advanced level it is bound to be obscured by the many alternatives or alternate conjectures.
What is marvelous, however, is how masterful some of Popper's arguments are. I particularly appreciated his arguments in favor of indeterminism over mechanistic determinism, although I ultimately felt that I could come up with a better arguments myself which led to a different conclusion.
Popper is highly creative as a philosopher of science, and it is remarkable how lucid the material remains after so many years. He is not stifled by the attitude of his time, but some students will consider him stifling nonetheless. He is a wonderkind, and it is still surprising that he did not go to even greater heights. I found the section on Metaphysics to be the most illuminating, and my impression is that he is ironically more of a metaphysician than a logician, in spite of his commitment to science.
I wish I could give this book five stars, but it is not one of my favorite books, and I hold a high standard.
Perhaps best known for his 'Open Society and Its Enemies' (written during WWII while in New Zealand), Popper is clearly an advocate of open and free debate in all academic disciplines. Against solving irrelevant 'puzzles of language' - a habit of philosophers and Ludwig Wittgenstein in particular (Read book on this: 'Wittgenstein's Poker') - Popper is most concerned with solving real world 'problems' that impact human life. 'Our ignorance is sobering and boundless' he suggests but, together, through open-ness we can move toward finding ever-adjusting solutions for a better world.
Like other survivors of WWII (e.g. Isaiah Berlin), Popper is especially concerned with those who advocate 100% solutions to society's woes. One of our clearest advocates of the lessons of the Ancient Greeks, Popper tells us: The 'tradition of critical discussion' was the secret of the ancients. This tradition leads us to the realization that our attempts to find 'truth' are never final; and that criticism and critical discussion are our only means of getting nearer to the truth.
For those interested in: 1) Clear-headed discussions on science and philosophy, and 2) Hearing from a strong advocate of freedom and the 'western tradition' read this book. And bring a pencil.
I particularly enjoyed his ideas regarding the philosophy of science and scientific progress, specifically his critical rationalism and the concept of falsifiability (meaning that a hypothesis must be falsifiable and that a proposition or theory cannot be called scientific if it does not admit the possibility of being shown false). I highly recommend this book for those with a serious interest in the evolution of science and the scientific method. A worthy follow up to Sir Karl's views on science would be Thomas S. Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962). Tough many ideas between these two philosophers of science are similar, Kuhn, in his book The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change (1977), presents an interesting discussion in Chapter 11 (Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research) about the disagreements between his views and Popper's regarding scientific development.
By the way, Popper's ideas come very handy and this book is a must-read for those with a genuine interest in the trustworthiness of science behind the current "Consensus Theory" explaining the causes of Global Warming. You can bet that in a few years the way most climate scientists are handling simulation modeling, making predictions with an immature science, with selective interpretation of weather data will become a textbook case of politicized science, together with complete disregard for the most basic principles of the scientific method, including the fact that no criticism is allowed. As Popper said:
"If we are uncritical we shall always find what we want: we shall look for, and find, confirmations, and we shall look away from, and not see, whatever might be dangerous to our pet theories. In this way it is only too easy to obtain what appears to be overwhelming evidence in favor of a theory which, if approached critically, would have been refuted". The Poverty of Historicism (1957).