Western Culture has a long history of a genuine appreciation for the value of open, rational discourse. True leaders value dissent among their ranks as a source of invaluable insight of many flavors.
Did George Soros ever admit he abandoned the thinking of his mentor Karl Popper and the OPEN SOCIETY and start supporting totalitarian censorship and oppression?
If Soros speaks of the concepts of The Open Society, beware. Any support of mandatory consumption patterns, mandatory vaccines, and censorship betray any pretense.
Just listened. No, Soros has totally corrupted the meaning of an OPEN SOCIETY into lockstep for LEFTIST VALUES: INTOLERANCE! Hayek supporting Popper should have tipped you off! A populist nationalism based on a Constitution designed for pluralism and individual rights, freedom of speech, etc. is NOT a violation of NEVER AGAIN! The LEFT projects their own totalitarian impulse on everyone else. PLATO's Republic is a very very clear call for totalitarianism. Aristotle is far more moderate and even tending toward an open society.
I would love to hear @POPULARRATIONALISM James Lyons-Weiler discuss the topic with Keith Woods. I find Keith Woods' contention more compelling after reading some of Popper's work, that "Probably no political philosopher's vision of things more definitively won out in the latter half of the 20th century than Karl Popper. Popper, not Marx, is the philosopher of the modern left." https://twitter.com/KeithWoodsYT/status/1657049895637864450
I own works from both Popper and Hayek. Whereas Hayek is clear that "no person or body of persons has complete freedom to impose upon the rest whatever laws it likes", Popper calls on "more enlightened intellectuals" to lead the rest who struggle with critical thought. He writes "rationalism is linked up with the recognition of the necessity of social institutions to protect [freedoms]." And "this is why rationalism is closely linked up with the political demand for practical **social engineering...in the humanitarian sense** (my emphasis), with the demand for the rationalization of society, for planning for freedom, and for its control by reason [powered by those enlightened individuals?]; not by 'science'..."
He contends there is no "absolute rightness" nor "absolute truth". He says He said that "traditionalism- which stresses the authority of traditions-must be rejected". He contends "there can be no general criterion of truth even for the comparatively narrow field of number theory, or for any science which makes full use of arithmetic". He writes that irrationalism as practiced by the Christian tradition "has the responsibility for **all** (emphasis mine) national hostility and aggression. There have been only too many aggressive religious wars, both before and after the Crusades, but I do not know of any war waged for a 'scientific' aim, and inspired by scientists" (p. 448). I saw numerous places where Popper takes issue with Christianity: "the attempt to impose our scale of 'higher' values upon others, in order to make them realize what seems to us of greatest importance for their happiness; in order, as it were, to save their souls. It leads to Utopianism and Romanticism...the attempt to make heaven on earth invariably produces hell. It leads to intolerance. It leads to religious wars..." He writes "he who teaches that not reason but love should rule opens the way for those who rule by hate" and says "the Christian commandment, 'Love thy enemies'" is actually impossible for men to follow and abandons reason.
It seems that a possible interpretation of pp 456-458 is that Popper is arguing that "Marxian Socialism is derived from the Christian tradition" to which it brought rationality: "he had developed socialism from a Utopian idea into a science". Popper viewed Marx as a "humanitarian" and "a lover of freedom", though he admits in later editions of "The Open Society and its Enemies" that Leopold Schwarzschild's evidence to the contrary "is shattering". (p. 511)
Conclusion of Keith Woods' video starting at 27:25min https://youtu.be/sIpnulgAcZA Popper's paradox of tolerance "if we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant; if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed and tolerance with them." Popper's paradox allows liberals to justify the greatest repression of anyone declared an enemy of the Open Society, whether it is fascists, Christian nationalists, racists, transphobes... the maniacal struggle for openness reaches the point of total war against the bigoted and the backward.
But those "who think they are rational", the LEFT, DO NOT practice checking their ideas with DENIABILITY tests per POPPER. Popper opposed faith based religion having power over society, but ALSO socialist and communist Elites who think "their thinking" is undeniable truth who never TEST their ideas and refuse to submit them to debate as a strategy to approach truth. Elites always rule because the mass thinks little at all. A proper Elite would value freedom of speech and debate, not censorship. There is a reason Hayek valued Popper though Popper is certainly not as consistent and clear thinking as Hayek.
Another hidden assumption of LEFTISM is that great evils spring from the prejudice and misinformation of the masses. This is clearly false. Rationalizations for tyranny are ruling class conspiracy STRATEGIES that the masses too readily "fall for." Policing the masses to perfection is not what is required. Protecting individual rights in a just rule of law is what is required along with eliminating excessive laws protecting people from themselves.
Furthermore, Popper is one of the main philosophers implicated in making “The Science™️” possible. By propagating the falsehood that science only has to be falsifiable, Popper took the focus away from science’s validity ultimately lying in its predictive strength and we get the total garbage we have today from nutritional epidemiology to climate modeling to gender studies. Without Popper and other irrationalists, we wouldn’t be assigning value to the puny p-value, and we could Make Science Replicable Again. Greg Glassman attacks Popper by name highlighting his role in breaking science
(something like at 30min and again at 35min). James Lyons-Weiler has hitched his wagon to the wrong star. I think this point is at least as significant as J.J. Couey’s point that we must not lose focus on all transfection being bad.
Will the series be sold as a book? Seems like more than just your online followers need this.
The hidden rulers like to see dissent amongst the citizens, takes the focus away from them.
When it diverts form them, they like to see it, but when it directs at them they do not like it to be seen.
"True leaders value dissent among their ranks as a source of invaluable insight of many flavors."
:)
Did George Soros ever admit he abandoned the thinking of his mentor Karl Popper and the OPEN SOCIETY and start supporting totalitarian censorship and oppression?
If Soros speaks of the concepts of The Open Society, beware. Any support of mandatory consumption patterns, mandatory vaccines, and censorship betray any pretense.
I don’t think it was a complete abandonment https://youtu.be/sIpnulgAcZA
Just listened. No, Soros has totally corrupted the meaning of an OPEN SOCIETY into lockstep for LEFTIST VALUES: INTOLERANCE! Hayek supporting Popper should have tipped you off! A populist nationalism based on a Constitution designed for pluralism and individual rights, freedom of speech, etc. is NOT a violation of NEVER AGAIN! The LEFT projects their own totalitarian impulse on everyone else. PLATO's Republic is a very very clear call for totalitarianism. Aristotle is far more moderate and even tending toward an open society.
I would love to hear @POPULARRATIONALISM James Lyons-Weiler discuss the topic with Keith Woods. I find Keith Woods' contention more compelling after reading some of Popper's work, that "Probably no political philosopher's vision of things more definitively won out in the latter half of the 20th century than Karl Popper. Popper, not Marx, is the philosopher of the modern left." https://twitter.com/KeithWoodsYT/status/1657049895637864450
I own works from both Popper and Hayek. Whereas Hayek is clear that "no person or body of persons has complete freedom to impose upon the rest whatever laws it likes", Popper calls on "more enlightened intellectuals" to lead the rest who struggle with critical thought. He writes "rationalism is linked up with the recognition of the necessity of social institutions to protect [freedoms]." And "this is why rationalism is closely linked up with the political demand for practical **social engineering...in the humanitarian sense** (my emphasis), with the demand for the rationalization of society, for planning for freedom, and for its control by reason [powered by those enlightened individuals?]; not by 'science'..."
He contends there is no "absolute rightness" nor "absolute truth". He says He said that "traditionalism- which stresses the authority of traditions-must be rejected". He contends "there can be no general criterion of truth even for the comparatively narrow field of number theory, or for any science which makes full use of arithmetic". He writes that irrationalism as practiced by the Christian tradition "has the responsibility for **all** (emphasis mine) national hostility and aggression. There have been only too many aggressive religious wars, both before and after the Crusades, but I do not know of any war waged for a 'scientific' aim, and inspired by scientists" (p. 448). I saw numerous places where Popper takes issue with Christianity: "the attempt to impose our scale of 'higher' values upon others, in order to make them realize what seems to us of greatest importance for their happiness; in order, as it were, to save their souls. It leads to Utopianism and Romanticism...the attempt to make heaven on earth invariably produces hell. It leads to intolerance. It leads to religious wars..." He writes "he who teaches that not reason but love should rule opens the way for those who rule by hate" and says "the Christian commandment, 'Love thy enemies'" is actually impossible for men to follow and abandons reason.
It seems that a possible interpretation of pp 456-458 is that Popper is arguing that "Marxian Socialism is derived from the Christian tradition" to which it brought rationality: "he had developed socialism from a Utopian idea into a science". Popper viewed Marx as a "humanitarian" and "a lover of freedom", though he admits in later editions of "The Open Society and its Enemies" that Leopold Schwarzschild's evidence to the contrary "is shattering". (p. 511)
Conclusion of Keith Woods' video starting at 27:25min https://youtu.be/sIpnulgAcZA Popper's paradox of tolerance "if we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant; if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed and tolerance with them." Popper's paradox allows liberals to justify the greatest repression of anyone declared an enemy of the Open Society, whether it is fascists, Christian nationalists, racists, transphobes... the maniacal struggle for openness reaches the point of total war against the bigoted and the backward.
But those "who think they are rational", the LEFT, DO NOT practice checking their ideas with DENIABILITY tests per POPPER. Popper opposed faith based religion having power over society, but ALSO socialist and communist Elites who think "their thinking" is undeniable truth who never TEST their ideas and refuse to submit them to debate as a strategy to approach truth. Elites always rule because the mass thinks little at all. A proper Elite would value freedom of speech and debate, not censorship. There is a reason Hayek valued Popper though Popper is certainly not as consistent and clear thinking as Hayek.
Another hidden assumption of LEFTISM is that great evils spring from the prejudice and misinformation of the masses. This is clearly false. Rationalizations for tyranny are ruling class conspiracy STRATEGIES that the masses too readily "fall for." Policing the masses to perfection is not what is required. Protecting individual rights in a just rule of law is what is required along with eliminating excessive laws protecting people from themselves.
Furthermore, Popper is one of the main philosophers implicated in making “The Science™️” possible. By propagating the falsehood that science only has to be falsifiable, Popper took the focus away from science’s validity ultimately lying in its predictive strength and we get the total garbage we have today from nutritional epidemiology to climate modeling to gender studies. Without Popper and other irrationalists, we wouldn’t be assigning value to the puny p-value, and we could Make Science Replicable Again. Greg Glassman attacks Popper by name highlighting his role in breaking science
https://youtu.be/Z6VMcIp21mA
(something like at 30min and again at 35min). James Lyons-Weiler has hitched his wagon to the wrong star. I think this point is at least as significant as J.J. Couey’s point that we must not lose focus on all transfection being bad.
who knew you also had degrees in philosophy and political science and psychology. You hit the soccer ball in the net. Terrific series.
Terrific series indeed! Thank you!
Well put!