Against Karl Popper (I)

A response to John Arcto, Anglofuturist.

The clear and logical thinker will always be an 'extremist', and will therefore always be interesting: his pitfall is to go wildly into error. But on the other hand, while the orthodox 'middle-of-the-road' thinker will never get that far wrong, neither will he ever contribute anything either, aside from being generally deadly dull.

Murray Rothbard

Always remember that it is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood: there will always be some who misunderstand you.

Karl Popper

Hence: just as every logician who wants to make good use of his knowledge must turn his attention to real thought and reasoning, so a libertarian theorist must turn his attention to the actions of real people. Instead of being a mere theorist, he must also become a sociologist and psychologist and take account of “empirical” social reality, i.e., the world as it really is.

Hans Hermann Hoppe

History is not the logic, but the life of ideas. It is surprising to see that even people who make a career of the study of history sometimes forget that History does not work nor does it happen at a museum. Museums are pedagogically useful, tools: They serve to make History comprehensible as a whole and, more importantly, visual. A museum leaves on the tourists a much stronger vision and remembrance than any piece of propaganda could ever do; the power of Wikipedia puts political propaganda to shame. The problem with a museum, however, is that it is logically systematized¹, but it is not alive, it makes the visitor believe that History is a bundle of dead things ordered by some Harry Potteresque sorcerers called “historians”. After they finish tiding everything, man can look upon History as something distant and entirely unrelated to him. Museums are too systematic, they need to put on labels, they need to put x things in y room. What ends up happening is that history works by stereotypes: the XV century will be the Vitruvian man of Da Vinci, it will therefore be a time of optimism and excitement, there will be pasta and men in leotards. The XVII century will be baroque, it will be sad and pessimistically sad, there will be skulls, hourglasses and darkness, and surrealness… At the end of the day, if man does not grow up, he will forever see History as logically organized museum rooms, not as the life of men and their ideas, as a victory against time.

Majors in philosophy always have a course of history of philosophy, this subject matter is of inestimable importance, it opens up almost three millennia of philosophical tradition to the student. But this is history for philosophers, for those interested in other things than History qua history, and it has the same practical interest as a museum: to make information available in an orderly manner to those who want to learn philosophy or be “cultured”. History, however, is not made up of parts, the man who plough the fields is the same man who prays in the Church, the philosopher who thinks is the same man who takes part in social life and shares the beliefs of his contemporaries, or his distrust of them, there is, strictly speaking, no division in history, as there is no division in man, except for schizoids, there is only one acting man because only the individual is conscious. Therefore, a cleaner look at History, not meant to make the teachings of philosophers available to future philosophers, such as history of philosophy, but, instead, one history interested in understanding human action in itself, the defining events recorded that make our world be this world and not an abstract possibility of a world; a man interested in understanding History for its own sake, will look at the history of ideas. At that point, all the simplicity of the museum banishes, one understands that “the Renaissance” or “Modern Philosophy” are not logical concepts but historical types², one sees that history is not the logical unfolding of events, but the messiness of life: History is fun, but fun is not a system, it is an activity. John Arcto, in his defence of Karl Popper, has given a brilliant account of the logic of Karl Popper’s philosophy; what Yours Truly will now do is address this philosophy not as a conceptual system, but historical ideas of living men. In responding to John Arcto, rather, in commenting his original piece, we will go from the history of philosophy to the history of ideas, from history to History.

For a while, Yours Truly has tried to conjure up something interesting and relevant to say about a piece by a fellow user and producer on this site: A defence of Karl Popper. Written by John Arcto, also known as “The Anglofuturist”. Karl Popper has a vast production of his own, and even vaster commentary or, as it is often called “literature”. Therefore, it becomes uncommon to find interesting interpretations, even supposedly less outside of “Academia”. John Arcto wanted to know why Karl Popper came to be interpreted as more or less aligned with social/liberal democracy progressive style (George Soros) and, more specifically, why it seems, from the right wing angle, that he paved the way for Third and Fourth wave feminism, and gender ideology more generally. Originally, John Arcto was addressing Keith Woods, who made eloquently the main right wing criticism of Popper. The question here at hand is one of ideology: What is the relationship between political correctness, interpreted as the instrument of left wing XXI century identity politics (Which will be, from here on, be named “Wokstery”), and Popperian philosophy? John Arcto interprets there to be an extrinsic and accidental connection, while others, such as Keith Woods, interprets it to be intrinsic and essential. History, however, has been put in the backseat, the backseat of a historical interpretation, mixed in disordered fashion with a theoretical question of ideology. Thus, In good time, this problem will be addressed.

John Arcto could not give an entire response to this question, because that would have required him to do a historically minded sociological enquiry, rather than try to rescue what actually Popper wanted to say. In other words, this is a sociological (praxeologically guided synthesis of history) commentary upon John Arcto’s philosophical defence of Karl Popper.

First and foremost, the original text needs to be addressed. Welcome to SyntherChronicles.

Popperianism, logically reconstructed

The original piece is, as the title states, a defence of Karl Popper, a defence of his philosophy from the perspective of someone combating Wokstery. Therefore, it is not so much interested in the scholastic qualities of Karl Popper, in the quality of his reading of Plato or Wittgenstein. It is an article interested in what Karl Popper can say at this moment for this group that faces another one politically. As it will be seen, the topic would therefore be best considered in a strictly sociological sense³ of seeing what kind of action this ideas have fostered and can be said to foster, instead of in a strictly theoretical sense, more on that in the next entry. It is, at the same time, made in response to a particular video-essay by Keith Woods which states what is, according to John Arcto, the most common right wing criticisms of Karl Popper. It is therefore not a mere defence of Karl Popper, but a rehabilitation, a rehabilitation of him which has in mind two ends:

To prove that Popper is essentially not woke, that is, that his ideas have no intrinsic relationship or implication for wokeness, but at most one accidental and unintended. Therefore, the point is to prove that Popper is part of the right wing historically as well as politically:

This is where my essential defence of Karl Popper comes in. Popper was very different from these rights-focused, radical Enlightenment philosophers. He falls into what I like to call the ‘centre-right tradition’ of the Enlightenment, personified by figures like Thomas Hobbes, Montesquieu, David Hume, and Edmund Burke, who both advocated pluralism and representative government, but also had a deeply realistic view of human beings and the dangers of abstract principles, and recognised the inevitability of human inequality and hierarchy.

And secondly, to prove that Karl Popper’s philosophy, both epistemologically and politically, has intrinsically unwokening right wing logical implications and consequences. Therefore, Popper is meant to be a friend, in the schmittian sense, not an enemy, to all movements who are sworn to fight against wokeness:

In this essay I will discuss two aspects of Popper’s thought: his political theory and philosophy of science, and how both of these elements interlink with each other to create a very powerful opposition to Wokeism.

So as to demonstrate this main points, which form one ultimately, the piece follows this structure:

First, the diagnosis of Western Society from a Popperian perspective is given. This society does not have a problem of relativism, there is no dictatorship of relativism, rather, it is absolutism, a return to older beliefs, rather, to Platonism more specifically, which is at hand:

we have allowed fundamentalist notions of ‘natural rights’ and there being a ‘right side of history’ to drive our society. Wokeism is an ideology that is not relativist, but absolutist… With this, comes a fanatical certainty that ‘the moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends towards justice’, to quote one of their most important canonized saints, Martin Luther King (the bold is added by Yours Truly)

Secondly, comes Karl Popper´s political philosophy, broken down in two parts: One where Popper names the three great historical currents that culminate in totalitarianism, for Popper, and can be found, according to John Arcto, currently in Wokstery (a parallel reading by John Arcto and Keith Woods, one familiar to most), they are: holism, essentialism and historicism). After this, John Arcto explains what the infamous “paradox of tolerance” actually is, showing that it is not the same as political correctness, nor does it imply what many believe it entails.

Here John Arcto acknowledges some of the criticism brought by Keith Wood et al. against Popper. John Arcto finds essentialism to be the weak point in Karl Popper’s account and philosophy. Karl Popper’s opposition to essentialism, coming from a general opposition to metaphysics in the classical sense, is what theoretically, relates him to Wokstery:

The major flaw with Popper’s philosophy is his anti-essentialism, which undermines a lot of his other views on empiricism and desire for pluralism. Whilst he was aware of the dangers of a moral absolutist left, he didn’t see how moral relativism could morph into a moral absolutism of its own.

On the other hand, he sees his criticism of holism as essentially correct, but also too extreme and even incomplete. However, where Karl Popper hits the nail is historicism:

However, Popper is correct in critiquing historicism. The Woke are ultra-historicist. They believe in an ultra-Whiggish version of history where those advocating the most extreme interpretation of ‘natural minority rights’ are forever on the ‘right side of history’, and history is a progression from backwardness and ‘bigotry’ towards enlightenment and ‘equity’.

In third place, after the historical currents that are relevant to understand the enemies of the Open Society, John Arcto goes on to distinguish Karl Popper’s paradox of tolerance from Herbert Marcuse’s liberating tolerance (and, more generally, other understandings of “intolerance of the intolerant” contemporary but unrelated to Karl Popper). Here John Arcto intends to make the correct interpretation of Karl Popper, that is, to interpret what Karl Popper’s philosophy actually entails⁴. John Arcto shows that, when properly understood, Karl Popper’s paradox would, currently, not require the use of intolerance against the right, so as to supposedly avoid a slippery slope towards fascism; instead, it should be used against those promoting such drastic measures in the first place:

However, Popper is a figure with broader appeal without Marxist links, so like the Woke deconstructivists always do, they deliberately mix up the two notions. They ignore that Popper was an anti-communist and focus entirely on him being an anti-Nazi, forget that his critique was totalitarianism not fascism explicitly, and that according to his maxim of the ‘Paradox of Tolerance’, it would be themselves, that hold steadfast to the principle of no-platforming and ‘no-debate’, that should not be tolerated.

Thirdly, the picture is made complete by exposition of Karl Popper’s philosophy of science. All things good are made even better by synthesis, on this point, John Arcto gives a short and poignant run of Karl Popper’s Empirical Falsificationism or Critical Rationalism. John Arcto includes the criticism of Thomas Kuhn (that the history of science is complex and does not show a continued process of falsification) and the refinement done to Popper’s theory by Imre Lakatos (that falsification happens inside a research program and is proper when sophisticated). Critical Rationalism is a common place of Popperian philosophy, and of talk about it, here John Arcto is making an iteration of a commonly known exposition of Karl Popper. That said, what makes John Arcto distinguish himself from other iteration is how he frames the iteration. Here Critical rationalism or Empirical Falsificationism is shown to be a tool against alleged scientific claims of Wokstery, but also against the antiscientific attitudes coming from others on the right:

This is partly the reason why I think it so important for the Right to rediscover Popper, because his method provides the means by which Woke ideology posing as ‘science’ can be debunked, whilst still keeping grounded in reality and not going off the conspiracy deep end, what Scott Greer calls the ‘Insane Clown Party’.

Fourth, and shortly, he compares George Soros’s “Open Society” to the original Open Society as Karl Popper understood it. On the one hand, George Soros intends there to be a society which favours the oppressed and weakens the oppressors, being thus closer to Herbert Marcuse among others. Popper, on the other hand, defends a defensive pluralistic society, a society which does not focus on oppressed-oppressors as its justification, but rather on defending pluralism itself from those that do not want any form of plurality. Thus, George Soros is for the defence of oppressed minorities against oppressive majorities, while Popper is focused on defending the ideal of pluralism itself, specially, in the early XXI century (might John Arcto add) against those that abolish pluralism in the name of pluralism.

Popper’s ‘Open Society’ was a ‘defensive pluralistic’ one, where different lifestyles were permitted, but advocacy for overturning such value pluralism was not. It was one of religious freedom, but where those that wanted to end religious freedom were not free to do so.

Fifth, and finally, John Arcto acknowledges what is correct about Keith Wood’s right wing critical assessment of Popper: Karl Popper, in his effort to fight totalitarianism fostered relativism, which in turn lead to a tragically ironic form of totalitarianism.

And it is on this point that Keith Woods, R. R. Reno, and Notes From the Past are correct. Whilst not a postmodernist himself, Popper did have a moral relativism that left society vulnerable to people with significantly more absolutist beliefs.

And granting this, there is, however, not at all a problem in defending and treasuring the main contributions of Karl Popper as contributions logically and politically⁵ favourable to the opponents of Wokstery:

But overall, I think that Popper’s philosophy is anti-Woke, and offers us some valuable tools in which to fight it without completely losing touch with reality, chiefly the Paradox of Tolerance and Empirical Falsification

Has John Arcto managed to defend his main thesis? John Arcto wanted to prove two things: Karl Popper is not woke and Karl Popper is an important philosopher to think against Wokstery. One could say that John Arcto’s text has a pars destruens and a pars construens; one position he wants to refute and another position he wants to make

1. The pars destruens is that Karl Popper is a philosopher used by the likes of George Soros by accident and misrepresentation of his views, even if his philosophy might make allowance for such readings. Karl Popper, a heavyweight of philosophy inside of academia, read in the light of developments that have occurred after his time and in the light of his own mind, would actually make the philosophical case for action to be taken against wokeness and political correctness.

2. The pars construens is that Karl Popper makes a case for a defensive-pluralistic society based on epistemological grounds that is irrefutable when force comes to show.

The pars destruens is proven by clarification of Karl Popper’s actual philosophy and distinguishing it from other thinkers like Herbert Marcuse, and also by carefully distinguishing ideas, such as antiessentialism, that might actually be held in common with Wokstery, and those that have nothing in common and actually are openly contrary to wokeness, such as historicism. The pars construens, in turn, is proven by taking Karl Popper’s entire philosophy as a coherent system and finding out that his pluralism is the opposite of current narratives in favour of the “oppressed”, and his Falsificationism is a laser beam cutting through the supposed scientific apparatus that underpins Wokstery.

Thus, John Arcto seems to have succeeded in proving his point. By proving his point John Arcto has opened up two different political understandings that those on the right can make of Karl Popper: The one that Keith Woods had represented, where Karl Popper is the weak link between relativistic dictatorship and liberalism, and the one John Arcto is representing now, where Karl Popper is understood to see a centre right defender of the ideals of the Open Society and Critical Rationalism that destroy the alleged basis of Wokstery.

And now, Yours Truly, if mistakes have not been made, can prove why both Keith Woods and John Arcto have at the same time hit the mark and missed the point, . This will be proven without resorting to any form of “synthesis” of their positions. Keith Woods and John Arcto will discover a known figure which they might want to look at for the future study of thinkers: Ludwig von Mises. Praxeology, the theory of action, used to understand history, will show that Karl Popper’s philosophy needs also to be studied as an ideology, as an idea which actors, in their purpose of changing society, unconsciously or consciously, use. This will prove that the scientific study of his philosophy is valuable, but the acceptance of it is fatal for anyone committed to changing society, as both are. Praxeology is here the laser beam against autism.

Up to this point, Karl Popper has been interpreted, now, one has to see how he has changed the world.

(Continuation)

1. A museum is not an act of the mind, as reasoning is, but a museum certainly implies a technique or art so as to order an array of things for the end of teaching and utility. History, is already disordered, or ordered, it is what it is.

2. The best explanation of ideal types, the one Sych finds intellectually satisfactory, can, surprisingly, be found in Hans Hermann Hoppe’s A theory of Socialism and capitalism, in various footnotes. Note that this explanation is valid independent of agreement with the rest of HHH’s philosophy. The contribution of ideal types, read in the light of a theory of action, shows ideal types to be based on man being an agent and, therefore, not just constructions of the sociologist to generalize from concrete history. Therefore ideal types being conscious or unconscious realities of acting minds, and therefore not just useful abstractions, but neither really existing “structures” or “systems” of sociological study (a healthy alternative to Talcott Parsons’s own theory of action). This can be read in footnote 70, on page 94, 72 on 98-99 and, the best of all, pages 34-35 note 18:

On the contrary, it is the very purpose of constructing ideal types to bring out those features which the acting individuals themselves regard as constituting relevant resemblances or differences in meaning, and to disregard those which they themselves consider to be of little or no importance in understanding either one’s own or another person’s actions

3. John Arcto does consider also the historical “life” of Popperianism, but it is a bit ambiguous. Sometimes it seams that he is interested in what Karl Popper actually thought, other times, he seems to be interested in how is ideas have played out. This commentary presupposes that distinguishing theory and history is important, the logic from the life of ideas.

4. In other words, John Arcto is interpreting Karl Popper according to his own mind, as it where. To state the purpose of this commentary, again, the purpose of Yours Truly is to see what Karl Popper’s philosophy leads to when put in practice and, to a certain extent, unavoidably, because ideas will always be read by other people beyond themselves and their intentions insofar as they have practical uses for their own means. This point is familiar to many already when it concerns, for instance, the American Constitution and it inevitably being interpreted by people who lack the original intent. The point here is to remind the reader that this also happens concerning Karl Popper.

5. Here John Arcto gets, this commentator must acknowledge, the main point of this response. But it is found to not be enough. Sure, one can always take ideas from a thinker, but one must not believe that such an enterprise will be both practically possible or, more importantly, useful. This is so because John Arcto is interested, ultimately, in Karl Popper for what he can deliver to a political movement, not for his ideas in a philological sense. In that case, the style and framework of his ideas, found historically, their origin or social world more generally, need to be considered more thoroughly. Aptly put: In strict logic John Arcto can do what he is trying to do, but in practice, sociologically, it is simply impossible to rehabilitate Karl Popper as a liberal enemy of Wokstery, a failed means for John Arcto’s presupposed ends.