Philosophical paranoia is the vibe across western civilization. It certainly is the vibe within the institution of philosophy in the universities.
Relativism, causing this paranoia, is something I liken to a Basilisk in that it paralyzes all those that look upon it like Popper. You do a good job of articulating how and why Popper nurtures this relativistic sentiment, even if Popper intended no such thing, and overall I agree that "defense" is not the current required game to be played. Not by anyone on the dissident right or adjacent to it anyways.
I admit that I don't know or at least remember Artco's original defense of Popper, but if there is any defense possible of Popper it is that yes indeed any society must defend itself against subversive agents and ideas, but then the only relevant question is: Which society is justified to build?
It's this question that you push the reader to ask by disvaluing the relativist stance of Popper, and this is the only important question to ask. Vitalists too must ask this question.
In a far less philosophically rigorous and articulate manner, I too criticized Popper though only to debunk the entire notion of a uniquely tolerant "open society". I haven't really connected Popper to the relativistic rot of the west but upon you pointing it out I thoroughly agree with the portrayal.
Beautiful piece! There is a big gap in the literature concerning Popper, not many are aware of the power his work has though, and the fact that it is overlooked is frightening.
I am very interested in thinkers who have great power and are not much treated. I think Popper has that power because people think he is inoffensive, because of how non radical he is. But that is PRECISELY what makes him dangerous.
Philosophical paranoia is the vibe across western civilization. It certainly is the vibe within the institution of philosophy in the universities.
Relativism, causing this paranoia, is something I liken to a Basilisk in that it paralyzes all those that look upon it like Popper. You do a good job of articulating how and why Popper nurtures this relativistic sentiment, even if Popper intended no such thing, and overall I agree that "defense" is not the current required game to be played. Not by anyone on the dissident right or adjacent to it anyways.
I admit that I don't know or at least remember Artco's original defense of Popper, but if there is any defense possible of Popper it is that yes indeed any society must defend itself against subversive agents and ideas, but then the only relevant question is: Which society is justified to build?
It's this question that you push the reader to ask by disvaluing the relativist stance of Popper, and this is the only important question to ask. Vitalists too must ask this question.
In a far less philosophically rigorous and articulate manner, I too criticized Popper though only to debunk the entire notion of a uniquely tolerant "open society". I haven't really connected Popper to the relativistic rot of the west but upon you pointing it out I thoroughly agree with the portrayal.
WOW!!! This is exactly what I was trying to convey. Thank you!
Beautiful piece! There is a big gap in the literature concerning Popper, not many are aware of the power his work has though, and the fact that it is overlooked is frightening.
WOW, thank you!
I am very interested in thinkers who have great power and are not much treated. I think Popper has that power because people think he is inoffensive, because of how non radical he is. But that is PRECISELY what makes him dangerous.