https://research.moraleconomy.au/index.php?action=history&feed=atom&title=Ontology_talk%3A9k%2FRD%2FQ618-KarlPopperOntology talk:9k/RD/Q618-KarlPopper - Revision history2026-05-04T16:54:03ZRevision history for this page on the wikiMediaWiki 1.43.0https://research.moraleconomy.au/index.php?title=Ontology_talk:9k/RD/Q618-KarlPopper&diff=42747&oldid=prevReversedragon: dump miscellaneous thoughts I had about articles on Karl Popper - created today2026-05-04T06:55:16Z<p>dump miscellaneous thoughts I had about articles on Karl Popper - created today</p>
<table style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122;" data-mw="interface">
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<col class="diff-marker" />
<col class="diff-content" />
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">← Older revision</td>
<td colspan="2" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 06:55, 4 May 2026</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno" id="mw-diff-left-l11">Line 11:</td>
<td colspan="2" class="diff-lineno">Line 11:</td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ol class="hue clean"></div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ol class="hue clean"></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div></li></ol> --></div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div></li></ol> --></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="−"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #ffe49c; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><pre></pre></div></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><pre></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Karl Popper (1902-1994) -> so there is some weird Tory journalist that is half convinced this guy was a Trotskyist? and I have no clue if that's remotely close to true.</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Karl Popper (1902-1994) -> when I saw the words "experience of the mind" I audibly said "oh no" [https://www.britannica.com/biography/Karl-Popper] [https://web.archive.org/web/20260413044701/https://www.britannica.com/topic/criterion-of-falsifiability] but the weirdest thing this page had to say is just that he was associated with the non-black non-raven rule.<br/></ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">it is really stupid of him to dismiss Marxism because "it didn't adhere to the falsifiability criterion" when there are blatantly models that Marxism has thrown out when they were disproven, including the Paris Commune, several forms of anarchism, Menshevism, Narodism, and arguably most people who aren't part of it have thrown out Trotskyism. keep in mind, much of this stuff got thrown out after a single good example. some people are in the process of throwing out Deng Xiaoping states after a couple of examples of how they failed to do what they were supposed to, although there isn't a solid consensus on that. nah, he is just completely and utterly wrong. I kind of want to see exactly what book he said that in though, if only to know in what year he made up his mind on that.</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">though supporters of the counterculture knew what they were against, they were far less certain about the culture they wished to endorse [https://frankfuredi.org/an-ideology-without-a-name/] -> note: the rest of this article is total garbage that had no idea what it was talking about. I suspect the author has no fucking idea what Karl Popper was arguing, even though I haven't gotten to reading that book yet, and it's like he thinks everybody in 1940-1960 was a Trotskyist who literally wants to unite multiple countries and he absolutely does not understand anarchism. that one sentence is exactly on the mark though, that's the one moment where he correctly assesses what anarchism is. it's freedom from actually defined {{censor|shit}} that makes sense, at least half the time it seems like.</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">The detachment of people from their closed and so-called tribalist existence ... has seamlessly led to the politicisation of identity [https://frankfuredi.org/an-ideology-without-a-name/] -> okay, yeah, that might actually be true if you said it in a more neutral tone. taken as a statement about sublation and the transformation of societies that is neither good nor bad? sure.</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Popper was not fond of a closed group of citizens [https://frankfuredi.org/an-ideology-without-a-name/] / Opening up communities to the ideology of openness was far more important than people’s democratic rights -> this dude really seems to think Popper is an anarchist. is that true? I have no idea if it's true or not. I always thought he was a Liberal-republican who hated Communism. but for some reason this article is hell bent on insisting that Karl Popper blasted apart Toryism with his anarchist values and caused all sorts of problems. I don't know what the fuck is going on<br/></ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">oh.... wait... is Popper talking about Reconstruction? I don't even know. but if you're going to make a moonshot that's usually a pretty good one on topics related to the United States, it almost always goes back to Reconstruction.<br/></ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">gosh either way this article makes Popper sound bizarrely orange like he's out to leap Trotskyism onto your country because he's got something against Stalin personally</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">The Poverty of Historicism</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">The open society and its enemies</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">teleological historicism / teleological historicism, according to which history unfolds inexorably according to universal laws [https://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Popper_on_Marx_on_History] -> you know that this motif is just wrong and he doesn't know what he's talking about when he brings in the word "teleological". this is as stupid as saying that evolution can't be true because you think the concept of a species or a countable population of birds is absurd and you cannot imagine allopatric speciation. this is the most fucking inanimate theory of history I have ever seen and some people have listed it as one of the best nonfiction books? why? this book was written by a rock.<br/></ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">saying that history unfolds in order to aim at a final design or Idea is not required to posit a theory of historical processes, nor is it even a part of that. if that were a part of it, it would be impossible to build a science because inasmuch as you cannot know what the end is there would be no objective way to define failure states. the recognition that history takes place in the present and moves only across particular transitions is what allows failure states to be defined; when a particular transition is laid out materially it's easy to judge whether each party has accomplished it or hasn't accomplished it. there are physical consequences to making it out the other end of a transition or not. it's not about "perfection". it's about whether racist genocides happen or are prevented. you're not trying to tell me that you think genocide doesn't matter because history has no particular ending, are you? that has an agenda, in that every living organism fighting to preserve itself has a teleological agenda. saying the world was made for the United States to survive and a bunch of other ethnic groups to die because the United States is "open" and virtuous would be awfully teleological in and of itself. Marxism exists to avoid that teleology by saying that countries only keep existing when they take responsibility for themselves and take the correct material actions to do so. ethics is inherently teleological. a theory which totally eschews morality and ethics is not motivated by the teleological concerns that sit behind ethics.</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">History is a dialectic of factions / History, or politics in its historical sense, unfolds through different ideological factions colliding with each other (Hegel, Marx) -> that one is okay. I could generously mark this one violet because it is basically the model of Social-Philosophical Systems.</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Ideological factions emerge from economic classes (Marx) -> usually. the only exception is when one class births multiple conflicting factions, as in Liberal-republicanism, or as in several separate Deng Xiaoping states functioning like redundant Liberal-republican parties in a world republic.</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">According to Marx's economic historicism, the social layout of one historical period must obliterate itself to produce the next distinct historical period [https://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Popper_on_Marx_on_History] -> true. so why is this "historicism" and why is it bad?</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Capitalism contains the tools that will eventually be used to destroy it / Capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction [https://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Popper_on_Marx_on_History] -> yes. that's why Marxism isn't teleological — it's an evolving manual on how to use particular pieces that exist at a given time to produce particular other pieces, based on what happens to be possible, not based on what's perfect.</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Both Hegel and Marx thought that history has a purpose and a destiny [https://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Popper_on_Marx_on_History] -> no. the whole reason for Marx to write about Hegel is that he didn't believe the same things as Hegel. why do people not understand this?</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Marxism is the most dangerous form of historicism (teleological historicism; Popper) [https://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Popper_on_Marx_on_History] -> why? what's especially bad about Marxism, and what are the other forms? like, Plato?</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Marxism is the most dangerous form of historicism because Marx thought the transition from capitalism into dictatorship of the proletariat was the only possible next step -> well that's not true, so the first part of the claim must not be true either.</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Other historians saw history and 'the fate of man' as determined by conflict between nations; Marx saw history as determined by conflict between classes / rulers as well as ruled, are caught in the net, and forced to fight one another -> as I read this it's like, Popper is repeating back what Marx said somewhat accurately, but in total disbelief. Marx says that history as the conflict between nations can cease to be in its present form when workers take control of nations — {{em|solving}} the problem — and Popper seems totally incredulous at this concept, like, 'workers?!? ruling nations?? what the hell'. it's almost funny.</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Unlimited freedom leads to no freedom / Freedom defeats itself if it is unlimited -> yes. and the realization you need to come to to complete this statement is that {{em|it is nearly impossible for freedom to be limited}} just by wanting it to be. it's when you realize how much effort it takes to limit freedom the tiniest bit and how much blood has to be shed to bring down the tiniest bit of "moderation" on freedom and how easily that is reversed that you understand why anybody would bother. [[E:Any mandatory element of society will hold up a gun and resist regulation as long as it is mandatory|]].</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Government can protect the economically weak from attack through institutions / piecemeal social engineering -> cool idea, but the "economically strong" have total power to dismantle them and prevent anyone from voting for them. it only gets worse when entire countries are attacking entire countries for land, workers, or oil and there are not even any armies to properly defend them let alone governments that aren't vulnerable to foreign assassinations. when you have a program for protecting Venezuela I'll listen to you or any of the bullshit that comes out of people who claim that science fiction is a waste of time because "we can solve problems on earth" easily when they have no fucking idea how to protect Venezuela or Cuba or Vietnam or Thailand. those are the problems on earth, assholes.</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">piecemeal social engineering -> ok now I feel like one of the freshest ways you could write a science fiction book is to directly address the widespread false claim that it's easy to regulate societies and simpler to do than to build any sci-fi technology or galactic pipe-dream. set the story in Cuba or somewhere, historical East Germany, I don't know. Liberal-republicans are complaining that all the research going into wild scifi technologies is a waste, Communists actually lead an action to stop all the boondoggle research somehow, Liberal-republicans get absolutely furious, Communist countries try to engineer society to be better for humans, Liberal-republicans try to fucking murder their entire populations and every Black anarchist and every Indian tribe. the conclusion of the story has to do with how truly "far out" and "out of this world" and {{em|futuristic}} the entire proposition of government and attempting to regulate society whatsoever the teeniest bit to be the teeniest bit less harmful and the teeniest bit less "evil" or unethical actually is.</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">"I heard that in China they have something called government" "government will destroy your will and take over your mind. it's a virus. it's a parasite" "I don't know, it sounds pretty good. I mean, if we had government, people wouldn't be allowed to pay people from other conglomerates to kill the first person that violated their conglomerate's personal code." "what an unbelievably rude thing to say. you know that other conglomerates are within their rights to lock you up for that" "but these days they don't because they know it looks bad. you know how Kant once said—" "no Liberal ever knew the meaning of freedom. freedom is when you go about your day and nobody gives anybody else an order. this shouldn't be difficult to understand." "but" "don't complain. you have it easy in this country. if you don't offend anyone you won't be killed or locked up. now shut your mouth. do you want to be a good person or a bad person?"</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">The economic system criticized by Marx has ceased to be -> so this fucker has never visited China I presume.</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">this is wrong like three different ways. A) the capitalist industries of 1850 exist in China B) Popper can't see that capitalism still exists almost purely because it got gigantic and started turning whole entire countries into racialized proletariats and whole entire countries into bourgeoisie. if you zoom way into an elephant it's still there C) people thinking this in 1950 allowed every single safeguard against capitalism to be dismantled. I swear that Popper's account of regulating capitalism is more teleological than Marxism.</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Marx claimed there would be an increasing concentration of wealth in ever fewer hands, and a corresponding increase in misery among the growing working class ({{book|Capital}}) -> this prediction is wrong, but many people don't tell that to you correctly because they don't understand how it was wrong. this statement is broadly correct for {{em|the whole world}}, but it's not correct for individual countries, where whole classes have actually gotten split into bourgeois countries and proletarian countries, holding up revolutions. unfortunately, every meaningful historical development must occur {{em|inside countries}}. historical periods only actually change per country, except in the case of tribes that fused together, or ancient empires that changed by stretching over multiple kingdoms, neither of which Marx was focusing on. so while change is still possible it has to be conceptualized in terms of totally different structures based on different classes or arranged objects than were originally expected. in First World countries, the big problem is division itself and society being unavoidably split into competing islands always whooshing past each other. if people somehow started actually caring about that it would be possible to fuse all the islands together under a new republic a lot like Mao did. if people _actually cared_ about forming together into a stable arrangement of economic structures just to be part of them and have stability it wouldn't be difficult to take people through the kinds of transitions the Soviet Union was going through to take each smaller group of peasants or workers and fit them together into upgraded structures. the problem seems to be that for unknown reasons corporations are simply falling apart and dropping a bunch of loose people that have to start new corporations, periodically destroying the proletariat and regenerating the bourgeoisie. I don't think the bulk of what Western Marxism says about "consciousness" is true; I really don't think it's corporations putting out pro-capitalist messaging and programming people to not ask questions. I think it's the business territories and physical objects themselves. I think there's something wrong with the raw materials that we still don't understand.</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">The tension between a few bourgeoisie and a vast proletariat will bring about a revolution; there is no other way for revolution to happen or capitalism to end -> I think one of the problems with this article is that it doesn't even understand Hegel. Hegel said that society would have evolved through colliding Ideas. but he didn't say those had to be specific Ideas. likewise Marx didn't say there was only one way for capitalism to end and turn into something else. he heavily implied the proletariat was the most important thing but he didn't say there is only one form of revolution that takes place between only one kind of opposition of two factions.<br/></ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">think about this: Marx never said the Soviet Union {{em|wouldn't}} split into Stalin's government and the Trotskyites fighting over the government. he didn't say that Trotskyists badly attempting a second revolution would be inconceivable. he did not say that there would not be multiple Marxist movements containing variant Marxisms that would have to fight each other to come to any kind of unified line about how to get to world socialism. (though he may have implied that some of them would definitely just be wrong and not right.) he said that ideological factions would collide, and those factions would ultimately come from classes. but he didn't actually specify what those factions would always be. this is what Marxism actually is. it's the study of every possible ideological faction based on some class or combination of classes, how those factions will interact, and what is the best outcome you can use them to create each time. if I can be allowed to so boldly state that Marxism was always meta-Marxism. but I think I have a good case on that. I think I have a good case on Marxism specifically being the study of how ideas and ideologies are material objects and how it was pretty much an extensive but incomplete precursor to what I now call meta-Marxism.</ins></div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div> </div></td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-side-deleted"></td><td class="diff-marker" data-marker="+"></td><td style="color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #a3d3ff; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><ins style="font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none;">Western Marxist statements about "consciousness" are true but only in relation to Trotskyist periodicals -> I'm joking but also serious. Western-Marxism seems to have a terrible grasp of the concept that societies are not in control of capitalists and the whole reason capitalists are bad is that you don't control them. but when it comes to Marxist theory, that's something Marxists are actually to some extent in control of. so if Fisherists were to accuse only Trotskyists of spreading false consciousness and not capitalists, that might actually help</ins></pre></div></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></td></tr>
<tr><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><!--</div></td><td class="diff-marker"></td><td style="background-color: #f8f9fa; color: #202122; font-size: 88%; border-style: solid; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 4px; border-radius: 0.33em; border-color: #eaecf0; vertical-align: top; white-space: pre-wrap;"><div><!--</div></td></tr>
</table>Reversedragonhttps://research.moraleconomy.au/index.php?title=Ontology_talk:9k/RD/Q618-KarlPopper&diff=42746&oldid=prevReversedragon: copy markup from Q75,192026-05-04T06:54:25Z<p>copy markup from <a href="/index.php?title=Special:PermanentLink/42738" title="Special:PermanentLink/42738">Q75,19</a></p>
<p><b>New page</b></p><div>{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=Karl Popper|User=RD|E=Q618|Contents=y}}<br />
== Main entries ==<br />
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean"><br />
<br />
{{li|I=Z1/LR|Q=618|Q2=618}}Karl Popper<br />
<br />
</li></ol><br />
<br />
== Related ==<br />
<!--<br />
<ol class="hue clean"><br />
</li></ol> --><br />
<pre></pre><br />
<br />
<!--<br />
== Wavebuilder combinations ==<br />
<dl class="wikitable hue data_wavebuild three"><br />
{{WaveBuild| -- | -- | -- }}<br />
</dl><br />
{{E:Q618/ES|--}}<br />
--><br />
== Ideologies or fields ==<br />
<!--<br />
<ol class="hue clean compound"><br />
{{HueNumber|Q3300}} -- en: A / anarchism --<br />
</ol><br />
--><br />
<br />
* (none)<br />
<br />
== Subpages ==<br />
<br />
<!--<br />
== Full title for bookmarks (optional) ==<br />
<pre>[9k] asdfsdfsdf - Q618 - next nine thousand</pre><br />
<br />
--><br />
[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]] <!-- page ends here. TTS-unfriendly numbers incoming<br />
redirects: [[Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q7519]]<br />
duplication hint: copy markup from [[Special:PermanentLink/NNNN|Q75,19]] --></div>Reversedragon