The virtual dialog with Dr. Karl Popper

The virtual dialog with Dr. Karl Popper

 

The moon in day

* This article was written Japanese on October 7, 2013 and again translate into English.

 

A. About the history

 

  1. About a certain writing, the Doctor has been described that ‘the same past history as it really occurred is not able to exist’, after adding on the condition of reservation that says that it is been saying like the one that was written with relating a history of Europe. (“The Open Society and Its Enemies”, p399-p401 Misuzu Shobo in Japan 1980) The point of this argument is a logic that it says that ‘it is one piece of interpretation and it is also possible about the other interpretation and therefore it is not the history’. Is it really so? For example, if the description is not false, the fact that Caesar crossed the Rubicon River has been coming conveyed, we can say that it is the history. The interpretation is an other problem.

 

  1. The Doctor has been written as follows. When we go beyond ‘the idea that it says that history of power would be our judge’, that is, when we go beyond the idea that it says that we had been in a position of passive person looking from the man of power, ‘we will succeed in placing the power under our control. As such, we will be able to justify the history from our side’. (ib. p410) This is the attitude of the democrat and this is the one which can be called the history active principle. However, it is thought that the Doctor seems to have been refused the previous history. Here are two worlds, that is, there is a world that is not the history and there is a world that became the history. How will we recognize these two worlds to be the history? Should we call it ‘pre-history’ and ‘true-history’? Both are in one continuity of the same time together. We will gather facts of each one which occurred in the history from the already written history documents and the data, and composing it is the task of us.

 

B. About the possibility of opposite proof

 

  1. ‘The possibility of opposite proof’ theory is the proof of percipient mind of the Doctor. The essence of the way of this thinking is the one that it says that ‘all theories have stayed in a hypothesis until being disproved it’. It is not the one that an ordinary man can refute the consistence of the logic that the Doctor was made. However, some reason that feels fuzzy remains in the view of the world of the ordinary man. This may become the encouragement, too, for the scientists to do the study of the most advanced field. However, it is possible even to say that the world is formed on the temporary phenomenon when this view of the world is expanded in the world of the daily life and is reasoned. I think that it can also solve by the strict rule of the field, but the world that thinking content by different fields is different returns like the classic theology world, it is not preferable. This also seems to be a problem related to the core of thinking, what the thought thinks.

 

  1. On September 4, there was a news that the existence of the Higgs particle was confirmed. Now, the universe is considered to continue to be changing. Among the Space time, the time that the human being lives is at most only 100 years. However, we are now living. And, the town has spread in front of our eyes, the world is spreading. This world is beautiful and powerful. Would this world have been forming on the hypothesis? I think that it is not so. If saying extremely, ‘The possibility of opposite proof’ theory is possible even to lead to the conjectures that it says that, among in the Space time, our 100 years are only like a temporary phenomenon. I think I would like to avoid such reasoning. I think that the thought that surely proves the human being’s current time among the Space time is necessary.

 

C. About the evaluation of Marx

 

  1. The Doctor is described as follows. “The ‘scientific’ Marxism died. The sense of social responsibility and the love to freedom must survive.” (ib. P351)

 

  1. I thought of Marx, from the viewpoint that it says that why Marxism loses the freedom. And, ①. I clarified that his theory of value was the one which cuts off the variety of the personality of the human beings. And, ②. I got the proposition that it says that “the thought which have a rational outward appearance that appears in the history is not necessarily all the truth”. And furthermore, ③. I got the conclusion that it says that “the world of Marx is forming on the fictional structure”. From the theory of Marx, even if freedom is a desire, freedom is not born.

 

  1. The Doctor has been said, ‘Science tries, and it makes progress by straightening an error.’ (ib. p245) In addition, the Doctor has been said, ‘Marx thought is a theory which has the relation purely with history, a theory aiming to predict the future course of the development at the viewpoint of economic and power struggle, also especially revolution.’ (ib.246) But Marxism is not a science. Marxism demands an action to the person who believes it. What is action it demands? History testifies that the mountain of death and bloodshed has been built where there was Marxism. ―― This “death” contains, such as the death of freedom of speech, the death of freedom of the press, the death of freedom of religion, the death of freedom of conscience, the death of diversity of the human beings and its freedom, and the death of the fundamental human rights. ―― This fact teaches to us that the person who loves liberty and democracy must fight against it.

 

D. About Hegel

 

  1. I read Hegel to know what Marx got from Hegel. Hegel thought the world is the one which the spirit has appeared. I have been understanding by allotting Spinoza’s Nature to the Hegel’s Spirit. Spinoza’s Nature is also the God. This seemed to be heresy of Judaism at that time, and he was excommunicated (expelled). As the succession of such nature = spirit, I considered Hegel. This Nature was also succeeded to Marx. Marx did nature the spirit of Hegel. In case of Hegel, the one that the spirit appeared was a human being, was a community and was a nation. The human being was an object (thing) at the same time. Marx reversed and replaced this spirit with matter. In addition, Hegel is a person who introduced labor to the philosophy. This is the most biggest factor Marx selected Hegel. The human being is making the world by activities of day and days. In this way, the fact that it says that people who are making the world, that is, people who work are the Subject of the world had come and been capturing by Marx.

 

  1. In case of Hegel, he had grasped that the history is the movement and the phenomenon of spirit. Marx had grasped that the history is the movement of the matter. In the consciousness of Hegel, the human being is the existence that the human being, as the independent, that is, the main constituent, is going to establish the self. When this becomes Marx, the human being was considered as the existence that he does not yet establish the independent and as the existence that he is to establish himself by class struggle. That is, the individual main constituents (human beings) are caught as members in one class, and the whole class that the individual main constituents (human beings) belong is considered as one main constituent. The way of thinking to catch the whole of this class as one main constituent has become a national view at the former Soviet Union (especially the time of Stalin), at the generation before a little of The People’s Republic of China , and at the current North Korea. In other words, the whole of the people is one indivisible main constituent and becomes the cause that is a nation. This fact shows that in order for them to get democracy, it is necessary to start by thinking about what it means that humans behave as individuals and as independent human being. And in the People’s Republic of China, now, the people who are beginning it are appearing. This is China’s hope.

 

  1. I would want to enter into Hegel of the Doctor, but cannot easily do it. The Doctor has been refused Hegel. The Doctor connected German racists and Hegel, and he had been put racist’s responsibility on Hegel. This logic let be Hegel a banned book.

 

  1. I am thinking dialectics to be a method that human beings develops own-selves by dialogs. I don’t admit the one which is useful to a method of Marx. However, in case of Hegel, I think that we can admit the following three as our mental attitude and the way of confronting when we face the modern world. ① The dialectic that removes the pedantic accessories like “an sich – für sich – an und für sich ” and like ” fürsichsein “. ② The method of the self-confirming. ③ The concept of approval of others.

 

  1. The life of Hegel is from August, 1770 to November, 1831. In this era, the industrial revolution has already been biginning from the United Kingdom. There was the French Revolution in 1789. Napoleon also had appeared. This era was at unquiet days in Europe and was also the dawn period of modern Europe. Germany was also in this stepping. Hegel was here and was the person who thought about ‘the nation’. Those who want to read Hegel should understand these histories well and can read this philosopher’s description. There is no word of ’a banned book’ anywhere in the Doctor’s book. However, ‘Hegel and new tribalism’ which is included in ‘The Open Society and Its Enemies’ that the Doctor was written has enough intensity to forbid the reader to touch Hegel. We have to read Hegel by having recognized the Doctor’s criticism well.




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*