Karl Popper's thought is very important, but has almost entirely been supplanted in Philosophy of Science; he laid a lot of the modern groundwork though.
Ironically, lots of modern scientists think they're Popperians, including the first bozo in the article you quote.
To your first point, I'd agree that we need to read and understand the ideas of all thinkers. It allows us to pick from them what resonate within us and synthesize new ideas. Marx and Engels were influenced by Hegel and Feuerbach is one example. Another would be Lakatos who can be said to have synthesized Popper and Kuhn, as well as Feyeraband, who recognised the flaws in Popper's writings.
And while it is true Popper was influential, it was most notably in the capitalist sphere. The Western Anglo-centric STEM-leaning education that fostered the idea of rationalism in students at a much younger age before teaching them the idea of historicism or dialectics, or not teaching them at all.
Critical rationalism is a framework that a_blanqi_state said, was supplanted by others. Popper's anti-historicism and open society is undoubtedly a rationalist and idealist idea. Denoting social science and historicism due to their "backwardness" is a view inherently put forth to denounce historical materialism. But I would say it falls short even outside of Marxism. For once, it relies on Popper's negativism (he didn't want to be labelled logical postivist, but one could argue it is the same type of approach to scientific knowledge, just inverse), exactly the kind of work Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyeraband and contemporaries pulled apart.
I also think not many have tried to reclaim Marxism from Popper's critiques because of its line of attack being mainly an analytic school of thought. Analytic on the basis that it aims to confront continental ideas, as well as Kuhn's view of science, with such and such are tautologies and therefore bad, that scepticism is a tool that should be put to immediate use at all angles of human empirical knowledge. It very easily spirals back to foundational questions on what the hell do we know and I can't justify anything to be real. He also attempts to undermine "totalitarianism" as it is, from the outside, rather than reason out of it, from the inside, and thus the language used by him is not univocal for Marxists who didn't study analytic philosophy.
Caveat
Now the analytic/continental division is for holistic comparison that depends on lineage, influence, and style of argument. On small scale scrutiny it breaks down.
At some level, circular reasoning means a level of dogmatism, for sure. But I'd argue the focus should be less on hardcore linear thinking but rather can you draw meaning, modality, and attempt to find a relationship between the human enterprise vs what nature is.
There are still antirealists, rationalists, positivists around. But ever since Quine's Two Dogmas, I don't think Popper can reason out of human tendencies for pragmatism. And I'd say it's more pragmatic that we busy ourselves now on the meaning and development of things, rather than putting things into boxes and shooting them down on the basis of rationalism. "Idealogies", the "isms" tend to win because they approach meaning, rather than reason.
There is also Engel's criticism of "metaphysics" (as opposed to dialectics). Popper's ideas put him in the former group, and his ideas were ultimately bourgeois ones, as critiqued by the latter camp.
Regardless, if you throw away historicism as Marxism promotes it, the replacement is an ascientific, ahistorical piecemeal engineering that somehow can work through all past, present and potential "evils", with zero violence and bloodshed, paying no attention to the history of human societies. Idk, I don't buy it.
Karl Popper was something of an unwarranted boogeyman to a certain cadre of easily startled western academic Marxians, and he is used as a crude bludgeon by more well-read anti-marxists
But when you read his (surprisingly limited) writings on Marx it's amazing to discover he never actually touched on the foundations of Marxism, (because frankly he never read Marx) instead he discounts Marxism by way of claiming its "predictions" in the early twentieth century failed and as a result this demonstrated some form of naive empiricism through induction (which again revealed his profound lack of knowledge of economics and of Marx's writings)
And how did Popper become convinced the "predictions" of capital M Marxism were wrong? Von fuckin Mises, I shit you not, the man pulled his entire set of economic assumptions from the father of Austrian economics, and in the meantime broke every one of his "critical rationalist" rules while calling out the marxists, absolute full circle in terms of philosophy, I've never seen anything like it in the history of academia, and it's largely unknown because no one bothers to read what these people actually wrote and funny enough Popper was pretty open and oblivious about the trap he fell into to by way of Mises
“Even his mistaken theories are proof of his keen sociological insight into the conditions of his own time, and of his invincible humanitarianism and sense of justice” Karl Popper 1966
But that's one of the joys of digging thru the history anti-marxism, how they all stole from each other, talked past each other, all of them huddled around the proverbial fireplace telling ghost stories about Marx and his specter
Err, yeah, I won't stick with people that are decidedly anti-Marxist, thank you very much, especially those that influenced the anti-communist George Soros.
People read philosophers who suck so they can get what's valuable from them. I found Heidegger really resonated with me, even though he joined the Nazi party later in life. You should read philosophy as an archeologist, sifting the dust away to find the pottery beneath.
I upvoted but I don't get it.
Big Daddy Paul Feyerabend scorns this scientismic drivel.
Is his work any good?
Not sure if you're meming or joking or whatever, tbh.
deleted by creator
Don't Karl Popper and Kuhn kinda suck?
And Foucault as well?
I mean, Karl Popper was literally against Marxism.
Karl Popper's thought is very important, but has almost entirely been supplanted in Philosophy of Science; he laid a lot of the modern groundwork though.
Ironically, lots of modern scientists think they're Popperians, including the first bozo in the article you quote.
Kuhn and especially Feyerabend slap.
Many Marxists were against them.
Many Marxists are against everything. It's a contentious and sometimes obnoxious lot.
deleted by creator
To your first point, I'd agree that we need to read and understand the ideas of all thinkers. It allows us to pick from them what resonate within us and synthesize new ideas. Marx and Engels were influenced by Hegel and Feuerbach is one example. Another would be Lakatos who can be said to have synthesized Popper and Kuhn, as well as Feyeraband, who recognised the flaws in Popper's writings.
And while it is true Popper was influential, it was most notably in the capitalist sphere. The Western Anglo-centric STEM-leaning education that fostered the idea of rationalism in students at a much younger age before teaching them the idea of historicism or dialectics, or not teaching them at all.
Critical rationalism is a framework that a_blanqi_state said, was supplanted by others. Popper's anti-historicism and open society is undoubtedly a rationalist and idealist idea. Denoting social science and historicism due to their "backwardness" is a view inherently put forth to denounce historical materialism. But I would say it falls short even outside of Marxism. For once, it relies on Popper's negativism (he didn't want to be labelled logical postivist, but one could argue it is the same type of approach to scientific knowledge, just inverse), exactly the kind of work Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyeraband and contemporaries pulled apart.
I also think not many have tried to reclaim Marxism from Popper's critiques because of its line of attack being mainly an analytic school of thought. Analytic on the basis that it aims to confront continental ideas, as well as Kuhn's view of science, with such and such are tautologies and therefore bad, that scepticism is a tool that should be put to immediate use at all angles of human empirical knowledge. It very easily spirals back to foundational questions on what the hell do we know and I can't justify anything to be real. He also attempts to undermine "totalitarianism" as it is, from the outside, rather than reason out of it, from the inside, and thus the language used by him is not univocal for Marxists who didn't study analytic philosophy.
Caveat
Now the analytic/continental division is for holistic comparison that depends on lineage, influence, and style of argument. On small scale scrutiny it breaks down.
At some level, circular reasoning means a level of dogmatism, for sure. But I'd argue the focus should be less on hardcore linear thinking but rather can you draw meaning, modality, and attempt to find a relationship between the human enterprise vs what nature is.
There are still antirealists, rationalists, positivists around. But ever since Quine's Two Dogmas, I don't think Popper can reason out of human tendencies for pragmatism. And I'd say it's more pragmatic that we busy ourselves now on the meaning and development of things, rather than putting things into boxes and shooting them down on the basis of rationalism. "Idealogies", the "isms" tend to win because they approach meaning, rather than reason.
There is also Engel's criticism of "metaphysics" (as opposed to dialectics). Popper's ideas put him in the former group, and his ideas were ultimately bourgeois ones, as critiqued by the latter camp.
Regardless, if you throw away historicism as Marxism promotes it, the replacement is an ascientific, ahistorical piecemeal engineering that somehow can work through all past, present and potential "evils", with zero violence and bloodshed, paying no attention to the history of human societies. Idk, I don't buy it.
Karl Popper was something of an unwarranted boogeyman to a certain cadre of easily startled western academic Marxians, and he is used as a crude bludgeon by more well-read anti-marxists
But when you read his (surprisingly limited) writings on Marx it's amazing to discover he never actually touched on the foundations of Marxism, (because frankly he never read Marx) instead he discounts Marxism by way of claiming its "predictions" in the early twentieth century failed and as a result this demonstrated some form of naive empiricism through induction (which again revealed his profound lack of knowledge of economics and of Marx's writings)
And how did Popper become convinced the "predictions" of capital M Marxism were wrong? Von fuckin Mises, I shit you not, the man pulled his entire set of economic assumptions from the father of Austrian economics, and in the meantime broke every one of his "critical rationalist" rules while calling out the marxists, absolute full circle in terms of philosophy, I've never seen anything like it in the history of academia, and it's largely unknown because no one bothers to read what these people actually wrote and funny enough Popper was pretty open and oblivious about the trap he fell into to by way of Mises
But that's one of the joys of digging thru the history anti-marxism, how they all stole from each other, talked past each other, all of them huddled around the proverbial fireplace telling ghost stories about Marx and his specter
Err, yeah, I won't stick with people that are decidedly anti-Marxist, thank you very much, especially those that influenced the anti-communist George Soros.
deleted by creator
Thank you.
People read philosophers who suck so they can get what's valuable from them. I found Heidegger really resonated with me, even though he joined the Nazi party later in life. You should read philosophy as an archeologist, sifting the dust away to find the pottery beneath.
Heidegger was a fascist...
And you do black and white thinking.
I also said that in my comment, so either your reading comprehension is a little shaky or you just learned that fact.