بحثًا عن عالم أفضل

by Karl Popper, كارل بوبر, أحمد مستجير (translator)

ترجمة، تحقيق: احمد مستجير

Genres: Philosophy, Science, Essays, Nonfiction, Politics, Social Science, Sociology

311 pages

First published January 1, 1984

About the author

Sir Karl Raimund Popper, FRS, rose from a modest background as an assistant cabinet maker and school teacher to become one of the most influential theorists and leading philosophers. Popper commanded international audiences and conversation with him was an intellectual adventure—even if a little rough—animated by a myriad of philosophical problems. He contributed to a field of thought encompassing (among others) political theory, quantum mechanics, logic, scientific method and evolutionary theory.

Popper challenged some of the ruling orthodoxies of philosophy: logical positivism, Marxism, determinism and linguistic philosophy. He argued that there are no subject matters but only problems and our desire to solve them. He said that scientific theories cannot be verified but only tentatively refuted, and that the best philosophy is about profound problems, not word meanings. Isaiah Berlin rightly said that Popper produced one of the most devastating refutations of Marxism. Through his ideas Popper promoted a critical ethos, a world in which the give and take of debate is highly esteemed in the precept that we are all infinitely ignorant, that we differ only in the little bits of knowledge that we do have, and that with some co-operative effort we may get nearer to the truth.

Nearly every first-year philosophy student knows that Popper regarded his solutions to the problems of induction and the demarcation of science from pseudo-science as his greatest contributions. He is less known for the problems of verisimilitude, of probability (a life-long love of his), and of the relationship between the mind and body.

Popper was a Fellow of the Royal Society, Fellow of the British Academy, and Membre de I'Institute de France. He was an Honorary member of the Harvard Chapter of Phi Beta Kappa, and an Honorary Fellow of the London School of Economics, King's College London, and of Darwin College Cambridge. He was awarded prizes and honours throughout the world, including the Austrian Grand Decoration of Honour in Gold, the Lippincott Award of the American Political Science Association, and the Sonning Prize for merit in work which had furthered European civilization.

Karl Popper was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II in 1965 and invested by her with the Insignia of a Companion of Honour in 1982.

(edited from http://www.tkpw.net/intro_popper/intr...)

Reviews

[Samy · Rating 4 out of 5]

بحثا عن عالم أفضل هو كتاب فلسفى بدرجة كبيرة ويستدعى الذهن ويرهقه وقد تناول فيها الفيلسوف الكبير كارل بوبر العديد من الافكار الفلسفية وتناول أكثر من موضوع ففى بدايته يتحدث عن العلم ثم ينتقل إلى الإنسان وما يشبه درجات الوعى كما يتناول العديد من الأفكار السياسية كمفهوم الحرية والديمقراطية
الكتاب الذى قرأته كان من ترجمة الدكتور أحمد مستجير وقد وجدت الكتاب مفيد بشكل كبير لكنه شديد الإرهاق الذهنى

[Dania Abutaha · Rating 5 out of 5]

لا وجود لليقين...و لا نبحث عن اليقين...هدفنا الحقيقه الموضوعيه....من المستحيل ان نعرف شيء بيقين ليس ثمه ما نجنيه من البحث عن اليقين...اما البحث عن الحقيقه فهو امر يستحق...نبحث عن الاخطاء لتصحيحها باستمرار...المعرفه العلميه دائما افتراضيه...منهج العلم منهج نقدي....الحقيقه الموضوعيه هي قيمه اخلاقيه...بل ربما اهم القيم...الحياه طارئه كالوعي....ليس ثمه معرفه دون نقد عقلي للبحث عن الحقيقه...التواضع العقلي ..ادرك ضاله ما تعرف...الحقيقه اليقينيه لم يعرفها احد و لن يعرفها احد لا عن الالهه و لا عن كل ما اتحدث عنه من اشياء و حتى لو حدث بالصدفه ان نطق بالحقيقه الكامله فلن يعرفها هو نفسه...كل شيء هو نسيج محبوك من التخمينات...العلم نشاط نقدي...معيار التقدم هو في البحث المستمر عن الحقيقه...تخمينات حدسيه جريئه يهذبها النقد العلمي...جميعا متساوون في جهلنا المطلق...لا يمكن ان نبدا المعرفه من لا شيء...المعرفه تعتمد على التقاليد.....كل حل لمشكله يخلق مشكلات جديده تحتاج لحل...كلما ازدادت صعوبه المشكله الاساسيه و كلما ازدادت الجساره في محاوله حلها كلما كانت المشكلات الجديده اكثر اثاره...تظهر غالبيه الافكار الخلاقه من خلال الحدس....نقاء العلم الخالص هدف اسمى يفترض اننا لن نبلغه لكنه هدف نحارب و علينا ان نحارب دائما من اجله عن طريق النقد....ان العالم الموضوعي المتحرر من القيمه ليس هو العالم المثالي بدون العاطفه لن ننجز شيئا...لا نستطيع ان نكبت او نحطم القيمه دون ان نحطم الانسان و العالم...على من لا يستطيع ان يتحدث ببساطه ووضوح ان يصمت و ان ينتبه الى عمله الى ان يستطيع ذلك...الفنان العظيم متعلم متحمس يفتح عقله ليتعلم ليس فقط من اعمال الاخرين و انما ايضا من اعماله هو،بما فيها الاخطاء و الاخفاقات التي لا يمكن تجنبها هو او غيره من الفنانين...مجتمع دون صراعات هو مجتمع لا انساني ...المجتمع المثالي مستحيل لكن بعض النظم الاجتماعيه افضل من بعض...على الشخص العاقل ادراك حقه في ان يشك في كل ما يعتبره من المسلمات...ان الكون يحمل بصمات عقولنا...كل منا يخلق ربه...ان عليك اخلاقيا ان تخلق ربك كي تعبد فيه خالقك...ضمير الفرد هو سلطته الاخلاقيه...كن حرا و لا تخش شيءو احترم حريه الغير....كل انسان حر ليس لانه ولد حرا بل لانه قد ولد و على كتفيه عبء القرار الحر...تشجع و استخدم ذكاؤك انت..ان هذا التنوير هو صيحه الحرب...تحرير الانسان من خلال المعرفه...الخطأ قد يؤدي الى كشف الحقيقه ....الافكار الطيبه و النبيله قد يكون لها احيانا اثر مشؤوم على التاريخ ...ثمه فكره تنشر الخبيث و اخرى تنتج الطيب....يمكن للانبياء و حتى الكذابين ان يحركوا الجبال و مثلهم ايضا الافكار حتى الخاطىء منها....ان التعصب اثم دوما...الدين المفروض بالقوه لا قيمه له...حريه التفكير و الجدل الحر من القيم الليبراليه الجوهريه....المشتركين في الجدل سيغيرون اراؤهم بعض الشيء ليفترقوا رجالا احكم....لا يحلم الليبرالي باتفاق كامل في الراي انما يامل فقط في التخصيب المتبادل للافكار و ما يتبعه من نمو للاراء ....الهدف هو بلوغ حس مشترك نقدي مستنير ...بلوغ رؤيه اقرب الى الحقيقه باقل اثر ضار على حياه البشر...الحياه على اي حال هي قيمه الندره انها حقا ثمينه...انما نميل الى ان ننسى ذلك و ان نعتبر الحياه رخيصه...كل الناس فلاسفه لاننا جميعا بطريقه او باخرى نتخذ موقفا تجاه الحياه و الموت....التسامح كما اخبرنا فولتيير هو النتيجه الحتميه لادراكنا اننا لسنا معصومين عن الخطا البشر خطاؤون ....نحن نخطىء طوال الوقت...النقد الذاتي هو جزء من كل امانه ذهنيه....ربما كنت انا مخطىء و كنت انت على صواب و لا ريب اننا قد نكون سويا مخطئين....ان اردت ان اتعلم لوجه الحقيقه فعلي ان اتحملك و ان اعتبرك ندا محتملا لي...اخفاء الاخطاء هو الخطيئه الفكريه الكبرى....نحتاج للاخرين لاكتشاف اخطاؤنا و تصحيحها و هم يحتاجون الينا ايضا....العقلاني في الحق لا يؤمن بان الحقيقه احتكار له او لغيره...كم من السهل على من يحاول ان يقيم الجنه على الارض ان يصل بنا الى الجحيم...من سوء حظنا اننا قد تطور ذكاؤنا باسرع من ضميرنا الاخلاقي...متفائل عنيد

[Fuad Takrety · Rating 5 out of 5]

لا أريد أن اكتب مراجعتي عن هذا الكتاب و ماذلك إلا لخوفي من أن أبخسه حقه فالتلخيص دوما يسيء إلى المعنى و يختزله و مع ذلك سأحاول .

الكتاب عبارة عن مجموعة محاضرات منتقاة للفيلسوف و المنطقي الانكليزي كارل بوبر يعالج فيها ثلاث مواضيع رئيسية

1- نظرية المعرفة و صياغة الواقع
2- فلسفة التاريخ الاجتماعي و السياسي
3- مقتطفات متفرقة من أهمها " التسامح و المسؤولية الفكرية " و "بماذا يؤمن الغرب " بالإضافة لنظرة عن الفن

يمكن قراءة الكتاب بشكل لا تسلسلي و لكني انصح بقراءته بالترتيب للنهاية لأنك ستتعرف على فكر واحد من اهم فلاسفة القرن العشرين المعاصر لراسل و الأقل منه شهرة و بظني من باب الظلم

أما عن المحتوى فكيف أصفه ! صرخة من أهم شخصيات أوروبا في وجه الحتمية التاريخية و الاجتماعية . كشف لبعض
الأنبياء الكذبة أم
محاولة لتوسيع الداروينية و نقدها ؟ أو دعوة للتسامح الفكري و تحليل له و قراءة في مناهج دراسة التاريخ و دراسة لتطور الفكر الغربي عبر احياء الحضارة الاغريقية و تطرقٌ لتاريخ الاغريق بشكل عميق و شرحٌ عميق لأفكار التنوير والمدرسة الرومانسية و لأول مرة أفهم بعمق عن فلسفة كانت التي تطرق إليها أثناء حديثه هذا عن التنوير

إن الكتاب دعوى خالدة إلى التواضع إلى الإيمان بالعجز البشري عن الوصول للحقيقة المطلقة و كل ما يمكننا فعله هو التقدم نحوها دون قانون تقدمي حتمي إن الأقرار بهذا هو اقرار بضعفنا و جهلنا و لكن بوبر لن ينجر للعدمية و النسبوية يبقى مع ذلك متفائلا بمستقبلنا طالما ركزنا على الموضوعية و الحرية و السلام و التسامح و النقد و سعينا إلى تأسيس نظام عالمي قادر على حفظها و هو ما يفيض في شرحه

كما يقول سقراط : إنني لا أعرف شيئا و حتى هذه بالكاد أعرفها

اليوم هو ذكرى وفاة كارل بوبر فل ترقد بسلام ايها المتنور المتفائل في عصر الظلمة و التشاؤم و العدمية

[Jimmy Cline · Rating 3 out of 5]

This collection might strike some of those who've read his other major works as redundant. Popper's favorite philosophical piece of writing was Plato's Apology. He truly admired the skepticism of Socrates. Popper, it seems, is also not a huge fan of Hegel and Fichte, which makes a lot of sense. The bottom line is that the man was all for intellectual honesty and clear, concise philosophical prose, which he thought was dreadfully absent from the writings of the Vienna Circle. I really admired the suggestion that the knowledge that one has of the world should truly remind that person of their own infinite ignorance. There are some amusing philosophical anecdotes contained in this volume, and it's a decent introduction to Popper's sensibility at least, but the man wrote some seriously important book length explorations on individual freedom, scientific method, and the role of the intellectual in society. This volume barely scratches the surface.

[عماد العتيلي · Rating 4 out of 5]

‎‫‏‬

A BETTER WORLD?!
A UTOPIA?!
IS THAT EVEN POSSIBLE?!

Allow me to start by thanking the amazing Karl Popper. He is one of my favorite writers. He has such an irresistable style of writing which combines excellent literary devices with (humane) scientific statements. So, he makes science very pleasant and enjoyable.

In this book, Popper talked about many things (mainly scientific issues for sure). There was a common theme in all of those issues he discussed: Optimism. Popper emphasized so many times on the 'goodness' of our human species. He refused the arguments which present humans as innately evil - he believes humans are innately and essentially good. That's why he is very optimistic about having a 'better world' some time in the future.

Popper's belief, in the human ability to overcome all of the evil things which overwhelm our world today, is actually infectious! It forces the reader to believe as well. This thing alone, to me, makes the book AMAZING!

[Anima · Rating 4 out of 5]

'Knowledge consists in the search for truth — the search for objectively true, explanatory theories.

It is not the search for certainty. To err is human. All human knowledge is fallible and therefore uncertain. It follows that we must distinguish sharply between truth and certainty. That to err is human means not only that we must constantly struggle against error, but also that, even when we have taken the greatest care, we cannot be completely certain that we have not made a mistake..'

"We have made great mistakes — all living creatures make mistakes. It is indeed impossible to foresee all the unintended consequences of our actions. Here science is our greatest hope: its method is the correction of error."

[Timur Hakan Barak · Rating 5 out of 5]

Karl Popper'in felsefesini ve dünya görüşünü yalın bir şekilde giriş seviyesinde anlamak için çok iyi bir kitap. Birçok farklı başlıkta ve farklı yılda yaptığı konuşmaların bir antolojisi. Modern felsefeye ilgi duyan herkese rahatlıkla önerebilirim.

[Marinho Lopes · Rating 3 out of 5]

Este livro reúne textos proferidos por Popper em diversas conferências que deu. Os temas principais são a natureza do conhecimento científico, e o significado de democracia, ainda que surjam muitos outros. Creio que o principal problema deste livro é o facto de ser uma colectânea fragmentada de opiniões, muitas delas semelhantes, o que faz com que haja imensas repetições. Por outro lado, apesar de todo o bom senso que Popper demonstra ao longo da maioria dos textos, existem alguns que deixam uma certa nódoa sobre tudo o resto: Popper aventura-se em áreas que claramente não domina, e tira várias conclusões precipitadas, ou até amadoras (nomeadamente em genética, neurociências, cosmologia, física e ainda matemática). A sua “teoria da propensão” é talvez o exemplo mais gritante da sua ignorância em Teoria de Probabilidades e Estatística. Acaba por cometer os erros que ele próprio apontou a outros. Não obstante, no que toca à filosofia da ciência, é em geral bastante lúcido, até mesmo quando critica a própria filosofia e os “filósofos profissionais”. A forma como ele encara a questão platónica e marxista sobre as formas de governo também me parece bem conseguida (ainda que um tanto redutora). Por fim, diria que a sua repartição do universo em três mundos distintos é irrelevante, indo quase de encontro à sua própria crítica sobre a discussão de significados, e não de explicações. Em suma, creio que o maior interesse deste livro reside no sumário que faz sobre as várias temáticas em que Popper pensou ao longo da sua vida.

[Fathy Sroor · Rating 4 out of 5]

الكتاب عبارة عن مجموعة مختارة من محاضرات للفيلسوف النمساوي الأنجليزي كارل بوبرنو هو أحد أعظم فلاسف القرن العشرين و أن كان حقه بٌخس بالمقارنة بأخرين.

الكتاب يدور حول ثلاث مباحث كبرى:
1\"نظرية المعرفة و صياغة الواقع":و تدور حول الطريقة المثلى لرؤية العالم وص ياغة واقعنا...و يطرح بوبر رؤية لا بأس بها عن تقسيم العالم لعوالم ثلاث تتبادل التأثير يحوي أولها المفردات المادية و ثانيها مشاعرنا و أنطبعاتنا و أراءنا و الثالث هو ما نتتجه من علم و فن و أدب و بذلك يكون وعينا(العالم الثاني) هو جسر التواصل بين العالمين الأول و الثالث....الفكرة جيدة خصوصاً عند أستخدامها في حل معضلة(هل الفقر ليس مانعاً أمام السعادة حقاً؟)

2\"فلسفة التاريخ السياسي و الأقتصادي":و التي تترى ببساطة عدم وجود أطار معين أو قوانين ثابتة لسير التاريخ تحكم حركة صعده و هبوطه نظراً للمرونة الكبيرة في الذهن البشري و صعوبة التنبأ بتصرفاته و نتائج تفاعلاته و يرفض بالضرورة توصيف التاريخ بأنه حركة صعود أو هبوط

3\"مقتطفات متفرقة": ضم مقالات متنوعة عن عدد كبير من المواضيع تضمنت التسامح و الفن و غيرها..

الكتاب يمثل سياحة عقلية ممتعة و شديدة الأفادة،و من الأفكار المفردة القيمة التي وردت في:التشديد على المبدأ السقراطي بأن معرفتنا بجهلنا هي مقياس الحكمة،وكذلك أرتيابية زينوفانيس نو النقد الذاتي و الموضوعي.

[Yousef Nabil · Rating 5 out of 5]

يصعب جدًا كتابة ريفيو في كلما تبسيطة عن عمل بهذه الروعة والأهمية. المذهل بالنسبة لي ازاي يفكك هذا الكتاب دعاوي تافهة يقيم عليها مثقفوا العرب دعاواتهم عليها دائمًا.
كتاب مذهل ينتصر للفلسفة الواضحة والبسيطة، ويفند النسبوية والغموض والملتبس وكل أمراض الفلسفة المعاصرة. كتاب يبحث عن دور حقيقي للمثقفين باعتبارهم جزء كبير من الأزمة الموجودة في أي مجتمع.

[Sara · Rating 5 out of 5]

كتاب يضم عدة مقالات وخطب، جيد لمن يريد أن يتعرف على بوبر وفلسفته قبل الخوض في مؤلفاته الأخرى .

[Ankit Bhandari · Rating 4 out of 5]

Compilation of public lectures where the authors has touched some of the interesting ideas about knowledge, ignorance, history, and philosophy. Quite an enlightening read !

[Hatem El-Sheemy · Rating 5 out of 5]

أن تقرأ كتابًا في خمسة أعوام! يكمن جمال الكتاب في البساطة الشديدة وجمال ترجمة د.أحمد مستجير وأيضًا في اقترانه بمراحل مختلفة من حياتي، في مرحلة القراءة الأولى جسدت المقالات وأفكار كارل بوبر كل ما يشغلني فأتعطش لصياغته فما بالك قرائته، ثم في المرحلة الثانية جسد رحلة تذكر الأفكار التي كنت أحب قرائتها ونسيتها لكني صرت بالفعل أمارسها وأعتقدها!

خلال المقالات المجمعة يوضح كارل بوبر عدد هام من الأفكار اقتبست أكثرها خلال القراءة وأعتقد أن الأنسب لكتابة ريڨيو لكتاب كهذا أن يُرَاجع كل مقال على حدى.. لكن إن شئنا إجمالًا فأهمية الكتاب تكمن أن خلال إيضاح الكاتب لآرائه يطلعك على فلسفات الآخرين بحياد غالب، يطلعك على أثينا وأجوائها وأثرها ودور ظهور أول كتاب ثم أول سوق كتب في بداية تشكل مفهوم الثقافة ثم يفاجئك أن القراءة نشأت كعادة جهرية حتى جاء من قرر في لحظة أن يقرأ صامتًا، كلحظة اكتشاف بطل فيلم إنڨينشن اوف-لاينج أننا ببساطة يمكن أن نكذب.. يتحدث لاحقًا عن هجران المثقفين للبساطة وأهمية إدراكهم لدورهم المجتمعي كرد جميل في تقديم منتجهم في أبسط صياغة ممكنة فضلًا عن هجر التعالي ثم يتحدث عن صعود تيار صعّب من مهنة الفلسفة ويؤكد كوننا جميعًا فلاسفة في النهاية فقط بعضنا يمكنه التقاط الكلمات للتعبير عن الطريقة التي يرى بها العالم فالأمر لا يستحق كل هذا التعالي .. يعدّل بوبر من منهجية صناعة الأسئلة ويخبرنا بخطورة سؤال خاطيء لن يقود إلى إجابة صحيحة، كما لن يقود سؤال كيف نمنع الأغبياء من حكمنا إلى منعهم لكن سؤال كيف نكون دولة قوية بإمكانها أن تظل بذات القوة حتى لو وصل إلى حكمها الأغبياء.. ثم يولي نظرنا شطر أهمية التعددية والأهم هو دور نقد الذات بجانب قبول نقد الآخرين لنا في تشكيل هذه التعددية المجتمعية والتي بوسعها مقاومة التطرف والتعصب وأيضًا النسبوية، يذكرني هذا بعدمية فيض المعنى لدى الإسلاميين فتراهم يشتركون مع العدميين نفس المعسكر ذاته في النهاية فيم يحاول كارل بوبر الإشارة إلى اتجاه آخر يمكننا سلوكه بعيدًا عن دوائرهم المفرغة

كتاب جميل

[Greg Mcneilly · Rating 4 out of 5]

In "In Search of a Better World: Lectures and Essays from Thirty Years," Karl Popper presents a collection of his works that span three decades, discussing various topics such as philosophy, science, and politics. The book is divided into four parts, each focusing on a different aspect of Popper's thought. This essay will provide an overview of the arguments and evidence presented in each part. It will highlight the main ideas and their relevance to contemporary debates.

The book’s first part contains lectures and essays exploring the relationship between science and philosophy. Popper argues that science and philosophy are not separate entities but complementary aspects of human inquiry. He contends that scientific theories must be tested and falsified, and philosophical ideas should be scrutinized equally.

Popper's critique of induction makes one of its most significant contributions. He challenges the idea that scientific knowledge can be derived through inductive reasoning. This relies on observing patterns and making generalizations based on empirical data. Instead, he proposes that scientific theories must be developed through deductive reasoning, where hypotheses are generated and tested against empirical data. Popper believes this approach allows for more accurate predictions and explanations and refutes false theories.

Another key argument in this section is Popper's defense of realism. He posits that scientific theories describe objective reality independent of our perceptions or beliefs. Popper rejects idealistic views that suggest reality is purely mental or socially constructed. Instead, he advocates for critical realism that acknowledges human knowledge’s limits and potential.

Evidence supporting Popper's claims can be found in the history of science. This is particularly true in instances where scientific theories were initially resistant to empirical testing but eventually proved correct. For example, the germ theory of disease faced initial skepticism but ultimately replaced earlier incorrect theories. Similarly, Einstein's relativity theory challenged long-held assumptions about space and time but prevailed due to its predictive accuracy.

The book’s second part focuses on Popper's political and social commentary. He argues that democracy is essential for intellectual freedom and criticizes totalitarian regimes that suppress dissenting voices. Popper also emphasizes individual rights and liberties, warning against collectivism and groupthink.

Popper's critique of utopian thinking is a central theme in this section. He contends that attempts to create utopian societies lead to tyranny and oppression. Instead, he suggests that societies aim for piecemeal improvements, gradually addressing specific problems without resorting to radical revolutions or ideological dogma.

Furthermore, Popper examines the relationship between rationality and social order. He posits that social institutions should promote rational debate and criticism, allowing individuals to express their opinions freely. Popper says this approach fosters a dynamic, adaptable society that responds to changing circumstances.

Evidence supporting Popper's views on politics and society can be seen in the success of democratic countries, where individual freedoms and intellectual diversity have led to prosperity and innovation. In contrast, totalitarian regimes often result in widespread oppression, stifled creativity, and economic stagnation. Additionally, historical examples of failed utopias, such as Soviet communism or fascist dictatorships, support Popper's warnings against imposing exemplary societies.

The book’s third part delves into methodological and epistemological issues, exploring the nature of knowledge and how it is acquired. Popper argues that knowledge is provisional and subject to revision, emphasizing critical thinking and empirical testing.

One of the key arguments in this section is Popper's attack on justification. He rejects the notion that knowledge requires absolute certainty or indubitable foundations. Instead, Popper proposes that knowledge is based on conjectures and refutations, where theories are constantly tested and updated according to empirical evidence.

Moreover, Popper critiques traditional causality accounts, suggesting they rely on untenable assumptions about determinism and necessity. He instead advocates a probabilistic view of causality, where events are understood as likelihoods rather than certainties.

Evidence supports Popper’s method in various fields, including science, mathematics, and philosophy. Here are some examples:

Scientific discoveries: Many scientific breakthroughs have been made by challenging established theories and testing new hypotheses. For instance, when Alfred Wegener proposed the continental drift theory in the early 20th century, it was met with skepticism. However, subsequent research and empirical evidence, such as seafloor spreading and paleomagnetic data, supported his hypothesis, leading to the development of plate tectonics theory. This process exemplifies Popper's idea of generating and testing conjectures.

Mathematical proofs: In mathematics, Popper's method is reflected in the use of proof by contradiction. By assuming the negation of what one wants to prove (the conjecture) and deriving a logical contradiction, mathematicians demonstrate the validity of the original claim. This method ensures that mathematical results are robust and reliable, as they have survived attempts at falsification.

Philosophical debates: Popper's emphasis on critical thinking and empirical testing has influenced philosophical discussions. One notable example is his exchange with the philosopher Imre Lakatos, who argued that scientific theories are not easily falsifiable and are often protected by auxiliary assumptions. While Lakatos' position recognizes the complexity of scientific inquiry, Popper's perspective encourages continued vigilance in questioning even the most well-established theories, lest they become dogmatic.

The evolution of scientific understanding: As scientific knowledge advances, previously held beliefs are often revisited and refined. For instance, the ancient Greeks believed in a geocentric universe, while later astronomers like Copernicus and Galileo championed a heliocentric model. More recently, observations from telescopes and spacecraft have further modified our understanding of the solar system's structure. This iterative process illustrates how scientific knowledge is provisional and subject to revision, aligning with Popper's ideas.

Anomalies play a crucial role in Popper's method, as they can challenge existing theories and stimulate new ones. For example, European explorers’ observation of black swans in Australia challenged the assumption that all swans were white. Similarly, the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation in the 1960s provided strong evidence for the Big Bang theory, which had developed since the 1920s. These examples illustrate how unexpected observations can guide scientific progress and inspire novel conjectures.

The importance of replication: Replication is a cornerstone of scientific inquiry, as it verifies the reliability of experimental findings and helps establish confidence in theoretical frameworks. Popper recognized the value of repetition in testing hypotheses and strengthening scientific knowledge. The reproducibility of many scientific phenomena across diverse disciplines—from physics to biology—illustrates the effectiveness of Popper's method in building a robust foundation for scientific understanding.

Interdisciplinary connections: Popper's ideas have influenced scholars beyond philosophy and into other fields, such as psychology, economics, and artificial intelligence. Researchers in these areas recognize the importance of testing hypotheses, considering alternative explanations, and embracing uncertainty. This cross-disciplinary impact demonstrates the broad applicability of Popper's method and its relevance to diverse domains of study.

The limitations of induction: Popper's critique highlights the difficulties in using inductive reasoning to establish universal laws or specific knowledge. Induction relies on extrapolating general principles from particular observations but cannot guarantee that future experiences will conform to past patterns. This limitation underscores the importance of perpetually testing and updating scientific theories and acknowledging the provisional nature of knowledge.

These examples from various fields showcase the efficacy of Popper's method in promoting critical thinking, empirical testing, and the pursuit of knowledge open to revision. His emphasis on conjectures, refutations, and anomalies continues to influence scientific and philosophical discourse, shaping our understanding of the world.

In conclusion, Karl Popper's "In Search of a Better World" offers a comprehensive and insightful analysis of various fields, including philosophy, science, politics, and epistemology. Throughout the book, Popper presents compelling arguments and evidence that resonate in contemporary debates.

One of the book’s most significant contributions is Popper's critique of induction, which challenges the conventional view of academic knowledge production. By arguing that scientific theories must be developed through deductive reasoning and empirical testing, Popper provides a framework for evaluating scholarly claims objectively. His defense of realism, emphasizing that scientific theories describe objective reality, further reinforces the importance of empirical observation and testing in scholarly inquiry.

In politics and society, Popper's arguments against utopian thinking and in favor of democracy, individual rights, and freedoms are relevant and enlightening. His critique of totalitarian regimes and emphasis on incremental improvements offer valuable insights into successful societies. Moreover, his discussion of the relationship between rationality and social order underscores the significance of fostering free expression and open debate. This is important for promoting adaptable and dynamic societies.

In methodology and epistemology, Popper's attacks on justification and traditional causality accounts offer a nuanced perspective on knowledge and its acquisition. His proposal that knowledge is provisional and subject to revision underscores the importance of critical thinking and continuous empirical testing.

Overall, "In Search of a Better World" showcases Popper's profound influence on various disciplines, and his ideas continue to inspire scholars and thinkers today. As we face new challenges in the twenty-first century, Popper's work serves as a timely reminder of the value of rigorous scientific inquiry, critical thinking, and individual freedom. His legacy encourages us to embrace a culture of openness, experimentation, and intellectual curiosity. This leads to a better understanding of ourselves and the world.

[Atakan Özkaya · Rating 5 out of 5]

Kitabı okuyorsanız karl popper'in kim olduğu biliyorsunuzdur, kitapta 16 makale var Kant'ın ahlak ve bilgi felsefe üzerine eleştiriler; tanıtlama, çürütme ekseni etrafında yazılmış arada bir ucu Haydn'a ;
"Oysa ki gerçekte, büyük sanatçı, yalnızca diğer yapıtlardan değil, aynı zamanda kendi yapıtlarından özellikle de herkes gibi kendisinin de yaptığı hatalardan ve o sırada üzerinde çalıştığı yapıttan bir şeyler öğrenmek için ruhunu açık tutan bir öğrencidir. Bu söylediklerim özellikle kitap ya müzik yapıtı yazarları için geçerlidir. Yazarlar, kendilerini ancak bu biçimde aşabilirler. Haydn 'ın Viyana Üniversitesi 'nin konferans salonunda, kendi bestesinin prömiyerini dinlerken gözyaşlarına boğulup, 'Bunu ben bestelemedim' dediğini sanırım çok az kişi biliyordur." ,
Goethe'ye;
"Eğer Goethe, "yalnızca sefiller alçakgönüllüdür" diyorsa, benim yanıtım şu olacak: "Yalnızca entelektüel sefiller küstahtır."
Homeros'a;
"Avrupa'nın ilk kitap pazarı Atina'da kuruldu. Atina'daki herkes Homeros'u okuyordu... Atina, okumayı ve yazmayı öğrendi ve demokratik bir devlet oldu."
Wittgenstein'a (?belki);
"Her aydının özel bir sorumluluğu vardır; öğrenim görme ayrıcalığına ve olanağına sahiptir. Bunun karşılığında çevresine ya da toplumuna öğrendiklerini, en basit, en açık ve en alçakgönüllü biçimde açıklamakla yükümlüdür... O halde, basit ve açık biçimde kendini ifade edemeyen susmalı, kendini açık biçimde ifade edebilene kadar çalışmaya devam etmelidir. "
Kesinlike Sokrates'e;
"Dünya hakkında ne kadar çok şey öğrenirsek, bilgimizi ne kadar derinleştirirsek, neyi bilmediğimiz konusundaki bilgimiz, yani bilgisizliğe ilişkin bilgimiz, daha bilinçli, daha açık ve daha sağlam olacaktır."
dokunan nice alıntılar bulunuyor.
Kendi sınırlarını aşmış, tümevarım methodunu büyük bir yükümlülük altından kurtarmış bana göre 20.yy'ın benim tanışma fırsatı bulduğum (eserleri aracılığıyla tabi :p) en büyük filozof.
En sevdiğim pasaj:

"Özgür, çoğulcu bir toplum yaratmayı üstlendiğimiz bu tarihsel büyük görevde, yapmamız gereken en önemli şey, göreci ya da kuşkucu olmadan, görüşlerimize eleştirel yaklaşmayı sağlayacak bilince ulaşmak için kendimizi eğitmek; cesaretimizi ve kararlılığımızı yitirmeden, inandığımız düşünceler için mücadele etmektir."

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

THE FAMED PHILOSOPHER LOOKS BACK AND SUMMARIZES HIS THOUGHTS

Karl Raimund Popper (1902-1994) was an Austrian-British philosopher and professor at the London School of Economics, best-known as a philosopher of science and of political philosophy.

He wrote at the end of the Preface to this 1989 book, “I do not want to end this preface without saying something about the success of the search for a better world during the eighty-seven years of my life, a time of two senseless world wars and of criminal dictatorships. In spite of everything, and although we have had to many failures, we, the citizens of the western democracies, live in a social order which is better … and more just than any other in recorded history. Further improvements are of the greatest urgency…

"I would like to mention briefly two things that we have improved. The most important one is that the terrible mass poverty which still existed in my childhood and in my youth has now disappeared… Some may object that there are people in our society who are too rich. But why should that bother us, if there are sufficient resources---and the good will---to struggle against poverty and other avoidable suffering? The second is our reform of the criminal law… [we] decided that we ourselves… would rather suffer the effects of crime, corruption murder, espionage and terrorism, than take the very questionable step of trying to eradicate these things by means of violence, and to run the risk of turning innocent people into victims.”

He states, “Relativism is one of the many crimes committed by intellectuals. It is a betrayal of reason and humanity. I suppose that the alleged relativity of truth defended by some philosophers results from mixing-up the notions of truth and certainty; that is, of more or less reliability. Certainty is relative also in the sense that it always depends on what is at stake. So I think that what happens here is a confusion of truth and certainty, in some cases can be shown quite clearly.” (Pg. 5)

He explains, “Despite my admiration for scientific knowledge, I am not an adherent of scientism. For scientism dogmatically asserts the authority of scientific knowledge; whereas I do not believe in any authority and have always resisted dogmatism; and I continue to resist it, especially in science. I am opposed to the thesis that the scientist must believe in his theory… I especially do not believe in belief in science. I believe at most that belief has a place in ethics, and even here only in a few instances. I believe, for example, that objective truth is a value… and that cruelty is the greatest evil.” (Pg. 6)

He critiques Rudolf Carnap and the Vienna Circle [i.e., Logical Positivism]: “My main reason is that these questions [posted by Carnap, et al.] presuppose an authoritarian attitude to the problem of human knowledge. They presuppose that our assertions are reliable if, and only if, we can appeal to the authority of SOURCES of knowledge and in particular to OBSERVATIONS.” (Pg. 45)

He says, “The so-called objectivity of science lies in the objectivity of the critical method; that is, above all, in the fact that no theory is exempt from criticism, and further, that the logical instrument of criticism---the logical contradiction---is objective.” (Pg. 67) Later, he adds, “It is completely erroneous to assume that the objectivity of a science depends upon the objectivity of the scientist. And it is completely erroneous to believe that the attitude of the natural scientist is more objective than that of the social scientist.” (Pg. 72)

He clarifies, “In 1934 I published my book ‘The Logic of Scientific Discovery.’ This was a criticism of positivism. But … the leaders of the Vienna Circle, were so tolerant that they accepted the book, for a series they were editing. One result of this tolerance was that everyone who just glanced at the book took me for a positivist. This resulted in the widely believed myth of Popper the positivist… Nevertheless, my position would not be more different from positivism.” (Pg. 89)

He summarizes his thoughts about history: “My first thesis is… that we should refuse to speak of the meaning of history in the sense of something concealed in it, or of a moral lesson hidden in the divine tragedy of history, or in the sense of some evolutionary laws of history, or of some other meaning… I contend that there is no hidden meaning in history, and that those historians and philosophers who believe they have discovered one are deceiving themselves (and others). My second thesis… I believe that we ourselves can try to give a meaning to political history---or rather a plurality of meanings; meanings that are feasible for, and worthy of, human beings… my third thesis is that we can learn from history that the attempt to give history an ethical meaning, or to set ourselves up as modest ethical reformers, need not be vain…” (Pg. 139)

He asserts, “The state is a necessary evil: its powers are not to be multiplied beyond what is necessary.” (Pg. 155)

He observes of Behaviorism” “Although it extols observation, it not only flies in the face of all human experience, but it also tries to derive from its theories an ethically horrible theory---the theory of conditioning; although no ethical theory is, in fact, derivable from human nature… It is to be hoped that this [theory], based upon an uncritical acceptance of the commonsense theory of knowledge whose untenability I have tried to show, will one day lost its influence.” (Pg. 184)

He notes, “I do not, of course, want to associate myself with [Oswald] Spengler, whom I regard not only as a false prophet of and alleged decline, but also as a symptom of a real decline, even though this is not a decline of the West; what his prophecies actually indicate is the decline of the intellectual conscience of many western thinkers.” (Pg. 204)

This is an excellent summation of many of Popper’s positions, and will be of great interest to anyone studying his philosophy.

[Ritiel · Rating 4 out of 5]

My first contact with Popper ideas was through other authors. And by recommendation of one of them, I decide to read this book. This great selection of Popper's lectures is, perhaps, a selection exactly appropriated for those interested in start to explore his philosophy, ideas and concepts.

Concise, simple, easy to read, the book is a passionate defense of freedom, democracy and free-market. Always emphasizing the modesty necessary to the intellectuals, from its origins Xenofanes and Socrates, he defends the western values, without never forget Churchill's statement about democracy be the least worse form of government. These two aforementioned features becomes a north in the book, preventing him from falling into common fanaticisms and generalizations.

Definitely a good start, that makes me want to read The Open Society and Its Enemies.

[Mehmet Eroğlu · Rating 5 out of 5]

Daha iyi bir dünya tüm düşünürlerin bilim adamlarının üzerinde durduğu konudur. Bu kitapta çok seçkin felsefeci ve bilim adamlarının daha iyi bir dünya oluşturma adına yaptıkları konuşma metinleri ve yazmış oldukları makaleleri bir araya getirilmiş. Karl hakikaten sıkıntılı bir süreç olan birinci dünya savaşı sonrası ikinci dünya savaşı öncesi ve sonrasındaki bir bakış açısıyla daha iyi bir dünya özlemini arayanların düşüncelerini toplamış. Platon'dan başlayarak eski yunan düşünürlerinin görüşlerinden alıntılar yapılarak, günümüz dünyasına kadar geçen sürede yaşanan tarihsel gerçeklerle bir bakış açısı ortaya konmuş. Oldukça kaliteli makaleler ve konuşma metinleri mevcut.

[Michal · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good introduction to Karl Popper.
Most of the lectures read well and give a good overview of his ideas and fields of expertise.

As some lectures and essays overlap there is some repetition, but nothing major.

Most of the books flair is delivered by Karl himself, his non-pesimistic, non-optimistic, non-hype humble view of things. Sharing his likes for Socrates and ethical behavior I can only recommend this book to anybody not minding a bit of philosophy connected to actual real world questions.

[Bill Pritchard · Rating 5 out of 5]

This work may be the most annotated and underlined works that I have ever read. I found myself reading it out loud to make sure I internalized it... and god help you if you were in the room for I would read it to you as well (hat tip to my vacation friend :-) ). The book builds in momentum as each chapter moves from speech/essay to speech essay that cover over 30 years of Professor Popper's thoughts. And once finds Mr. Poppers rhythm, your eyes clear as do his thoughts. Most highly recommended.

[إباء أحمد · Rating 4 out of 5]

الكتاب عبارة عن محاضرات القالها كارل بوبر على مدار حياته. مقالات بتناقش قضايا كتير زي نظرية المعرفة و التفكير النقدي و صدام الثقافات ..الخ . مجرد نظرة على الفهرست هتخليك تقرر قراءة الكتاب.. واكيد هتستمتع باسلوب بوبر السهل و بأفكاره المليئة بالتفاؤل

[Ali · Rating 4 out of 5]

Daha iyi bir dünya veya bugün sıklıkla dile getirildiği şekli ile daha iyi bir ortak gelecek. Adını nasıl koyarsak koyalım, meselemizin özü, tarihi ve bilimi doğru okumak, düşünmek ve yorumlamak. Popper'ın odaklandığı konu da bu, düşünmek.

[H. Isikgun · Rating 5 out of 5]

Karl Popper'in temelde 3 ana gruba ayırdığı (maddesel, ruhbilimsel ve düşünsel ürünler) dünyalar üzerinden bilgi ve bilginin tarihinin 'daha iyi bir dünya arayışı'nda nasıl perspektife dahil olduğu çerçevesinde incelemeler yaptığı, okunması oldukça tavsiye edilir bir derleme olmuş.

[Craig Bolton]

In Search of a Better World: Lectures and Essays from Thirty Years by Karl Popper (1995)

[Grig O' · Rating 4 out of 5]

i like popper

[محمد عبد العزيز · Rating 4 out of 5]

الكتاب جميل جدا أعجبنى عبارة عن ممحاضرات ومقالات القاها بوبر من الفصول الجميلة كيف أرى الفلسفة
قرأته فى طبعة مكتبة الاسرة

[Nat Shirman]

(auf deutsch gelesen)

[Constantin C. · Rating 4 out of 5]

.

[Иван Гърков · Rating 5 out of 5]

Книгата на Карл Попър много ми хареса. Авторът има много добри разсъждения и критики към науката. А ако преди това си чел научна литература е още по-добре, защото те кара да се замислиш върху това, което науката казва и като цяло за "доказателствата". Попър говори за така нареченият епистемиологичен релативизъм, който на практика отрича факта, че може да имаме някаква обективна истина или доказателство за нещо определено, независимо какво. Той не се застъпва напълно за релативизмът, но все пак казва, че никога няма как да имаме абсолютна сигурност за нещо определено. Като например дали за нещо, което в момента има доказателства няма впоследствие да бъде отхвърлено от други доказателства или теория, както в миналото е ставало. Затова той казва, че - да може да знаем кое е истинското и вярното, на базата на моментните факти и доказателства, но казва, че това е различно от абсолютната сигурност. Първото допуска, че дадена теорията или доказателство може да бъде опровергано от други такива в бъдеще, докато второто не. Все пак не съм съгласен с абсолютно всичко и смятам, че за определени неща може да сме сигурни, че са верни. Като например, че земята е кръгла. Независимо как се променят нашите методи за изследване и критерии по които оценяваме кое нещо е вярно/невярно това няма да промени факта, че земята е кръгла.
Авторът казва, че само чрез критичност, скептицизъм и готовност за грешки и съответно да се учим от тези грешки може да напредваме в каквото и да е отношение или в частност науката.
Той харесва виждането на Сократ за това човек да осъзнава колко малко всъщност знае. С всяко решение на даден проблем или въпрос, се появява нов проблем или теория за разгадаване. Колкото повече научаваме за света и колкото повече знания трупаме, толкова по-осъзнати ставаме за това колко малко всъщност знаем.
Попър говори и за плурализмът и свободата на гледните точки и мнения. Те са едни от най-важните неща в едно общество, защото учат хората на толерантност и готовност да признаят своите грешки и да се сблъскат с различни виждания.
Затова и всички опити да се обединят хората под някаква "идея" или една вяра винаги е водило до крайности и фанатизъм. Затова и на толкова места по света има религиозен фанатизъм. Религията изисква от нас абсолютна чистота и непорочност, такава, каквато само светците могат да постигнат. Когато това не може да бъде постигнато (а то е невъзможно), водени от добрата идея и желанието за постигане на абсолютна непорочност, изпадаме в крайности, за да постигнем тази въображаема утопия.

[T. Tokunaga · Rating 5 out of 5]

【In Search of A Better World / Karl Popper (1992, Routledge)】

--It is completely erroneous to assume that the objectivity of a science depends upon the objectivity of the scientist. (P72, 5 'The Logic of Social Sciences, Part 1)

Oh yes, this is the biggest doubt I had about those who don't doubt death of the author. In any given field, as far as written by a human being and studied by another, it's impossible to read it objectively - even in paleontology, let alone literature. That doesn't, of course, mean that literature is all about psychology. The other way round - the death of the author is another branch from psychological essentialism from scratch, and had to kill the author anyway (and write things like S/Z, which was focused on psychological essentialism of Medieval iconology without actual studies about the Middle Age).

--...that natural science does not proceed in a positivist fashion, but in the main employs a method which works with 'prejudices'. (P90, 6 'Against Big Words,' Part 1)

Oh yes, the very later careers of logical positivists - Ayer, Carnap and Gödel corroborate this. They didn't even sustain their positivism after 1940, and took to scientific history studies. Of course, Popper was a poorer historian than Ayer - and people influenced by Ayer, such as Elizabeth Anscombe, Iris Murdoch and maybe Marshall McLuhan. The second part of this book on history doesn't have much to consider. However, Chapter 12 might introduce Foucault to you better than Foucault himself. That's an exception.

Also, his remark about logical positivists' side effect gave me a good laugh (in Chapter 13): seriously, why did people learned only the word "pseudo problem" from them while they no longer believed everything metaphysical was so, and focused on writing on physics, Voltaire and so on?