Karl popur Abstract: Criticism and racism, skeptical, and the Enlightenment

Criticism is the most powerful weapon of popur. popur agrees with most of the ideas of some theories, such as classical skeptical, enlightening, and rational. In some points of view,
Popur makes it more perfect by joining the theory of criticism.

 

Significance of Criticism

However, the significance of criticism is not to arouse people's grief, but to arouse people to overcome suffering.
There are two types of criticism: the first is criticism inspired by aesthetic and literary interests, and the second is criticism inspired by rational interest. The first type of criticism promotes the development of myth into poetry, and the second type of criticism promotes the development of myth into science-to be more precise-to develop into Natural Science
. The former evaluates language, rhythm, image, persuasiveness, and dramatic effect. This evaluation not only promotes the generation of poetry, especially the history and drama, but also promotes songs, even the emergence of classical music.

Comparatively speaking, rational criticism is about another question: is myth true? Is the world actually evolved as some people have said? The world is like Hersey or Genesis) [Genesis] Does it tell us that it was created. Under the impetus of these problems, mythology has become a cosmic [cosmology "-knowledge about our world and environment, and then a natural science.

Our world is bound to penetrate into theory at any time. However, this does not prevent us from moving forward to a better theory. How do we do this? The essential step is to give a systematic explanation of our beliefs. This makes them objective; this makes them possible objects of discussion.
. Therefore, our belief is replaced by the theory of competition and the conjecture of competition. Through a critical discussion of these theories, we can move forward.

 

Criticism and fashion

There is no doubt that there is a irrational leap described above, a change in faith. There is no doubt that even some scientists follow others, or succumb to social pressure, because experts, namely the authority, accept a new theory and accept it as a new belief. I regret to admit that there are fashion and social pressure in science.

I even admit that such a day may come when the collective society of scientists will be primarily or entirely composed of scientists who accept a dominant dogma without any criticism. They are usually influenced by fashion; they accept a theory because it is the latest fashion and for fear of being seen as a leader.

However, I assert that this will be the end of the science we understand-the end of the tradition created by Tyrus and alnacimande and re-discovered by Galileo. As long as science is an exploration of truth, it will be a rational and critical discussion between competing theories, and a rational and critical discussion of revolutionary theories. This discussion determines whether a new theory should be considered to be better than the old one: that is, whether it should be considered as a step towards truth.

 

Criticism and objectivity

The objectivity cannot be guaranteed by the objectivity of the scientists themselves,
Criticism must be relied on: things that can be described as scientific objectivity are built on the traditional criticism. Such criticism traditions always ignore any opposition and enable people to criticize the dominant dogma. In other words, the objectivity of science is not about individual scientists, but about the social outcome of mutual criticism. The social outcome of mutual friendship and hostility among scientists, and the social outcome of their cooperation, it is also the result of their competitive society.

 

Criticism and suspicion

Popur accepts the classic skeptical theory or classical logic, that is, not the principle interpreted as proof, but rather the refuted and falsified principle. but popur basically does not accept what is currently commonly referred to as skeptical, that is, he is not interested in doubt and uncertainty,
It is subjective. he believes that the pursuit of subjective certainty is redundant and give up. he is interested in the rational argument that he prefers a theory rather than an objective criticism in seeking truth.

 

Criticism and racism

There is no way for the irrational opponents to try to convince us that they want to be pure rational beings and those who want to turn others into pure rational beings; maybe the rational attitude can be best expressed in the following words: You may be correct, but I may be wrong. Even if our critical discussion cannot make us clearly decide who is right, we still hope to see things more clearly after the discussion. We can all learn from each other. As long as we don't forget, what really matters is not who is right, but that we are closer to the truth.
. After all, we are all seeking objective truth.

Serious critical discussions are always difficult. There will always be some irrational elements of human beings. Many participants in rational, that is, critical discussions feel that it is insignificant to win a debate to get rid of the difficulties of the habits that people encounter during the debate, only by clarifying people's questions and promoting people's further understanding of their own points of view or their opponent's points of view, even the slightest clarification and the smallest promotion, is a great success. If you win in a discussion, but it does not help you at least slightly change or clarify your thoughts, then you should regard it as a pure loss. For this reason, people's views should not be changed in the dark, but should always emphasize that they should always explore the consequences.

 

Racism and tradition

Most of the things we know [and most of the things we discard] are learned in the same way. What people tell us is from the perspective of books, through learning how to criticize, how to treat and accept criticism, how to respect the truth [More broadly speaking, how to acknowledge and take a serious view of a promising new solution to the problem. ...... The fact that most of our knowledge sources come from traditions is doomed to the futile use of anti-traditions. However, this fact should not be used to maintain a traditional attitude: because of any of our knowledge [and skills] (or even our inherent knowledge) both can be studied from the perspective of criticism, and may be overturned. However, without tradition, it is impossible to have [knowledge in science and art]

It is often emphasized that racism conflicts with all traditions. It is true that racism discusses each tradition and any tradition without constraint and criticism. However, the final reason is based on the tradition: the tradition of critical thinking, the tradition of free discussion, the tradition of simple and clear language, and the tradition of political freedom.

Criticism and Enlightenment

"The Enlightenment liberated humans from the status of self-imposed guardianship. In this situation, people cannot use their own minds without relying on external guidance. This kind of self-imposed or condemned status is not due to lack of reason, however, we do not have the courage and determination to use our own senses without the help of our leaders. Sapere
Aude "dare to show wisdom]! Dare to use your own senses! This is the slogan of the Enlightenment.
. "

This article from Kant explains in his opinion what is the central idea of the Enlightenment. It is the concept of self-liberation through knowledge.

For Kant, this idea of self-liberation [self-liberation orself-emaneipation] through knowledge has always been his lifelong task and guide; although he believes that this idea can be an encouragement to every rational person, Kant has not made such a mistake, that is to say, we should regard self-liberation through knowledge or any other training that is primarily rational as the full meaning or purpose of human life. Indeed, Kant does not need the help of the romantic to criticize pure reason, nor their suggestion to realize that people are not purely rational. He knows that, pure rational knowledge is neither the best thing in human life nor the most lofty thing. He is a multi-commentator who believes in the diversity of human experience and the diversity of human goals. As a multi-commentator, he believes in an open society-a multi-dimensional society, and will practice his principles: "Dare to be free and respect the freedom and autonomy of others. Because the dignity of a person lies in his freedom and respect the self-determination and responsibility of others, especially when these beliefs are very different from their own beliefs
." However, despite his multi-argument, he regards rational self-education or self-liberation through knowledge as an essential task from a philosophical perspective; A task that requires everyone to act immediately and always at this time. Because only by increasing knowledge can the mind be freed from its spiritual limitations, that is, prejudice, idols, and inevitable mistakes.

However, approaching truth is not easy. There is only one path leading to truth and passing through the wrong path. We can only learn through our mistakes. Only those who are willing to treat others' mistakes as stepping stones to the truth and even those who cherish them can learn only by looking for their own mistakes: only when he realizes these mistakes can he get rid of them, so he can learn only when he tries to discover the mistakes.

Therefore, our concept of self-liberation through knowledge is different from our concept of conquering nature. In comparison, the former is a spiritual self-liberation from errors, superstition, and false idols. It is a spiritual concept of self-liberation and development through criticism of people's own ideas, even though they always need help from others.

Therefore, we can see that not the reason for the pure utilitarian use of fanaticism and belief, it is not because it finds that more beautiful things can be achieved in political and practical affairs with a more calm attitude. Instead of fanatic beliefs, it is the natural outcome of the idea that we should explore truth by criticizing our mistakes. This kind of self-criticism and self-liberation are only possible in a diverse society, that is, in an open society that tolerates our mistakes and others' mistakes.

The concept of self-liberation through knowledge is the basic concept of the Enlightenment, which itself is an avid competitor, because it allows us to try to separate ourselves from or even disassociate ourselves from our own ideas (so that we can view them with criticism), rather than share ourselves with them. An understanding of the sometimes unstoppable historical power of ideas should help us understand how important it is to free ourselves from the irresistible influence of false or wrong ideas. In order to seek truth and get rid of our mistakes, we must train ourselves to look at our own view of the ideas we oppose with the same attitude of criticism.
Nian

Why does the Enlightenment comment on the simplicity of language? Because it needs to be enlightened, rather than influencing people. True believers of the Enlightenment, true irrational, do not even want to persuade, or even convince people. He always realizes that he may make mistakes. Therefore, he overestimated the independence of another person and did not attempt to influence him on important issues. Instead, he hoped to disagree and criticize him. He hopes to cause and stimulate heated debate. This is a valuable thing for him. Not only is it because we can access truth better through free exchange of opinions, but also because he attaches importance to the process itself. Even if such an opinion is false to him, he respects it.

One reason that the followers of the Enlightenment do not want to influence people or persuade people is that he knows that logical proofs can be provided only in the narrow logical and mathematical regions. A little too much simplification. It can be said that nothing can be proved. Sometimes people can make strong arguments that people can always criticize and study different ideas. However, aside from mathematics, our arguments are never conclusive. We always have to evaluate the weight of arguments and justification; we always have to determine or determine which is more important; arguments and justification in favor of or against a particular viewpoint. Therefore, the pursuit of truth and the formation of opinions always include the components of free decision. It is precisely this kind of free decision that makes the opinions of people valuable.

From the philosophy of John Locke [John lcoke], the philosophy of the Enlightenment adopted this highly respectful attitude towards personal freedom. People can guess that it is the direct result of religious wars and conflicts between Britain and continental Europe. These conflicts ultimately generate the idea of religious tolerance, which is never as often emphasized (for example, Arnold Thomas [Arnold
Toynbee) is a negative concept. Not only does it get bored and realize that it is hopeless to force religious consistency by means of terror. On the contrary, religious tolerance is a product of wise knowledge, that is, forced religious consistency is worthless, and only a freely accepted belief can have value. This kind of knowledge has prompted us to respect every honest belief and individual and their opinions. It eventually led to the recognition of human dignity, in the words of immannell Kant, the last great philosopher of the Enlightenment.

According to Kant, the principle of personal dignity implies the duty to respect everyone and his beliefs. Kant closely associates this principle with things that make sense in English, called the golden law [golden rule. He also realized that this principle is closely related to the concept of freedom: freedom of thought, such as the definition of
Mar-Quis POSA]'s request to Philip II [Philp] (in the "Don Carlos" [Don Carlos] Of Schiller ); the author of the Decision, sennoza [Spinoza], considers it an irretrievable Freedom of thought. The tyrant tries to deprive us of the freedom that cannot be deprived.
At this last point, I believe that we can no longer fully agree with nosa's opinions. Freedom of thought can never be completely suppressed. This is probably true. However, it can at least be suppressed to a large extent, because without free exchange of ideas, there will be no real freedom of thought. We need others to test our ideas and find out which ideas are correct. Critical discussion is the basis of personal freedom of thought. However, this means that without political freedom, it is impossible to have real freedom of thought. Therefore, political freedom is a condition for everyone to make full use of his reason.
However, political freedom is not guaranteed, except for the will to defend, fight for, and sacrifice for, it by virtue of the tradition and what it has prepared.