Karl popur Abstract: The Professional Ethics of intellectuals, scientists, and philosophers

 

 

The Professional Ethics of Intellectuals

Every intellectual has a special responsibility. He has the privilege and opportunity to learn. In return, he has the responsibility to briefly, clearly, and modestly describe his findings to his fellow citizens (or to society. The worst thing that intellectuals do-the primary sin-is to try to make their compatriots a great prophet and leave a confusing philosophical impression on them.
. Anyone who cannot make a simple and clear speech should stop talking and continue some effort until they can do so.

What I mentioned above () is the main sin-the arrogance of people who have not been fully educated-in short, it is to boast of the wisdom we do not possess. What it means is that there is a self-contradictory nonsense in the case of synonymous repetition and dandruff. Another rumor is: Write exaggerated words that are almost incomprehensible, and add trivial things from time to time. This will be a pleasure to find readers who have such thoughts in such an "esoteric" book. (Now anyone can see that the Emperor's New Clothes are becoming popular !)

In my opinion, the responsibility of every intellectual is to realize his superior position. He has the responsibility to write his article as easily as possible and write it in a standard form as much as possible. Never forget the major problems that plague humanity and require new bold and patient thinking to deal, don't forget the Socrates-style modesty that acknowledges that you know little about it.
. Unlike the trivial philosophers who deal with trivial issues, I believe that the main task of philosophy is to critically meditate on the universe and our position in the universe, this also includes our ability to understand and do good and evil.

One of Shu benhua's most wise opinions (although this may not be his most original opinion) is: "In all art ...... Simplicity is essential ......; At least ignoring it is always dangerous.
"I think he refers to the pursuit of simplicity, which we can see in particular the theme of a great composer. For example, the final result may be complicated, as we can see from "Harem escape", but Mozart can still proudly answer the question of Emperor Joseph: there is no extra note.

 

Professional Ethics of scientists

This is the reason why I propose that we need a new professional ethics mainly, not all, for scientists. I suggest that it end my speech based on the twelve principles below.

1. 
   Our objective speculative knowledge is more and more beyond anyone's grasp. Therefore, there is no "authority ". Also in specialized disciplines

2. 
   It is impossible to avoid all errors, or even all those errors that can be avoided. People can avoid mistakes, so it is incumbent on them to avoid them. Such old ideas must be corrected: they are wrong.

3. 
   Of course, it is still our responsibility to avoid errors whenever possible. However, to avoid them, we must first realize how difficult they are to avoid. No one has succeeded completely. Even the most creative scientists guided by intuition fail: Intuition may lead us astray

4. 
   Errors may even be hidden in well-proven theories. It is a special task of scientists to seek such errors. People see that the theory or technology that has been successfully used has been well proved wrong. Such observation may be an important discovery.

5. 
   Therefore, we must change our attitude towards mistakes. Our actual moral reform must begin from here. Because the attitudes of old professional ethics make us conceal mistakes, keep secrets, and forget them as soon as possible.

6. 
   The new basic principle is that we must learn from our mistakes to avoid mistakes. Therefore, hiding mistakes is the most rational sin.

7. 
   We must constantly guard against errors. When we discover errors, we must remember them. We must thoroughly analyze them to find out the cause of the problem.

8. Therefore, maintaining criticism attitude and maintaining personal honesty have become a matter of responsibility.

9. 
   Since we must learn from our mistakes, we must also learn to accept and even be grateful when others make us notice our mistakes. When we let others pay attention to their mistakes, we should always remember that we have made similar mistakes. We should remember that the greatest scientists have made mistakes. I certainly don't want to say that our mistakes are usually Tolerable: we can never let our attention relax. However, from a human perspective, making repeated mistakes is inevitable.

10. 
    We must be clear in our own minds that we need others to discover and correct our mistakes (as they need us), especially those who have grown up with different ideas in different environments. This also leads to tolerance

11. 
    We must understand that self-criticism is the best criticism, but others' criticism is necessary. It is almost as beneficial as self-criticism.

12. 
    Rational criticism must always be specific: it must give specific propositions, specific assumptions and errors, and specific arguments for specific reasons. It must be guided by concepts closer to objective truth. In this sense, it must be non-personal

I suggest you consider these points. They are intended to indicate that people in the field of ethics can also propose suggestions that can be discussed and improved.

 

Philosophy and professional Philosophy

I think the philosophical approach is completely different. I think that all men and all women are philosophers, but some people have more philosophers.
Of course I think that there is a very different and isolated group like the college philosophers, but I am far from sharing the enthusiasm of Wei man for their activities and their orientation. On the contrary, I feel that I want to say a few more words to those who do not believe in the philosophers of the school (in my opinion, they are another type of philosophers. At least I am strongly opposed to a concept (a philosophical concept). This untested and untested concept is pervasive in wiesman's outstanding paper: I am referring to the idea that there is an elite in the intellectual and philosophical circles.

Of course I admit that there are only a few really great philosophers, and that there are only a few philosophers. Although they are commendable in many ways, they are not great enough. Although their achievements should be of great importance to any philosophers of the school, philosophy does not depend on them as if painting relied on great painters or music on great writers. In addition, great philosophies (such as those of the former Socrates [presocratics]) are earlier than those of all schools and professional philosophies

I think that many people, including myself, have some real philosophical problems, but they have different degrees of seriousness and difficulty, and these problems are not all unsolved.
There are some pressing and serious philosophical issues that need to be discussed with criticism. In my opinion, this is the only defense that can be called a professional philosophy or a college philosophy.
Vitegenstan and the Vienna School deny that there are serious philosophical problems.
I can only say that if I do not have serious philosophical problems or hope to solve them, I have no reason to be a philosopher: For me, there is no need to justify the existence of philosophy.

All men and women are philosophers. If they do not realize that they have philosophical problems, at least they have philosophical bias. Most of these prejudices are theories accepted without investigation: they absorb these theories from their intellectual environment and traditions.
Because these theories are rarely accepted by people, they are biased in the following sense: they are accepted without a critical review, despite their actual activities on people, it may be of great importance to human life.
Some people need to make a critical investigation of these popular and influential theories, which is a defense for the existence of professional philosophy.

These theories are the starting point of unreliable science and philosophy. All philosophy must begin with these suspicious and often harmful uncriticized common sense. It aims to acquire the knowledge that has been clarified and critically examined: to gain a view that is closer to truth, and to a view that is less harmful to human life.

This section is entitled "How I do not see philosophy.

1. I don't regard philosophy as a solution to language confusion, although eliminating misunderstanding is sometimes an essential preparation.

2. I don't regard philosophy as a series of works of art. That is to say, I don't regard philosophy as an amazing and original world image, or a clever and singular depiction of the world. In my opinion, if we look at philosophy in this way, we will be unfair to the great philosophers. Those great philosophers do not shoulder the aesthetic pursuit. They do not want to be architects who have a well-conceived system, but, like great scientists, they are first the Seekers of truth, seeking for a true solution to a real problem. In my opinion, the history of philosophy is basically part of the history of pursuing truth. I am opposed to regard philosophy as pure aesthetics, even though beauty is as important in philosophy as in science.
   I fully agree with the bold rational exploration. We cannot be either a rational coward or a seeker of truth at the same time. A truth seeker must dare to show wisdom, and he must dare to become a revolutionary in the ideological field.

3. I don't regard the long history of the philosophical system as a rational building. All possible ideas in this building are tested, and truth may be just a by-product. I believe that once every truly great philosopher in history is convinced that his system, despite its splendor, is not close to the truth, he will discard the system (as he has done). Whoever has doubts about it for a moment is unfair to them. (By the way, that's why I don't think of fihit and ighresht as true philosophers: I don't believe they have given themselves to the truth .)

4. I don't regard philosophy as an effort to clarify, analyze, and "extend" [explicate] concepts, words, and languages.
   Concepts or words are just tools for expressing propositions, guesses, and theories. Concepts or words themselves cannot be true; they only serve the language that humans describe and justify. Our goal should not be to analyze the meaning of [meanings], but to seek useful and important truth, that is, to seek true theories.

5. I don't regard philosophy as a smart way.

6. I don't think of philosophy as an intellectual therapy (as vitegenstan sees) or an activity that helps people get out of the philosophical dilemma. In my opinion, vitegenstan (in his later works) did not let flies see the path to fly from the bottle. On the contrary, I saw a self-portrait of vitegenstan's trigger from a fly that could not escape from the bottle. (Vitgenstan is an instance of the vitgenstan school, just as it is an instance of the Freudian school ).

7. I don't regard philosophy as a research on how to express things more accurately or accurately. Accuracy and accuracy have no intellectual value. We should never pursue accuracy or accuracy beyond the requirements of the problem itself.

8. Therefore, I do not regard philosophy as an effort to provide a basic or conceptual framework for solving problems that may arise in the recent or distant future. John Rock [John
   Locke is doing this. He wants to write a book on ethics, and he thinks that the first thing that is necessary is to provide conceptual prerequisites. His book (referring to the theory of human understanding [essay conerning human un-derstanding]) is made up of these prerequisites. From then on, the British philosophy (with only a few exceptions, for example, some political papers of Tom have been stuck in the mud of these prerequisites.

9. I do not regard philosophy as a manifestation of the spirit of the times. The spirit of the times is the concept of gönger, which cannot withstand criticism. There is fashion in philosophy, just as in science. But a person who truly explores the truth will not follow fashion; he does not believe in fashion or even resist fashion.

All people are philosophers, because they have to try to express an attitude toward life and death. Some people think that life has no value because it will end. If they do not see it, they may make the opposite argument: if life is not finished, life will be worthless. To a certain extent, it is precisely because every moment has the danger of losing life, to make us deeply aware of the value of life.