A Vida é Aprendizagem: Epistemologia Evolutiva e Sociedade Aberta

by Karl Popper, Paula Taipas (Translator)

Das ciências naturais às leis que determinam o movimento dos planetas; dos pensamentos sobre história e política à análise das democracias e ao comportamento dos governos, passando pela responsabilização dos políticos que cometem erros, Karl Popper demonstra-nos que continuamente aprendemos, pois a vida é uma permanente aprendizagem

Genres: Philosophy, Science, Nonfiction, Politics, History, Essays, Education

228 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1994

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

[Kachi A · Rating 3 out of 5]

Chapter 7 is genius.
"A rationalist is simply someone for whom it is more important to learn than to be proved right..."

[Hamidreza Amiri · Rating 5 out of 5]

بخش اول کتاب به فلسفه علم و معرفت شناسی و مسائل علوم طبیعی می‌پردازه و بخش دوم هم به تاریخ و سیاست.
این کتاب یک مجموعه از 15 سخنرانی و مصاحبه پوپره.
اگر با پوپر و نظریاتش آشنایی چندانی ندارید، این کتاب میتونه یک دید کلی از نظرات پوپر به شما بده.
همیشه با خوندن نظرات پوپر درباره علم به وجد می‌اومدم و میدیدم که چه نگاه عمیق و خوب و به قول خودش "انتقادی" نسبت به مسائل داره.
در بخش دوم هم فعالیت‌هاش رو درباره مسئله صلح خوندم و دیدم که چقدر تلاش میکرده که واقع‌گرایانه به مسائل جهانی نگاه کنه.

"ما چیزی نمی‌دانیم. این اولین نکته است.
بنابراین ما باید بسیار متواضع باشیم. این دومین نکته است.
دیگر اینکه نباید مدعی دانستن باشیم در حالی که چیزی نمی‌دانیم. این سومین نکته است.
این کمابیش همان رویکردی است که می‌خواهم آن را رواج دهم. هرچند چشم‌انداز خوبی از آن نمی‌بینم."

[Rêbwar Kurd · Rating 4 out of 5]

همان‌طور که پوپر می‌گفت: زندگی ما چیزی جز زنجیره‌ای از پرسش‌ها و کوشش برای پاسخ دادن به آن‌ها نیست. هر روزی که چشم باز می‌کنیم، با مسئله‌ای تازه روبه‌رو می‌شویم؛ گاهی کوچک و بی‌اهمیت، مثل انتخاب لباسی که می‌پوشیم، و گاهی بزرگ و سهمگین، مثل تصمیمی که می‌تواند سرنوشت یک جامعه را تغییر دهد. جهان از نگاه پوپر عرصهٔ نبردی است میان پرسش و پاسخ، میان مسئله و راه‌حل، و در این میان هیچ قطعیتی وجود ندارد جز همین بی‌پایانی جست‌وجو.

کتاب زندگی سراسر حل مسئله است بیش از آن‌که اثری صرفاً فلسفی باشد، نوعی بیانیهٔ وجودی است. پوپر در این مجموعه مقاله‌ها نشان می‌دهد که علم، سیاست، تاریخ و حتی اخلاق چیزی جز میدان آزمون و خطا نیستند. این کتاب در دو بخش ارائه شده: بخش نخست به فلسفهٔ علم و معرفت‌شناسی اختصاص دارد؛ جایی که او از نظریهٔ ابطال‌پذیری، تکامل معرفت و جهان‌های سه‌گانه سخن می‌گوید. بخش دوم شامل مقاله‌هایی است دربارهٔ سیاست، آزادی، صلح، دموکراسی و نقد ایدئولوژی‌هایی چون کمونیسم و سوسیالیسم. اگرچه این دو بخش ظاهراً مجزا هستند، اما ریشهٔ مشترک دارند: باور پوپر به عقلانیت انتقادی و این اصل که هیچ حقیقتی نهایی نیست، تنها حدس‌ها و فرضیه‌هایی داریم که باید پیوسته در معرض نقد و آزمون قرار گیرند.

فلسفهٔ علم: مرگ قطعیت و تولد نقد

پوپر شاید بیش از هر فیلسوف دیگری در قرن بیستم با این پرسش دست‌وپنجه نرم کرد که «علم چیست؟». در زمانه‌ای که پوزیتیویسم منطقی علم را معادل تجربهٔ حسی می‌دانست، او نشان داد که نظریه‌های علمی از مشاهده آغاز نمی‌شوند، بلکه از حدس‌ها و تخیل‌های جسورانه می‌زایند. مشاهده تنها زمانی معنا پیدا می‌کند که در پرتو یک نظریه قرار گیرد. اما مشکل اصلی اینجاست: چگونه می‌توان دانست یک نظریه علمی است یا صرفاً خیال‌بافی؟

پاسخ پوپر همان اصل مشهور ابطال‌پذیری است. نظریه‌ای علمی است که بتواند پیش‌بینی‌های مشخصی کند که در معرض آزمون و ابطال قرار گیرند. به بیان ساده، هیچ نظریه‌ای را نمی‌توان «اثبات» کرد، تنها می‌توان نشان داد که هنوز با واقعیت سازگار است و ابطال نشده. به همین دلیل علم همواره در وضعیت موقت و شکننده‌ای قرار دارد؛ پیشرفتش نه از طریق اثبات نهایی بلکه با کنار گذاشتن خطاها و جایگزینی فرضیه‌های بهتر صورت می‌گیرد.

این نگاه، ضربه‌ای قاطع به ادعاهای مطلق‌گرایانه بود. چه در علم، چه در سیاست، هر جا کسی از حقیقت نهایی سخن می‌گوید، از نظر پوپر خطر جزم‌اندیشی و توتالیتاریسم وجود دارد. او معرفت را همچون موجودی تکاملی می‌بیند؛ درست مانند موجودات زنده که با انتخاب طبیعی پیش می‌روند، نظریه‌ها نیز در میدان نقد و آزمون تکامل می‌یابند.

نظریهٔ سه جهان: پلی میان ذهن و عین

پوپر در این کتاب از نظریهٔ سه جهان خود نیز دفاع می‌کند. جهان نخست، جهان عینی طبیعت و ماده است؛ جهان دوم، جهان تجربه‌های ذهنی ما؛ و جهان سوم، جهان عینی اندیشه‌ها، نظریه‌ها، زبان و فرهنگ. این جهان سوم همان جایی است که علم و هنر و فلسفه در آن جای می‌گیرند. اندیشه‌ها یک بار که پدید می‌آیند، مستقل از ذهن خالق خود زندگی می‌کنند و می‌توانند مورد نقد و توسعه قرار گیرند.

این نظریه اهمیت فراوانی دارد، زیرا نشان می‌دهد چرا تمدن بشری توانسته چیزی فراتر از زیست‌بدنی باشد. اندیشه‌ها می‌میرند یا رشد می‌کنند، از هم الهام می‌گیرند و ساختارهای فرهنگی و علمی را می‌سازند. این نگاه پوپر، برخلاف ماتریالیسم خام یا ایده‌آلیسم افراطی، موقعیتی میانه می‌سازد: اندیشه‌ها واقعی‌اند، اما نه به معنای فیزیکی، بلکه به‌مثابه میراثی جمعی که بشریت باید با نقد و پرورش آن‌ها راه خود را بیابد.

سیاست و جامعه: دفاع از دموکراسی، نقد ایدئولوژی

بخش دوم کتاب از اهمیت ویژه‌ای برخوردار است، به‌ویژه در زمانه‌ای که جهان بار دیگر با بحران‌های سیاسی، پوپولیسم و بازگشت ایدئولوژی‌های افراطی روبه‌رو است. پوپر اینجا چهرهٔ یک فیلسوف سیاسی را نشان می‌دهد؛ کسی که مدافع سرسخت آزادی فردی و دموکراسی است.

از نگاه او، مسئلهٔ اساسی سیاست این نیست که «چه کسی باید حکومت کند»، بلکه این است که «چگونه می‌توان بدترین حکومت‌ها را بدون خون‌ریزی کنار زد». این جملهٔ ساده، عصارهٔ نظریهٔ سیاسی پوپر است. دموکراسی از نظر او نه حکمرانی فرشتگان، بلکه سیستمی است که امکان نقد، نظارت و تغییر مسالمت‌آمیز قدرت را فراهم می‌کند. او به‌ویژه هشدار می‌دهد که ایدئولوژی‌های بسته مانند کمونیسم و فاشیسم، به نام حقیقت تاریخی یا نجات بشریت، راهی جز سرکوب و خشونت نمی‌پیمایند.

نقد او به کمونیسم از دل تجربه‌های قرن بیستم می‌آید: اردوگاه‌های کار اجباری، پلیس مخفی، نابودی آزادی‌های فردی. او نشان می‌دهد که چگونه اعتقاد به «قانونمندی تاریخ» و جبرگرایی مارکسیستی در عمل به دیکتاتوری منجر شد. در برابر این، پوپر بر «مهندسی اجتماعی تدریجی» تأکید می‌کند؛ یعنی اصلاحات گام‌به‌گام، آزمون‌پذیر و قابل بازبینی. هیچ طرح نهایی و کامل برای جامعه وجود ندارد، همان‌طور که در علم هیچ نظریهٔ نهایی وجود ندارد.

پیوند فلسفه و سیاست

آنچه این کتاب را مهم می‌کند، همین پیوند عمیق میان معرفت‌شناسی و سیاست است. اگر در علم باید آمادهٔ ابطال و نقد باشیم، در سیاست هم باید نهادهایی بسازیم که قدرت دائماً زیر نقد قرار گیرد. اگر در علم هیچ نظریه‌ای قطعی نیست، در سیاست هم هیچ حکومتی نباید مصون از تغییر باشد. پوپر در هر دو حوزه با دشمن واحدی می‌جنگد: جزم‌اندیشی، چه در لباس علم، چه در جامهٔ ایدئولوژی.

نسبت با امروز

خواندن این کتاب در جهان امروز نوعی آینه است. ما در زمانه‌ای زندگی می‌کنیم که حقیقت از هر سو تهدید می‌شود: از یک‌سو با توطئه‌باوری و شبه‌علم، از سوی دیگر با تبلیغات سیاسی و رسانه‌ای. اصل ابطال‌پذیری پوپر در اینجا یادآور می‌شود که هیچ ادعایی نباید از آزمون و نقد مصون باشد.

در عرصهٔ سیاست نیز هشدارهای او همچنان تازه‌اند. بسیاری از جوامع گرفتار وسوسهٔ «نجات‌بخش»‌هایی شده‌اند که وعدهٔ حقیقت نهایی می‌دهند، خواه در قالب دینی، خواه ایدئولوژیک. پوپر نشان می‌دهد که همین وعده‌ها اغلب به بهای آزادی و کرامت فردی تمام می‌شوند.

برای خوانندهٔ ایرانی، این کتاب می‌تواند معنایی دوچندان داشته باشد. تاریخ معاصر ایران بارها شاهد جدال میان ایدئولوژی‌های کلان و زندگی روزمرهٔ مردم بوده است. پوپر به ما یادآوری می‌کند که هیچ طرح کلانی نمی‌تواند سعادت را تضمین کند؛ تنها چیزی که اهمیت دارد، امکان نقد و اصلاح تدریجی است. در جامعه‌ای که نقد سرکوب شود، هم علم می‌میرد و هم سیاست.

زبان و سبک کتاب

کتاب برخلاف بسیاری از آثار خشک فلسفی، زبانی روشن و مستقیم دارد. پوپر همواره می‌کوشد مثال‌های ساده بزند و از زندگی روزمره برای توضیح مفاهیم استفاده کند. این ویژگی باعث می‌شود که کتاب برای خوانندگان غیرمتخصص هم قابل دسترس باشد. هرچند در بخش‌های فلسفهٔ علم گاهی پیچیدگی‌هایی وجود دارد، اما انسجام اندیشه و وضوح بیان، متن را جذاب می‌سازد.

نقاط قوت و ضعف

نقطهٔ قوت اصلی کتاب، همان پیوند فلسفه و سیاست است. خواننده احساس می‌کند که با نظامی یکپارچه روبه‌رو است؛ جایی که معرفت‌شناسی صرفاً بازی ذهنی نیست، بلکه بنیانی برای آزادی سیاسی و اخلاقی است. همچنین شجاعت پوپر در نقد ایدئولوژی‌ها و دفاع از دموکراسی، کتاب را به اثری سیاسی و اخلاقی بدل می‌کند.

اما برخی منتقدان بر این باورند که پوپر گاه بیش از اندازه ساده‌انگارانه با سیاست برخورد می‌کند. مثلاً مهندسی اجتماعی تدریجی در عمل همیشه ممکن نیست، به‌ویژه در جوامعی که بحران‌های شدید دارند. همچنین نقد او از مارکسیسم، هرچند موجه، اما گاه همهٔ ابعاد پیچیدهٔ آن سنت فکری را نادیده می‌گیرد. بااین‌حال، حتی این کاستی‌ها هم بخشی از ارزش کتاب است، زیرا خود خواننده را وادار به پرسشگری و نقد می‌کند؛ دقیقاً همان چیزی که پوپر می‌خواست.




زندگی سراسر حل مسئله است صرفاً یک کتاب فلسفی نیست؛ بیانیه‌ای است برای زندگی. پوپر به ما می‌آموزد که در علم، سیاست و حتی در زیست فردی، قطعیت‌ها را رها کنیم و آمادهٔ نقد و اصلاح دائمی باشیم. این نگرش نه‌تنها راهی برای پیشرفت علمی، بلکه الگویی برای آزادی سیاسی و اخلاقی است.

زندگی، همان‌طور که او می‌گفت، چیزی نیست جز زنجیره‌ای از حدس‌ها و خطاها؛ مسئله‌هایی که ما را به پیش می‌رانند. هیچ پایان نهایی وجود ندارد، تنها افق‌هایی تازه برای جست‌وجو. شاید بزرگ‌ترین درس این کتاب همین باشد: انسان بودن یعنی جست‌وجوگر بودن، یعنی زیستن در میانهٔ خطاها و امیدها، در مسیر بی‌پایان پرسش و پاسخ.

[Sadegh · Rating 4 out of 5]

I picked this up after a friend mentioned that in chapter 2 (``Notes of a realist on the body-mind problem") Karl Popper (of all people) makes a case for dualism. I gave it a read thinking that it would be a breath of fresh air away from the prevailing physicalist views that have dominated the conversation for many years now. Having read the chapter I was in an odd situation: I found Popper's argument compelling and was convinced by it, but I had little idea what exactly it had convinced me of! Digging a bit deeper I found that Popper argued not for good old fashioned Cartesian dualism, but rather something that seems to be another in a long chain of attempts by philosophers to evade the issues of physicalism and at the same time not deal with those of substance dualism by erecting large edifices of arcane definitions and arguments in a misguided effort at having their cake and eating it too (which I think is somewhat characteristic of much of the entire business of philosophy and the reason why I take such a dim view of it.)
With that out of the way let me say that I very much enjoyed the book and found it very stimulating. Popper's elaborations on his epistemological theory of science and the way he generalizes the approach to knowledge all the way from amoeba to the pinnacles of human knowledge are particularly interesting. Popper has some thought-provoking views regarding politics and history. He vehemently opposes the idea of the future being a continuation of the past, and more generally predictions about the future and historical prophecies. The future to Popper is like blank pages that we have a duty to write as best as we can. In one chapter Popper argues convincingly against multiparty proportional systems of government and for (much maligned) two party systems. One of the most salient points throughout the book is Popper's disdain for Marxism. This is rooted in his youth when as a member of the communist party he attended a demonstration during which the police shot and killed several of his comrades. One would think that this would have further galvanized him, but he felt responsible for those deaths and his reasoning was ``...although I had a right to risk my own life for the sake of my ideals, I certainly had no right to encourage others to risk their life for my ideals." which is a perfectly sensible sentiment. The problem arises when in a later chapter Popper advocates ``War for Peace" and urges civilized (western) societies to go to war against the likes of Saddam Hussein (and oh did that particular example not age well). So Popper has an issue with expecting his Austrian compatriots to die for his ideals but is perfectly content with middle eastern civilians doing so. While being the overwhelming majority, middle eastern civilians (and soldiers and conscripts) are not the only casualties of the wars Popper is only too eager to wage. In the US at least, the armed forces are made up disproportionately of working class individuals, this leads me to my next point regrading Popper's opposition to Marxism. Popper rejects Marxism on the basis that Marx's assertions about the inevitability of the proletariat's revolution and a final classless society do not hold water. This may well be so, but Popper seems to propagates an implicit false dichotomy between Marxism and the existing capitalist economic order and is too keen in exalting its virtues. Now I must say that Popper is by no means some kind of rightwing nutjob who preaches nonsense like ``pulling yourself up by the bootstraps." Far from it in fact, elsewhere in the book he notes ``How someone fares in life is largely a matter of luck or grace, and to a comparatively small degree perhaps also of competence, diligence, and other virtues." The issue with Popper seems to be that in his opposition to one unsound viewpoint he goes too far in the other direction. Another example of this is seen in his attitude towards Greens and environmental issues. He argues that they irrationally oppose science and technology to the detriment of the very cause that they champion. There is truth to that, but when asked about the anthropogenic depletion of the ozone layer and the scientific consensus surrounding it, he replies with ``...scientist are not always right." I think I hardly need to elaborate on the dangers of this kind of thinking in the face of crises such as global warming and a pandemic. Popper also ascribes environmental issues to overpopulation alone, and does not even consider the issue of consumerism.

[Nuruddin Azri · Rating 4 out of 5]

Surprisingly, this is the second time I read this book. I first heard his name when Dr. Magdi Yacoub, one of the prominent Egyptian cardiothoracic surgeon mentioned in a conference in Kasr al-Aini, Cairo University in 2016. He mentioned that his thought was highly influenced by Karl Popper and Peter Medawar. Since then, I only able to read Medawar’s Advice to a Young Scientist and The Limits of Science but I found out that Popper is a little bit difficult to read.

Reading this book for the second time open up a better understanding of Popper’s view on science and history. As this book (most of it) is a collection of speeches delivered by him, I found that this book is a gripping, smooth and enjoyable read. It is divided into two parts. The first part is about natural science while the second part is about history and politics.

One of the interesting things in this book is when Popper mentioned that he admired Kant and Einstein a lot and during his early phase of childhood, he read Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason but couldn’t understand it until he found Schopenhauer’s The World as Will and Representation in his father’s library which explained Kant’s Critique. The book is the key that make Popper explores a lot of Kant’s works later on.

If Thomas Kuhn was famous with “paradigm shift” in which he proposed brilliantly in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Popper was known with his “falsification” theory where he believes that every scientific experiment is falsifiable. One of the things that he proposed in his theory of science is a three-stage model:

1. Problem.
2. Attempted solution (via hypothesis, theories or conjectures).
3. Elimination.

From this falsification, comes improvement.

Popper mentioned during a speech in Kyoto in 1992,

“I can recommend every serious student, and especially every serious science student, to look out for a beautiful problem that he can really love, and to which he is prepared to dedicate his life. This attitude will make it easy for him to try again and again to find a solution, and to be critical of his own effort which, in most cases, will frequently have to be redoubled before they can be successful. Even if they appear to be successful, they should be most seriously questioned by himself, for they will be open to improvement.”

“The constant consciousness of our own fallibility, and constant self-criticism combined with unlimited devotion to our main problem and its many problem-children and other subsidiary problems – this is what I can recommend to you with full conviction, from the bottom of my heart.”

[Kaveh Rezaie · Rating 5 out of 5]

کتاب به دو بخش کلی تقسیم می‌شود: «مسایل علوم طبیعی» و «اندیشه‌هایی در باب تاریخ و سیاست». بخش نخست شامل این مقالات است: «منطق و تکامل نظریه علمی»، «یادداشت‌های یک رئالیست درباره مساله جسم ــ ذهن»، «معرفت شناسی و مساله صلح»، «موقعیت معرفت شناختی معرفت شناسی تکاملی»، «به سوی یک نظریه تکاملی معرفت» و «متافیزیک کپلر درباره منطومه شمسی و نقد تجربی وی».

بخش دوم نیز شامل مقالاتی با این سرفصل‌هاست: «درباره آزادی»، «درباره نظریه دموکراسی»، «زندگی سراسر حل مسئله است»، «علیه تفسیر کلبی مسلکانه تاریخ»، «جنگیدن به خاطر صلح»- مصاحبه با مجله اشپیگل - ، «سقوط کمونیسم، درک گذشته و تاثیر بر آینده»، «ضرورت صلح»- در مراسم دریافت جایزه صلح اتو هان و تاثیری که از کودکی بر او داشته‌اند: هان و فریتیوف نانسن -، «مازاریک و جامعه باز» - سخنرانی پوپر در پراگ درباره توماس مازاریک بنیان‌گذار چک‌اسلواکی پس از جنگ جهانی اول - و «چگونه بدون زحمت فیلسوف شدم» - در مراسم دریافت جایزه کیوتو و توضیح مختصر و جالبی از چگونگی برخورد او با مسائل مورد علاقه‌اش - .

[Maryamnemati]

این کتاب دومین کتابی که از پوپر خوندم. پوپر همه چیزهایی که من حس میکنم و البته خیلی بیشتر از اون رو با کلماتی که اگه منم بودم همونها رو استفاده میکردم توضیح میده. کلا پوپر باعث میشه که خیلی از افکارم برای خودم ترجمه بشه.

[Illiterate · Rating 2 out of 5]

Popper links his critical rationalism to evolutionary biology and World 3. His claims are imaginative but unconvincing. The political essays in Pt. 2 are less interesting.

[Ebubekir · Rating 5 out of 5]

İlk bölümü okumak kolay değildi. İkinci bölüm ise bence çok ufuk açıcıydı. II. Bölüm;Popper’ın, Tarih, Demokrasi, Kapitalizm, Özgürlük gibi konulara nasıl yaklaştığı, çeşitli söyleşilerden iktibas yapılarak oluşturulmuş. “Daha önce okumadığıma pişmanım” kategorisine bir kitap daha eklendi.

Kitaptan bir kaç cümle:

“Bence seçim günü yeni hükümeti meşrulaştıran bir gün değil, eski hükümeti mahkemeye çıkardığımız gün olmalı!”

“Barışa bir adım olsun yaklaşabilmek için ideolojilerden kaçınmalıyız….dokuna dokuna, bütün mütevazılığımızla nesnel gerçeği aramalıyız. Artık daha fazla her şeyi bilen peygamberi oynamaya çalışmamalıyız. Bu da demektir ki: Değişmeliyiz!”

“Kıta Avrupası’nın en önemli kültür taşıyıcıları şehirlerdi. Eğitim ve kültür miras bırakılan bir şey değildi; insanın kendisinin kazandığı bir şeydi. Eğitim ve kültür, toplumsal yükselişin, bilgi aracılığıyla kendini özgürleştirmenin bir aracı ve sembolüydü.”

“İnsanlık tarihi aslında politik güç tarihidir.
Geçmiş’in gerçekte nasıl olduysa öyle bir tarihi olamaz. Sadece tarihsel yorumlar olabilir, bunların hiç biri nihai değildir; her neslin de kendi yorumlarını yaratma hakkı vardır. Hatta böyle bir yorum yorum yaratma ödevi vardır.”

Sonuç: Her fikrine katılmasam da kitabı çok beğendim!

[Marcel Santos · Rating 4 out of 5]

ENGLISH

“All Life is Problem Solving” is a book gathering a series of lectures Karl Popper gave between the 70s and the 90s on his main themes of interest as a philosopher.

It starts out with an incredibly clear lecture on a German radio he gave in 1972 on science methodology, his main theme. The lecture is titled “the Logic and the evolution of the scientific theory”. Popper proposes a broad concept of knowledge as a universal feature of all living beings. For each species to have reached the present stage on Earth, it is because they all hold knowledge accumulated from solving problems of existence by method of trial and error, which is characterized by three steps:

(1) the problem;
(2) the attempts to solve it;
(3) the elimination.

This is the common feature between Einstein and an amoeba, as he insists. The difference, however, resides in part 3 of the model: the natural process sometimes implies living beings themselves being eliminated, while in the scientific method elimination results from an active, conscious criticism from the scientist. Popper’s three-steps model is applied to the logic of method of science as follows:

(1) the problem, which is always the starting point;

(2) the attempts to solve it, which always consist of theories, and these theories, being attempts, are frequently wrong: they are and always will be hypotheses or conjectures;

(3) the elimination of our mistakes or false theories.

Popper then develops further his model into four steps to include problems that are typical of the continuity of scientific development:

(1) the old problem;

(2) the formation of attempts of theory;

(3) the attempts at elimination through critical discussion including experimental testing;

(4) the new problems, which arise from critical discussion of our theories.

Popper emphasizes continuity of science and its everlasting provisional character with such model. He clearly states that science is a phenomenon which should be perceived as in perpetual growth and is essentially dynamic. There is no end point in which a final goal will be reached once and for all.

He then goes through his famous criterion of demarcation of science, with his strong defense of falsefiability. For a hypothesis to be scientific it must be subjected to testing that could contradict it. A theory is not scientific if it cannot be empirically contradicted. It is worth quoting a striking passage about it (free translation from Portuguese):

“Therefore, my main thesis is that the novelty of science and scientific method, which distinguishes itself from pre-scientific approach, is its conscious attitude in relation to the attempts at solution; it takes an active part in the attempts at elimination, in the attempts at criticizing and falibilizing.
On the other hand, attempts to salvage a theory from fallibilism also have their methodological function, as we have already seen. But my thesis is that such a dogmatic attitude is essentially characteristic of pre-scientific thought, whereas the critical approach involving conscious attempts at fallibilism leads towards science and governs the scientific method.
Although taking sides undoubtedly has a function in the scientific method, in my opinion it is important that the individual researcher be aware of the underlying meaning of attempts to make fallibilization and of sometimes successful fallibilism. Because the scientific method is not cumulative (as Bacon of Verulam and Sir James Jean taught); it is fundamentally revolutionary. Scientific progress consists essentially in replacing old theories with newer theories. These new theories should be able to solve all the problems that the old theories solved and to solve them at least as well as the former. Thus, Einstein's theory solves the problem of planetary motion and macromechanics in general, at least as well as, and perhaps better than, Newton's theory. But revolutionary theory starts from new assumptions, and in its conclusions it goes beyond, and directly contradicts, the old theory. This contradiction allows it to develop experiments that can distinguish the old theory from the new one, but only in the sense that they can disprove at least one of the two theories. In fact, the experiments can prove the superiority of the surviving theory, but not its truth; and the surviving theory can, in turn, be quickly superseded”.

The other lectures in the book refer to Popper’s views on political issues, mainly his ode to liberal democracy (what he calls “open society”), his concerns with the dangers of Marx’s theories to the world and his arguments to refute them, especially the ones referring to an alleged theory of History, which would lead to the necessary end of class struggle. Here, the arguments sound somewhat simplistic and probably stem from a superficial interpretation of Marx's work – although understandably influenced by the advent of disastrous revolutions and bloody dictatorships that were based on that work. Not that Popper’s general criticism against Marx’s works is entirely unfounded - especially on the dangers of their call to action and the lack of propositions - but the way it is presented in the form of lectures makes it sound puerile.

On science, though, this book can be read as a good introduction to Popper’s thought or to clarify it after struggling to read his more famous books, especially “The Logic of Scientific Discovery” (my review here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...).


PORTUGUÊS

"A Vida é Aprendizagem" é um livro que reúne uma série de palestras que Karl Popper proferiu entre as décadas de 1970 e 1990 sobre seus principais temas de interesse como filósofo.

Começa com uma palestra incrivelmente clara que ele deu a uma rádio alemã em 1972 sobre seu tema principal: a metodologia científica. A palestra se intitula "A Lógica e a Evolução da Teoria Científica". Popper propõe um conceito amplo de conhecimento como uma característica universal de todos os seres vivos. Para cada espécie ter chegado ao estágio atual na Terra, isso se deve ao fato de todas possuírem conhecimento acumulado a partir da resolução de problemas existenciais pelo método de tentativa e erro, caracterizado por três etapas:

(1) o problema;
(2) as tentativas de resolvê-lo;
(3) a eliminação.

Essa é a característica comum entre Einstein e uma ameba, como ele insiste. A diferença, no entanto, reside na parte 3 do modelo: o processo natural às vezes implica a eliminação dos próprios seres vivos, enquanto no método científico a eliminação resulta de uma crítica ativa e consciente por parte do cientista. O modelo de três etapas de Popper é aplicado à lógica do método científico da seguinte forma:

(1) o problema, que é sempre o ponto de partida;

(2) as tentativas de resolvê-lo, que sempre consistem em teorias, e essas teorias, sendo tentativas, frequentemente estão erradas: elas são e sempre serão hipóteses ou conjecturas;

(3) a eliminação de nossos erros ou teorias falsas.

Popper então desenvolve ainda mais seu modelo em quatro etapas para incluir problemas típicos da continuidade do desenvolvimento científico:

(1) o problema antigo;

(2) a formulação de tentativas de teoria;

(3) as tentativas de eliminação por meio de discussão crítica, incluindo testes experimentais;

(4) os novos problemas, que surgem da discussão crítica de nossas teorias.

Popper enfatiza a continuidade da ciência e seu caráter provisório perpétuo com esse modelo. Ele afirma claramente que a ciência é um fenômeno que deve ser percebido como estando em constante crescimento e é essencialmente dinâmico. Não há um ponto final em que um objetivo definitivo seja alcançado de uma vez por todas.

Em seguida, ele discorre sobre seu famoso critério de demarcação da ciência, com sua forte defesa da falseabilidade. Para que uma hipótese seja científica, ela deve ser submetida a testes que possam contradizê-la. Uma teoria não é científica se não puder ser empiricamente contraditada. Vale a pena citar uma passagem lapidar:

“Portanto, a minha tese principal é que a novidade da ciência e do método científico, que o distingue da abordagem pré científica, é a sua atitude conscientemente crítica em relação às tentativas de solução; toma uma parte ativa nas tentativas de eliminação, nas tentativas de criticar e falibilizar.
Por outro lado, as tentativas para salvar uma teoria do falibilismo têm também a sua função metodológica, como já vimos. Mas a minha tese é que uma tal atitude dogmática é essencialmente característica do pensamento pré-científico, ao passo que a abordagem crítica envolvendo tentativas conscientes de falibilismo conduz à ciência e rege o método científico.
Embora a tomada de partido tenha sem dúvida uma função no método científico, em minha opinião é importante que o investigador individual tenha consciência do significado subjacente às tentativas de falibilizar e do falibilismo por vezes bem sucedido. Porque o método científico não é cumulativo (como Bacon de Verulam e Sir James Jean ensinaram); é fundamentalmente revolucionário. O progresso científico consiste essencialmente na substituição de antigas teorias por teorias mais recentes. Estas novas teorias deverão ser capazes de resolver todos os problemas que as antigas teorias resolveram e de os resolver pelo menos tão bem quanto àquelas. Assim, a teoria de Einstein resolve o problema do movimento planetário e da macro mecânica em geral, pelo menos também como, e talvez melhor do que, a teoria de Newton. Mas a teoria revolucionária parte de novos pressupostos, e nas suas conclusões vai além de, e contradiz diretamente, a antiga teoria. Esta contradição permite-lhe elaborar experiências que possam distinguir a velha teoria da nova, mas apenas no sentido em que podem falibilizar pelo menos uma das duas teorias. Na verdade, as experiências podem provar a superioridade da teoria sobrevivente, mas não a sua verdade; e a teoria sobrevivente pode, por seu turno, ser rapidamente ultrapassada” (p. 27).

As outras palestras do livro abordam as visões de Popper sobre questões políticas, principalmente sua ode à democracia liberal (que ele chama de “sociedade aberta”), suas preocupações com os perigos das teorias de Marx para o mundo e seus argumentos para refutá-las, especialmente aqueles referentes a uma suposta teoria da História que levaria ao inevitável fim da luta de classes. Aqui, os argumentos soam um tanto simplistas e provavelmente partem de uma interpretação superficial da obra de Marx - apesar de compreensivelmente influenciados pelo advento de revoluções desastrosas e ditaduras sanguinárias que se basearam nessa obra. Não que a crítica geral de Popper aos escritos de Marx seja totalmente infundada — especialmente quanto aos perigos de seu apelo à ação e à falta de proposições —, mas a forma como é apresentada em formato de palestras a torna pueril.

No entanto, em relação à ciência, este livro pode ser lido como uma boa introdução ao pensamento de Popper ou para esclarecê-lo após uma compreensível luta para entender seus livros mais famosos, especialmente “A Lógica da Pesquisa Científica” (minha resenha aqui: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...).

[tuni (chiqs)]

Wir wissen gar nichts 😧😧

[Serdar · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great compilation of lectures & articles, chiefly revolving around a few basic theses advanced by Popper. Much of it is implied by the title: life is a problem solving system, one which we can and should control consciously for our universal betterment. Popper also emphasizes in these pieces another common thread in his thought: the future is not yet, and for that reason we have a moral obligation to find the best in it that we possibly can. Further evidence that the most truly profound and humane thinkers are also the most plain-spoken ones.

[Mohamadhosein · Rating 4 out of 5]

مجموعه‌ی پانزده مقاله و گفتار از پوپر که توسط خود او در دو بخش تنظیم شده: بخش نخست مسائل علوم طبیعی و بخش دوم اندیشه‌هایی در باب تاریخ و سیاست. این پانزده مقاله و گفتار خواننده را با بسیاری از نظرات مهم و تاثیرگذار پوپر آشنا می‌کند.
ترجمه آقای خواجیان هرچند قابل قبول است، اما چندان قوی و روان نیست. اما نظرات جذاب و جسورانه‌ی پوپر باعث شد از خواندن این کتاب لذت ببرم، گرچه پیش از این بیشتر این نظرات را، به ویژه بخش نخست، مفصل‌تر در کتابهای دیگر خوانده بودم.

[Sahar Rose · Rating 4 out of 5]

هذا النوع من الكتب يجعل عقلي يفكر ، يتسائل ، ويبحث عن الإجابات . مازلت في بدايته .
لنا عودة لاحقاً. مصطلحاته عميقة لا استطيع فهمها :)

[Momeda · Rating 4 out of 5]

این کتاب رو ده سال پیش یکی از دوست‌های پدربزرگم بهم داده بود. هر بار که اومدم بخونم به یک جاهایی می‌رسیدم که نمی‌فهمیدم چی می‌گه و کتاب رو ول می‌کردم. اما این دفعه به خودم گفتم حتی اگه جاییش رو نفهمیدم تا آخرش می‌خونم. این کتاب از پانزده تا از مقاله‌ها یا سخنرانی‌های پوپر تشکیل شده که توی چندتای اولش در مورد نظریه‌ی علم صحبت می‌کنه و یک مدل چهار مرحله‌ای برای پیشرفت علم ارائه می‌ده که خودش ادعا می‌کنه این از اولین موجود زنده تا انسان‌ها وجود داشته. تنها فرقی که پوپر بین انسان و باقی حیوان‌ها می‌بینه اینه که انسان‌ها نظریه‌های خودشون رو نقد می‌کنن و دنبال نظریه‌ی بعدی می‌رن اما حیوان‌ها چون خودشون راه‌حلی برای یک مساله هستن و اگه راه‌حلشون برای اون مساله درست نباشه، از بین می‌رن.

توی بخش دوم کتاب در مورد مسائل سیاسی حرف می‌زنه و بیشتر در مورد آزادی و نقد کومونیسم صحبت می‌کنه. پوپر پیش‌بینی‌پذیر بودن تاریخ رو رد می‌کنه و می‌گه که تاریخ فقط در مورد گذشته نظر می‌ده و این که ما بیایم به کمک تاریخ آینده رو پیش‌بینی کنیم کار اشتباهی هست.

تنها دلیلی که به این کتاب چهار دادم و نه پنج این هست که خیلی از مطالب مقالات مختلفی که توی این کتاب اومده با هم هم‌پوشانی داره و تکراری هست.

[Todd Cheng · Rating 5 out of 5]

A timeless narrative. A dense read for only 170 pages. Yet, as important now as when the collection of passages was written. In was a good read in a time of Cold War, potential nuclear ends, polar politics, despotism, racism, AIDS, and Marxism. The only difference from an amoeba and a modern human is our capacity to learn from failures. We must look for mistakes and defects. Problem solve in iteration. Be critical. Remain optimistic and create the better future. Be critical of ones own teachers to try and make it better. Talk about our mistakes.

[Omid Milanifard · Rating 5 out of 5]

این کتاب مجموعه مقالاتی از پوپر است که در دو بخش مسائل علوم طبیعی و تاریخ و سیاست دسته بندی شده. پوپر دیدگاه های جالبی در خصوص فلسفه علم و به خصوص معرفت شناسی مطرح کرده که قضیه معرفت پیشین و پسین و ارتباط آن با نظریه تکامل داروین به نظر من بسیار خوب بود (فصل ۵ کتاب را قبل از فصل ۴ بخوانید. به نظرم ترتیب مناسبتری باشد)

[psychy_melony · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ich habe dieses Buch parallel zum Verfassen meiner Bachelorarbeit geschrieben und dadurch viele Erkenntnisse über das wissenschaftliche Arbeiten erhalten. Hat man einmal Popper gelesen, lässt einen seine Wissenschaftslogik nicht mehr los.

[Nathan Albright · Rating 4 out of 5]

In reading a book like this one has to temper one's expectations.  Typically when a great philosopher or writer dies, there are a lot of essays and generally unread speech transcripts and letters and other loose writings that are combined together into omnibus collections for fans of the author to appreciate.  Such is the case here.  As someone who has read more than my fair share of these collections, I have to say that this one meets the bill of precisely what one would expect, a mixture between very insightful essays that are worthy of a wide and appreciative audience, papers and transcripts that one can take or leave that show the author giving rather ordinary presentations of his familiar material, and some writings that are not particularly good or that represent an off-day for someone who was usually on.  At any rate, this book is not a particularly long one and some of the essays are very good, and that is about as much as one can expect from something like this.  Those who expect more would do well to read the author's more serious and more lengthy philosophical works and not a feast of scraps like this book is.

This particular book is a bit more than 150 pages and consists of fifteen essays divided into two parts.  After a publisher's note and a preface, the first part of the book consists of six essays that discuss questions relating to natural science (I).  These include essays about the logic and evaluation of scientific theories (1), some notes from a realist on the mind-body problem (2), epistemology and the problem of peace (3), the epistemological position of evolutionary epistemology (not good) (4), the author's thoughts about an evolutionary theory of knowledge (5), and a look at Kepler's metaphysics of the solar system as well as his empirical criticism (6).  The rest of the essays deal with miscellaneous thoughts on history and politics (II).  These include essays on freedom (7), the theory of democracy (8), the titular essay on problem solving (9), hostility to the cynical view of history (10), waging wars for peace (11), understanding the collapse of communism (12), the necessity of peace (13), Masaryk and the open society (14), and how the author became a philosopher (15).  After this the book concludes with a subject index and an name index after having dealt with a very miscellaneous but simultaneously revealing set of essays about diverse subjects.

In reading this book, I was able to find at least a few things both to like and to dislike about it.  The author's view that life amounts to a series of experiments for each life and the author's pessimism about evolutionary epistemology are certainly welcome to me, but at the same time there was also much about the author's pacifism I had reason to question and disagree with.  I can see where the author is coming from but at the same time I would not ever consider myself a pacifist personally given the reality and inescapability of conflict in life.  What I found most intriguing about this collection was the way that the author never stopped pondering over late-Austro-Hungarian history and post-imperial Austrian matters, most notably in his essay on Masaryk and the fact that his death before World War II deprived Czechoslovakia of a vital defender in the face of Hitler's aggression and someone who likely wouldn't have been cowed into surrender the way that his successors were.  In these essays, for better and for worse, one can see the way that the author's upbringing in Vienna powerfully affected his political and cultural views, and how scientists and philosophers are not immune to such concerns.

[Rahmanism · Rating 4 out of 5]

حرفاش تا وقتی فلسفی هستند خوبن وقتی میرفته سراغ بحث سیاسی زیاد به در و دیوار میزده خدابیامرز
البته خیلی حرفای مهم داره. نصف خطوط کتاب رو هایلایت کردم!
ترجمه هم خیلی جاهای کتاب خوب نبود واقعا
کتاب مجموعه چند سخنرانی و یه مصاحبه‌س

[مهدی ذوالفقاری · Rating 3 out of 5]

کتاب خیلی خوبی باسه آشنایی با این فیلسوف علم هست،از بخش دوم کتاب بیشتر استفاده کردم ،نظراتش در مورد کمونیست،آزادی،دموکراسی ،آموختنی های خوبی داشت،باعث شد کاراشا دنبال کنم،کار ترجمه خوب روان بود،در کل به تفکر وادار میکنه،بطور ضمنی بهت میگه که چیزی نداری و باید همیشه به دنبال یادگیری و بروز رسانی باشی

[Ioannis Savvas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ο Karl Popper θεωρείται ένας από τους μεγαλύτερους φιλοσόφους του εικοστού αιώνα. Ειδικά σε θέματα επιστημολογίας έχει παίξει καθοριστικό ρόλο στη σύγχρονη επιστήμη, καθώς φώτισε και ενέπνευσε πολλούς επιστήμονες και ανέδειξε τη δουλειά τους.

Στο βιβλίο του «Η ζωή είναι επίλυση προβλημάτων» περιλαμβάνονται δοκίμια, ομιλίες και συνεντεύξεις του διάσημου διανοητή σε θέματα ιστορίας, πολιτικής και βέβαια επιστήμης. Το βιβλίο αποτελεί επιτομή του έργου και των ιδεών του Popper, πάνω σε αυτά τα θέματα, όπως ο ίδιος τα παρουσιάζει στο κοινό του.

Οι θέσεις του για την ιστορία («η Ιστορία τελειώνει σήμερα», φανατικός πολέμιος του ιστορικισμού και του μαρξισμού, από τα νύχια του οποίου σώθηκε πολύ νωρίς), την πολιτική (μαχητής της δημοκρατίας ως «ενός συστήματος που επιτρέπει την αλλαγή της εξουσίας χωρίς αιματοχυσία» και απολογητής της ενισχυμένης αναλογικής) και την επιστήμη (η επιστήμη είναι όπως ολόκληρη η βιολογία: δοκιμή και λάθος) είναι απλά διατυπωμένες (θαυμάζει τον Bertrand Russel) και δομημένες με τη λογική του Kant.

Η έννοια της διαψευσιμότητας που εισήγαγε στην επιστημολογία έχει γίνει σύμβολο, αν και έχει δεχτεί αρκετή κριτική. Ωστόσο, ο θαυμασμός του για τον Einstein (τον αναφέρει σε πάρα πολλά παραδείγματά του) δεν τον αφήνει να δει την ομορφιά της Κβαντομηχανικής. Δηλώνει ότι διαφωνεί με τη θεωρία του Niels Bohr, αλλά όπως φαίνεται -σύμφωνα με τη δική του τεχνική της διαψευσιμότητας- κανείς ως τώρα δεν έχει καταφέρει να την καταρρίψει. Και είναι ίσως το καλύτερο παράδειγμα επιστημονικής μεταφυσικής!

Στη γνωσιοθεωρία προχωράει πέρα από πολλούς διανοητές υποστηρίζοντας την «γενετικά a priori γνώση». Ακόμα και η μεταφυσική του στην επιστήμη τον κάνει να αποκλίνει από τον υποτιθέμενο θετικισμό του Κύκλου της Βιέννης.

Στο μόνο σημείο που διαφωνώ μαζί του είναι οι απόψεις του πάνω στο διαχωρισμό σώματος-ψυχής. Ακόμα και ο ορισμός αυτού του θέματος κάνει αποδεκτό εξ αρχής τον δυισμό αυτό. Δυστυχώς, η σύγχρονη νευροφυσιολογία δεν έχει εντοπίσει ακόμη το «κέντρο» της ψυχής στον εγκέφαλο. Νομίζω πως όλα είναι απλά συνάψεις και νευρομεταβιβαστές. Αλλιώς, πώς δρουν τα ψυχοφάρμακα;

Ο Popper είναι ένας αισιόδοξος λάτρης της σύγχρονης εποχής. Υπέρμαχος του ανθρώπινου πνεύματος και ανθρωπιστής.

Ένα εξαιρετικό βιβλίο που δίνει διεξόδους στη σημερινή δύσκολη εποχή!

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

We know nothing - that is the first point.
Therefore we should be very modest - that is the second.
That we should not claim to know when we do not know - that is the third.

This is a collection of several of Popper’s lectures, speeches and interviews on his usual topics of the philosophy of science and politics. A few tidbits that provide interesting background to his published works.

7. The problem always comes first. Before observation/perception, attempted solutions, trials, eliminating attempted solutions that don't work --> then hypotheses.
10. In science we get our hypotheses to die for us.
11. Attempts to save hypotheses --> dogmatism, pre-scientific thinking
42.

I am anything but an enemy of religion. My religion is the doctrine of the splendours of the world; of the freedom and creativity of wonderful human beings; of the terror and suffering of the despairing people we can help; of the extent of good and evil that has emerged in human history and keeps emerging over and over again; of the joyful message that we can prolong people's lives, especially those of women and children who have had the toughest life. I know nothing else. And although the scientific quest for truth is part of my religion, the magnificent scientific hypotheses are not religion. They must not be.

55. There is no certain knowledge. All conjectural knowledge.
73. Computers will not invent new problems or new values - will not move us forward on their own.
85. The true Enlightenment Thinker never wants to convince - they want to be understood.
106. The 'materialist conception of history' aka 'historical materialism' is Marx and Engels reinterpreting Hegel's philosophy of history, seeing history as consisting not of racial but class struggles. Hmm - not only wrong, but his language here contradicts Popper's own assertions about language and dogmatism.

[Abdulaziz · Rating 4 out of 5]

الجيد في الكتاب أنه مبسط وتفهم من الجزء الاول منه فلسفة بوبر العلمية بكل وضوح
الجزء الثاني كان عن التاريخ والسياسة ونقد الماركسية وضرورة السلام، مقالات متفرقة تستحق القراءة

[Eduardo Berlendis · Rating 5 out of 5]

BOOK REVIEW:
POPPER, Karl, All Life is Problem Solving
ISBN: 978-0415249928
Read June, 30th-July, 3rd, 2017.

A Collection of Essays on Science, Knowledge, Dialogue and Democracy.

“We can be wrong” is the common fundamental epistemological assumption for the fields both of natural sciences and politics. First published in 1994, this collection of writings by Karl Popper (1902, Vienna, Austria - 1994, London, UK), a giant of 20th century philosophy of science, links both fields around that assumption. Four papers of the first German edition are omitted and replaced with other papers originally written in English. This edition therefore contains 15 chapters grouped in 2 parts. Part 1 has 6 chapters on Natural Science and Part 2, 9 chapters on History and Politics.

Chapter 1, Logic and Evolution of Scientific Theory. No scientific theory begins with observations but with the refutation of previous theories or myths. Thus, in truth the scientific process has 3 stages: rise of a problem (a disturbance of expectations); attempted solutions; and elimination of false solutions.

Chapter 2, The Mind-Body Problem. There are three worlds: world 1 is external and natural; world 2, internal and psychological. But world 3 is cultural and comprises collectively shared elements of the Psychological World 2, including perceptions about Natural World 1.

Chapter 3, The Problem of Peace. A critical attitude is needed to get rid of dogmas and preserve peace.

Chapter 4, Evolutionary Epistemology. Even rudimentary forms of life test hypotheses or assumptions about the exterior environment’s characteristics (e.g. temperature or nutrients). The correction of the assumptions can lead to the survival or death of the microbe; we at least can test hypotheses without dying when we are wrong.

Chapter 5, Towards an Evolutionary Theory of Knowledge. Animals are capable of knowledge, albeit not conscious nor scientific; what distinctly qualifies science is the deliberate testing of hypotheses.

Part 1 closes with Chapter 6, Kepler's method superiority over Copernicus', Galileo's and Newton's, thanks to the Kepler’s larger humility and willingness to be proven wrong in order to be able to learn something new.

Part 2 opens with Chapter 7, Freedom and Education. Debate, and therefore political freedom, are essential for true education, the teaching of critical thought or the attitude where being proven wrong by rational arguments is more important than convincing others. Critical thought was invented by Thales of Miletus, subsequently lost, but rediscovered by Galileo Galilei; it can be destroyed again if political freedom is lost.

Chapter 8, On the Theory of Democracy. Popper’s experience of totalitarianism shifted his interests from natural sciences to democracy. The word’s etymology misleads to questioning who should govern, the government or the people. But everywhere it is governments, not peoples, who rule. The true question is how to get rid of bad governments without bloodshed: through elections, after the British and American model.

Chapter 9, All Life is Problem Solving. Technology and Life itself are forms of learning from mistakes. Science and technology deserve critic but not the outright hostility of the Greens. Opposing legislation addressing pollution on grounds of market freedom is nonsensical, as freedom depends on a State legal order restricting some individual liberties; banning armed groups is better than facing warlords. Technology is blamed for problems which are caused by overpopulation.

Chapter 10, Against the Cynical Interpretation of History. The racist, Marxist and “cynical” views of history lead people to shun responsibility for political decisions and to distrust democracy. To these views’ inherent pessimism we must oppose optimism, not towards the future, which we may influence but not predict, nor the past, which we are able to study and judge, but towards the present, which is technologically and morally better than ever, full of enthusiasm for reform and for ethical causes.

Chapter 11, 'Waging wars for peace” is an interview to Der Spiegel. Popper never prophesised the fall of Communism, as prophecies are impossible. Marx’ theory of absolute impoverishment was proven wrong; the paramount objective of international politics must be peace even if wars may be necessary to avoid greater violence; hunger is a distributive problem created by immature leaders of poor countries; climate change is a problem of overpopulation which has to be fought by education; the Church must be convinced to compromise on abortion. Jörg Haider is a threat; Mankind could be wiped out by other threats such as microbes. Optimism is a duty; the grim realities are a reason for vigilance.

Chapter 12, The collapse of communism. Liberal democracies and industrialisation were improving life in the West before the First War. Polarisation was brought by the emerging of Communism, which eventually collapse because of the intellectual barrenness of Marxism, founded on a big lie (the historical inevitability of Revolution) and on small lies supported by brutality. It could be countenanced by a five points program: education to strengthen personal freedom; world peace (made necessary by nuclear weapons); free market regulation, to fight poverty; tackling overpopulation through education and birth control; and education for non-violence.

Chapter 13, The necessity of peace, discusses the political activism of Otto Hahn, a scientist, who wrote about the necessity, created by atomic weapons, of world peace; and Fridtjof Nansen, an explorer with deep theoretical knowledge who invented the Nansen passport and organised aid to a starving Soviet Union. The future is open, not fixed in advance, and can only be predicted by chance. Our responsibility is supporting what may lead to a better future.

Chapter 14, Masaryk and the Open Society. Masaryk made Czechoslovakia the most open society Europe had seen, until its destruction by Hitler with the omission of Britain’s and France’s appeasers. It did suffer from ethnic nationalism; suppression of minorities and dialects was pursued by all the largest countries because a homogenous population speaking a single language is useful for industrial collaboration. These horrors must be faced, but we must not fail prey to the cynical view that violence and greed are inevitable. History begins with Solon’s freeing of Athens’ slaves; Lincoln and his soldiers fell for freedom. These are not mere exceptions. South Africa was a recent success which we must keep in mind, as well as Masaryk’s example of resistance to Hitler.

Final Chapter 15, How I Became a Philosopher Without Trying. Popper’s early-life decision to teach sciences, his doctorate in the psychology of education; childhood philosophical problems; readings, work method, first book, need to study the concept of science to answer whether Marxism was a science; the influence of the First War, his writings, search for teaching positions, and finally the conclusion he never studied philosophy but spent his life searching the solution of problems often philosophical in nature. Popper encourages youngsters to look for a problem which fascinates them and to which they are ready to devote their life to perfecting solutions through the consciousness of their fallibility.

This book is a good introduction to Popper's thought. Even if sometimes Popper is clearly partisan to his friends and acquaintances, and seems to naïvely put more emphasis on great leaders than on the daily struggles of the multitude, as if scientific geniuses could exist without centuries of experiments, trials and errors by the common people, this series of writings does show the way for the construction of concepts that are essential for an open society – and for peace and, in a world where nuclear weapons can often be forgotten, but still exist, for survival. I do not hesitate in recommending it to anybody, and wonder if it should be one of those mandatory readings in every school.

[Vicente Mendes · Rating 5 out of 5]

Some essays, lectures and interviews from the later years of Popper’s life, on science, experts, knowledge, peace, freedom, politics and his own life.

“Of course I know that there are also many bad things in our world and yet it is the best that has ever existed since the beginning of history. When I make this statement, those who hear me usually treat me as if I were senile. Maybe it's true, but in the debate that will follow I am prepared to defend myself against anyone and argue that the widespread complaints against the perfidious world in which we live - what we can call the dominant religion of our time - are in contradiction with all the facts. My main thesis is that not only are we better from an economic point of view but we are better from a moral point of view. I am willing, however, to admit one thing: we are more stupid than ever and without a critical spirit in the face of everything we consider modern.”

“There is a lot of truth in much of our knowledge, but little certainty. /We must approach our hypotheses in a critical way, we must test them as rigorously as possible to find out if they do not prove to be false after all.”

“The truth is objective: it is correspondence to the facts.”

“Certainty is rarely objective: it is usually nothing more than a strong feeling of trust, of conviction, although based on insufficient knowledge. Such feelings are dangerous, since they are rarely well-founded. Strong feelings of conviction make them dogmatic. They can even turn us into hysterical fanatics who try to convince themselves of a certainty that they unconsciously know is not available.”

“[the true rationalist] prefers to provoke contradiction, preferably in the form of rational and disciplined criticism. He does not seek to convince but to awaken - to challenge others to form free opinions.”

[Hüseyin Çötel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Askerde okuduğum kitaplar - 4

Bu üstadı Celal Şengörden merak sarmıştım. Bir hayranı olarak doktora yapıyorken bir sömestırda Karl Popper in tüm kitaplarını alıp hepsini okuyan Clel Şengörün anısını biliriz. Daha sonra kendisini aradığını konuştuğunu filan da anlatır. Bu güzel isimli kitabını ben de görünce ilgimi çekti alıp okuyayım demiştim. Şahsen felsefe kitaplarını okumakta çok zorlanıyorum, eksigim bu konuda tekrar tekrar okumam gerekiyor yine de tam anlayamiyorum bazen Turkce cevirilerde de mi bir problem var anlamadim. Ama kendini Usçu ve Aydınlatıcı olarak tanımlaması hoşuma gitti ben de kendimde bu iki unsuur daha bilinçli halde uygulamayı düşünüyorum. Usçu olmak her zaman hatalı olabileceğini kabul edip hatanı bulunca da yeni doğru bulmuş kadar gocunmadan sevinmek ve hep yoluna devam etmeyi, aydinlatici olmak da yetkin oldugun konularda agdali kimsenin anlayamayacagi sekilde burnu buyuk degil de olabildiğince açık ve kolay eleştirilebilir şekilde fikrini beyan etmek anlamına geliyor. Politika ve demokrasi üzerine yorumları ve iyimser yaklaşımları okunması gerekiyor öneriyorum.

[Hailey Kim · Rating 5 out of 5]

When I speak of reason or rationalism, all I mean is the conviction that we can learn through criticism of our mistakes and errors, especially through criticism by others, and eventually also through self-criticism. A rationalist is simply someone for whom it is more important to learn than to be proved right; someone who is willing to learn from others — not by simply taking over another's opinions, but by gladly allowing others to criticize his ideas and by gladly criticizing the ideas of others. The emphasis here is on the idea of criticism or, to be more precise, critical discussion. The genuine rationalist does not think that he or anyone else is in possession of the truth; nor does he think that mere criticism as such helps us achieve new ideas. But he does think that, in the sphere of ideas, only critical discussion can help us sort the wheat from the chaff. He is well aware that acceptance or rejection of an idea is never a purely rational matter; but he thinks that only critical discussion can give us the maturity to see an idea from more and more sides and to make a correct judgement of it.

[Caner · Rating 5 out of 5]

Başlığı ile içeriğini bu kadar güzel özetleyen başka bir kitap var mıdır bilmiyorum. Karl Popper'in farklı zamanlarındaki derslerinden, konuşmalarından ve röportajlarından toparlanmış bir kitap. Hayat problem çözmektir cümlesi kitabı oluşturan iki bölümün de ana fikrini oluşturuyor. Birinci bölümde doğa hakkındaki bilginin sorunları bölümünde doğanın işleyişi ile bilimin işleyişi üzerine bir analoji yazıyor Popper. Bütün canlılar problem çözerek hayatta kalırlar, bütün bilimsel kuramlar da öyle.
İkinci bölüm dünyanın gidişatı ile ilgili. Tarihe dar ideolojik pencereden bakan Marksist tarihe bir eleştiri kaçınılmaz oluyor mevzu bahis Popper olunca, Popper de neredeyse bütün hayatı boyunca yaptığı gibi bir Marksizm eleştirisi sunmuş. Aynı zamanda olguları belli kılıflara uydurmaya çalışan tüm ideolojilere de bir savaş açmış gözüküyor. Haksız da değil. Felsefe kadar tarihi yorumlarken de basit, iyimser ve tabi ki gerçekçi olmalıyız.

[Muneeb Ahmad · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book has two parts. Part-1 titled ‘questions of natural science’ is more aligned with the title of the book which is what got me to start reading this book. Part-2 ‘thoughts on history and politics’ was a surprise.
Part-2 although is great too but I felt it was less illuminating that part-1.
I read this book to get started and get a taste of Popper’s ideas and it helped that this book is basically the collection of essays/speeches that the author wrote over the course of his lifetime. There isn’t any central theme to the book, The title comes from just one essay for the reason I can completely understand. Few essays I loved:
1-“Towards an Evolutionary Theory of Knowledge”
2-“The Logic and Evolution of Scientific Theory”
3-“On freedom”

After reading this introductory book,I know I will be reading the other and well-known work by Sir Karl Popper.