Worldview and dualism

19 Sep

What is commendable in Popper’s argument about Parmenides is problematic in Heraclitus’s reading, although it highlights points of this thought that are not in the conventional reading of Heraclitus: “I understand the traditional interpretation of Heraclitus philosophy reexposed here is no longer accepted. for all…. ”(Popper, 2014, p. 12), but raises important points.

One is the vision of change, which will make Popper build his own theory, knows that in the view of modern science Thomas Kuhn that points to the moments of paradigmatic change in scientific theories, and this has cosmological influence that Popper does not see.

Popper states: “The problem of change… has led Heraclitus to a theory that (partly anticipating Parmenides) distinguishes between reality and appearance” (page 13) and quotes it verbatim: “The real nature of things loves to hide itself.

An unseen harmony is stronger than the apparent… but in fact (and to God) they are the same” (POPPER, 2014, p. 13). The positive point of his view is that he realizes that it was to see as we have already pointed out in the previous post, that in refuting nascent empiricism, we saw in the theory of the earth as a drum, this gave rise to a view of the atomists, and Democritus in particular who “interpreted they said that it was refuted by experience, since motion exists ”(pages 14 and 15), and they concluded that atoms and vacuum existed.

Thus, “atomists came to a theory of change – a theory that dominated scientific thought until 1900.

It is the theory that all change, and especially qualitative change, must be explained by the special movement of immutable bits of matter – by atoms that move in a vacuum ”(Popper, 2014, p. 15), and will correctly say this changed because of Maxwell under Faraday’s influence, and this was important for neologicism.

This is where Popper starts from, so much so that he refutes the theory that only Kuhn thought of when the theory of science changed, and also proves the influence of the Vienna circle on Popper’s thought, even if it was only an influence and not a pertinence. He will say that his point of view “clashes with the ideas of some English and German experts alike, with the ideas expressed by Kirk and Raven in their book The Pre-Socratic Philosophers” (Popper, 2014, p. 15) and this will be his contribution a rereading of the pre-Socrates in the light of cosmology, yet his conclusions to science less so.

One of his conclusions is that “there is no cosmogony [..] in Heraclitus” (p. 16) and is based on vision (even though imaginary, hence cosmogony and not cosmology), “Fire is a form archetypal matter, ”is reading Kirk and Raven, and says that all matter“ is a process, ”which is precisely what Kirk and Raven deny in Heraclitus.

By the end of the Middle Ages it is known that fire was composed of an essential matter that would be the “fogisto” and it is known to be combustion matter, so not only Kirk and Raven are wrong, but also Popper, because a A-story reading of Heraclitus leads to misconception. Just as saying that there is no cosmogony in Heraclitus is too heavy, but Popper’s rereading helps to see the dualism present in pre-Socratic in general, and in Parmenides in particular, and his rereading that there is no ontology in it will do, also a rereading of Xenophanes, with a “stranger” who is also right.



Comentários estão fechados.