This book consists of two short works by Popper: “How I Understand Philosophy” and “Immanuel Kant - Philosopher of the Enlightenment.” In the first, the author expressed his original view on the nature of philosophy and its place and role in human life. In the second, he defends an unconventional point of view on the critical philosophy of I. Kant, according to which the great Konigsberger is not a philosopher of classical German idealism, but the last champion of the great ideas of the Enlightenment.
Karl Popper. All people are philosophers. – M.: Book house “LIBROKOM”, 2009. – 104 p.
Download the abstract (summary) in the format or
Introductory article by the translator. Karl Popper and the positivist tradition. Popper's philosophy not only sharply diverges from the entire positivist tradition, but also directly opposes it. At the same time, I in no way belittle the role of the latter in the formation and development of critical rationalism, as Popper calls his concept.
The general program of positivism accepts sensory perception as the only reliable source of knowledge, and the classical ideal of rationality, which is based on the belief in the possibility of obtaining strict reliable knowledge. K. Popper actually “awakened” in the postmodern philosophical consciousness the idea of the fallibility of the human mind, which had long existed in European philosophy.
Unlike the classical fundamentalist tradition of the Cartesian type, Popper's criticism does not allow for any dogma; moreover, it necessarily includes fallibility in relation to any possible authority. A continuous search and replacement of some solutions by others - this is the path to Truth and Progress, this is the leitmotif of Popper’s criticism.
How do I understand philosophy
I do not consider philosophy to be an attempt to explain, analyze, or “explicate” concepts, words, or language. Concepts or words serve as simple tools for formulating statements, propositions or theories. Concepts or words as such can be neither true nor false. They only serve to describe and justify human language. Our goal should not be to analyze meanings, but to search for interesting and fundamental truths, i.e. search for true theories.
All people are philosophers. Even if they do not realize that they are faced with philosophical problems, nevertheless, in any case they have philosophical prejudices. Most of these prejudices are theories that are recognized as self-evident. People borrow them from their spiritual environment or tradition. Since only some of these theories are fully understood by us, they are prejudices in the sense that they are accepted without critical examination, although they may be of great importance for practical activity and all human life. The existence of professional or academic philosophy is justified by the need to critically examine and test these widespread and influential theories.
Some widespread and dangerous philosophical prejudices. There is a very influential philosophical view of life that holds that someone must be held responsible for the evil that happens in the world. In the Christian tradition, the devil is responsible for evil. And in vulgar Marxism, a conspiracy of greedy capitalists prevents the onset of socialism and the achievement of the kingdom of heaven on earth.
The theory that wars, poverty and unemployment are the result of evil intentions and intentions is part of the common mind, but it is not critical. I call this uncritical theory of ordinary reason the conspiratorial theory of society. However, critical research shows that conspiracies hardly achieve their goals. Lenin, who advocated a conspiracy theory, was a conspirator; Mussolini and Hitler also adhered to this theory. But Lenin’s plans were not destined to come true in Russia, just like the plans of Mussolini in Italy or Hitler in Germany.
Behaviorism - the denial of the existence of consciousness, spirit - is very fashionable today. Although it extols observation, behaviorism not only contradicts human experience, but also tries to derive from its ideas a terrible ethical theory - conditionalism, a theory of conditioning, which explains all behavior by positive or negative learning.
Introductory article by the translator. Kant and the critical tradition. Kant's spirit and style as a philosopher is the Socratic type of sage, constantly seeking, exploring and loving the Truth. While Fichte and Hegel represent a type of Platonic philosopher-sophocrat29 who does not seek the Truth, but arrogantly possesses it and speaks like the Delphic oracle. Kant, this great “citizen of the world” who defended the ideas of the Enlightenment - the ideas of equality, cosmopolitanism, eternal peace - has nothing in common with Fichte and Hegel, who gave humanity the idea of the “great German spirit”, which repeatedly tried to establish itself on the “stage” of world history. One should not lose sight of the general character and methodological intentions of Kant's critical philosophy and German idealism. If the first, as we know, is open and imbued with the spirit of criticism, then the second, on the contrary, is imbued with the spirit of dogmatism.
The main question and the true task of pure reason are reduced by Kant to the question: “How are a priori synthetic judgments possible?” Everything that was presented in Germany in the 19th century. after Kant, it was essentially only the decline and revival of pre-Kantian dogmatic metaphysics. And this applies primarily to the so-called classical German idealism - the schools of Reinhold, Fichte, Schelling and Hegel.
In modern philosophy, the critical rationalists most clearly gravitate towards the Kantian method. K. Popper's entire philosophy revolves around Kant's transcendental question, which he considered, along with the problem of induction (Hume's problem), the main problem of the theory of knowledge. K. Popper calls this problem Kantian, designating it as the problem of demarcation. Popper formulates it this way: “We call the problem of finding a criterion by which we can distinguish the empirical sciences from mathematics, logic, and also from “metaphysical systems” the problem of demarcation.”
“Knowledge,” notes Popper, “means to seek patterns, or more precisely, to establish and methodically verify the laws of nature, the truth of which can never be fundamentally proven by science...”, since, as Kant believed, “reason does not draw its laws (a priori) from nature, but prescribes them to her.”
Popper rejects King's point of view that all our knowledge is subjectively colored, anthropomorphic... Summarizing his analysis of Kant's apriorism, Popper draws a conclusion in which Kant's position is essentially “turned on its head.” Kant, as we know, believed that “... although all our knowledge begins with experience,” nevertheless, it is preceded by epistemological-theoretical a priori synthetic principles of knowledge, which make experimental knowledge possible. Popper believes that “...although from a psychogenetic point of view knowledge can precede its confirmation in experience (in this sense we can speak of genetic a priori), nevertheless from a theoretical-cognitive point of view all our knowledge always begins only with experience: not there are no synthetic a priori principles."
Having eliminated inductivism as a completely erroneous methodology, Popper, however, did not abandon observation and experimentation. On the contrary, he retains them, and they are regarded by him as means of testing theory, and thus they remain an integral part of critical discussions.
According to Popper's methodological approach, the scheme for the development of scientific knowledge looks like this: we choose a problem that interests us, then we put forward a bold hypothesis in an attempt to provide a more or less adequate solution to this problem. Then, to strengthen and confirm the hypothesis, we criticize it, replacing it with a new hypothesis, which we again subject to increased criticism, etc. The entire methodology can be briefly formulated as follows: bold assumptions are controlled by rigorous criticism, including rigorous empirical tests. Criticism and verification thus always turn out to be an attempt at refutation.
Immanuel Kant - philosopher of the Enlightenment
150 years ago in Königsberg, a provincial Prussian town, Immanuel Kant died. To the ringing of bells throughout the city, an endless line of people followed the coffin. As contemporaries testify, the residents of Königsberg had never seen such a funeral procession. I would dare to suggest that then, in 1804, during the time of the absolute monarchy of Frederick William III, every ringing of the bell, according to Kant, was an echo of the American and French revolutions, an echo of the ideas of 1776 and 1789. For his fellow citizens, Kant was a symbol of these ideas, and they followed his coffin as a sign of gratitude to their teacher for the human rights he proclaimed, the principles of equality before the law, and eternal peace on earth.
The germs of these ideas were brought here to the continent by England, in particular by Voltaire’s book Letters Written from London on the English and Other Questions, published in 1732. In this book, Voltaire contrasted the English constitutional form of government with the continental absolute monarchy; he compared English religious tolerance with the intolerance of the Roman church and the world system of Isaac Newton and the English empiricism of J. Locke with the dogmatism of Rene Descartes.
Kant believed in the Enlightenment; he was its last great champion. My position in relation to Kant diverges from the generally accepted point of view today. While in Kant I see the last champion of the Enlightenment, most consider him the founder of the school that denied the Enlightenment - the school of the romantics of "German Idealism", the school of Fichte, Schelling and Hegel. I argue that these two views are incompatible.
“Enlightenment,” writes Kant, “is the emergence of humanity from the state of its minority, in which it finds itself through its own fault. Juvenility is the inability to use one's reason without the guidance of someone else. A self-inflicted minority is one the cause of which is not a lack of judgment, but a lack of determination and courage to use it without the guidance of someone else. Sapere aude! – have the courage to use your own mind! – this, therefore, is the motto of the Enlightenment.”
The decisive role in this struggle was played by Newton's physics and celestial mechanics, which gained fame in Europe thanks to Voltaire. The Copernican and Newtonian systems of the world had a very great influence on Kant's intellectual development.
Kant tried to solve the problem of the finitude or infinity of the world in space and time. The question of the finitude or infinity of the world in space was brilliantly resolved by Einstein, showing that the world is finite, but has no boundaries. Einstein thereby, one might say, untied the Kantian knot, based on Kant himself and his contemporaries. On the problem of the finitude or infinity of the world in time, on the contrary, there is still no such clear solution.
Kant gave his theory the unfortunate name “transcendental idealism.” He soon regretted his choice, since it led some of his readers to consider Kant an idealist and to believe that he rejected the supposed reality of physical things, passing them off as pure ideas or ideas. In vain Kant tried to explain that he rejected only the empirical character and reality of space and time - the empirical character and reality of the kind that we attribute to physical things and processes. But all his efforts to clarify his position were in vain. The difficulty of Kant's style sealed his fate; thereby he was doomed to go down in history as the founder of “German idealism.” Now is the time to reconsider this assessment. Kant always emphasized that physical things are actual in space and time—real, not ideal. As for the awkward metaphysical speculations of the school of “German Idealism,” Kant’s chosen title, “Critique of Pure Reason,” announced his critical attack on this kind of speculation. Pure reason is criticized, in particular a priori “pure” conclusions of reason about the world that do not follow from sensory experience and are not verified by observations.
Like all physicists of that time, Kant was completely convinced of the truth and indisputability of Newton's theory. He believed that this theory cannot be only the result of accumulated observations. Kant formulated this idea as follows: “Reason does not draw its laws a priori from nature, but prescribes them to it.”
This formulation simultaneously expresses the idea that Kant himself proudly called his “Copernican revolution.” He wrote: “... when it turned out that the hypothesis of the rotation of all the stars around the observer did not explain the movement of celestial bodies well enough, Copernicus tried to determine whether he would not achieve greater success if we assume that the observer is moving and the stars are at rest.” Kant, with a similar “revolution,” tried to solve the problem of the foundations of the truth of natural science, or more precisely, the problem of how an exact natural science such as Newtonian physics is possible. He assumed that such a solution would be found over time. We must, says Kant, abandon the idea that we remain passive contemplatives, waiting for nature to impose its laws on us. Instead, we must put forward the idea that we, contemplatives, impose on our feelings, sensations the order and laws of our reason.
The researcher’s mind “should force nature to answer his questions, and not drag along as if on her lead.” The researcher must starve nature out, by force, in order to see it in the light of his doubts, assumptions, ideas and motivations. I consider this approach to be highly philosophical. It allows us to consider natural science (not only theoretical, but also experimental) as a genuine human creation and to present its history, like the history of art and literature, as part of the history of ideas.
Kant's Copernican revolution in ethics is contained in his doctrine of antinomies, in which he says that we should never blindly obey the demands of authority, blindly submit to a superhuman authority as the legislator of morality. If we disobey the demand of an authority, then we take on the responsibility to decide whether that demand is moral or not.
Kant gives various formulations of the moral law. One of them says: “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, both in your own person and in the person of everyone else, as an end, and never treat it only as a means.” The spirit of Kantian ethics can perhaps be summarized as follows: act in such a way as to preserve your freedom, and respect and protect the freedom of others.
Kant showed that every person is free: not because he is born free, but because he is born already burdened - burdened with responsibility for the freedom of his decision.
Transcendental (from the Latin transcendens - going beyond) - connecting parts of the content located on opposite sides of a certain limit.
Antinomy (ancient Greek ἀντι-νομία - contradiction in the law or the contradiction of the law to itself.
Karl Popper. AllPeople - philosophers: Like me Understand philosophy; Immanuel Kant - philosopher of the Enlightenment . Per. from German/Intro. Art. and note. I.3. Shishkova. Ed. 4 -e. - M.: Book house "LIBROKOM", 2009. - 104 p.
The book is a translation of two little-known, but very interesting articles by one of the prominent and most popular Western philosophers of the 20th century - Karl Raymund Popper. In the first - “How I Understand Philosophy” - the author expressed his original view of the nature of philosophy and its place and role in human life. The second, “Immanuel Kant - Philosopher of the Enlightenment,” which is a memorable speech given by K. Popper on London radio on the 150th anniversary of the death of the “philosopher of freedom, humanity and conscience,” defends an unconventional point of view on critical philosophy I. Kant, according to which the great Koenigsberger is not a philosopher of classical German idealism, but the last champion of the great ideas of the Enlightenment.
The publication is accompanied by two introductory articles by Professor I.3. Shishkov, in whose translation the works of K. Popper are published. The book is intended for a wide circle of scientific intelligentsia - for everyone who is interested in the history of philosophy and philosophy in general.
page number at the end of it.
Introductory article . For readers it is of interest primarily from the point of view of a new understanding of the place of the English thinker in modern philosophy.
Without dwelling on this issue in detail, I will only point out one fundamental point on which, as it seems to me, the philosophy of K. Popper not only sharply diverges from the entire positivist tradition, but also directly opposes it. At the same time, I in no way belittle the role of the latter in the formation and development of critical rationalism, as Popper calls his concept.
Popper's divergence from the positivist tradition can be traced primarily through their attitude to the fundamental philosophical problem that permeates the entire history of Western European philosophy - the justification of knowledge. In the course of the historical and philosophical process, this problem evolved from the central place it occupied in the fundamentalist tradition (all - with some exceptions, in particular the critical philosophy of J. F. Fries - classical philosophy from F. Bacon and R. Descartes to Hegel) , through criticism of its traditional formulation (L. Wittgenstein) to its complete denial, rejection of it (Popper) in the anti-fundamentalist (criticism) tradition.
10. First of all, the general program of positivism, in particular logical, develops in line with the classical empirical tradition, which accepts sensory perception as the only reliable source of knowledge, and the classical ideal of rationality, which is based on the belief in the possibility of obtaining strict reliable knowledge. This classic metaphysical myth about the existence of reliable (reliable) foundations for human knowledge goes back to antiquity, in particular to the Aristotelian ideal of science, which is based on the principle of sufficient reason. Its content is formed by: 1) the search for the “Archimedean reference point” of knowledge (G. Albert) , foundation, a privileged authority as a criterion of the reliability and reliability of human knowledge; 2) the process of justification, the content of which is the reduction of a certain statement, theory to a reliable foundation - an absolute principle, postulate, axiom, dogma, i.e. to “clear” and “self-evident” things that a person operates in his everyday life. (However, this kind of “self-evidence” turns out to be not so “self-evident” in reality. On the contrary, they turn out to be the most unobvious and incomprehensible, and sometimes even unthinkable, as the pre-Socratic philosopher Zeno of Elea drew attention to in his so-called aporia).
This essentially fundamentalist traditional methodology remained dominant in classical and modern culture until the 20th century. But recently, due to changes in the general cultural situation, and above all the situation in science, the foundations of fundamentalism have been undermined. The traditional appeal to Reason and Experience turned out to be completely unthinkable in the spiritual atmosphere of Western culture of the twentieth century, which debunked the centuries-old cult of reason (coming from Socrates). It was discovered that the human mind is too changeable and fallible to serve as a reliable foundation for human culture.
2. Against the backdrop of the crumbling foundations of fundamentalism, the anti-fundamentalist (critical) paradigm, which is opposite to the fundamentalist tradition, began to increasingly come to the fore, forming the core of the new - non-classical - ideal of rationality. The latter began to penetrate deeply into modern methodological consciousness thanks to the philosophical activity of K. Popper, who actually “awakened” the idea of the fallibility of the human mind, which had long existed in European philosophy, in the postmodern philosophical consciousness.
The anti-fundamentalist (critical) tradition also originates from the Greeks. Already the pre-Socratic philosopher Xenophanes of Colophon characterized knowledge as consisting of vague guesses; Parmenides of Elea spoke about “the fearless heart of perfect truth” and “the opinions of mortals devoid of genuine reliability.” Inspired by the thought of Xenophanes, the idea of the openness of human knowledge became endemic in the teachings of Socrates, in Hellenistic philosophy, in particular among the Cynics, Cyrenaics, and skeptics, and through them it penetrated into European classical philosophy. Already F. Bacon, with his doctrine of idols and eliminative induction, lays the foundations of fallibilist methodology, and the critical philosophy of J. Fries and the pragmatism of C. Peirce paved the way for modern fallibilism of the Popperian kind.
12. Unlike the classical fundamentalist tradition of the Cartesian type, K. Popper’s criticism does not allow for any dogmas; moreover, it necessarily includes fallibility in relation to any possible authority. While fundamentalism elevates certain authorities - reason or sensations (perceptions) - into epistemological authorities and tries to develop in them “immunity from criticism” (G. Albert), anti-fundamentalism (criticism) does not recognize any authorities and authorities of infallibility, Archimedean reference points.” and does not allow dogmatization in solving problems. This means that there are neither solutions to the problems themselves, nor proper authorities for such decisions, which must avoid criticism in advance. These decisions themselves, apparently, should be understood as hypothetical constructions that can be subject to criticism and revision. A continuous search and replacement of some solutions by others - this is the path to Truth and Progress, this is the leitmotif of Popper’s criticism.
In general, we can conclude: the spirit and style of Popper’s teachings allow us to assert that Popper is a philosopher of the Socratic type, i.e. constantly seeking and loving the Truth. Popper repeatedly admires Socrates in the writings of both the early and late periods of his philosophical work. In essence, this is not just admiration for the great Athenian sage, but also an attempt to introduce a new stream into postmodern philosophical consciousness - the spirit of Socratism. This was expressed in the fundamental principles of Popper's philosophy, such as intellectual limitation (Socrates' “I know that I know nothing”), enlightenment, rational discussion, which serves as a driving factor in the growth of human knowledge.
How justified the point of view I have expressed here is for the reader who is familiar with the philosophical texts of both early and late Popper to judge.
Philosophy is present in the life of every person. Anyone who is capable of thinking is, albeit unprofessional, but a philosopher. It’s enough just to think how many times in your life have you thought about why things happen this way or that way, how many times your thoughts went deep into the essence of a particular term, process, action. Countless, of course. So what is philosophy? Who are the famous philosophers who founded entire schools of thought?
What is philosophy?
Philosophy is a term that can be defined from different angles. But no matter how we think about it, we still come to the conclusion that this is certain knowledge or a sphere of human activity, in the process of which he learns wisdom. And in this case, the philosopher is a guide in the intricate structure of this science and its concepts.
Speaking in scientific language, the term “philosophy” can be defined as knowledge about what surrounds us and does not depend on us. It is enough to look at the etymology of the word “philosophy” - and it becomes clear what it means. This term comes from the Greek language and consists of two others: “philia” (from the gr. φιλία - “love, desire”) and “sophia” (from the gr. σοφία - “wisdom”). We can conclude that philosophy is the love or pursuit of wisdom.
The same is true for the subject who deals with philosophy - the philosopher. We'll talk about who it is.
This term came to us, as is already clear, from Ancient Greece and appeared in the 5-6th century BC. Over the long centuries of its use, there have been no modifications, and the word has retained its original meaning in its original form.
Based on the concept of “philosophy,” a philosopher is a person who searches for truth, understanding the world and its structure.
In the explanatory dictionary you can find the following interpretation of the term: this is a thinker whose main activity is the study, development and presentation of basic worldview concepts.
Another interpretation of the term can be called the following: a philosopher is an individual who, in his way of thinking, belongs to one or another philosophical school, shares its ideas or lives according to them.
The origin of philosophy and the first philosopher
It is generally accepted that the first person to use the term “philosopher” was the ancient Greek thinker Pythagoras back in the 6th century BC. This is because it was necessary to divide people with knowledge into two categories: wise men and “non-wise men.” The first philosopher then defended the point of view that a philosopher cannot be called a sage, since the first only strives to know wisdom, and the second is the one who has already known it.
The works of Pythagoras have not survived, so for the first time on paper the term “philosopher” is found in the works of Heraclitus and Plato.
From Ancient Greece, the concept spread to the West and East, where initially a separate science did not exist at all. Philosophy here was dissolved in religion, culture and politics.
The most famous philosophers
Many philosophers are inclined to believe that the people who sought to understand how a person could become happy were precisely philosophers. This list can be very long, since throughout the world philosophy developed even independently of one movement from another. Despite this, there are many common features in which the philosophies of the West and the East are similar.
The first philosophers include such famous people from past centuries as Pythagoras, Buddha, Plato, Socrates and Seneca, Aristotle, Confucius and Lao Tzu, Plotinus, Giordano Bruno, Omar Khayyam and many others.
In the 17-18th century, the most famous were Pyotr Mogila and Grigory Skovoroda - these were philosophers who lived and learned the essence of life in Rus'. Thinkers of even later years are Helena Petrovna Blavatsky and Nikolai Konstantinovich Roerich.
As we see, the first philosophers were not only thinkers, but also mathematicians, doctors, emperors and universal experts. The list of modern philosophers is also quite extensive. There are many more of them today than there were in ancient times, and they are less known, nevertheless they exist and are actively developing and disseminating their thoughts.
Today, such people include Jorge Angel Livraga, Daniel Dennett, Peter Singer, (pictured), Alasdair MacIntyre, Jean Baudrillard, Slavoj Žižek, Pierre Klossowski, Karl Popper, Hans Georg Gadamer, Claude Lévi-Strauss, Susan Blackmore and many others.
Philosophy as a way of life and profession
Previously, the term “philosopher” referred a person to a certain school and its teachings, but now a philosopher is also a profession that can be obtained in many higher educational institutions. Faculties and departments are specially opened for this purpose. Today you can get a philosophy degree.
The benefit of such education is not only that a person learns to think correctly and deeply, find non-standard solutions to situations, resolve conflicts and much more. Also, such a person can realize himself in many other areas of life, since he has received basic knowledge and understanding of the world (to a greater or lesser extent).
It is worth noting that many foreign companies today are happy to hire philosophers and young specialists in this field, in particular to work with people, for the reasons stated above.
Introduction
Popper proves that every person asks questions about life and death, and that is why he is a philosopher. The scientist criticizes the concepts of such great philosophers as Hume, for his theory of determinism, Plato, who was an ardent admirer of the theory of the elite, Spinoza (for determinism) and Kant (for attempting to resolve the issue with the deterministic theories of Spinoza and Hume).
Popper accuses academic philosophy of delusions, but most importantly, of delusions of grandeur. Professional philosophy, according to Popper, aims to criticize science and study scientific methods of knowledge. And, moreover, in a critical rethinking of some traditional theories that are absorbed into the consciousness of people from culture, without critical analysis. These are the prejudices of society. The urgency of the problem is that:
1. In modern culture, there are philosophical theories that are absorbed by people as a given. Such theories include the concept of conspiracy theory.
2. In the modern world, there is an opinion that philosophy is no longer needed, after all sciences have emerged from it. However, we are inclined to note that without criticism of science and research into the methodology of knowledge, society will not develop in this way.
3. At any time, questions of life, death, meaning, etc. are always relevant for people.
The purpose of this work is to find out why Popper considers people philosophers and what he sees as the essence of philosophy, as well as to form his own opinion regarding this problem.
Main part
Popper believes that every person is a philosopher, only one is a philosopher to a greater extent, and another to a lesser extent. Of course, there is a closed group of academic philosophers in the world whose work is worthy of admiration. However, it cannot be said that philosophy is their creation, just as it cannot be said that music is the creation of one composer, or poetry is the creation of one poet. According to the scientist, professional philosophy bears a certain share of the blame (the author notes that he also belongs to the group of professional philosophers, which predetermines his guilt). However, philosophy can be defended. Plato's work "Apology of Socrates" tells how the philosopher appeared before the Athenians on trial. Plato's speech can be admired. A modest, ironic and fearless man appeared before the Athenian court, aware of his intellectual limitations, aware that he
wise, he knows only that he knows nothing, criticizes his jargon, his courage and confidence, but, first of all, the philosopher remains a friend of his loved ones and a citizen of the Athenian state.
In this speech of Plato one can see a defense of philosophy itself.
Due to the fact that philosophy bears a share of the blame, Popper names four great philosophers: Plato, Hume, Kant and Spinoza.
Plato is the greatest poet and philosopher, but according to Popper, Plato's understanding of human life is downright terrible. Plato was convinced of the correctness of the theory of the elite and believed that a “statesman” should know that he knows nothing (knows little), every scientist or philosopher should become a “statesman”. Plato reveals the theme of the absolutism of statesmen (“husbands”). After Plato, megalomania became a common disease among professional philosophers.
David Hume, without a doubt, was one of the greatest philosophers, a rational, balanced and impartial person, however, we find in him an erroneous (according to Popper) psychological theory, which had many supporters.
The essence of the theory is this: in the process of cognition, a person should not trust the abilities of his mind that deserve attention. Further, the theory was developed: “Reason serves as a slave to affects; and he must be and remains so. He cannot pretend to any other role than to serve and obey the affects."
Popper notes that without affects, nothing great has ever been comprehended, and to curb the affects with limited rationality is the only thing that people are capable of - and remains...
