|
|
|
[ Burying Freud Homepage | Freud's Seduction Theory Homepage ] I was just rereading your posting, which had sent me to the Bovasso contributions, and to my reply to them. Actually, your posting is clearer than theirs. Perhaps I missed the forest for the trees. I agree with everything in your precis except for the facile lumping of Popper with the positivists. This isn't to say that Popper was a critical introspectionist. But something is lost in the lumping. The misidentification of Popper with the positivists is a common one and originates, according to Popper himself, with his being unread and misconstrued by the Frankfurt School (Habermas et al.). See "Who killed Logical Positivism?" in his "Unended Quest". He claims credit. I also like his comment to the effect that one doesn't have to embrace the whole Oedipal doctrine before being able to interpret logical positivism as a form of father-killing. Popper allows us to leave the positivists behind, and to remain in the sciences while being open to such things as critical introspection. The lumping leaves us with no recourse but to dump the whole scientific enterprise in toto and set up an entirely separate exercise. But then the solution is as bad as the problem. John A. O'Neil, MD, FRCPC
|
|||||||
[ Burying Freud Homepage | Freud's Seduction Theory Homepage ] I was just rereading your posting, which had sent me to the Bovasso contributions, and to my reply to them. Actually, your posting is clearer than theirs. Perhaps I missed the forest for the trees. I agree with everything in your precis except for the facile lumping of Popper with the positivists. This isn't to say that Popper was a critical introspectionist. But something is lost in the lumping. The misidentification of Popper with the positivists is a common one and originates, according to Popper himself, with his being unread and misconstrued by the Frankfurt School (Habermas et al.). See "Who killed Logical Positivism?" in his "Unended Quest". He claims credit. I also like his comment to the effect that one doesn't have to embrace the whole Oedipal doctrine before being able to interpret logical positivism as a form of father-killing. Popper allows us to leave the positivists behind, and to remain in the sciences while being open to such things as critical introspection. The lumping leaves us with no recourse but to dump the whole scientific enterprise in toto and set up an entirely separate exercise. But then the solution is as bad as the problem. John A. O'Neil, MD, FRCPC
|
|||||||
