THE THIRD REALM AND THE FAILURE OF ITS NATURALIZATION IN KARL POPPER’S CONCEPTION OF WORLD

D. Sepetyi
{"title":"THE THIRD REALM AND THE FAILURE OF ITS NATURALIZATION IN KARL POPPER’S CONCEPTION OF WORLD","authors":"D. Sepetyi","doi":"10.30970/2078-6999-2019-23-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article discusses Karl Popper’s conception of World 3 as the realm of objective knowledge. The main target is problems of reconciling the thesis that World 3 is autonomous (irreducible) with respect to the physical (World 1) and the mental (World 2) and the thesis that World 3 is a product of human thought. With respect to the problem of the “over crowdedness” of World 3, formulated by L. Cohen, it is suggested that the solution can be looked for in some kind of non-classical (probably, relevance) logic; however, the details are still waiting for elaboration. It is argued that the cultural relativity of knowledge and the non-existence of the demarcation line between the private (mental) and the public modes of existence of an idea constitute graver – and probably insolvable – problems for Popper’s conception. In particular, because there is no plausible way to draw the demarcation, one should consider World 3 either as ontologically derived from a combination of the mental and the physical (the multitude of Worlds 2 in their communication supported and mediated by material information carriers, which belong to World 1 or as a temporal and containing all possible contents of human thought. It is also pointed out that Popper’s attempt at the “biologization” of World 3 and his motto “all life is problem-solving” sit badly with his claims that problems belong to World 3 and that the existence of World 3 is inseparable from the higher functions of human language. The general outcome is that the reconciliation of the view that World 3 is an ontologically irreducible realm with the view that it is human-made is hardly possible. If the irreducibility is admitted, World 3 should be thought of in a more Platonean – or Fregean – way than Popper did admit.","PeriodicalId":369084,"journal":{"name":"Visnyk of the Lviv University Series Philosophical Sciences","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Visnyk of the Lviv University Series Philosophical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30970/2078-6999-2019-23-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article discusses Karl Popper’s conception of World 3 as the realm of objective knowledge. The main target is problems of reconciling the thesis that World 3 is autonomous (irreducible) with respect to the physical (World 1) and the mental (World 2) and the thesis that World 3 is a product of human thought. With respect to the problem of the “over crowdedness” of World 3, formulated by L. Cohen, it is suggested that the solution can be looked for in some kind of non-classical (probably, relevance) logic; however, the details are still waiting for elaboration. It is argued that the cultural relativity of knowledge and the non-existence of the demarcation line between the private (mental) and the public modes of existence of an idea constitute graver – and probably insolvable – problems for Popper’s conception. In particular, because there is no plausible way to draw the demarcation, one should consider World 3 either as ontologically derived from a combination of the mental and the physical (the multitude of Worlds 2 in their communication supported and mediated by material information carriers, which belong to World 1 or as a temporal and containing all possible contents of human thought. It is also pointed out that Popper’s attempt at the “biologization” of World 3 and his motto “all life is problem-solving” sit badly with his claims that problems belong to World 3 and that the existence of World 3 is inseparable from the higher functions of human language. The general outcome is that the reconciliation of the view that World 3 is an ontologically irreducible realm with the view that it is human-made is hardly possible. If the irreducibility is admitted, World 3 should be thought of in a more Platonean – or Fregean – way than Popper did admit.
波普尔世界观中的第三境界及其归化的失败
本文讨论了卡尔·波普尔关于世界3作为客观知识领域的概念。主要目标是调和世界3相对于物理(世界1)和精神(世界2)是自主的(不可约的)命题和世界3是人类思想的产物的命题。关于由L. Cohen提出的世界3的“过度拥挤”问题,建议可以在某种非经典(可能是相关的)逻辑中寻找解决方案;不过,具体细节仍有待进一步阐述。有人认为,知识的文化相对性和思想的私人(精神)和公共存在模式之间的界限的不存在构成了波普尔的概念更严重的问题,而且可能是无法解决的问题。特别是,由于没有合理的方法来划分界限,人们应该将世界3视为从精神和物理结合的本体论衍生出来的(世界2的众多交流由属于世界1的物质信息载体支持和中介),或者作为一个暂时的,包含人类思想的所有可能内容。还有人指出,波普尔试图将世界3“生物化”,他的座右铭“所有的生命都是解决问题的”,与他关于问题属于世界3的主张,以及世界3的存在与人类语言的高级功能是分不开的说法是格格不入的。总的结果是,世界3是一个本体论上不可约的领域的观点与它是人类创造的观点之间的调和几乎是不可能的。如果承认不可约性,那么世界3就应该以一种比波普尔所承认的更柏拉图式的或更弗雷格式的方式来思考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信