Karl Popper was a problem solver. He thrived on problems that were “urgent and concrete” rather than abstract or irrelevant. Popper had a natural infatuation with empirical science, but refused to accept the traditional way empirical science was structured. His argument ignites by questioning the various disciplines we all have been taught in school such as physics, biology, and mathematics. These disciplines are barriers; barriers that limit thinking and confine one’s ability to reach a proper solution. Popper stresses the fact that we are students of problems rather than subject matters. Individuals should be using bits and pieces of various said “subject matters” to reach a valid verdict compared to strictly one. To illustrate his point, Popper raises the question, “What is the character of philosophical problems?” as opposed to “What is philosophy?” The former has more direction while the latter is far too open-ended and is vulnerable to nonsense and false assumptions.
Karl Popper’s position is a risky one. He questions concepts that are defined by history and theories that hundreds of generations of people have grown to accept. Clearly then, Popper could not simply present a compelling argument on his own. To aid his dispute he turns to the work of Ludwig Wittgenstein and Bertrand Russell in attempts to exploit the flaws in their work in order to support his own. To begin, Popper recognizes the fact that Wittgenstein believes there is no such thing as a philosophical problem. Any problem that can be solved, in Wittgenstein’s eyes, is considered to be a scientific problem and all other theories related to philosophy are considered pseudo-propositions. This aggravates Popper immensely, as Wittgenstein is basically saying is Popper’s passion is essentially as bunch of nonsense and irrelevance. To counter, Popper examines the work of a similar philosopher to Wittgenstein, Bertrand Russell. Their view of philosophy and denunciation of...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document