Frases de Karl Raimund Popper

Karl Raimund Popper photo
4   0

Karl Raimund Popper

Data de nascimento: 28. Julho 1902
Data de falecimento: 17. Setembro 1994

Karl Raimund Popper foi um filósofo da ciência austríaco naturalizado britânico. É considerado por muitos como o filósofo mais influente do século XX a tematizar a ciência . Foi também um filósofo social e político de importância considerável, um grande defensor da democracia liberal e um oponente implacável do totalitarismo.

Ele é talvez mais bem conhecido pela sua defesa do falsificacionismo como um critério da demarcação entre a ciência e a não-ciência, e pela sua defesa da sociedade aberta.

Obras

Citações Karl Raimund Popper

„Não devemos aceitar sem qualificação o princípio de tolerar os intolerantes senão corremos o risco de destruição de nós próprios e da própria atitude de tolerância.“

—  Karl Raimund Popper, livro A Sociedade Aberta e Seus Inimigos
Si nous étendons la tolérance illimitée même à ceux qui sont intolérants, si nous ne sommes pas disposés à défendre une société tolérante contre l'impact de l'intolérant, alors le tolérant sera détruit, et la tolérance avec lui. Karl Popper; The Paradox of Tolerance, Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. I, Chapt. 7, n.4, at 265 (Princeton University Press 1971)

„Não sabemos. Só podemos conjeturar.“

—  Karl Raimund Popper
citado em "Processos e métodos: relatório final"‎ - Página 47, Hernani Aquini Fernandes Chaves, Petróleo Brasileiro, S.A. - Petrobrás, Centro de Pesquisas e Desenvolvimento, Divisão de Informação Técnica e Propriedade Industrial, 1983 - 113 páginas

„Não é possível discutir racionalmente com alguém que prefere matar-nos a ser convencido pelos nossos argumentos.“

—  Karl Raimund Popper
citado em "Filosofia Do Direito E Justiça‎" - Página 115, Andityas Soares de Moura Costa Matos, Editora del Rey, 2006, ISBN 8573088745, 9788573088748

„A principle of induction would be a statement with the help of which we could put inductive inferences into a logically acceptable form.“

—  Karl Popper, livro The Logic of Scientific Discovery
The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934), Context: A principle of induction would be a statement with the help of which we could put inductive inferences into a logically acceptable form. In the eyes of the upholders of inductive logic, a principle of induction is of supreme importance for scientific method: "… this principle", says Reichenbach, "determines the truth of scientific theories. To eliminate it from science would mean nothing less than to deprive science of the power to decide the truth or falsity of its theories. Without it, clearly, science would no longer have the right to distinguish its theories from the fanciful and arbitrary creations of the poet's mind." Now this principle of induction cannot be a purely logical truth like a tautology or an analytic statement. Indeed, if there were such a thing as a purely logical principle of induction, there would be no problem of induction; for in this case, all inductive inferences would have to be regarded as purely logical or tautological transformations, just like inferences in inductive logic. Thus the principle of induction must be a synthetic statement; that is, a statement whose negation is not self-contradictory but logically possible. So the question arises why such a principle should be accepted at all, and how we can justify its acceptance on rational grounds. Ch. 1 "A Survey of Some Fundamental Problems", Section I: The Problem of Induction

„By reluctance to criticize some of it, we may help to destroy it all.“

—  Karl Popper, livro A Sociedade Aberta e Seus Inimigos
The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945), Context: If in this book harsh words are spoken about some of the greatest among the intellectual leaders of mankind, my motive is not, I hope, the wish to belittle them. It springs rather from my conviction that, if our civilization is to survive, we must break with the habit of deference to great men. Great men may make great mistakes; and as the book tries to show, some of the greatest leaders of the past supported the perennial attack on freedom and reason. Their influence, too rarely challenged, continues to mislead those on whose defence civilization depends, and to divide them. The responsibility of this tragic and possibly fatal division becomes ours if we hesitate to be outspoken in our criticism of what admittedly is a part of our intellectual heritage. By reluctance to criticize some of it, we may help to destroy it all. Preface to the First Edition

„Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.“

—  Karl Popper, livro A Sociedade Aberta e Seus Inimigos
The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945), Context: The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato. Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal. Vol. 1, Notes to the Chapters: Ch. 7, Note 4

„The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek.“

—  Karl Popper, livro A Sociedade Aberta e Seus Inimigos
The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945), Context: The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato. Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal. Vol. 1, Notes to the Chapters: Ch. 7, Note 4

„We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.“

—  Karl Popper, livro A Sociedade Aberta e Seus Inimigos
The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945), Context: The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato. Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal. Vol. 1, Notes to the Chapters: Ch. 7, Note 4

„Philosophers should consider the fact that the greatest happiness principle can easily be made an excuse for a benevolent dictatorship.“

—  Karl Popper
Context: Philosophers should consider the fact that the greatest happiness principle can easily be made an excuse for a benevolent dictatorship. We should replace it by a more modest and more realistic principle — the principle that the fight against avoidable misery should be a recognized aim of public policy, while the increase of happiness should be left, in the main, to private initiative. As quoted in 1,001 Pearls of Wisdom (2006) by David Ross

Help us translate English quotes

Discover interesting quotes and translate them.

Start translating

„It is our duty to help those who need help; but it cannot be our duty to make others happy,“

—  Karl Popper, livro A Sociedade Aberta e Seus Inimigos
The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945), Context: ... the attempt to make heaven on earth invariably produces hell. It leads to intolerance. It leads to religious wars, and to the saving of souls through the inquisition. And it is, I believe, based on a complete misunderstanding of our moral duties. It is our duty to help those who need help; but it cannot be our duty to make others happy, since this does not depend on us, and since it would only too often mean intruding on the privacy of those towards whom we have such amiable intentions. Vol. 2, Ch. 24 "Oracular Philosophy and the Revolt against Reason"

„I see now more clearly than ever before that even our greatest troubles spring from something that is as admirable and sound as it is dangerous — from our impatience to better the lot of our fellows.“

—  Karl Popper, livro A Sociedade Aberta e Seus Inimigos
The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945), Context: I see now more clearly than ever before that even our greatest troubles spring from something that is as admirable and sound as it is dangerous — from our impatience to better the lot of our fellows. For these troubles are the by-products of what is perhaps the greatest of all moral and spiritual revolutions of history, a movement which began three centuries ago. It is the longing of uncounted unknown men to free themselves and their minds from the tutelage of authority and prejudice. It is their attempt to build up an open society which rejects the absolute authority to preserve, to develop, and to establish traditions, old or new, that measure up to their standards of freedom, of humaneness, and of rational criticism. It is their unwillingness to sit back and leave the entire responsibility for ruling the world to human or superhuman authority, and their readiness to share the burden of responsibility for avoidable suffering, and to work for its avoidance. This revolution has created powers of appalling destructiveness; but they may yet be conquered. Preface to the Second Edition.

„Those among us who are unwilling to expose their ideas to the hazard of refutation do not take part in the scientific game.“

—  Karl Popper, livro The Logic of Scientific Discovery
The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934), Context: Bold ideas, unjustified anticipations, and speculative thought, are our only means for interpreting nature: our only organon, our only instrument, for grasping her. And we must hazard them to win our prize. Those among us who are unwilling to expose their ideas to the hazard of refutation do not take part in the scientific game. Ch. 10 "Corroboration, or How a Theory Stands up to Tests", section 85: The Path of Science, p. 280

„It is often asserted that discussion is only possible between people who have a common language and accept common basic assumptions. I think that this is a mistake.“

—  Karl Popper
Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (1963), Context: It is often asserted that discussion is only possible between people who have a common language and accept common basic assumptions. I think that this is a mistake. All that is needed is a readiness to learn from one's partner in the discussion, which includes a genuine wish to understand what he intends to say. If this readiness is there, the discussion will be the more fruitful the more the partner's backgrounds differ. p. 352

„What a monument of human smallness is this idea of the philosopher king. What a contrast between it and the simplicity of humaneness of Socrates, who warned the statesmen against the danger of being dazzled by his own power, excellence, and wisdom, and who tried to teach him what matters most — that we are all frail human beings.“

—  Karl Popper, livro A Sociedade Aberta e Seus Inimigos
The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945), Context: What a monument of human smallness is this idea of the philosopher king. What a contrast between it and the simplicity of humaneness of Socrates, who warned the statesmen against the danger of being dazzled by his own power, excellence, and wisdom, and who tried to teach him what matters most — that we are all frail human beings. What a decline from this world of irony and reason and truthfulness down to Plato's kingdom of the sage whose magical powers raise him high above ordinary men; although not quite high enough to forgo the use of lies, or to neglect the sorry trade of every shaman — the selling of spells, of breeding spells, in exchange for power over his fellow-men. Vol. 1, Ch 8 "The Philosopher King"

„If in this book harsh words are spoken about some of the greatest among the intellectual leaders of mankind, my motive is not, I hope, the wish to belittle them.“

—  Karl Popper, livro A Sociedade Aberta e Seus Inimigos
The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945), Context: If in this book harsh words are spoken about some of the greatest among the intellectual leaders of mankind, my motive is not, I hope, the wish to belittle them. It springs rather from my conviction that, if our civilization is to survive, we must break with the habit of deference to great men. Great men may make great mistakes; and as the book tries to show, some of the greatest leaders of the past supported the perennial attack on freedom and reason. Their influence, too rarely challenged, continues to mislead those on whose defence civilization depends, and to divide them. The responsibility of this tragic and possibly fatal division becomes ours if we hesitate to be outspoken in our criticism of what admittedly is a part of our intellectual heritage. By reluctance to criticize some of it, we may help to destroy it all. Preface to the First Edition

„For institutions, like levers, are needed if we want to achieve anything which goes beyond the power of our muscles. Like machines, institutions multiply our power for good or evil.“

—  Karl Popper, livro A Sociedade Aberta e Seus Inimigos
The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945), Context: In speaking of sociological laws or natural laws of social life I have in mind such laws as are formulated by modern economic theories, for instance, the theory of international trade, or the theory of the trade cycle. These and other important sociological laws are connected with the functioning of social institutions. These laws play a role in our social life corresponding to the role played in mechanical engineering by, say, the principle of the lever. For institutions, like levers, are needed if we want to achieve anything which goes beyond the power of our muscles. Like machines, institutions multiply our power for good or evil. Like machines, they need intelligent supervision by someone who understands their way of functioning and, most of all, their purpose, since we cannot build them so that they work entirely automatically. Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies, Vol I Plato Chapter 5: Nature and Convention. P. 67

„If we are uncritical we shall always find what we want: we shall look for, and find, confirmations, and we shall look away from, and not see, whatever might be dangerous to our pet theories.“

—  Karl Popper, livro The Poverty of Historicism
Context: If we are uncritical we shall always find what we want: we shall look for, and find, confirmations, and we shall look away from, and not see, whatever might be dangerous to our pet theories. In this way it is only too easy to obtain what appears to be overwhelming evidence in favor of a theory which, if approached critically, would have been refuted. The Poverty of Historicism (1957) Ch. 29 The Unity of Method

„But science is one of the very few human activities — perhaps the only one — in which errors are systematically criticized and fairly often, in time, corrected.“

—  Karl Popper, livro Conjectures and Refutations
Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (1963), Context: The history of science, like the history of all human ideas, is a history of irresponsible dreams, of obstinacy, and of error. But science is one of the very few human activities — perhaps the only one — in which errors are systematically criticized and fairly often, in time, corrected. This is why we can say that, in science, we often learn from our mistakes, and why we can speak clearly and sensibly about making progress there. Ch. 1 "Science : Conjectures and Refutations"

„It is wrong to think that belief in freedom always leads to victory; we must always be prepared for it to lead to defeat. If we choose freedom, then we must be prepared to perish along with it.“

—  Karl Popper
On Freedom (1958), Context: It is wrong to think that belief in freedom always leads to victory; we must always be prepared for it to lead to defeat. If we choose freedom, then we must be prepared to perish along with it. Poland fought for freedom as no other country did. The Czech nation was prepared to fight for its freedom in 1938; it was not lack of courage that sealed its fate. The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 — the work of young people with nothing to lose but their chains — triumphed and then ended in failure. … Democracy and freedom do not guarantee the millennium. No, we do not choose political freedom because it promises us this or that. We choose it because it makes possible the only dignified form of human coexistence, the only form in which we can be fully responsible for ourselves. Whether we realize its possibilities depends on all kinds of things — and above all on ourselves.

„Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Etiam egestas wisi a erat. Morbi imperdiet, mauris ac auctor dictum.“

Autores parecidos

Friedrich August von Hayek photo
Friedrich August von Hayek41
economista e filósofo britânico
Martin Heidegger photo
Martin Heidegger17
Ser e Tempo
Ludwig von Mises photo
Ludwig von Mises35
economista austríaco
Rudolf Steiner photo
Rudolf Steiner1
Filosofo austriaco
Erwin Schrödinger photo
Erwin Schrödinger4
físico teórico austríaco
Rosa Luxemburgo photo
Rosa Luxemburgo9
filósofa marxista polaco-alemã
Stefan Zweig photo
Stefan Zweig18
escritor austríaco
Aniversários de hoje
Cazuza photo
Cazuza161
cantor e compositor brasileiro 1958 - 1990
Maya Angelou photo
Maya Angelou36
1928 - 2014
Martin Luther King Junior photo
Martin Luther King Junior97
líder do movimento dos direitos civis dos negros nos Estado… 1929 - 1968
Outros 60 aniversários hoje
Autores parecidos
Friedrich August von Hayek photo
Friedrich August von Hayek41
economista e filósofo britânico
Martin Heidegger photo
Martin Heidegger17
Ser e Tempo
Ludwig von Mises photo
Ludwig von Mises35
economista austríaco
Rudolf Steiner photo
Rudolf Steiner1
Filosofo austriaco
x