University dregs are trained to think they cant educate themselves online.

For globalists

Modernist neolib puppet. Down with intelligentsia.

@@Josh-fz9rhFor rational people.

@@Philognosis1 no. This guy is scum.

His ideas are coinciding with the collapse of europe. Rationalism is a soulless road to nowhere. Enjoy the demise of anything worth living for. Thankfully, his ideas have introduced euthanasia to end yourself at a moments notice when you see how hollow life has been made by bean counters ​@Philognosis1

World 2 is not just feelings, but also dispositions towards action. It also creative.

@@drewzi2044 wonderful

I would say world 3 is more the physical manifestations of our thoughts and ideas (which are in world 2). Things like machines, art and language

He takes a lifetime to explain anything. Awful, awful speaker.

Agreed. There is a fundamental similarity in their thinking. When I read "Open Society..." I immediately thought about the "Tractatus".

And huge thanks to Philosophy Overdose for the amazing wealth of amazing video and audio that I never knew existed!

Not exactly, he literally says the mind is also world 2

Yeah. It could very well be that nobody has ever thought something.

Nah Soros is Hungarian very different. Popper is German sounding.

Soros was a student of Popper.

He ment the ideas. Yes, Georg took that concept and turned it into new-age-fascism...

Could you elaborate on why you think the divisions somewhow bastardize the ideas? It's like saying that because we call some food "breakfast", some "lunch" and some "dinner", that makes the food less tasty somehow. I don't think one thing follows the other easily.

@@Danyel615 well like Popper said in this video, the distinctions are merely arbitrary, for the sake of thinking more clearly about the topics at hand. One can imagine the state of anxiety that must have accompanied someone to feel the need to create different worlds against eachother to 'see things more clearly'. And I have to agree with your breakfast/lunch/dinner distinctions, but I have to insist that those distinctions do in fact subjugate, splice, and in some sense lose touch with reality in the same way (but perhaps an even more arbitrary way). Or in the way we divide the day up into hours, and so on. Why the general fear of a undifferentiated becoming? What do we lose, what do we gain in doing this to our psychical existence? I argue that the instrumental reason produced alongside these events is itself only a result, whereas the anxiety, the fear, the general intellectual mood is the true motivator, the prima causa for these types of thought experiments. I wonder ultimately how this continued vivisection of all that is living and being experienced will adjust our sensitivities and general moods about reality itself, rather, how it will produce a new reality.

@Bagpuss Bagpuss I mean, in no way is this true of the world, its all entirely anthropomorphic and metaphoric from the get go. So it's silly to really sit with it. It just allows him to say certain anthropomorphisms in more 'qualified' ways. For example, that a tree's biological knowledge to grow is knowledge insofar as it exists in world 1, and can be represented in world 2 by our mental states, and so on. If its for you, its for you.

@@JS-dt1tn He doesn't create different "worlds" that are "against each other", he's created the terminology for talking about and emphasizing the different important aspects of "the same world" to solve some problems he wanted to solve (originally it was the body-mind problem). The distinctions are "arbitrary" from some perspective, but not from others. These "perspectives" are really the problems and the theories that we postulate to solve those problems."Cats" and "dogs" are all made from "matter", both influenced by gravity but in a different perspective they are very different: in biological terms for characterizing species and sometimes even personal terms (some people are allergic to "cats", and are allergic to "dogs", some to both and some to none; some people are "cat people" and some are "dog people";...). Without differentiating "cats" from "dogs" from the biological perspective, you can't solve the problem of explaining why we can't breed cats with dogs to get "cat-dogs" even though it's "arbitrary" from the perspective of "everything is just matter". You can criticize Popper's "three worlds" as a failed attempt to solve the body-mind problem, but "beauty" doesn't solve the body-mind problem so it's really irrelevant to what he's talking about. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure he's saying that the LABELS ("world 1", "world 2",...) are arbitrary, not the three-worlds hypothesis he postulated. He could have used "the physical world", "the mental world" and "the world of objective thought-content" but all these labels would all refer to the same "worlds" and play the same role in the same theory. He's not a man to care about definitional and semantical problems like that.

Ok, thanks. That's enough for me to disregard it. I'm sure you know best.

Nah.