Karl Poppers theory of World 3 says that we can distin­guish at least three different worlds of our experi­ence. There is, first of all, the material world of tables and chairs, trees and plants, planets and stars. This is Popper?s World 1. It is objective in the sense that it can be experienced by others, and autonomous in the sense that its existence does not depend upon our own. Then there is the mental world of pleasures and pains, loves and hates, beliefs and disposi­tions. This is what Popper called World 2. It is subjec­tive in the sense that the mental states of one mind cannot be experi­enced by another, and non­autonomous in the sense that their existence depends upon the existence of the mind that actually experi­enc­es them. There are, however, other things that we experience that do not fit easily into either of these worlds.
There are, for example, words and statements, books and sympho­nies, states and laws, numbers and triangles. These things are immateri­al, unlike the objects of World 1. But they are also objective, unlike the mental states of World 2. And when it comes to autonomy, their status seems entirely different. For they are, according to Popper, all products of the human mind. But they also give rise, once they are created, to con­sequences that their creators neither intended nor foresaw. These are the objects of World 3.
The objects in Worlds 1, 2, and 3 not only exist, they also interact. This is already implicit in the idea that World 3 objects are products of the human mind. We create a World 3 object when we take one of our World 2 thoughts and articu­late it in a medium, such as language or music or film, that others can understand. We are able, in this way, to treat our thought as an object. We are able to throw it out onto the table, like a radio or a wristwatch, and take it apart to see how it works. More important, we are able to see how and why it doesn?t work, or how it could work better. And we are able to work on improving it until it does. I know that many contemporary philoso­phers attribute all sorts of ?alien­ations? to this process of reification. But it is, to my mind, one of the most attrac­tive and inspira­tional features of Popper?s philosophy. It means that we not only can contribute to World 3, but that we can also work toward improving both our contribu­tions and the con­tributions that others make.
This, in fact, is what I was doing when I wrote this. I had a thought in mind. But so long as I kept it only in mind, you could not know what it is, let alone whether or not it is true. So I wrote it down. And I read it over carefully. In many cases I decided that what I had written was not really what I wanted to say. So I changed it, and started the whole process all over again. And even now, when I think that what I have written expresses more or less what I want to say, I am sure that someone, either myself or someone else, might still con­vince me other­wise.
So our minds can act upon World 3, and World 3 can act upon our minds. And in this way, our conscious selves can develop and become what they become by contrib­uting to World 3 and by learning from the contributions that others make. And isn?t this what really happens? None of us were born into this world knowing about Obama and Palin. But the interesting thing is that we can decide, knowing virtually nothing more than their names, to learn something about these people and their philoso­phies?and to transform ourselves into something other than what we are by doing so. We can, in this way, even talk about our con­scious selves?which Popper regards as the highest stage of develop­ment in World 2?as being products of World 3.
This stands in contradiction to the idea that personal responsibility is a fallacy and that we are societal slaves in any way. Many of us may be exactly that, but only if we allow ourselves to be, and that is a decision that we make and we are responsible for the decisions that we make. There is no Truth to the claim that we are simply victims of society and therefore not responsible for our actions. We actually become what we think about. Those that choose not to think and let society think for them do become slaves to society. Obviously the more facts we have at our disposal the more clearly we can define ourselves on our own terms. Society doesn't define us unless we allow it to do so. That's a conscious decision on our part.
This speaks to the idea of traditional rationalism vs critical rationalism. A traditional rationalist holds a theory of rationality. A critical rationalist does not. A critical rationalist needs to distinguish between the truth and falsity in every case, at least when such a case comes up for questioning. A traditional rationalist need only apply his theory of rationality to whatever assertion is in question. As such, he need never distinguish between truth and falsity. His theory does that for him. In this way, critical rationalists have a need to distinguish between truth and falsity, traditional rationalists do not. As traditional rationalists have a theory of rationality to distinguish truth from falsity for them, they need not do it themselves. As critical rationalists have no such theory of rationality, they must distinguish between truth and falsity themselves.
In other words, if such a theory of rationality existed and really worked, the truth would take care of itself. We would never have to decide anything. What critical rationalism is asserting is that we always must decide, such that there can?t really be a method, or meta-method, at least not in any positive sense.
There are, for example, words and statements, books and sympho­nies, states and laws, numbers and triangles. These things are immateri­al, unlike the objects of World 1. But they are also objective, unlike the mental states of World 2. And when it comes to autonomy, their status seems entirely different. For they are, according to Popper, all products of the human mind. But they also give rise, once they are created, to con­sequences that their creators neither intended nor foresaw. These are the objects of World 3.
The objects in Worlds 1, 2, and 3 not only exist, they also interact. This is already implicit in the idea that World 3 objects are products of the human mind. We create a World 3 object when we take one of our World 2 thoughts and articu­late it in a medium, such as language or music or film, that others can understand. We are able, in this way, to treat our thought as an object. We are able to throw it out onto the table, like a radio or a wristwatch, and take it apart to see how it works. More important, we are able to see how and why it doesn?t work, or how it could work better. And we are able to work on improving it until it does. I know that many contemporary philoso­phers attribute all sorts of ?alien­ations? to this process of reification. But it is, to my mind, one of the most attrac­tive and inspira­tional features of Popper?s philosophy. It means that we not only can contribute to World 3, but that we can also work toward improving both our contribu­tions and the con­tributions that others make.
This, in fact, is what I was doing when I wrote this. I had a thought in mind. But so long as I kept it only in mind, you could not know what it is, let alone whether or not it is true. So I wrote it down. And I read it over carefully. In many cases I decided that what I had written was not really what I wanted to say. So I changed it, and started the whole process all over again. And even now, when I think that what I have written expresses more or less what I want to say, I am sure that someone, either myself or someone else, might still con­vince me other­wise.
So our minds can act upon World 3, and World 3 can act upon our minds. And in this way, our conscious selves can develop and become what they become by contrib­uting to World 3 and by learning from the contributions that others make. And isn?t this what really happens? None of us were born into this world knowing about Obama and Palin. But the interesting thing is that we can decide, knowing virtually nothing more than their names, to learn something about these people and their philoso­phies?and to transform ourselves into something other than what we are by doing so. We can, in this way, even talk about our con­scious selves?which Popper regards as the highest stage of develop­ment in World 2?as being products of World 3.
This stands in contradiction to the idea that personal responsibility is a fallacy and that we are societal slaves in any way. Many of us may be exactly that, but only if we allow ourselves to be, and that is a decision that we make and we are responsible for the decisions that we make. There is no Truth to the claim that we are simply victims of society and therefore not responsible for our actions. We actually become what we think about. Those that choose not to think and let society think for them do become slaves to society. Obviously the more facts we have at our disposal the more clearly we can define ourselves on our own terms. Society doesn't define us unless we allow it to do so. That's a conscious decision on our part.
This speaks to the idea of traditional rationalism vs critical rationalism. A traditional rationalist holds a theory of rationality. A critical rationalist does not. A critical rationalist needs to distinguish between the truth and falsity in every case, at least when such a case comes up for questioning. A traditional rationalist need only apply his theory of rationality to whatever assertion is in question. As such, he need never distinguish between truth and falsity. His theory does that for him. In this way, critical rationalists have a need to distinguish between truth and falsity, traditional rationalists do not. As traditional rationalists have a theory of rationality to distinguish truth from falsity for them, they need not do it themselves. As critical rationalists have no such theory of rationality, they must distinguish between truth and falsity themselves.
In other words, if such a theory of rationality existed and really worked, the truth would take care of itself. We would never have to decide anything. What critical rationalism is asserting is that we always must decide, such that there can?t really be a method, or meta-method, at least not in any positive sense.
