Lee Kelly is a contributor to the critical rationalism blog.
Meta
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- So much wilderness, so little reason - The Rabbit Hole on Popper’s institutional turn
- Rod Thomas on ‘Brexit’ and the Political Ideals of the Open Society
- Jorg Wolfgang Huber on Two schools of CR
- David C on ‘Brexit’ and the Political Ideals of the Open Society
- Rod Thomas on ‘Brexit’ and the Political Ideals of the Open Society
books
Archives
- December 2018
- November 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- December 2015
- May 2015
- November 2014
- October 2014
- July 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
Dear Kelly,
I have interest in Popper. I will study Open Universe and share my comments. Are you teaching philosophy, if yes, in which institution, University?
Thanking you.
With Regards
Saad Malook
Pakistan
Saad,
Sorry, but I am not a teacher of anything. I don’t even have a copy of The open Universe to work from, though I read most of it a few years back. I am just an amateur. If you’re interested in Popper and critical rationalism, then I suggest you check the “Resources” link at the top of the page. Of course, feel free to contribute to discussions on this blog and share any thoughts.
I’ve seen you around at economics blogs/forums. I am interested in your perspective especially on monetary matters – can you recommend resources which best reflects your views? I’m not well-grounded on monetary basics, I’d like to be able to digest your views better. Thanks.
Hi JL,
I am no more a professional of economics than I am of philosophy. These are just preoccupations of mine. A lot of my economics is actually informed by my philosophy. Anyway, here are a couple of books you might be interested in:
“The Theory of Free Banking: Money Supply Under Competitive Note Issue” by George Selgin.
“The Fluttering Veil: Essays on Monetary Disequilibrium” by Leland Yeager
Good blogs include:
Monetary Freedom
Macro & Other Market Musings
The Money Illusion
Worthwhile Canadian Initiative
Does this help? If you haven’t already, you might also look into:
“The Open Society and Its Enemies” by Karl Popper
“The Fatal Conceit” by F. A. Hayek
And for a theory of everything that roughly aligns with mine, check out “The Beginning of Infinity” by David Deutsch.
If you do come to understand my views, then you’ll be doing better than me. I may even ask you to explain my views to me — there are always so many unsolved problems and open questions.
Selgin’s book is free to download here: http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2307&Itemid=99999999
One chapter from Yeager’s book can be downloaded here: http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj6n2/cj6n2-3.pdf
Thanks, Lee Kelly! Much appreciated – will delve into them.
I would like to see a few well-balanced criticisms of the Beginning of Infinity, because I agree with most of what he says, and I would like some contedi, but all I can find are on the amazon webpage, do you know anyone in any of the fields he talks about that have engaged with it?
probably the only thing I disagree with is his criticism of a very weak version of the Spaceship Earth theory, and doesn’t cite whose version it is; I think it fails to address Buckminster Fuller’s version of it, either because he does not know of the version or because he is attacking the popular notion of it, that has been put through the new age mangle, or both.
Hmm, sorry about my half-formed sentence; I meant to say “and I would like to see some contending views”.