i've read most of chapters 2 and 3 of The Myth of the Framework by Karl Popper. a few things that struck me are:
- Popper's writing is extremely clear and simple. and if you open up to practically any page, and start reading in the middle of a paragraph, what he's saying will still make sense.
- Popper uses a lot of examples from history. esp old philosophers.
- Popper puts a lot of effort into refuting common misconceptions, often repetitively
the thesis of the book is basically about this:
the myth of the framework, in one sentence says "A rational and fruitful discussion is impossible unless the participants share a common framework of basic assumptions or, at least, unless they have agreed on such a framework for the purpose of the discussion." this is the myth popper criticises in the book.
here's another example of the myth: "Those who believe this, and those who do not, have no common ground of discussion, but in view of their opinions must of necessity scorn each other." - Plato
in the author's note at the start, it says the essays in the book were mostly collected from various lectures to non-specialist audiences. that's why they repeat lots of Popper's main philosophical ideas so often.