I generally don't like being against things. Here's an example:
Anti-semitism is quite evil. However, I am not anti-anti-semitism. Rather, I am pro-Jewish.
The difference is between fighting a cause, and simply living my life and recognising the value in good things, and supporting those things.
I do not consider incidental "opposition" (opposing things that get in the way of doing something nice) or explaining why something is wrong to try and help someone understand stuffz better to violate this principle.
THIS IS VERY INTERESTING
i generally don't treat criticism as ideas used to kill other ideas.
suppose you have a criticism called Crit1, and it criticizes an idea called Idea1.
a standard way to view this is that Idea1 is killed. and it's because of Crit1. (although any idea can be revived if new information is revealed that changes the state of whether or not an idea is currently criticized.)
while that way of viewing this is useful, i'm going to explain another useful way.
Crit1 kills Idea1. But part of Idea1 can survive. The part that doesn't get criticized can be replaced with something else. Something else that isn't already criticized by Crit1 or other criticisms you have.
for progress to be made, parts of ideas must live one. that's how evolution works. that's how ideas evolve.
and it's *criticism* that makes it happen. progress is made *possible* because of criticism. without criticism, progress is impossible.
i should do examples but i'm tired now. maybe later.
FYI rescuing/reusing/finding-some-value-in ideas or parts of ideas (after criticism) is a standard Popperian idea.
@FYI, yes i know.
i was interested in the parallel between...
generally being not anti-theory and instead being pro-theory. the perception is positive instead of negative.
generally treating criticism as evolutionary. again the perception is positive instead of negative.