The flea on the sands. (Philosophy & Ideas).(Australian philosopher John Anderson)(Brief Article)

RAFE CHAMPION tells us (Quadrant, May 2002) that in 1945 Karl Popper was offered a position by John Anderson at Sydney University, but declined the offer, taking up a position in London. But if Popper had accepted the position, Champion continues, then Anderson would have had to confront a man with an ego at least as big as his own.

Now I don't know how big Karl Popper's ego was, but clearly it wasn't bigger than Anderson's. I'm not even sure how the two men would have compared the sizes of their egos. Perhaps they met at the "hole in the wall" (the urinal at the Main Quad) and over casual conversation compared the sizes of their psyches.

Nor can I say what Anderson's considered view of Popper's philosophy was, for Anderson never published anything on Popper. However, Anderson's long-time colleague and friend Ruth Walker was on sabbatical in 1952 and came across Popper in London, and Anderson discussed Popper in several letters with Ruth. In February 1952, Anderson wrote:

 
   Anyway, I have frequently connected not hearing with not understanding 
   through the notion of what's omitted (or taken for granted) in different 
   groups or "movements"--national, local, professional and so forth; and this 
   links up again with "provinces", with the diverse forms of ability to which 
   forms of speech and of expression generally "belong". This is what makes 
   Ryle particularly silly, with his notion that there's a common or central 
   usage (though, of course, I don't argue for an absolute separation of 
   provinces); and Popper also, with his humanitarianism. It's those 
   utilitarians, instrumentalists, reductionists who are political simpletons, 
   i.e. those who think there is a common good, common aims etc., instead of 
   seeing politics as a balancing of diverse interests. But the objective, all 
   the time, is security (certainty); and that's why they can't understand us, 
   why they look for our dogmas. They think there must be a criteria 
   ("method", instruments) distinct from that of which they are criteria. 

And a week later he discusses Popper again:

 
   Popper is another sign of the times--a man coming to philosophy from the 
   outside, forcing his categories on it and leaving room for a lot of 
   arbitrariness and ignorance (a lot of dualism). 

Anderson's most considered response to Popper comes in a letter from May: