Rating: 
Summary: "deconstructing heidegger"
Review: "deconstructing heidegger" Popper's attempt at saving the Western World, part II. After refuting Plato in part I -to many shocking and "a priori" intellectually suicidal already- Popper went one better yet in part II: taking on Heidegger and Hegel (amongst others), the German fuehrers of contemporary philosophical thinking. - Unprecedented impertinence, utter blasphemy. Well, he did it nevertheless and did it mercilessly, again. The philosophical establishment was not pleased. But the world at large, us, left with a much clearer picture about what kind of ideas we better NOT base our civic order, life and liberty on. Mankind owes Popper for his "open society" book(s). Some of the greatest stuff ever printed. Do your civic self, your community, a favor. Don't let the century expire without reading this, one of its, yes, "most important" books.
Rating:
Summary: "deconstructing heidegger"
Review: "deconstructing heidegger" Popper's attempt at saving the Western World, part II. After refuting Plato in part I -to many shocking and "a priori" intellectually suicidal already- Popper went one better yet in part II: taking on Heidegger and Hegel (amongst others), the German fuehrers of contemporary philosophical thinking. - Unprecedented impertinence, utter blasphemy. Well, he did it nevertheless and did it mercilessly, again. The philosophical establishment was not pleased. But the world at large, us, left with a much clearer picture about what kind of ideas we better NOT base our civic order, life and liberty on. Mankind owes Popper for his "open society" book(s). Some of the greatest stuff ever printed. Do your civic self, your community, a favor. Don't let the century expire without reading this, one of its, yes, "most important" books.
Rating:
Summary: Clear thinking in a troubled age
Review: A co-worker recently introduced me to the works of Karl Popper. Popper's works are a devastating indictment of the enemies of human thought, who would create class conscious societies to trap the vast majority of humanity into lives of meaningless, dead-ended servitude. In the first volume of "The Open Society", Popper contrasts Plato, with his contemptuous, exploitative attitude toward the masses of humanity, and his desire to impose social stagnation, to Socrates, who counseled open, unflinching search for truth, no matter where it might lead, and an acknowledgement of the inherent dignity and worth of every human being. It is especially important now to understand how tenuous is human freedom and how inextricably it is linked to the concepts of justice, and equal opportunity for every human being, and how devastating and horrific our lives would become should we lose the freedoms granted by an open society.
Rating:
Summary: Enlightening!
Review: A timely critique of the vast umbrella of ideology which invisibly governs our society. There are many teachers who we barely refute, such as Plato, who have had many great ideas, but also some bad ones; bad ideas which are rarely questioned due to the originator's prestige. However, "The Open Society And Its Enemies", does just that, and much more. Humankind's tendency toward a more primitive society (totalitarianism) than that demanded by our awakening powers of criticism is, as Popper lucidly suggests, the result of historicist prejudice, which envisions a degenerative future. Popper sees such historicism as a self-fulfilling prophecy, and labors to convince the reader that we are actually in control of our destiny, that our course is as yet undetermined, and, more to the point, that it is not the proper place of science to predict the course of social change (Marx). This book is refreshing, insightful, and brilliantly argued; a MUST HAVE addition to your personal library.
Rating:
Summary: Comment on review of 16 sept. 2003
Review: As a total fan of Popper (the book is a must read), I can't stand by and let criticism on Popper pass by, without trying to falsify this criticism. So here's my comments on the review of September 16 (while at the same time touching some - of the many - subjects that the book treats).
The review criticises Popper for calling Plato's philosophy totalitarian. The reviewer argues that:
1. the word totalitarian didn't exist in Plato's age, ergo Plato's philosophy couldn't be totalitarian.
2. that totalitarianism is a word especially constructed for the mind control practised by modern dictatorships, and that the ancient dictatorships couldn't practice this kind of dictatorship because they lacked the technical abilities.
3. that totalitarian leaders aren't bothered by what Plato writes, and thus that Plato's philosophy can't be responsible for totalitarianism.
ad 1. Clearly dogs existed before the word `dog' existed, atoms existed before the word `atom' existed and totalitarianism could have existed, before the word `totalitarianism' existed.
ad 2. While the word `totalitarianism' might have been created for the mind police exercised by the Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, the word can also be used to make a distinction between ancient dictatorships. It would indeed be wrong to call the dictatorship practised by the ancient Egyptian pharaoh's - that condoned the existence of the Jewish religion - as totalitarian. However the point Popper is making, is that Plato's philosophy didn't condone different views. Plato basically said that the wisest should lead and that none shall question him. This philosophy is supported with `mind control' techniques as: banning foreign influences and thoughts (banning free travel), disallowing the writing of certain scriptures/books, and disallowing the right of free speech to the working class, woman and the under 45. While in modern times there is surely a greater range of mind control techniques (although in contrast: inventions have also made it easier to exchange ideas), it would be strange not to call Plato's philosophy totalitarian, simply because the ancient times lacked camera's, etc. The important aspect of Plato's philosophy is whether it leaves room for different views, if not: it is essentially totalitarian.
ad 3. Firstly a philosophy can be totalitarian without ever being responsible for a totalitarian government, just as a racist book need never create a racist person (or be the cause of a racist action). Secondly, I believe Popper is right in asserting that Plato has made a considerable contribution to the believe in the wise, unquestionable leader. Even if Plato hasn't directly inspired dictators, his philosophy hasn't helped to create checks on these leaders. Instead Popper is arguing for criticism, and although a dictator will probably not spend much time studying Popper, hopefully it will stimulate resistance to its policies.
Lastly, the reviewer remarks that Plato can't be blamed for a undemocratic/dictatorial philosophy because in those times people simply didn't know better. This puts questionmarks at how well the reviewer read the book, since Popper took great time in this book to show otherwise. To show that democratic views were known to Plato, but that he rejected them for the totalitarian rule of the wise leader.
Rating:
Summary: Einstein + Jefferson + Fromm + Ayn Rand = Popper
Review: For most intellectuals, Popper's research would have been a lifetime of intellectual heavy lifting. But then Popper takes a fillet knife to the murkiest parts of western philosphy, gives it the death of a thousand cuts, and rubs it with salt. And he does it with a combination of good cheer, scientific precision, and a strong dose of scorn. Popper's critique of Utopian philosophies is straightforward - in a world of mandatory equality and tribal life, there are only peasants. But with no way to excel, the only other career choice is to be a dictator. And since Utopia demands the destruction of imperfect democratic institutions, the seeds of post-Utopian terror are there from the start. Although Popper was largely concerned with Facism, he'd have been right at home in today's world of yuppie ecoterrorists and ethnic cleansing. People that romanticize some sort of modern tribal life don't understand that tribal life means war and hatred. Or, as Popper suggests, they really just an outlet that lets them vent their hatreds while sounding noble. The overwhelming thing about this books is the depth and breadth of Popper's research. This book leaves the reader with a better understanding of human nature, history, philosophy, and politics. It's a book that truely educates. So Popper gives the best of both worlds - on the one hand there is the pleasure of watching a true master dismantle dangerous popular opinions with a wicked intensity. And on the other hand, it also a critical analysis of philosophy and politics that makes William F. Buckley sound like Forrest Gump. If this were a CD, the hidden "bonus track" would be Poppers analysis of how an economy would handle prosperity. This section is a Nostradamus-like description of the US economy in the late 90's which so precise that it will probably be cribbed by many economists.
Rating:
Summary: An analysis we where not taught in school
Review: For some reason the idea that Plato was pro-Totalitarianism and a Racialist was not brought forth in any of the schools I attended. Well, this book certainly corrects that oversight. The main body of this book provides the best argument I have seen against a closed-totalitarian society. It is a must read for Libertarians and U.S. Republicans for sure. The Liberal U.S. Democrats will not like it at all, -- the Conservative Democrats will probably like it. The UK Classical Liberals will almost certainly side with Popper. Even if you are opposed to Popper, his argument must be answered if you are going to be taken seriously in a debate. The argument is based mostly on Plato's Republic. You will get a coherent historical line of thought from Plato all the way up to current Totalitarianism esp. Communism. The second volume of this two volume book is more about what lead to and became the economic historicism of Marx. It was hard for me not to read the second after reading the first volume, so I have them both. If you are a totalitarian now, you might not be one after you read these books -- or you are going be to better prepared to defend yourself.
Rating:
Summary: One of my favorites!
Review: I first read Open Society a year and a half ago (reading volume 2 first.) I've come back to many of its quotes and arguments since, so I recently reread it and let me tell you - it's better the second time. Popper's goal is to go through (in brief) some of the worlds most mistaken large-name philosophers who he feels were responsible for creating closed social systems. This second volume focuses on Hegel (from an Aristotlean tradition) and Marx. Hegel alone is enough to earn Popper 5 stars as anyone who can (at least attempt to) explain the dialectic in anything approaching language is an amazing feat. In fact, a few reviewers below take issue with Popper's 'mischaracterization' of Hegel but due to Hegels chimeric and unintelligible explanations, I would suspect that no correct representation would be possible. In fact, this is one of Popper's arguments and that, in itself, is about as close to the truth of Hegel as one could get. Marx simply transforms Hegelian dialectic into a (to his credit) more intelligible, material one. Here, we get into crucial discussion of historicism and any deterministic system trying to plan history in advance. This, Popper notes, ALWAYS leads to totalitarian thinking as when one accepts the a priori 'direction' of history, one will become slave to she who dictates it (i.e., Marx or Lenin). Honestly, even if these parts of the book were never written, the list price is more then returned to the reader by the ending essays, where Popper discusses 'the sociology of knowledge' and why most ideas therein are antithetical to open societies. Popper's prose throughout the book is clear, entertaining and unrelenting. Trust me, you will be as entertained as you will informed. (can be read without prior reading of part 1)
Rating:
Summary: A required read for anyone who wishes to understand politics
Review: I greatly enjoyed this book, Popper is one of history's greatest forgotten minds. However I do find myself wondering if Mr. Enigl has seriously read this book? Popper, while certainly an enemy of totalitarianism was not at all an enemy of the use of state power. In fact in several places of the book he deals with the pardox of complete freedom. In particular I would reference this following: "I believe that the injustice and inhumanity of the unrestrained 'capitalist system' described by Marx cannot be questioned; but it can be interpreted in terms of what we called, in a previous chapter, the paradox of freedom. Freedom, we have seen, defeats itself, if it is unlimited. Unlimited freedom means that a strong man is free to bully one who is weak and to rob him of his freedom. This is why we demand that the state should limit freedom to a certain extent, so that everyone's freedom is protected by law. Nobody should be at the mercy of others, but all should have a right to be protected by the state. Now I believe that these considerations, originally meant to apply to the realm of brute-force, of physically intimidation, must be applied to the economic realm also. Even if the state protects its citizens from being bullied by physical violence (as it does, in principle, under the system of unrestrained capitalism), it may defeat our ends by its failure to protect them from the misuse of economic power. In such a state, the economically strong is still free to bully one who is economically weak, and to rob him of his freedom. Under these circumstances, unlimited economic freedom can be just as self-defeating as unlimited physical freedom, and economic power may be nearly as dangerious as physical violence; for those who possess as surplus of food can force who are starving into a 'freely' accepted servitude, without using violence. And assuming that the state limits its activities to the suppression of violence (and to the protection of properly), a minority which is economically strong may in this way exploit the majority of those who are economically weak. "
Rating:
Summary: A required read for anyone who wishes to understand politics
Review: I greatly enjoyed this book, Popper is one of history's greatest forgotten minds. However I do find myself wondering if Mr. Enigl has seriously read this book? Popper, while certainly an enemy of totalitarianism was not at all an enemy of the use of state power. In fact in several places of the book he deals with the pardox of complete freedom. In particular I would reference this following: "I believe that the injustice and inhumanity of the unrestrained 'capitalist system' described by Marx cannot be questioned; but it can be interpreted in terms of what we called, in a previous chapter, the paradox of freedom. Freedom, we have seen, defeats itself, if it is unlimited. Unlimited freedom means that a strong man is free to bully one who is weak and to rob him of his freedom. This is why we demand that the state should limit freedom to a certain extent, so that everyone's freedom is protected by law. Nobody should be at the mercy of others, but all should have a right to be protected by the state. Now I believe that these considerations, originally meant to apply to the realm of brute-force, of physically intimidation, must be applied to the economic realm also. Even if the state protects its citizens from being bullied by physical violence (as it does, in principle, under the system of unrestrained capitalism), it may defeat our ends by its failure to protect them from the misuse of economic power. In such a state, the economically strong is still free to bully one who is economically weak, and to rob him of his freedom. Under these circumstances, unlimited economic freedom can be just as self-defeating as unlimited physical freedom, and economic power may be nearly as dangerious as physical violence; for those who possess as surplus of food can force who are starving into a 'freely' accepted servitude, without using violence. And assuming that the state limits its activities to the suppression of violence (and to the protection of properly), a minority which is economically strong may in this way exploit the majority of those who are economically weak. "
|
