Rating: 
Summary: The one and only, the one that made the difference
Review: I read Open Society when I was a teenager. It was the book of my life. I had never been interested in philosophy or read anything of this kind. I just felt curiosity to know something about all that high-brow stuff. Why I picked Popper? The book is "against" Plato, and I never could understand this guy in school. So I tried with Popper. And yes, surprisingly I understood and even loved this book. I suppose I loved it just because I understood it. I later came across this book by Paul Johnson "Intellectuals" and it made the whole picture about these kind of "smart-guys" more clear. Don't let yourself be fooled. Yes, Popper is one of them. But at least he writes clear. Did you ever wonder how many self-called marxists or socialists ever read Marx's "Capital"? Hum? Very few, you're right. Because the point is bewildering us and making a fool out of us. There is much sound and fury but no common sense. They, the intellectuals want to stip us, non-intellectuals, of our only intellectual luggage: our common sense. But this is OUR philosophy and our righteous shield against totalitarians like Plato et al. See now why Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Susan Sontag and the like are pro-Fidel? They want to tell us "stupid-ignorants" what is good for us!
WILL YOU LET YOURSELF BE FOOLED?
Rating: 
Summary: disgusting...
Review: I read this disgusting book a couple of years ago out of pure masochism, knowing it is nothing more than pure despicable propaganda, one of "20th century crowning philosophical achievements" (so termed by its mostly unaware followers: fully indoctrinated people with "democracy" and "human rights" flags on one hand and censorship on the other). What can I say?... Popper was under no circumstance an intellectual (in the right sense of "thinking person"), yet a highly opportunistic mass member who managed to rise in totally unmerited positions by constantly keeping himself within the fashion of his times. Typical to thoroughly primitive humans, Popper does not understand concepts being separated of actions and translates the former into the latter, actions being the only things he truly had any command into. For Popper, a concept is valid once it's transposition into action is "acceptable" (in the twisted post-modern sense). A clear manifestation of this common process is how in the entire waste of words of whom this book consists, NEVER does the author attempt some insight into an issue, merely remaining on the outsides looking for imputable manifestations. This is a MUST among modern "proffesional" academics, as well. Such procedure serves two reasons:
1. it promotes a political agenda to whom the author is in debt by being granted the formal position he has.
2. it diverts discussions into ad-hominem attacks, something anybody, no matter how archaic-minded, can deal with. Arguments are meaningful only to those who understand them. They are but a manifestation of weakness in the eyes of those with an unbounded instinct of conservation such as Popper. The best strategy of all for dealing with propagandistic garbage would be to simply IGNORE it. An even better alternative (since propaganda is boringly repetitive) is to respond directly with an ad-hominem... I am glad I didn't bought this book. In Romania, during the Dark Ages of Stalinism, it was customary to burn "dangerous" books. In latter times, people used marxist books to wrap fresh eggs so they won't break when being carried together. If I happened to buy a Popper book, I would have hesitated wrapping eggs with it, for the fear they would be contaminated. Some aspects of the book are involuntarily amusing. The (...)author, probably in a pousee of overinflated "self esteem", compares himself with Aristotle and forgives the latter for being a crypto-fascist... Popper proves himself outstandingly as part of a cathegory of intellectuals where lack of conscience is a weapon of both defense and attack. Defense, for it prevents the shattering projection upon self's being. Attack, for obvious reasons...
Rating:
Summary: The Greatest Book of the 20th Century?
Review: I think the title of this review is a true description of this book, but I urge you to judge for yourself. My only regret is that I did not read it many years ago when my head was turned by the siren calls of what Popper calls 'tribalism'. Even then I heard about it and had it pooh-poohed as 'old hat' by 'advanced' thinkers (self-styled!). Often misinterpreted as an attack on Plato, Marx and Hegel, it is in reality a stirring defense of democracy and liberalism, written at democracy's darkest hour. Now that Marxism has collapsed, Popper in an interview given before his death called for us now to look for the 'roads not taken', admitting that embattled western liberalism became, to a certain extent, an unquestioned dogma like its opponents. A good place to start that search is with Popper's greatest book.
Rating: 
Summary: Always Interesting Take on Plato
Review: I will not comment on volume 2 of this work as I have read little Hegel and less Marx. Plato, however, I have read, and therefore will address volume 1, "The Spell of Plato". This is a fascinating book. In a review of another book on Plato, I wrote that one important test of any work of secondary literature is whether the time spent reading it would be better spent re-reading the primary literature instead. Popper's book easily passes that test. I would by no means recommend reading it as a substitute for reading Plato '- it contains too many interpretations that I think seriously wrong, and its narrow focus on political philosophy leaves many aspects of Plato's philosophy untouched, but as a text that helps the reader read Plato critically it is excellent, provided only that the reader doesn't forget to read Popper critically as well. The principal focus of the book is of course Plato's political philosophy. Popper reads it as part of an Athenian debate between democrats and anti-democratic reactionaries, and that Plato writes on behalf of the reactionaries. Popper presents Plato as a man who began under the tutelage of Socrates, whose positive influence is responsible for the best aspects of Plato's thought, but that Plato over time became increasingly corrupted. Popper summarizes his view in a really fine piece of writing that I cannot resist quoting: "Socrates had refused to compromise his personal integrity. Plato, with all his uncompromising canvas-cleaning, was led along a path on which he compromised his integrity with every step he took. He was forced to combat free thought and the pursuit of truth. He was led to defend lying, political miracles, tabooistic superstition, the suppression of truth, and ultimately, brutal violence. In spite of Socrates' warning against misanthropy and misology, he was led to distrust man and to fear argument. In spite of his own hatred of tyranny, he was led to look to a tyrant for help, and to defend the most tyrannical measures. … he succeeded in blinding himself, by his own spell, to powers which once he had hated." As a general rule, I judge an interpretation of Plato by its ability to explain difficult passages and in particular passages that appear to be contradictory. I think that Popper's main thesis, as quoted above, is a very strong interpretation. Many passages that other interpretations struggle with (such as the numerous passages in which seeking the truth is praised vs. the famous passage in Republic in which lying is conditionally endorsed) can be explained by Popper's theory that Plato's thought corrupted over time. Although Popper's book is absolutely one I recommend, I mentioned that I thought that some of Popper's interpretations were simply wrong and believe that elaboration on a comment like that must be made. One of these is Popper's thesis that Plato was a historicist. Popper's historicist classification of Plato depends on Popper's reading that Plato held that all historical social change to be corruption. I think that this reading creates numerous interpretive difficulties and is therefore very likely false. The primary support Popper cites for this view is the developmentally ordered series of states in Republic VIII. A difficult text for this theory is Statesman 302b-303b: in that text, Plato ranks democracy as superior to oligarchy, and so (according to Popper's theory) oligarchy out to be developmentally later than democracy, yet in Republic VIII it is democracy that is later than oligarchy. Another difficult passage is Laws 694b to 696a, in which Plato describes Persia not undergoing a continuous decline but as going from good (under Cyrus) to bad (under Cyrus's children) to good again (under Darius) and back to bad (under Xerxes). Still another difficult passage would be the brief text in Laws 676a-c, in which Plato proposes an examination into how, over time, states have made moral progress or declined, and how superior states have deteriorated and bad ones improved (the example of Persia mentioned earlier is brought up in this context) with no hint that he viewed the idea of progress or improvement as a problem for his philosophy. On this topic I would conclude with the general observation that unlike Hegel and Marx, both of whom wrote book-length world histories, Plato seldom referred to historical events, and his longest historical text (Laws III from which two of my examples are taken) is unproblematic if read without reference to Popper's theory but becomes a confusing series of puzzles if read with reference to Popper's theory. In closing, I would like to quote (in a slightly abbreviated form) from Jonathan Barnes' introduction to "The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle": "Suppose you read a chapter in which it is suggested that Aristotle believed such-and-such. If you turn over the page and say to yourself, 'Oh, Aristotle believed such-and-such', then the book will have failed. For you are meant, as you put the book down, to converse with yourself in the following sort of way: "Oh, so Aristotle is supposed to have believed such-and-such. What an interesting - or perplexing, or perverse - thing to have thought. Might it be true? Come to that, did Aristotle really mean exactly that? Let me look now at Aristotle's own words and see what he actually says." I do not know if Popper intended such a response from his book on Plato, but I think it an admirable goal for any work in philosophy's secondary literature and it is certainly the response Popper got from me. Highly recommended, faults and all.
Rating:
Summary: Always Interesting Take on Plato
Review: I will not comment on volume 2 of this work as I have read little Hegel and less Marx. Plato, however, I have read, and therefore will address volume 1, "The Spell of Plato". This is a fascinating book. In a review of another book on Plato, I wrote that one important test of any work of secondary literature is whether the time spent reading it would be better spent re-reading the primary literature instead. Popper's book easily passes that test. I would by no means recommend reading it as a substitute for reading Plato ???- it contains too many interpretations that I think seriously wrong, and its narrow focus on political philosophy leaves many aspects of Plato's philosophy untouched, but as a text that helps the reader read Plato critically it is excellent, provided only that the reader doesn't forget to read Popper critically as well. The principal focus of the book is of course Plato's political philosophy. Popper reads it as part of an Athenian debate between democrats and anti-democratic reactionaries, and that Plato writes on behalf of the reactionaries. Popper presents Plato as a man who began under the tutelage of Socrates, whose positive influence is responsible for the best aspects of Plato's thought, but that Plato over time became increasingly corrupted. Popper summarizes his view in a really fine piece of writing that I cannot resist quoting: "Socrates had refused to compromise his personal integrity. Plato, with all his uncompromising canvas-cleaning, was led along a path on which he compromised his integrity with every step he took. He was forced to combat free thought and the pursuit of truth. He was led to defend lying, political miracles, tabooistic superstition, the suppression of truth, and ultimately, brutal violence. In spite of Socrates' warning against misanthropy and misology, he was led to distrust man and to fear argument. In spite of his own hatred of tyranny, he was led to look to a tyrant for help, and to defend the most tyrannical measures. ??? he succeeded in blinding himself, by his own spell, to powers which once he had hated." As a general rule, I judge an interpretation of Plato by its ability to explain difficult passages and in particular passages that appear to be contradictory. I think that Popper's main thesis, as quoted above, is a very strong interpretation. Many passages that other interpretations struggle with (such as the numerous passages in which seeking the truth is praised vs. the famous passage in Republic in which lying is conditionally endorsed) can be explained by Popper's theory that Plato's thought corrupted over time. Although Popper's book is absolutely one I recommend, I mentioned that I thought that some of Popper's interpretations were simply wrong and believe that elaboration on a comment like that must be made. One of these is Popper's thesis that Plato was a historicist. Popper's historicist classification of Plato depends on Popper's reading that Plato held that all historical social change to be corruption. I think that this reading creates numerous interpretive difficulties and is therefore very likely false. The primary support Popper cites for this view is the developmentally ordered series of states in Republic VIII. A difficult text for this theory is Statesman 302b-303b: in that text, Plato ranks democracy as superior to oligarchy, and so (according to Popper's theory) oligarchy out to be developmentally later than democracy, yet in Republic VIII it is democracy that is later than oligarchy. Another difficult passage is Laws 694b to 696a, in which Plato describes Persia not undergoing a continuous decline but as going from good (under Cyrus) to bad (under Cyrus's children) to good again (under Darius) and back to bad (under Xerxes). Still another difficult passage would be the brief text in Laws 676a-c, in which Plato proposes an examination into how, over time, states have made moral progress or declined, and how superior states have deteriorated and bad ones improved (the example of Persia mentioned earlier is brought up in this context) with no hint that he viewed the idea of progress or improvement as a problem for his philosophy. On this topic I would conclude with the general observation that unlike Hegel and Marx, both of whom wrote book-length world histories, Plato seldom referred to historical events, and his longest historical text (Laws III from which two of my examples are taken) is unproblematic if read without reference to Popper's theory but becomes a confusing series of puzzles if read with reference to Popper's theory. In closing, I would like to quote (in a slightly abbreviated form) from Jonathan Barnes' introduction to "The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle": "Suppose you read a chapter in which it is suggested that Aristotle believed such-and-such. If you turn over the page and say to yourself, 'Oh, Aristotle believed such-and-such', then the book will have failed. For you are meant, as you put the book down, to converse with yourself in the following sort of way: "Oh, so Aristotle is supposed to have believed such-and-such. What an interesting - or perplexing, or perverse - thing to have thought. Might it be true? Come to that, did Aristotle really mean exactly that? Let me look now at Aristotle's own words and see what he actually says." I do not know if Popper intended such a response from his book on Plato, but I think it an admirable goal for any work in philosophy's secondary literature and it is certainly the response Popper got from me. Highly recommended, faults and all.
Rating:
Summary: great liberal, no friend to dogmatic libertarians
Review: Karl Popper stood against all forms of dogmatism. Popper's ideas were used for ideological purposes during the Cold War, and continue to be used today by libertarians and "conservatives" to advance ideas that Popper rejected. What Popper means by "The Open Society" is a society based on reflection and deliberation, not one based on "laws of supply and demand." "The Open Society and Its Enemies" is one of those books much more often cited than actually read, and upon examination there is much here that is quite surprising. For instance, though Popper is mainly critical of Marx, who he calls a "false prophet," he also says "[o]ne cannot do justice to Marx without recognizing his sincerity. His open-mindedness, his sense of facts, his distrust of verbiage, and especially of moralizing verbiage, made him one of the world's most influential fighters against hypocrisy and pharisaism." (82) He also notes "...how justified [Marx] was in his glowing protest against the hell of an unrestrained capitalism..." (185) And Popper devotes an entire chapter to *agreeing* with Marx's anti-psychologism, his sociological insight that "social existence determines consciousness." (Chapter 14, "The Autonomy of Sociology") It is precisely in reference to the way in which Marx's prophesy of capitalism's demise failed to come true that Popper distinguishes himself as a flexible liberal and not a dogmatic libertarian. Because, he says, "[u]nrestrained capitalism is gone. Since the day of Marx, democratic interventionism has made immense advances..." (187) The living standards of the working majority were raised through democratic social reforms which included the 8-hour day, recognition of trade unions, women's suffrage, and much more. What Popper means by "the open society" is a democratic society in which citizens reflect and participate, not one in which people are subject to any iron external force, whether a dictator, a permanent bureaucracy, or the so-called "laws of supply and demand," which has nowadays been dubbed TINA -- There Is No Alternative to The Market, harsh and capricious though it may be. Popper says there IS an alternative, though we have to think, and fight, to bring it about. There is no need to submit to an abstraction such as The Free Market -- the very success of the postindustrial democracies is testimony to their success in democratic social engineering. Popper's main critique of Marx is that he, like Plato, was a historicist who believed in a universal history of humanity. "Historicist" is not exactly an everyday epithet -- why did Popper see historicism as dangerous? According to Popper, there are but multiple histories of various aspects of human life, such as religion, art, and so forth. He objects to anyone believing they have the key to the future, whether that results in socialist dogmatism, or libertarian dogmatism, or any other form of teleology. Popper makes this incredibly timely observation about the tendency to treat the history of power politics as universal history -- "...[t]his is hardly better than to treat the history of embezzlement or of robbery or of poisoning as the history of mankind. For the history of power politics is nothing but the history of international crime and mass murder... This history is taught in schools, and some of the greatest criminals are extolled as its heroes." (270) Popper closes the book with rousing praise, not for blind patriotism, but for critical debate, rationalism, and pluralism as opposed to "monolithic social ends" (396).
Rating:
Summary: Essential reading for everyone interested in democracy.
Review: Karl Popper was one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century. In The Open Society and It's Enemies he presents not only the case for democracy (an open society) but also the case against tyranny (a closed society), no matter how benevolent any given tyranny purports to be. Popper also explains why many people are still attracted to tyranical forms of government -- whether fascist or communist. Such people prefer order to freedom. One of the paradoxes presented by Popper is that some degree of inefficiency is endemic to democracy, whereas highly-efficient government -- which many people think they want -- is almost invariably tyrannical. This book is a must read for everyone interested in maintaining individual freedom and understanding the threats which it constantly faces.
Rating:
Summary: Popper's "war work" still speaks to us
Review: Karl Popper's two-volume tracing of the philosophical ancestry of 20th Century totalitarianism remains for me a marvelous work. As I spent several graduate school years in the company self-styled neo-Marxists and Maoist wannabees, Popper's courteous but radical (in the sense of getting at the roots) criticism of Marxist thought was my candle in the darkness. Now that my daughter reads Plato at St. John's College, I look forward to discussing Popper's ideas once again!
Rating:
Summary: actually quite pro-Marxist
Review: Many of these reviews of the second volume have completely misunderstood. Popper hated Soviet communism. However, he remains quite sympathetic to West European social democracy and speaks of great respect for Marx. In fact, he finds the totalitarian consequences of Marx's thought in the eastern bloc to be the effect of a harmful Hegelian residue, which he attempts to expunge - anticipating Louis Althusser's, the French communist philosopher, entire philosophical project.
His treatment of Hegel is drastically unfair and totally out of date, but his attempt to formulate a Hegel-less Marx is fascinating and not at all the right-wing attack that some commentators, who have probably never read the book, seem to think it is.
Rating:
Summary: "best selling" popper
Review: One of the most profound political books published, the notion of an "open society" as ubiquituous a term as it is today, was, at the time of publishing, quite a daring concept. Powerful in his argumentation, Popper on the eve of WWII lays bare the roots of a popular ancient school of thinking and its monstruos consequences. One of the millenium's most eminent thinkers at his very best. The most captivating (and least technical) Popper you'll ever read...
|
