Rating: 
Summary: As timely today as it was when written
Review: Popper attempts - and largely succeeds - in puncturing the myth that authoritarian societies are in any way superior to Open Societies. This is an important message, particularly in this morally relativistic age where intellectual support (and justification) of authoritarian regimes is at an all-time high. The terrible truth is that totalitarian regimes do horrible things to their own people without qualms. Popper demolishes the idea that a planned society is somehow preferable to a free one. A planned society is necessarily a static society, i.e. Eastern Europe and the USSR since 1945; the exact opposite is true of dynamic, continually evolving open societies. A casual look will convice all except the loonies still "waiting for the Revolution" that a liberal, market-driven culture produces goods and services that an authoritarian one cannot. But his other arguement is deeper, more subtle. An open society is intrinsically more powerful for its intellectual machinery. It is not the material wealth of the West that should be admired (or disparaged if you are of that type). It is our intellectual dominance - particularly the US - that is so overwhelming. And it is true in all areas - scientific research, inventions, art, music, science...open societies excel, planned societies falter. This is Popper's strongest arguement for an open society - the relationship between economic and political freedom. It is not possible to have one without the other over the long haul. Yet, Popper touches on what might be considered the greatest weakness of our own success - the idea that material wealth leads does not require political freedom or participation. In this era of slogans, sound bites and everyone from actresses to radio hosts to rap stars dispensing political advice, it is important to remember that an open society exists only so long as citizens choose freedom through informed choices. Intellectual laziness or (worse) depravity is the first step to cultural decline. An important, readable work.
Rating:
Summary: As timely today as it was when written
Review: Popper attempts - and largely succeeds - in puncturing the myth that authoritarian societies are in any way superior to Open Societies. This is an important message, particularly in this morally relativistic age where intellectual support (and justification) of authoritarian regimes is at an all-time high. The terrible truth is that totalitarian regimes do horrible things to their own people without qualms. Popper demolishes the idea that a planned society is somehow preferable to a free one. A planned society is necessarily a static society, i.e. Eastern Europe and the USSR since 1945; the exact opposite is true of dynamic, continually evolving open societies. A casual look will convice all except the loonies still "waiting for the Revolution" that a liberal, market-driven culture produces goods and services that an authoritarian one cannot. But his other arguement is deeper, more subtle. An open society is intrinsically more powerful for its intellectual machinery. It is not the material wealth of the West that should be admired (or disparaged if you are of that type). It is our intellectual dominance - particularly the US - that is so overwhelming. And it is true in all areas - scientific research, inventions, art, music, science...open societies excel, planned societies falter. This is Popper's strongest arguement for an open society - the relationship between economic and political freedom. It is not possible to have one without the other over the long haul. Yet, Popper touches on what might be considered the greatest weakness of our own success - the idea that material wealth leads does not require political freedom or participation. In this era of slogans, sound bites and everyone from actresses to radio hosts to rap stars dispensing political advice, it is important to remember that an open society exists only so long as citizens choose freedom through informed choices. Intellectual laziness or (worse) depravity is the first step to cultural decline. An important, readable work.
Rating:
Summary: One of the most important ever books
Review: Popper is famous for attempting to shift philosophy from various idealist systems to one of empiricism. He is famous for suggesting that the basis of the scientific method is the falsification of false theories by empirical analysis. He describes earlier systems such as those of Plato as "essentialist" or such that cannot be disproved by experimentation and thus rejects them. Popper's importance is more than just a philosopher. He is a person who was of the twentieth century and was revolted by the development of totalitarian systems. In his view these systems were the product of "essentialist" philosophical systems or ideologies. He favored pragmatic systems in which ideology could be challenged by his method. This work is a work that is one of the most learned and systematic attacks on ideological systems which has been written in the last hundred years. Despite the difficulty of its content the book is readable and simple. Over half of the book is devoted to footnotes. Its exposition of the Platonic and Marxist systems is learned and erudite. In its time the book has been heavily critiqued by Platonists. Ignore such criticism, this book is one of the most important books to be written in the last hundred years.
Rating: 
Summary: Popper or Plato?
Review: Popper is probably the most cogent of the defenders of classical political liberalism I have read. However, in his attack on Plato, I think he misses (or ignores) a couple of key things:
1.)Most Plato scholars doubt that 'The Republic' is intended to serve as an actual proposal for a state. Popper spends the vast majority of his time on Plato analyzing 'the republic,' with only occasional reference to Plato's later works.
2.) 'The republic' does not represent Plato's more mature philosophy. Plato's political philosophy is substantially revised in the later dialogues 'the Statesman' and 'Laws'.
3.) In 'Laws' particularly, the older Plato seems to come to view democracy as a perfectly acceptable form of government and emphasizes the rule of law, rather than the personal rule of a philosopher-king as necessary to the life of the state.
4.) if the rule of law is important to plato, and if the laws ought to be made in such a way that they support the virtue of the citizens, then this presumably alleviates the charge of totalitarianism, since the concern of a totalitarian state would be to increase the power of the leader by whatever means possible and without regard to the citizens.
5.) I think that Plato's own political philosophy can be accepted, because the elements that a liberal like Popper might find objectionable are not key components to the program and can, therefore, be revised. It is possible for a political platonist to believe in the superiority of democracy, for example.
6.) the cure that popper wants to introduce is worse than the disease. Popper seems to think that the body of Philosophy is infected with the cancer of totalitarianism/tribalism/wholism, which he tries to treat with the chemotheraphy of liberalism/cosmopolitanism/individualism. However, he has misdiagnosed the problem and his solution, therefore becomes more harmful than helpful. The virtue ethicists have urged a return to ancient ethical philosophy, because doctors like Popper cannot 'cure' society. (See, for example, Alasdair MacIntyre, "After Virtue").
in short, i think popper's work to counter totalitarianism is important, but, in his furor, he seems to have left careful scholarship behind and his positive proposal does not seem helpful.
shane wilkins
Rating: 
Summary: Popper?
Review: Popper rules the Amazon roost. Nontheless, Popper is guilty of wilful misreadings.
Intellectual dishonesty ought to be a capital offence in the "Open Society"...
Rating:
Summary: a comment regarding Mr. Choe's review
Review: Popper was German. In any event, criticizing an idea on the basis of the author's country of origin ("so English") is neither an appropriate or convincing way to refute an idea. Furthermore, I know of no cases in which Popper misses the historical mark. This book is THE defense of liberal democracy in its truest sense and all who would defend it against those who offer repression "in our own best interests" would do well to read it. An invaluable course in intellectual self-defense for those who value an open society.
Rating:
Summary: "deconstructing heidegger"
Review: 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 (at the time). - 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: 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 (at the time). - 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: The Pitfalls of Utopia
Review: Popper's book (of which this is the first volume), discusses three of the great utopian thinkers of the west, Plato (in volume 1) Hegel and Marx (in volume 2). The central message is to beware of utopian philosophy, particularly those of a "historicist" bent, i. e., those who believe there to be inexorable laws of history governing human conduct. Popper's view is that such theories are not only wrong (his view of history is that it has no "meaning") but also dangerous as they can be used as a rationale for the suppression of free institutions in the name of ideology. "...if our civilization is to survive, we must break with the habit of deference to great men. Great men may make great mistakes; and as the book tries to show, some of the greatest leaders of the past supported the perennial attack on fredom and reason."
Rating:
Summary: An Antidote to Totalitarianism Past and Present
Review: Popper, writing in the depths of World War II, produced a triumphant retort to the forces of absolutism and illiberality then all-too evident in the world. Its relevance has not diminished with time; if anything, the book has greater power today, when we have both the lessons of the past to learn from and the threat of the future to confront. His criticisms of Plato are particularly brilliant. In school, I was taught that Plato was a "hero in democracy"- no person who has read Popper's book could maintain that view. In "The Open Society and its Enemies," he systematically examines and demolishes the persistent and pernicious arguments against democracy, crushing assumptions yet doing so with such relentless logic that the truth of his statements cannot be denied. All this is delivered in a style which is at once erudite and scrupulously documented yet also eminently readable: his arguments draw you in, and even if you are not a student of philosophy, the appeal of his writing is sufficient to maintain interest.
|
