Rating: 
Summary: A seriously important book, the work of a profound thinker
Review: The Open Society and its Enemies is a beautiful defence of human freedom written in majestic prose by one of the few indisputably great thinkers of the century. The prose style is a sheer delight. Popper writes with vividness and clarity in the service of high ideals. His work is a vital antidote to those many thinkers, especially on the post-Sartrean Left, who destroy forests in order to promote painfully turgid and woolly views which - on the rare occasions when they are understandable at all - turn out to be the bedrock for people who hate freedom. Fortunately, Popper's book is taken very seriously, a testament to the diminishing power of such ideas.
Rating:
Summary: Criticism and Open Society
Review: The presentation of the the ancient philophers are marvelous, esspecially the observations about Plato's the collectivist state are valid and precise. The observatians about the Aristo and Hegel liitle tragicaly are almost valid, the funny interpretian of Sir Popper doesnt not really depend on him but the blurry and metaphsical reasonings of Hegel.The interpretations that hegel made are siily, for example assumptions that are being made for justifiyng the state of 'Geist' are not neccessarily related logically or scientifically.For that reason ý couldnt point out why people criticise him fof these interpretations .
More than these the interpretations about the Marx are somehow simple but important and shows the state of marxsizm well . But the observations could be more theoritical while making use of the other aspects of Marxsizm.
Also the thoughts against historicism are greatly presented with great ability . I also could say that I could not see the real state of U.S in these brilliant observations but the european countries. Popper as a great philosopher and optimist basiclly thought that we must have social engineering that enables us to live in a more open society with great political institiuons for avoiding the misuse of these abilities against a class or social structure . In spite of all that I somehow does not like the interpretations that he has made for economics while not having an economical background, but that could neglected. I read that book when I was 15-16 and it enabled me to be more critical and objective as a possible scientist or philosopher .
Rating:
Summary: If you are reading anything by Leo Strauss read Popper at
Review: the same time. Simply put Popper is the one philosopher most diametrically opposed to Leo Strauss. Its important to keep the width of this dicussion open in your mind as you are reading. Popper is clear, and easy to understand. There are few hidden meanings. Which should make for a very enjoyable read for anyone studying Plato.
Rating:
Summary: If you are reading anything by Leo Strauss read Popper at
Review: the same time. Simply put Popper is the one philosopher most diametrically opposed to Leo Strauss. Its important to keep the width of this dicussion open in your mind as you are reading. Popper is clear, and easy to understand. There are few hidden meanings. Which should make for a very enjoyable read for anyone studying Plato.
Rating:
Summary: Classic work in both philosophy and social thought
Review: This book is not merely a classic of social thought, it is also a classic of philosophical history and political and social science. In the course of this book, (and in the preceding volume), Popper discusses Greek philosophy, the rise and fall of Athens, the logical shortcomings of philosophical idealism, the scientific method, the art of government, and excesses of Hegelian and Marxist philosophy. And he does it all in a style that is both straightforward and elegant, precise and easy to follow. Indeed, Popper's facility at rendering complex issues and ideas lucid and assessible is so extraordinary that the reader is apt to forget the profundity of Popper's analysis and the range and depth of his thought. Popper's mastery as a philosophic critic is no where in better evidence than in his discussion of Aristotle in chapter 11. Popper brilliantly shows why Aristotle cannot be regarded either as a scientific thinker or even as a defender of reason. Aristotle's doctrine of definintions and his essentialistic epistemology, Popper contends, only serve to bring about a great deal of hairsplitting, verbalism, and despair with reason and argument. "Scholasticism and mysticism and despair in reason, these are the unavoidable results of the essentialism of Plato and Aristotle," concludes. "And Plato's open revolt against freedom becomes, with Aristotle, a secret revolt against reason." Since Aristotle's speculative methods of determining matters of fact still dominates the cerebral processes of most modern social thinkers (think of Marcuse or Ayn Rand, for instance), Popper's critique serves as a rallying cry for those of us who want to bring social thought and philosophy back within the confines of empirical reality and the scientific method.
Rating:
Summary: an excellent book!
Review: This excellent book is a powerful, clear and passionate defence of democracy in the truest sense of this word. Written by one of the most profound thinkers of the 20-th century, the book draws on the fundamental notions of common sense, human decency, fairness and compassion which are common to most people in the world today. In the age of quotas, speech-codes, thought censorship, "political correctness" and the triumph of post-modern quasi-liberal gnosticism the book of Popper is as urgent now as it was when Hitler's armies were marching across Europe.
Rating:
Summary: Common Sense, Rigorously Applied
Review: This is a paperback in two volumes: volume I subtitled "Plato", and volume II subtitled "Hegel and Marx". Each volume has a table of contents, text, addenda, truly awe-inspiring endnotes, an index of names, and of subjects. This is a review of BOTH volumes. "If in this book harsh words are spoken about some of the greatest among the intellectual leaders of mankind, my motive is not...to belittle them. ...we must break with the habit of deference to great men. Great men may make great mistakes..." (from the intro to the 1943 edition) Karl Popper was fighting the war in his own way. He saw what was essentially the same in Stalin and Hitler: a monstrous confidence. They may have drawn on different philosophies of the state, but it came to the same thing in the end: wholesale murder as a tool of social engineering. But WWII is over, and we won. Moreover, the Soviet Union has collapsed, and we won again. So what is the fuss? Relax: Marxism is dead, Platonism sounds quaint, and who the hell is Hegel, anyway? But don't rest easy just yet, free-market man! Every four years we seem to reaffirm our need for a philosopher-king. And while the historicist faith is now all tarted-up with computers, networking, and the Fable of the Bees and re-christened "emergent order", it still leaves us feeling smug and moral in doing nothing but tending our own gardens. Popper is pithy throughout, but I only started noting things (this time around) at the penultimate chapter of the work, 24: "... the fight against suffering must be considered a duty, while the right to care for the happiness of others must be considered a privilege confined to the close circle of their friends."(vII, p237) [on language, and the aim of rationalism] "... to use it plainly ... as an instrument of rational communication ... rather than as a means of 'self-expression', as the vicious romantic jargon of most of our educationists has it." (p239) See also II, pp276/7 on the aims of education. [On bullshit] "... irrationalism will use reason too, but without any feeling of obligation."(II,240) A brilliant look at Hegelian thinking in the sociology of knowledge (II,242/3), which must be read whole, but ends: " ... their thoughts are endowed ... with 'mystical and religious faculties' not possessed by others, and who thus claim that they 'think by God's grace'. This claim with its gentle allusion to those who do not possess God's grace, this attack upon the potential spiritual unity of mankind, is, in my opinion, as pretentious, blasphemous and anti-Christian, as it believes itself to be humble, pious, and Christian." Popper is relentlessly brilliant in moral indignation. See his pointing out that moral futurism (e.g. 'the meek shall inherit the earth') condones the abdicating of individual moral responsibility, since one need do nothing toward this certain end. His answer: "...it is certainly possible to combine an attitude of the utmost reserve and even of contempt towards worldly success in the sense of power, glory, and wealth, with the attempt to do one's best in this world, and to further the ends one has decided to adopt...for their own sake."(II, 274) This is one of the great works of practical philosophy of the century. Awesome in scholarship, relentless in moral vision, yet as fair-minded as his own high standards dictate, Popper has produced a book that is at once an explication of important philosophers who have had a malign impact and an attempt, largely successful, to demythologize them, and to give the average reader intellectual weapons to combat their legacy. His care is, at all times, to be clear and rational. He is concerned to communicate, not to obscure. The spirit of civilization shines through this work; it exemplifies what is best in our intellectual and spiritual heritage. A hint: read a few of the notes to convince yourself that Popper has completely mastered his material (in several languages), that he has anticipated all the main counterarguments to his positions, and that he stands ready to defend in severe philosophical jargon anything he seems too-casually to advert to in the text. Then just read the books, and dig into the notes later, when you go back to a section for some serious research.
Rating: 
Summary: Food for thought
Review: This is an interesting book. I think this is what Feyerabend had on mind when writing: "And those who still rant and rave against him (Aristotle) turn out to be 'crude animals who bark at things they do not comprehend'" the quote being from Albertus Magnus. It is not easy to see that someone can be a totallitarian while denouncing totalitarianism. For the record, Popper, in his later work adopted most of Plato's ideas, including any sympathy for left of monarchy politics (do not be fooled by the rhetoric). This is the book that still has the nickname in London "The open society - by one of its enemies". As for whether the ills of the Western civilization are due to Plato and Aristotle, this seems a valid point. If seen otherwise, both the goods and the ills in fact. The reader will find that similar or worse ills characterized, say, the burning of the (Aristotelian) Great Library, the murder of the (platonist) philosopher Hypatia, the mongol raids, or even the civil war in remote Easter island. The defence of democracy, science and politics are found only in one tradition though. Sir Karl, thanks for unwillingly revealing the obvious.
Rating:
Summary: Read the second volume first
Review: This second volume of this two volume book is more about what lead to and became the economic historicism of Marx and its consequences. I suggest you read this econd volume before the volume 1. Why? The most important parts are about reasoning. Reasoning why people act the why they do and then you will see much better why Popper is opposed to Plato in volume 1's argument. 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. 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's volume 1 certainly corrects that oversight. Even if you are opposed to Popper, his argument must be answered if you are going to be taken seriously in a debate. You will get a coherent historical line of thought from Plato all the way up to current Totalitarianism esp. Communism. 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: Evolution of the Open Society
Review: This work is by now a most considerable classic whatever one's conclusions, multiple perhaps, about its many theses, and by any standard a compelling study, must read. Becoming well-known after World War II almost as an apologia of liberalism, its roots are in the thirties when the young socialist Popper sees the consequences in action of misapplied theories. Among its many sides, apart from its great argument about historicism, as seen also in The Poverty of Historicism,the work is notable for its sketch of the curious evolution of democracy in world history, and the development of its argument in a discussion of the birth of Greek Democracy. Its discussion of the Great Generation highlights one of the most crucial moments in world history, when democratic freedom struggled to be born. One problem with the argument here is that the opposite of an open society is,indeed, a closed one, but a tribal society is wrongfully typified as such. Popper fails to see that it is more than the transition from tribalism that is involved. It is not the antithesis with tribalism, but the 'openness' of the still semi-tribal yet cosmopolitan Greeks compared with 'closed' societies like the Assyrian or Persian empires. From this period springs Popper's critique of Plato, for which Popper is notorious among some, hero to others. Plato in the philosophic tradition deserved this correction, though not always the rebukes Popper gives him. One of the curiosities of this work is the limitation of its own successful argument, in the sense that its implied rejection of universal history is belied in the very history of democracy that it portrays. Why did democracy appear when it did, and why did it fail to survive? A strange contradiction lurks in this classic portrayal as it unwittingly shows the grounds for a post-historicist universal history. For the appearance and definition of the open society and its evolution are two different questions. This book is so filled with invaluable this and that, from the text to the notes, that it should linger on one's desk as a source of innumerable study projects.
|
