Most helpful customer reviews
|
|
5.0 out of 5 stars
As timely today as it was when written, May 21 2004
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.
|
|
|
5.0 out of 5 stars
Read the second volume first, Jun 4 2003
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.
|
|
|
5.0 out of 5 stars
A great and thoughtful read., Jan 23 2003
What I particularly liked about Popper's book was its accessibility. He does not entirely avoid jargon (historicism), but he explains whatever philosophical jargon he does use in a straightforward and understandable way. Because he writes so clearly, the reader can really feel he is participating, by reading, in a meaningful way, in an important debate.Some philosophers seem to revel in the obscurity of their expressed thoughts. Popper on the other hand seems to express his ideas in a clear and direct fashion. Refreshingly, he skewers pomposity, pretence and philosophical obfuscation (on this last, he is highly critical of Hegel). The accessibility of the ideas in the book makes one think that this is the way philosophy should be written, sets a standard of clarity, and is a good invitation to further reading and reflection. His systematic logical development of ideas, by making historical or literary observations, and working out the logical consequences, demonstrates the possibilities of analytical reasoning applied to philosophical issues. This is a book about political philosophy. What was particularly striking was the contrast in point of view he paints between Plato's desire, as Popper describes it, to avoid change, and the measures that Plato was prepared to advocate in order to avoid change on the one hand, and on the other hand the perspectives of an open society. How valid all of his criticisms are I am unsure; I subsequently read that some Platonists have taken issue with Popper's analysis and conclusions. Even if Popper is wrong in some respects about Plato's intentions, none the less, Popper's points on the division between those who seek to avoid change for society, and those who wish to create an institutional structure that permits constructive change have great currency. What is interesting is that elements of resistance to change also occur in open societies What is intriguing about this book is that it was written in 1943 or so. It was Popper's war effort. His real strength is supposed to be in the philosophy of scientific investigation. Next on my list. A great and thoughtful read.
|
|
|
Most recent customer reviews
|
by Sir Karl Raimund Popper
by Karl Popper
by Karl Popper
by Karl Popper
