RFI: Karl Popper's Open Society & Its Enemies

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Can someone tell me a bit about this work? I'm just beginning to read it, and I'm just curious about everybody's thoughts on this, or prehaps an intro to it.

It seems kinda...relevant, nowadays

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Tuesday, 24 January 2006 17:39 (twenty years ago)

Basically - all famous thinkers throughout history are enemies of the open society. That was what I took from it.

DV (dirtyvicar), Tuesday, 24 January 2006 17:58 (twenty years ago)

Really. that's it?

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Tuesday, 24 January 2006 20:00 (twenty years ago)

Well... maybe it's just that the History of Political Thought course I did used it as one of the readings, and he was very down on Plato and Marx, and probably Machiavelli as well, and they were the only ones I looked at.

It is however possible I am imagining all this and I never actually opened the pages of this book.

DV (dirtyvicar), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 10:56 (twenty years ago)

Nah, it's a fair summary. Utopian philosophers are bad, laissez-faire is great.

'Curt' Russell (noodle vague), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 11:46 (twenty years ago)

hegel = anti-christ

The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 12:25 (twenty years ago)

u cd say he took british anti-naturalist philosophy into political theory.

The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 12:25 (twenty years ago)

So we've established he was a total dick then?

Vicious Cop Kills Gentle Fool (Dada), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 12:30 (twenty years ago)

well... he needs to be answered. hegel was a dick, also.

The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 12:35 (twenty years ago)

The big chunky chalk path between Bodhidharma, Hume, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Ayer and Derrida needs to be drawn out more carefully.

'Curt' Russell (noodle vague), Thursday, 26 January 2006 00:20 (twenty years ago)

eighteen years pass...

I don’t know how I ended up in this book at all, but it’s clear and very strong argumentation is pretty bracing. I am enjoying its clarity. Not done yet, I’m at the “why historicism is illegit” part in his evaluation and explanation of marx. This is a bit out of my depth, though I understand the arguments and have enough background study to get who and what he’s going on about. As one with good history education but not much of philosophy, I am quite surprised that many of his criticisms of parts of marx’s approach match my own heuristics re marx. i wonder how much of my general late 20th c education handed me popper’s argument without my real awareness of popper proper.

anyway, yeah, it’s interesting.

so far i didn’t get a sense of “laissez faire = good” so much as “the alternatives we got from plato and hegel are fascist for the former, and compromised, false, and self-interested for the latter.”

well below the otm mendoza line (Hunt3r), Monday, 15 July 2024 20:25 (one year ago)

Lol “its”

well below the otm mendoza line (Hunt3r), Monday, 15 July 2024 20:26 (one year ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.