|
|
Open Society and Its Enemies (Volume 1) (Paperback)
by Karl R. Popper
| Category:
Nonfiction, Philosophy |
| Market price: ¥ 268.00
MSL price:
¥ 248.00
[ Shop incentives ]
|
| Stock:
Pre-order item, lead time 3-7 weeks upon payment [ COD term does not apply to pre-order items ] |
MSL rating:
 Good for Gifts |
| MSL Pointer Review:
A classic that is everything at the same time: a social thought, a philosophical history and political and social science. A must read. |
| If you want us to help you with the right titles you're looking for, or to make reading recommendations based on your needs, please contact our consultants. |
Detail |
Author |
Description |
Excerpt |
Reviews |
|
|
|
Author: Karl R. Popper
Publisher: Princeton University Press
Pub. in: February, 1971
ISBN: 0691019681
Pages: 368.00
Measurements: 8.5 x 5.4 x 0.9 inches
Origin of product: USA
Order code: BA00438
Other information: 5th Revise edition
|
|
Rate this product:
|
|
- MSL Picks -
For most intellectuals, Popper's research would have been a lifetime of intellectual heavy lifting. But then Popper takes a fillet knife to the murkiest parts of western philosphy, gives it the death of a thousand cuts, and rubs it with salt. And he does it with a combination of good cheer, scientific precision, and a strong dose of scorn.
Popper's critique of Utopian philosophies is straightforward - in a world of mandatory equality and tribal life, there are only peasants. But with no way to excel, the only other career choice is to be a dictator. And since Utopia demands the destruction of imperfect democratic institutions, the seeds of post-Utopian terror are there from the start. Although Popper was largely concerned with Facism, he'd have been right at home in today's world of yuppie ecoterrorists and ethnic cleansing. People that romanticize some sort of modern tribal life don't understand that tribal life means war and hatred. Or, as Popper suggests, they really just an outlet that lets them vent their hatreds while sounding noble.
The overwhelming thing about these books is the depth and breadth of Popper's research. This book leaves the reader with a better understanding of human nature, history, philosophy, and politics. It's a book that truely educates. So Popper gives the best of both worlds - on the one hand there is the pleasure of watching a true master dismantle dangerous popular opinions with a wicked intensity. And on the other hand, it also a critical analysis of philosophy and politics that makes William F. Buckley sound like Forrest Gump.
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.
Last but not least is that The Open Society 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.
Target readers:
General readers
|
|
- Better with -
Better with
Open Society and Its Enemies (Volume 2)
:
|
|
Customers who bought this product also bought:
|
|
Karl Popper (1902-1994). Philosopher, born in Vienna.One of the most famous thinkers of the twentieth century.
|
|
From the Publisher:
Popper was born in 1902 to a Viennese family of Jewish origin. He taught in Austria until 1937, when he emigrated to New Zealand in anticipation of the Nazi annexation of Austria the following year, and he settled in England in 1949. Before the annexation, Popper had written mainly about the philosophy of science, but from 1938 until the end of the Second World War he focused his energies on political philosophy, seeking to diagnose the intellectual origins of German and Soviet totalitarianism. The Open Society and Its Enemies was the result.
In the book, Popper condemned Plato, Marx, and Hegel as "holists" and "historicists" - a holist, according to Popper, believes that individuals are formed entirely by their social groups; historicists believe that social groups evolve according to internal principles that it is the intellectual's task to uncover. Popper, by contrast, held that social affairs are unpredictable, and argued vehemently against social engineering. He also sought to shift the focus of political philosophy away from questions about who ought to rule toward questions about how to minimize the damage done by the powerful. The book was an immediate sensation, and - though it has long been criticized for its portrayals of Plato, Marx, and Hegel - it has remained a landmark on the left and right alike for its defense of freedom and the spirit of critical inquiry.
|
| View all 6 comments |
A Canadian reader (MSL quote), Canada
<2007-01-09 00:00>
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. |
An American reader, USA
<2007-01-09 00:00>
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.
|
Gabriel Nichols (MSL quote), USA
<2007-01-09 00:00>
I greatly enjoyed this book, Popper is one of history's greatest forgotten minds. However I do find myself wondering if Mr. Enigl has seriously read this book? Popper, while certainly an enemy of totalitarianism was not at all an enemy of the use of state power. In fact in several places of the book he deals with the pardox of complete freedom. In particular I would reference this following:
"I believe that the injustice and inhumanity of the unrestrained 'capitalist system' described by Marx cannot be questioned; but it can be interpreted in terms of what we called, in a previous chapter, the paradox of freedom. Freedom, we have seen, defeats itself, if it is unlimited. Unlimited freedom means that a strong man is free to bully one who is weak and to rob him of his freedom. This is why we demand that the state should limit freedom to a certain extent, so that everyone's freedom is protected by law. Nobody should be at the mercy of others, but all should have a right to be protected by the state.
Now I believe that these considerations, originally meant to apply to the realm of brute-force, of physically intimidation, must be applied to the economic realm also. Even if the state protects its citizens from being bullied by physical violence (as it does, in principle, under the system of unrestrained capitalism), it may defeat our ends by its failure to protect them from the misuse of economic power. In such a state, the economically strong is still free to bully one who is economically weak, and to rob him of his freedom. Under these circumstances, unlimited economic freedom can be just as self-defeating as unlimited physical freedom, and economic power may be nearly as dangerious as physical violence; for those who possess as surplus of food can force who are starving into a 'freely' accepted servitude, without using violence. And assuming that the state limits its activities to the suppression of violence (and to the protection of properly), a minority which is economically strong may in this way exploit the majority of those who are economically weak. " |
Vincent Poirier (MSL quote), Japan
<2007-01-09 00:00>
Popper wrote this book for me and for people like me, i.e. for people who stand in awe of Plato simply because he is Plato.
I read Plato's Republic in 1985 or thereabouts. I had learned of the allegory of the cave in class and wanted to know more. Also, in one M*A*S*H episode, the Republic was among the books Frank Burns was burning, so of course I had to read it. I did, and apart from Book One's denunciation of the maxim "Might Makes Right", I felt uneasy about the rest of the work. At the time, I felt that there must have been something wrong with me, that I wasn't reading it right, that after all having stood the test of time for over two thousand years Plato simply couldn't be wrong. If only I had known of Popper in 1985!
Popper is in many ways pointing out the obvious: that Emperor Plato is wearing no clothes. His Republic is nothing more than a totalitarian state and his value system represses the individual in favour of the State.
Popper begins by describing what he calls "Historicism" or the belief that history develops according to laws from which the future could be predicted, with Heraclitus being the first "historicist". Popper then continues with an overview Plato's thought, especially his Theory of Forms and his brilliant sociological insights. He then exposes over three chapters Plato's political programme to bring about a perfect City-State, and here is where Popper points out the obvious: Plato's Republic is a totalitarian state that controls every facet of the lives of all its citizens and represses any every invidual path to happiness.
In the last chapter, Popper sketches out how an Open Society would work and gives the example of Athens just before Plato. Unlike others who have savaged Plato (e.g. Ayn Rand) Popper doesn't lay out a master plan to replace Plato's. He doesn't believe in utopias, Platonic or otherwise. Popper believes in what he calls "Piecemeal Social Engineering" i.e. fixing problems as they come up, or improving institutions when the opportunity arises.
This is Popper's Open Society. One where we accept that things are as they are, that they can be improved, that individuals are the only judges of their own happiness and that they should have complete freedom to pursue it as they see fit, insofar as they don't harm others too much. His test for an Open Society is very simple: a society is open if its government can change without bloodshed.
In 1948, Scott Buchanan wrote, in the introduction to Penguin's Portable Plato, that "the reading of Plato's dialogues by a large number of people could make the difference between a century of folly and a century of wisdom for the world". Perhaps, but only if the reader approches Plato without awe and with a critical mind. As did Popper. |
View all 6 comments |
|
|
|
|
