Short Review of Popper's Open Society and It's Enemies.
Well, the title is pretty clear on what this is, but anyway, it's going to be fun. A quick little intellectual journey anyway, let's see where it takes us.
First of all, some background facts. The book "The Open Society and It's Enemies" was written by the Austrian philosopher Karl Popper, and is now a classic in the analytical school's history of political philosophy, it's also a book that's been widely read by many others, above all statesmen of different kinds. It was first written during the second World War, and was instrumental in establishing a lot of the Western critique towards the Soviet block. It's divided into two parts, the first details Plato, then continues to Hegel and Marx.
Popper isn't exactly pulling punches, and that is sort of liberating in a way, even though it's pretty obvious that he is out to demolish anything totalitarian. Plato is treated like he is a naughty schoolboy who has fallen away from the saint of philosophy, Socrates and become a grumpy old dictator responsible for creating a long, long history of fascist intellectuals and muddling academic life to unrecognizable levels. Hegel is treated with the most disdain, and that is perhaps the best part of the book. His quotes are very illuminating as is his background facts, but he could have stopped somewhere at "Hegel is bad, a bad influence and a terribly bad philosopher who does a lot of damage" and not continue to state what a lousy person he was, how bad he is at writing or how terrible his socks smelled every morning. The Marx part is interesting and that's really why I read it. Lately I've gotten more and more interested in marxism (heh, as you might notice from some of the other posts :P) and I felt that I needed an antidote. I think Popper hits home here, too. He describes Hegel's influence on Marx, and makes note of the many terribly bad parts about Marxism.
They're of course the lack of free will or that your conscience has any meaning, ie, the dialectic of history, what Popper calls (and condems) as historicism. That there is some purpose to history, which, it of course isn't. History has been so terribly mangled as a subject, kings and war isn't what it's about and we shouldn't deceive ourselves into thinking that political repression is what we shouldn't only read about in history, but somehow worship. Brutus was more of a hero than Caesar. Julius Gaius Caesar murdered the Republic, created a totalitarian state and in his conquests he killed thousands upon thousands. Yet, Brutus has always been that enigmatic traitor, the pinnacle of everything bad. In the end, I wonder, perhaps we need a Brutus.
Popper goes on to underline the importance of our own actions, our own conscience. Again and again he upholds Marx love of freedom and his great amount of moral feeling for the oppressed masses, but also holds up what time he lived in to explain some of his ideas. And I can say that it is mostly correct here, too. It is all too easy to justify murder, war and oppression if you're trying to focus on one race, one nation or one class. And philosophers have unfortunately not been very helpful here at all. In fact, Popper goes so far as to blame much of the Nazi scourge and the Stalinists in the Soviet Union on Hegel. And he's right, I think. Romanticism has no place in philosophy. We need rational thinkers who are willing to debate rationally, and who can accept that they might be wrong.
It's a very good book (or set of books) really. It's a good way to both understand some of the totalitarian forces that exist, as well as the dangers of relativism or focus on one specific group above everything else. And it shows where the need is for change in, for one thing, the left. Poppers idea is that we should all embrace the scientific method, that we should be humanists with a respect for others and with a knowledge that we could all be very wrong. But that there really is something along the lines of truth, and that there really is such a thing as change for the better.
Yet... Popper makes a few mistakes here and there, of course. One of them is that he goes out a bit too strongly as I've said above. What was the need for totally assaulting Hegel in that fashion? In an afterword added on later he claims that it was a joke that most of his readers would get, but it felt more like an old man's angry rantings. The Plato part also feels very psychologically affected, it seems like Popper is disappointed in Plato and has a very strange view of what happened. On one hand there is the humanist, humble philosopher Socrates, and on the other is his evil, totalitarian student who takes over after him and twists everything he said. That's a really strange view, considering our lack of knowledge about the Platonic dialogues (which are false, which are Platonic and which are more Socratic, we have good guesses but not anything else). There's also a strange view of Socrates among philosophers, he is considered some sort of saint. But in reality, we know very little about him. There's nothing that says that he was such a great guy as he is upheld by philosophers and professors of the ancient world. I'm not disputing his earnest searching for truth, or the humbleness or anything else, but the dialogues were written for an audience. They were of course changed, Socrates played a -role- in them. I have trouble realizing why a group of people so hell-bent on tearing things down as philosophers haven't attacked this prejudice better.
Plato, also, might not be so malicious as Popper seems to say. The Republic is authoritarian, yes, but it also has some very progressive ideas. Mostly the feminist thoughts, as well as the emphasis on wisdom in government (there are stories about how politicians who have never been to sea were elected to command Greek fleets because of their political and rhetorical sway). Again, I can agree in general but not entirely.
He also makes some very strange analysis, such as saying that capitalism is dead because we no longer have the kind of laissez-faire bloodsucking capitalism that we had in the 19th century. He makes the claim that what the socialists wanted is done. He also makes an odd claim that overarching political effects over a society is not wanted. He makes that claim based on some idea that you should not go into individuals lives. I can't agree to those two for these reasons.
1) Capitalism is very much alive, and it's effects can be viewed through a very Marxist lens still. However, many things have changed since the German boar's days, and he would gladly admit that. Had Marx been alive today he would have sat down and analyzed the Internet, global capitalism, the UN and other similar institutions. We see the same old conflicts between capitalism and people/states/communities as before, it's evident in how we buy the raw material from the Third World cheaply, refine it in the First World and then sell it either here or back to them. It's evident in the usage of cheap, foreign labour in the southwest of the US, in the border between old East Bloc Europe and Western Europe and it's evident in how capitalist powers are stretching into India and even China. The idea that capitalism would be dead is absurd to me, it's evident wherever you go and whoever you talk to. The idea of our present monetary system is ingrained in peoples heads.
2) Popper does say that the only time this happens is when the minister of finance presents his budget. But... I cannot accept that it you cannot make overarching changes and attempts to change from a governmental level. Governments are excellent tools for social progress, whether it be welfare systems (which he don't seem to count, as he cherishes them time and time again) or if they are the kind of campaigns that sponsor for example feminism. We find the exact same thing in anti-violence, anti-segregation policies and much more. Perhaps he just doesn't like the idea of governments getting the power to affect ordinary people in such an overarching way, but I think he misses his own points. If we have an open society (ie, a fully democratic, critical and humane society) then we would see what a government was doing and be able to protest if they were to take bad actions against it's inhabitants. Without that power, however, you lose a valuable tool for social progress.
I also think he often missed the fact that the German Idealists of the 19th century weren't of his branch of philosophy. Now, I don't like the continental school of philosophy much, but it is different and it uses a different vocabulary. Marx was part of it, so was Hegel. You have to understand the language that someone is using if you're trying to figure out what they're saying. When Popper exclaims that he just doesn't understand I think he just made the mistake of not being good enough at realizing the structure and vocabulary of the continental school. But with that said, it's a very good book. It emphasis humanism, anti-historicism, rationality, the need for change, our own falliability and the horrors of any totalitarian regime, no matter what it's name or ideology is.
First of all, some background facts. The book "The Open Society and It's Enemies" was written by the Austrian philosopher Karl Popper, and is now a classic in the analytical school's history of political philosophy, it's also a book that's been widely read by many others, above all statesmen of different kinds. It was first written during the second World War, and was instrumental in establishing a lot of the Western critique towards the Soviet block. It's divided into two parts, the first details Plato, then continues to Hegel and Marx.
Popper isn't exactly pulling punches, and that is sort of liberating in a way, even though it's pretty obvious that he is out to demolish anything totalitarian. Plato is treated like he is a naughty schoolboy who has fallen away from the saint of philosophy, Socrates and become a grumpy old dictator responsible for creating a long, long history of fascist intellectuals and muddling academic life to unrecognizable levels. Hegel is treated with the most disdain, and that is perhaps the best part of the book. His quotes are very illuminating as is his background facts, but he could have stopped somewhere at "Hegel is bad, a bad influence and a terribly bad philosopher who does a lot of damage" and not continue to state what a lousy person he was, how bad he is at writing or how terrible his socks smelled every morning. The Marx part is interesting and that's really why I read it. Lately I've gotten more and more interested in marxism (heh, as you might notice from some of the other posts :P) and I felt that I needed an antidote. I think Popper hits home here, too. He describes Hegel's influence on Marx, and makes note of the many terribly bad parts about Marxism.
They're of course the lack of free will or that your conscience has any meaning, ie, the dialectic of history, what Popper calls (and condems) as historicism. That there is some purpose to history, which, it of course isn't. History has been so terribly mangled as a subject, kings and war isn't what it's about and we shouldn't deceive ourselves into thinking that political repression is what we shouldn't only read about in history, but somehow worship. Brutus was more of a hero than Caesar. Julius Gaius Caesar murdered the Republic, created a totalitarian state and in his conquests he killed thousands upon thousands. Yet, Brutus has always been that enigmatic traitor, the pinnacle of everything bad. In the end, I wonder, perhaps we need a Brutus.
Popper goes on to underline the importance of our own actions, our own conscience. Again and again he upholds Marx love of freedom and his great amount of moral feeling for the oppressed masses, but also holds up what time he lived in to explain some of his ideas. And I can say that it is mostly correct here, too. It is all too easy to justify murder, war and oppression if you're trying to focus on one race, one nation or one class. And philosophers have unfortunately not been very helpful here at all. In fact, Popper goes so far as to blame much of the Nazi scourge and the Stalinists in the Soviet Union on Hegel. And he's right, I think. Romanticism has no place in philosophy. We need rational thinkers who are willing to debate rationally, and who can accept that they might be wrong.
It's a very good book (or set of books) really. It's a good way to both understand some of the totalitarian forces that exist, as well as the dangers of relativism or focus on one specific group above everything else. And it shows where the need is for change in, for one thing, the left. Poppers idea is that we should all embrace the scientific method, that we should be humanists with a respect for others and with a knowledge that we could all be very wrong. But that there really is something along the lines of truth, and that there really is such a thing as change for the better.
Yet... Popper makes a few mistakes here and there, of course. One of them is that he goes out a bit too strongly as I've said above. What was the need for totally assaulting Hegel in that fashion? In an afterword added on later he claims that it was a joke that most of his readers would get, but it felt more like an old man's angry rantings. The Plato part also feels very psychologically affected, it seems like Popper is disappointed in Plato and has a very strange view of what happened. On one hand there is the humanist, humble philosopher Socrates, and on the other is his evil, totalitarian student who takes over after him and twists everything he said. That's a really strange view, considering our lack of knowledge about the Platonic dialogues (which are false, which are Platonic and which are more Socratic, we have good guesses but not anything else). There's also a strange view of Socrates among philosophers, he is considered some sort of saint. But in reality, we know very little about him. There's nothing that says that he was such a great guy as he is upheld by philosophers and professors of the ancient world. I'm not disputing his earnest searching for truth, or the humbleness or anything else, but the dialogues were written for an audience. They were of course changed, Socrates played a -role- in them. I have trouble realizing why a group of people so hell-bent on tearing things down as philosophers haven't attacked this prejudice better.
Plato, also, might not be so malicious as Popper seems to say. The Republic is authoritarian, yes, but it also has some very progressive ideas. Mostly the feminist thoughts, as well as the emphasis on wisdom in government (there are stories about how politicians who have never been to sea were elected to command Greek fleets because of their political and rhetorical sway). Again, I can agree in general but not entirely.
He also makes some very strange analysis, such as saying that capitalism is dead because we no longer have the kind of laissez-faire bloodsucking capitalism that we had in the 19th century. He makes the claim that what the socialists wanted is done. He also makes an odd claim that overarching political effects over a society is not wanted. He makes that claim based on some idea that you should not go into individuals lives. I can't agree to those two for these reasons.
1) Capitalism is very much alive, and it's effects can be viewed through a very Marxist lens still. However, many things have changed since the German boar's days, and he would gladly admit that. Had Marx been alive today he would have sat down and analyzed the Internet, global capitalism, the UN and other similar institutions. We see the same old conflicts between capitalism and people/states/communities as before, it's evident in how we buy the raw material from the Third World cheaply, refine it in the First World and then sell it either here or back to them. It's evident in the usage of cheap, foreign labour in the southwest of the US, in the border between old East Bloc Europe and Western Europe and it's evident in how capitalist powers are stretching into India and even China. The idea that capitalism would be dead is absurd to me, it's evident wherever you go and whoever you talk to. The idea of our present monetary system is ingrained in peoples heads.
2) Popper does say that the only time this happens is when the minister of finance presents his budget. But... I cannot accept that it you cannot make overarching changes and attempts to change from a governmental level. Governments are excellent tools for social progress, whether it be welfare systems (which he don't seem to count, as he cherishes them time and time again) or if they are the kind of campaigns that sponsor for example feminism. We find the exact same thing in anti-violence, anti-segregation policies and much more. Perhaps he just doesn't like the idea of governments getting the power to affect ordinary people in such an overarching way, but I think he misses his own points. If we have an open society (ie, a fully democratic, critical and humane society) then we would see what a government was doing and be able to protest if they were to take bad actions against it's inhabitants. Without that power, however, you lose a valuable tool for social progress.
I also think he often missed the fact that the German Idealists of the 19th century weren't of his branch of philosophy. Now, I don't like the continental school of philosophy much, but it is different and it uses a different vocabulary. Marx was part of it, so was Hegel. You have to understand the language that someone is using if you're trying to figure out what they're saying. When Popper exclaims that he just doesn't understand I think he just made the mistake of not being good enough at realizing the structure and vocabulary of the continental school. But with that said, it's a very good book. It emphasis humanism, anti-historicism, rationality, the need for change, our own falliability and the horrors of any totalitarian regime, no matter what it's name or ideology is.
posted by Björn at 5:57 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home