| Revision as of 01:59, 7 September 2017 editBrachney (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users871 edits Inappropriate?← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 11:21, 10 January 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,355,391 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 2 WikiProject templates. Merge {{VA}} into {{WPBS}}. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Philosophy}}, {{WikiProject Books}}. |
| (15 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=mid|class=c|literature=yes|social=yes|contemporary=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=mid|literature=yes|social=yes|contemporary=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Books|class=c|needs-infobox=}} |
|
{{WikiProject Books|needs-infobox=}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{archives}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== The spell or the age of Plato? == |
|
== ? == |
|
|
Why the apparent surprise that it was first printed (by RKP) in London! ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The text of this article subtitles vol 1 as "the spell of Plato" which matches my copy, and numerous online references, and the material of the book. The image however is "the age of Plato" which is odd ] (]) 16:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC) |
|
== Tragic Legacy? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Extensive rewrite of the summary, 2023-02-22 == |
|
Popper is typically respected, though criticized, by the people I read, however, I find it striking that a discussion of the book's legacy describes only criticism, but ho praise. I'm listening to a discussion of Popper as I write, from professor Jeremy Shearmur a student of Popper, who says that the reaction from people who were keen on Plato was that what he said about Plato wasn't sound, but that he really got Marx right, and that the people who still followed Marx would say the opposite, that his criticism of him hadn't fit, but that he really had the problems with Plato. In view of this I doubt that the legacy section was written with a view toward impartiality. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Today, 2023-02-22, I have completely remade the summary section of this article, summarizing the book in a way that reflects its table of contents, and highlighting Popper's key concepts and their definitions. I am making a note of this in case someone has complaints about this major revision and would like to add them in a reply to me here. ] (]) 19:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
== Downloading == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: I'm not a fan, TBH. What was there before was punchier, and gave a better flavour of the book and Popper's argument. Yours veers off into blandness ] (]) 21:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
Any idea whether this can be downloaded somewhere? |
|
|
|
::I believe that the details about the book should be preserved, especially the highlighted terms that Popper defines in the book, and the new summary addresses the issues mentioned in earlier talk page comments about the summary overemphasizing some parts of the book and downplaying others, since now every chapter is covered, and the summary has become more easily extensible. However, your criticism inspired me to add a paragraph to the introduction section that preserves many elements of the earlier summary, which should help people get a simple "punchy" overview of the book along the lines of what the page used to say. ] (]) 21:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Archived outdated comments, 2023-07-02 == |
|
OPEN SOCIETY |
|
|
|
I have archived most of this talk page, creating archive 1. Most of it was outdated by the time I wrote the topic about my major revision, but I think I didn't know how to make archives back then. ] (]) 01:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
Wasn't one of Popper's major points that modern societies are ever more dependent on technology to progress, that technology depends on science, and that science only flourishes where there is a free exchange of ideas? In liberal democracies, that is, rather than under totalitarian regimes. |
|
|
|
|
|
This would seem to be bourne out but events when Popper was writing (1945) and since. Fascism was defeated; Soviet Russia collapsed, whilst the West flourished. |
|
|
|
|
|
The issue is more pertient than ever, with the emergence of China--now and historically--a totalitarian regime. The contrast with India is instructive: it has been a democracy since 1948, and is now beginning to flourish in several scientific/technological areas. The barriers to free though there seem to depend principally on poverty, social inequality, and the entrenched caste system. |
|
|
|
|
|
China--what, 3000 years ago?--is credited with a number of technological advances, then seemed to stop. Anyone know why? My hunch is encroaching bureaucracy and the invention of the memo. My hunch, too, is that some of the advances credited to early Chinese society were actually stolen from elsewhere, though perhaps refined in China. |
|
|
|
|
|
See my comments on umbrella. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Critique of Marx and Hegel ? == |
|
|
This article only describes Poppers critique of Plato. His critique of Hegel and Marx, which must be recognised as a very important piece of work, is only mentioned.<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|
|
:I agree, at the moment the presentation is rather unbalanced and the portion of the article dealing with volume 2 of the book needs to be expanded. ] (]) 02:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
Heaven forbid that we should encourage readers to think negatively about Hegel and Marx. Our entire academic endeavor in the U.S. for the last 45 years has been to present these two in a positive aspect to students. Now that we are finally developing and progressing into the post–capitalist phase of our history, it is especially important that Hegel and Marx be shown in a flattering light. Therefore, Popper's criticism of Hegel and Marx should be downplayed, as it now is in the article, and criticism of Popper should be emphasized.] (]) 05:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)Lestrade |
|
|
::According to the article, Walter Kaufmann claimed that "Popper's views are based on an incomplete reading of Hegel, suggesting that 'Popper has relied largely on Scribner’s Hegel Selections, a little anthology for students that contains not a single complete work.' " However, in his "Notes to Chapter 12," Popper wrote: "Quotations from the ''Selections'' will, however, be accompanied by references to editions of the original texts." Popper always referenced either Hegel's ''Sämtliche Werke'', 1927, or ''Encyclopädie'', 1870. Kaufmann tried to make it seem as though Popper merely used an abbreviated booklet of partial selections. This information is difficult to include here in the main article, but I will try.] (]) 16:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Lestrade |
|
|
|
|
|
::The article says: |
|
|
<blockquote> |
|
|
:: Kaufmann also views Popper as betraying the scientific method he proposes so passionately and instead is "intent on psychologizing the men he attacks." In fact, Kaufmann accuses Popper of using the same distorting methods of which totalitarians are also guilty.</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
::Those remarks, and Popper's reputation amongst his students as abrasive, impatient, and intolerant has led to some suggesting his book would have been better entitled: |
|
|
::"The Open Society and its Enemies by One of their Number" ] (]) 10:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== rm Valery Staricov's additions: why == |
|
|
|
|
|
VS added a pile of new stuff and I don't think it belongs. One section (intention) was so badly written it appeared to be gibberish and was heavily rewritten. But I killed that too ] (]) 20:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== "Oracular philosophy" == |
|
|
|
|
|
Dear colleagues, recently I wrote an article ] in Russian Misplaced Pages, but I found unexpectedly that I can't find any mentionings of this term outside of Popper's "Open society and its enemies". (And it is strange for me that this article does not exist in English Misplaced Pages. Is it possible that Popper was the only one who used this term?) As a corollary, a ] appeared on the destiny of this article, and I am afraid, it will be deleted eventually. Can anybody help me to find other references so that the article could be preserved? ] (]) 23:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:Hi friend, may be helpful. I think one reason the term "oracular philosophy" has not caught on is that it is (ironically) a fairly broad and vague way to refer to a large body of work. |
|
|
:Doing a little search, I'm surprised to find there's no page called "Criticisms of continental philosophy"—only "]" itself, and then with no Criticism section! Anyway, good luck with whatever develops :-) ] (]) 13:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Thank you for your answer! Yes I tried google scholar, but it's difficult for me to retrieve those articles, since I am living in Russia. It will take some time and I am afraid I will be late, the decision will be made by that time. Could you, please, explain me whether this is indeed fatal that I a refer only to Popper? Does this automatically mean (by the rules of Misplaced Pages) that the article can't be notable? (That is the main accusation against my article.) And besides this I gave several quotations that are absent in Popper's book, is it also bad? ] (]) 14:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:: P.S. From abstracts of these articles in google scholar I can't understand whether they indeed contain something useful. ] (]) 14:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Regarding the removal of "negative" material == |
|
|
|
|
|
Alberto cassone a large amount of properly cited material from this article, with the edit summary, "The section "Reception and influences" was unbalanced, negative reception of the book being dominant in it. I've restored a balance between positive and negative reception." I have restored the "negative" material that was removed. The relevant policy is ], which states that, "All encyclopedic content on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Note that this does ''not'' mean that material must be, for example, exactly 50% positive and exactly 50% negative. "Balance" of that kind is not aimed at by Misplaced Pages's content policies. Rather, the policies aim at ensuring that the article reflects reliable sources. If reliable sources happen to primarily depict a topic in a negative light, then an article about it is going to do so also. There is never an excuse for removing "negative" but properly cited material simply on the grounds that one happens to dislike or disagree with it. Without exception, edits that are made for that reason always lower the quality of articles. I suggest to Alberto cassone that rather than erasing "negative" content that he may personally disagree with, but which other readers of Misplaced Pages may find interesting or helpful, he instead add properly cited positive material about ''The Open Society and Its Enemies''. ] (]) 05:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
FKC: As I've said, I'm done with this page. Just show ANY philosopher the page as it was before I started editing it, and the way it is now. And yet, every inch of the way, I had to deal with FKC. And, a look at the history of this page, shows that I'm not the only one being instantly and arbitrarily reverted. Misplaced Pages depends on the willingness of earlier contributors to accept improvements. "FreeKnowledgeCreator" has, obviously, problems with this approach, and for some mysterious reason, his views prevail. When I first started with this page, which covers one of my all-time favorite books, I couldn't believe how flawed it was, how it even failed to capture the book's basic points. Anyway, the matter for me is closed. This entry, to FKC's credit (who permitted changes after prolonged negotiations), is acceptable now. So, there are millions of other entries, and most of them are conflict-free. So, Ciao, karl Popper and FKC. |
|
The text of this article subtitles vol 1 as "the spell of Plato" which matches my copy, and numerous online references, and the material of the book. The image however is "the age of Plato" which is odd William M. Connolley (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Today, 2023-02-22, I have completely remade the summary section of this article, summarizing the book in a way that reflects its table of contents, and highlighting Popper's key concepts and their definitions. I am making a note of this in case someone has complaints about this major revision and would like to add them in a reply to me here. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
I have archived most of this talk page, creating archive 1. Most of it was outdated by the time I wrote the topic about my major revision, but I think I didn't know how to make archives back then. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
