Revision as of 18:51, 1 August 2009 editSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,555,362 editsm Signing comment by 209.144.236.24 - "I commented about the one-sidedness of the legacy section."← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:13, 19 September 2009 edit undoLestrade (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,147 edits →Critique of Marx and Hegel ?Next edit → | ||
Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
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.{{unsigned|81.224.241.132}} | 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.{{unsigned|81.224.241.132}} | ||
: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) | :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 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 should be downplayed, as it now is in the article.] (]) 05:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)Lestrade |
Revision as of 05:13, 19 September 2009
Philosophy: Literature Unassessed | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Books Unassessed | |||||||
|
Why the apparent surprise that it was first printed (by RKP) in London! 80.177.213.144
Tragic Legacy?
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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.144.236.24 (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Downloading
Any idea whether this can be downloaded somewhere?
OPEN SOCIETY 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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.224.241.132 (talk • contribs)
- 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. Nsk92 (talk) 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 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 should be downplayed, as it now is in the article.Lestrade (talk) 05:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)Lestrade
Categories: