| Revision as of 15:53, 18 November 2005 editJohnHoffman (talk | contribs)2 edits Open Society--Necessary for Science to Flourish← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:30, 27 December 2005 edit undo81.224.241.132 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| See my comments on umbrella. | 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. | |||
Revision as of 17:30, 27 December 2005
Why the apparent surprise that it was first printed (by RKP) in London! 80.177.213.144
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.