| Revision as of 19:13, 21 October 2009 editPollinosisss (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers26,435 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:53, 12 October 2010 edit undoSmackBot (talk | contribs)3,734,324 editsm Subst: {{unsigned}} (& regularise templates)Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{ |
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=|class=c|literature=yes}} | ||
| {{WikiProject Books | |||
| {{WPBooks | |||
| |class = | |class = | ||
| |needs-infobox= | |needs-infobox= | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
| == Critique of Marx and Hegel ? == | == 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. |
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) | :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 | 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 | ||
Revision as of 11:53, 12 October 2010
 | Philosophy: Literature C‑class | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
 | 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 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.Lestrade (talk) 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.Lestrade (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Lestrade