Talk:The Open Society and Its Enemies

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Eozhik (talk | contribs) at 23:58, 29 December 2013 (→"Oracular philosophy": new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:58, 29 December 2013 by Eozhik (talk | contribs) (→"Oracular philosophy": new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Philosophy: Literature / Social and political / Contemporary C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophical literature
	Social and political philosophy
	Contemporary philosophy

Books C‑class

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

?

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

The article says:

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.

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" Myles325a (talk) 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 William M. Connolley (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

"Oracular philosophy"

Dear colleagues, recently I wrote an article "Oracular philosophy" in Russian Misplaced Pages, but I found out 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 discussion appeared on the destiny of this article, and I am afraid, it will be deleted eventually. Can anybody help me to find other sources so that the article could be preserved? Eozhik (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Categories: