The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. 2: Hegel, Marx, and the Aftermath

In this volume, Popper argues against what he calls the prophesies of historicism, and in particular the historicist prophesies of Marx. Of course, Marx didn't view his model of the progression of society as a prophesy but rather as a science grounded in observation. But Popper argues extensively that Marx's historicism cannot be a science. However, one argument that Popper does *not* resort to is that history has proved that Marx's socialism was inferior - simply because that would be resorting to an historicist argument!One key argument Popper puts forth against Marx is that his model of the progression of society failed to predict that there were more options open to society than just unrestrained capitalism and socialism - that is, Marx's model failed to predict the interventionism (or social engineering) that derailed the drive toward socialism in the western world. Or perhaps it was not so much that Marx failed to predict interventionism, but rather that he simply denied its possibility. That is, Marx was certain that no amount of rational action could ever untrack the revolution from unrestrained capitalism to socialism - socialism was, quite simply, the fate of human society.And therein lies Popper's distaste for historicism. He sees historicism not as harmless but as dangerous. It is dangerous precisely because it leads people to discard rational thought and action in favor of submission to fate and destiny.Throughout, Popper advocates democracy. In his view, democracy is the most desirable of the political systems invented by humankind primarily because it lends itself to reform - to peaceful revolution. Another criticism he has of Marx is that Marx always left open the possibility that the socialist revolution would be violent if necessary, even if it required a violent overthrow of a democracy. In Popper's estimation, this would be begging for totalitarianism (if you were to violently oust the democratically elected representatives, who would you replace them with?!). In Popper's opinion, violent revolution should only ever be considered in cases where peaceful reform is not an option (i.e., in anything but a democracy).In wrapping up, Popper waxes philosophic with respect to reason. In doing so, he proposes an interesting definition of rationality: for Popper, rationality is a social process in which individuals participate to achieve consensus. In science, this consensus is on theory; in politics, this consensus is on action. This is in stark contrast to other notions of rationality, such as the Platonic notion that rationality is a personal achievement. Popper argues that the Platonic notion of rationality leads to elitism and aristocratic/caste thinking - it leads one to ask totalitarian questions such as "who should have the power?"; whereas he argues that his notion of rationality leads to egalitarianism, to hearing one another's views and arguments, to respect for one another as individuals - it leads us all to ask democratic questions such as "how should power be controlled?"Add to this the readability and understandability of Popper's prose, and it's a philosophical page-turner if there ever was one.

What did we sell for not thinking? Radio music, Television? Now we just see stupid.

Popper is clever. Popper is clear. Popper nowadays still have to be read by every enlightened subject as an antidote against totalitarian ideology. But all this doesn't preclude searching and finding both truth and inspiration in Hegel and Marx, that he criticizes for the consequences their theories had in 20h century history. But Popper has his shortcomings: his epistemology is ridiculously limited and limiting [where he tried himself to be a kind of "totalitarian dictator" in the Realm of Sciences]. And I'm not sure who in the long run will be considered philosophers of true genius: Popper or the great thinkers he criticized a century after they had gone.

Anyone who is concerned with what's going on in this United States should embrace this difficult to read book. Popper disrobes the illusions, wokeness and grand dialogue fallacy that is degrading our society.

Though I prefer his first volume, that may be a matter of taste. I have loved the ancient Greeks since childhood and had believed since college that the celebration of Plato as a political philosopher was an error. But, reading Popper's take down of Hegel and Marx in vol. 2 is like watching J. J. Watt take down a quarterback. It is one of the most important philosophical books of the 20th century, far exceeding many far more famous ones.

Popper rakes Plato over the coals and dismisses Hegel as a charlatan. Then he treats Marx with kid gloves. What gives? The saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions is all too true and Popper upholds this view when he talks about unintended consequences. If you look at Marx's political action you also discover that he was opposed to the Anarchists, the libertarian branch of socialism. I just can't make heads or tails of the different approach that Popper takes to these various purveyors of totalitarianism. Maybe Popper is only dealing with Marx the thinker, not Marx the politican. I'm much more concerned with the evil after effects of Marxist doctrine. Still today dictators use Marx as an excuse for their bestiality.On a different issue, Popper argues that a theory can never be proven, only falsified and that we use the theory until we find a better one to replace it. In Chapter 24, The Revolt Against Reason, Popper argues against the idea of society being superior to individual humans. For Popper society is just the sum of its parts (with no surplus value). When Popper argues with members of society, it is only a one-on-one dialog. Modern science has a very different view. For the Science of Complexity, the sum of the competing actions of the members of society creates a moving "fitness landscape" that in turn influences the outcome of these actions. In this view, society is more than the sum of its parts and it does influence members as a collective more than as a one-on-one dialog as Popper has it.

This is a well known classic written more than 60 years ago that even our commonplace and leftist noise dominated cultural environment could not silence, therefore it needs no recommendation. Without any professional gobble-dy-gook, in a language and with a argumentation immediately comprehensible to anybody, as well as with the uninhibited boldness of a child, Popper unveils two idols, two big enemies of freedom: Plato and Marx, and puts them where they belong.Efraim Israel

As described

Extraordinario análisis del pensamiento occidental y la construcción civilizatorio de las sociedades de las postguerras del siglo XX

Fast delivery . Tudy purposes

Fossilises the fossils.

Item as described and delivery were in good time exceed my expectations. Most of all great value for money and shopping experience on Amazon. I love a bargain so value for money is important to me, here I get a bit of both quality and value for money.

El libro de segunda mano está en buen estado, tal como se describía y con todas las páginas sin daños. Aunque la cubierta estaba un poco manchada.