The Open Society and Its Enemies: Volume 1: The Spell of Plato (Routledge Classics)

I read part 1 although couldnt say now how critical he was of Plato. Second time I read the Republuc I thought it ironic but looked at it again and wasnt sure. Hope to read on Marx one day.

As promised, the book arrived on time and in good condition

Quite simply one of the best books out there

Perfect.

Very good as a critic to Plato's work.

EXCELLENT

Well received

This book is a superb adjunct to anyone wishing to understand the Social science of Plato. The central thrust of Poppers thesis is that Plato was for the large part preoccupied with the well being of the ruling Aristocratic classes of Athens, and displayed an often savagely critical and hard view of the Slaves and lower classes. His Republic was not by any modern notions of Democracy an open or just society with equality as its bedrock. A central Platonic theme is the corruption and degeneration of all forms of life including political life, and that change is a corrupting force whereas non-movement preserves in as pristine a state as possible the all that is pure in life. In political and societal terms, the tribal society is eulogised as that most perfect of political states. It does not take a huge leap of understanding to realise that in the laboratory of human history of the last 2000 years, this form of thinking has had a profound influence on the development of racist concepts of societal ordering, particularly by Western Elites. They after all were for centuries reared on Platonic thinking as a primary and most perfect source of Political scientific thinking.Popper writes clearly and compellingly arguing against the notion that Plato is democratic in the sense we think of democracy and this is a huge intellectual step to take forward in slaying the father so to speak. This book is an exceptionally important book for getting to grips with Platonic theory and challenging some of the overvalued ideas or assumptions about Greek democracy, much of which has filtered down to the modern day with all the paradoxes and inconsistencies which we have witnessed in recent history, as a result of an imperfect understanding of democracy, based as Popper would have it, on a fundamentally flawed understanding of the Platonic standpoint.Nowhere is it clearer than today that Tribalism and its larger scale form Nationalism are hardly perfect original forms of Governance but are the source of untold human suffering and misery, and that the modern systems of Governance are in many respects the great fruits of positive change, a concept that is an oxymoron to Plato.

This was the Volume I of Karl Popper magnum opus. I'm still trying to find Volume II. I ordered it on Amazon, but the seller sent me Volume I, instead. The seller refunded my money, but I still don't have Volume II. Anyway, this is a non-fiction history of the early Greek push for a stable (he calls it "open") society, free from tyranny. Karl has a problem dealing with the spiritual side of persons. He apparently wasn't a very spiritual person, so he dismisses the ethical and moral implications of modern spirituality as "taboos". I guess he didn't read far enough into the Judeo-Christian scriptures to reach the Two Great Commandments. Those commandments are not "the 65 MPH Speed Limit" for people's behavior. They are "Newton's Laws of Motion" for people's behavior. Unless a person has a chemical imbalance or a physical defect in their brain, they cannot break the Two Great Commandments. Mr. Popper never read that part of Judeo-Christian theology. So, he incorrectly believed that Judeo-Christian theology still revolved around "taboos", and "thou shalt not ...". He is correct in thinking that the Old Testament view of "thou shalt not" is like trying to push a length of chain so that it is straight. Try it; it can't be done. You can push and shove that length of chain until your heart breaks. It will never come out straight. Enter a construction worker from Nazareth. HE says, "Grab the chain by either end and pull it; the chain is immediately straight." Yeah, HE said, "Regardless of whether you want to or not, you will follow that thing you have called your god with your whole heart and soul and mind and strength and will. And whether you want to or not, you cannot treat another person fundamentally better than you treat yourself; you will condemn them for things you feel guilty for doing yourself, and you will praise them for the behaviors you like best about yourself." HE didn't say it in those exact words, but that's what it comes out meaning. Sans the understanding of the Two Great Commandments, Mr. Popper incorrectly believed that the Judeo-Christian ethic was stuck in Deuteronomy. So why the 5-Star rating, if he messed up his analysis? Well, he correctly describes the evil that wants to destroy civilization. He correctly describes how evil people will exploit the tendency for people to want to shirk their responsibilities in order to turn civilization backwards. It is hard work being civilized. It is hard work taking responsibility for your own mistakes. It is hard work having to be mindful, thoughtful, and deliberate in your actions. As Rudyard Kipling observed, "If you don't fight it, the jungle will run in." He is correct in that.

Had issues with an already opened packet!

Popper ist klug. Popper ist klar. Popper heutzutage noch haben auszulesenden von jedem aufgeklärten Subjekt als ein Gegenmittel gegen die totalitäre Ideologie. Aber all dies schließt nicht aus die Suche und der Fund beide Wahrheit und Inspiration in Plato dass er kritisiert für die angeblichen Folgen seine Theorien hatte in der 20 Jahrhundertgeschichte. Aber Popper hat seine schreckliche Mängel besitzen: seine Erkenntnistheorie lächerlich und Begrenzung [woher er sich versuchte zu sein eine Art von "totalitärer Tyrann" im Reich von Wissenschaften begrenzt ist]. Und ich bin mir nicht sicher wer im langen Lauf betrachtet wird Philosoph der wahre Genie durch die Nachwelt. Ob das Popper selbst sein würde, oder diese origineller Denker, zu wessen Arbeiten die ganze europäische Philosophie ist nur ein endloser Kommentar, und denen Popper wagt zu so rau kritisieren zwei und halbes tausend nachher er war gegangen.

Popper wrote this book for me and for people like me, i.e. for people who stand in awe of Plato simply because he is Plato.I read Plato's Republic in 1985 or thereabouts. I had learned of the allegory of the cave in class and wanted to know more. Also, in one M*A*S*H episode, the Republic was among the books Frank Burns was burning, so of course I had to read it. I did, and apart from Book One's denunciation of the maxim "Might Makes Right", I felt uneasy about the rest of the work. At the time, I felt that there must have been something wrong with me, that I wasn't reading it right, that after all having stood the test of time for over two thousand years Plato simply couldn't be wrong. If only I had known of Popper in 1985!Popper is in many ways pointing out the obvious: that Emperor Plato is wearing no clothes. His Republic is nothing more than a totalitarian state and his value system represses the individual in favour of the State.Popper begins by describing what he calls "Historicism" or the belief that history develops according to laws from which the future could be predicted, with Heraclitus being the first "historicist". Popper then continues with an overview Plato's thought, especially his Theory of Forms and his brilliant sociological insights. He then exposes over three chapters Plato's political programme to bring about a perfect City-State, and here is where Popper points out the obvious: Plato's Republic is a totalitarian state that controls every facet of the lives of all its citizens and represses any every invidual path to happiness.In the last chapter, Popper sketches out how an Open Society would work and gives the example of Athens just before Plato. Unlike others who have savaged Plato (e.g. Ayn Rand) Popper doesn't lay out a master plan to replace Plato's. He doesn't believe in utopias, Platonic or otherwise. Popper believes in what he calls "Piecemeal Social Engineering" i.e. fixing problems as they come up, or improving institutions when the opportunity arises.This is Popper's Open Society. One where we accept that things are as they are, that they can be improved, that individuals are the only judges of their own happiness and that they should have complete freedom to pursue it as they see fit, insofar as they don't harm others too much. His test for an Open Society is very simple: a society is open if its government can change without bloodshed.In 1948, Scott Buchanan wrote, in the introduction to Penguin's Portable Plato, that "the reading of Plato's dialogues by a large number of people could make the difference between a century of folly and a century of wisdom for the world". Perhaps, but only if the reader approches Plato without awe and with a critical mind. As did Popper.Vincent Poirier, Tokyo

This book, written as a sustained critique of the social philosophy of Plato, is one of the best statements of classical liberalism I have encountered. The basic message of Popper's book is that an open (free) society is characterized by the presence of criticism, discussion, and participatory reform. Popper finds occassion to contrast this view of society with the philosophy of Plato, one of the great minds of the western intellectual tradition. And it is interesting to note that in the preface Popper writes that he chose to attack Plato only because he is so revered.Plato, it must be remembered, lived in Athens at a time when democracy was being introduced. Plato witnessed the displacement of many of his friends from political positions of power, and was shocked by the social turmoil that these changes engendered. Plato saw these changes as extremely bad, and concluded that all change is necessarily destructive and degenerating because he conceived the origin of society as consisting of pure forms of absolute objects such as good, beauty, perfection, etc.The task before him was to find a way of preventing (or arresting) change, so that degeneration and social decline could be avoided. He believed it was necessary to divide society into three classes: the rulers, the warriors, and the workers. In order to arrest change, there must never be disunion in the ruler class. To accomplish this, it was proposed that property be abolished in this class, and the family destroyed, since famililal loyalties often lead to political conflict. No mixing between the classes should be tolerated, and Plato argued that special methods of breeding should be employed among the different classes to ensure "racial purity."For Plato, then, the chief aim of the "philosopher king" was to arrest change by preserving harmonious union among the ruling class. This could be achieved only by dividing society into classes the purpose of which was to specify in advance the activities that could be performed by each.The concluding chapters are more positive, and attempt to introduce alterntative political arrangements that would do a great deal in promoting an "open society." This would include the existence of democracy, critical discussion, change, "piecemeal" reform, and so on. Popper sees utopian programs like Plato's as exemplary of tyranny. They preserve taboos, dogmas, rigid social inequities, power, etc. Only until alternative views are permitted can we hope to bring into existence a free and open society.A wonderfully insightful book, and especially useful against those who see Plato as the founder of humanitarianism based on the principle of The Philosopher King.