Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
65 of 68 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Excellent book, highly recommended, 24 Feb 2004
Plato is arguably the most famous philosopher of all time, seen by many as setting the foundations of Western philosophy. Because of this making an effective criticism of Plato is not only a difficult task; but also an undoubtedly interesting premise for a book.Even before the argument begins there is a stark example of what is to come. Two quotes; one by Pericles the other by Plato, immediately illustrate what the book is going to be like. The second quote is so horrifically totalitarian that it is shocking to see it comes from Plato. Because it is pointed out that both men where from Athens, and were separated by only about 80 years the effect is even more striking. Put simply, Popper outlines Plato’s ideas and explains why he believes that many of them are fundamentally anti-democratic and authoritarian, even totalitarian. Plato attacks were due to his dissatisfaction with the ever changing material world and with the open, abstract society that democratic Athens was becoming – that our society has become. In the book "Introducing Political Philosophy" Dave Robinson points out the more common objections against Popper's criticism, that his argument is retrospective and philosophers such as Plato cannot be blamed for the later abuse of their ideas. It’s certainly true that Popper doesn’t mince his words in this book; clearly stating the ways in which many of Plato’s beliefs are totalitarian, at one point he goes as far to say that Plato’s ideas regarding education and Philosopher Kings are a betrayal of the memory of his mentor Socrates. However, Popper never goes too over the top. You constantly get the sense that Popper knows what he is talking about and his strong opinions only serve to make the book more enjoyable. Besides this Popper appears to have already answered the problems pointed by critics like Robinson; an example of this is when Popper points out that Plato's concept of justice is not only unjust by modern definitions but would also have been so in the eyes of ancient Athenians. If it is true that Plato’s ideas could have been seen as authoritarian at the time as well as from a modern view surely it would be unfair to criticize Popper argument for being retrospective.
Whatever the case, it is definitely an interesting argument and the clear and systematic way in which Popper sets out this and the other points of his argument is what makes this book so satisfying. Everything has a purpose, which Popper outlines before hand, so that you never get the feeling you are reading the meaningless rambling that many philosophy books fall into. An example would be Sartre's “Being and Nothingness”, which although an important book with several interesting ideas too often becomes bogged down in repetition and obtuse phrases. Indeed such charge could be levelled at much of Plato’s writing. Because some people do not like the way in which Plato writes I would go as far as to recommend “Open Society…” as a good introduction to Plato’s major ideas. Particularly as I thought the Writers and Readers book “Plato for Beginners” was below average for a series that I would usually recommend for people looking for clear, easy to read introduction to different philosophers. I think the Routledge Classics edition of Popper’s “Open Society…” is probably the best available because it is well made with good typeset and at £10 is good value for money. However, be aware that about half of this edition is taken up with notes. I did not mind this, it gives the reader a choice: to leave them out in which case the book is quite a quick, but still effecting read – or to have the extra detail. I haven’t read them completely but they seem quite interesting. Another book I would recommend that deals with similar themes to Popper’s is “The Fear of Freedom” by Erich Fromm. It looks at the ways in which living in an open society (similar to the society Popper tries to defend against the attacks of Plato) and the freedoms this entails can put psychological pressures on people that they often try to escape, and the various methods they use. The effort I’ve put into this review as well as its content should put across that I thought this book was well worth reading. I am certainly going to buy the second volume and would recommend to anyone at all interested in philosophy the buy the first.
|
|
|
8 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Brilliantly handled, 20 Aug 2007
This is a review of part one of the book, which deals with Plato.
The Open Society is an incredibly fair and engrossing read. I think Popper's is a robust and well-researched deconstruction of Plato's historicist ideas.
Popper argues that Plato's theory of the Forms grew out of his deep psychological need for assurance that ultimate reality was secure, unchanging, and stable, in stark contrast to the political turmoil and rapid social change he witnessed around him.
Further, Popper argues that Plato's theory of history was historicist, that is, based on the belief that there are unalterable laws to history which can be understood so that prophesies about the future course of events can be made. However, Popper shows that Plato allowed that these laws could in fact be violated, but only by a trained elite.
Popper shows that the ideal society for Plato was one in which the collective interest would take precedent over individual interests - but the so-called `collective interest' would be none other than that of a ruling caste, not the entire society. In fact, Plato's thought is shown to be suffused with crude and sentimental racialism. Plato proposes that each of us is made of a specific metal, and that depending on the metal with which we are born, we are supposed to be a philosopher, soldier, tradesman or slave (although the difference between these last two is largely nominal). To mix metals is a recipe for disaster, as it would upset the social equilibrium, which for Plato is the cardinal sin. The solution is to stop all mixing of metals, by force if necessary, which in practice results in a static society where those at the bottom (those born with the most coarse metal) stay at the bottom. This is morally justified by a specious and arbitrary metaphysical claim.
It is liberating to see Plato taken off his pedestal, not with empty slander, but with intellectual rigour. Nobody should be beyond criticism. I cannot understand why some people have deemed fit to accuse Popper of having deliberately skewed the writings of Plato to suit his ends. On the contrary, Popper has done everything conceivable to substantiate his claims: indeed, the footnotes collected together at the end of the work are nearly as long as the book itself!
|
|
|
9 of 11 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Not exactly his finest moment..., 2 Nov 2008
This book consists of two volumes, which really demand two different reviews, but as this does not seem to be possible a double review will have to do.
The first volume, "The Spell of Plato", is compellingly written and fairly well researched, but sixty years on from its writing its flaws are easily spotted. Plato, according to Popper, was an anti-democratic, proto-nazi eugenicist - as well as being a great philosopher. Indeed, Plato was openly against the democracy in Athens at the time, but Popper is wrong to consider Plato's arguments an outdated case for totalitarianism. Instead, Plato wanted us to govern wisely, based on knowledge gained through reasoning and experience rather than impulse, be that the impulse of a dictator or the impulse of the masses.
And far from being outdated, Plato's case still resonates strongly - few suggest that the day to day governing of the nation should be returned to the citizenry (limited or not) as it was in Plato's time. Running of the country is left to university educated civil servants and politicians who are rarely subjected to election, at least compared to the monthly/annual elections in Athens or as proposed by Marx, and running of the economy is left to talented CEOs, managers, bank personnel and others who virtually never have to take the whims of the masses into consideration. One wonders what Plato would think of modern society were he alive today - and I believe that he would be perfectly content with its synthesis of good governing based on knowledge and acknowledgement, if not complete adherence to, the will of the people. Plato towards the end of his life began to realise that simple dictatorship was a poor method of governing, revising his ideal state to limit the powers of the monarch. Far from a fascist reacting to his changing world, Plato was a lover of wisdom, and a pursuer of a means to bring wisdom to where it matters most - our rulers.
While the first volume is a fine piece, though wholly wrong, the second volume is frankly embarrassing. The section on Hegel, who I personally have little time for, is essentially an extended ad hominem. Hegel is described as a talentless, nationalistic, racist, proto-nazi anti-semite - I'm ashamed I'm not making this up. The critique of dialectics is brief, uninformative and unconvincing. I would advise you to google at this point, there are some excellent expositions of the dubious tactics and poor scholarship employed in the Hegel section.
Finally there is the section on Marx, which while better than the hilariously bad Hegel section often descends into frivolous argument based on pretty much anything Popper can find to criticise. At one point Popper draws attention to Engel's argument that any revolution should avoid bloodshed, and should only turn to violence if the state began shooting at the masses. A justified statement to any person surely - but Popper spends the next pages arguing that not only was this a foolish statement, but it inadvertently caused the rise of Hitler. You will not be surprised to learn I very nearly gave up reading at this point. The fact that Marx was a great proponent of a revived Athenian style democracy, with the masses rather than an elite citizenry running every aspects of their lives, is ignored by Popper who casts the "conquest of power" by the proletariat in a very negative light - and one hopes this ignorance is due to poor scholarship rather than any attempt at censorship. The few good arguments in the section were on economics, and presumably gifts from Hayek. The rest is for the most part garbage, and a source of the vile myth that Marx and Hegel were ultimately responsible for the atrocities of the Nazi regime.
Popper can be forgiven for some of the problems of this book. The great threat of totalitarianism was far from subsided in the months after the Second World War that Popper wrote this book, and the promises of new, informed "social engineering" as Popper proposes and a strong democracy seemed to be a good one. It is perfectly understandable that Popper would therefore cross the boundaries of good philosophising and good argument occasionally to oppose the former and support the latter. But, particularly in the second volume, the often deceitful tactics and wilful ignorance of the subjects he is discussing becomes too much - and reveals the Open Society as a book not worthy of being written by one of the 20th Centuries great thinkers.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Karl Popper
by Karl Popper
by F.A. Hayek
