The Open Society and Its Enemies

Welcome to r/askphilosophy ! Please read our updated rules and guidelines before commenting. Please note that as of July 1 2023, given recent changes to reddit's platform which make moderation significantly more difficult, r/askphilosophy has moved to only allowing answers by panelists. If you wish to learn more, or to apply to become a panelist, see this post . If you wish to ask a follow-up question, please begin your post with the phrase "Follow-up:", without the quotation marks, or your follow-up question will automatically be removed. I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns. More on reddit.com

My view is that this book is an example of what happens when people from one area try to work in another area without bothering to read up on the relevant literature in the new area. Popper was a celebrated philosopher of science who couldn't recognize the teaching of Plato if it came up to him and punched him in the face. Here is what his contemporary (Eric Voegelin, himself a noted critic of twentieth century totalitarianism) said about the book: I feel completely justified in saying without reservation that this book is impudent, dilettantish crap. Every single sentence is a scandal, but it is still possible to lift out a few main annoyances. The expressions "closed [society]" and "open society" are taken from Bergson's Deux Sources. Without explaining the difficulties that induced Bergson to create these concepts, Popper takes the terms because they sound good to him; [he] comments in passing that in Bergson they had a "religious" meaning; but that he will use the concept of the open society closer to Graham Wallas's "great society" or that of Walter Lippmann. Perhaps I am oversensitive about such things, but I do not believe that respectable philosophers such as Bergson develop their concepts for the sole purpose that the coffeehouse scum might have something to botch. There also arises the relevant problem: if Bergson's theory of open society is philosophically and historically tenable (which I in fact believe), then Popper's idea of the open society is ideological rubbish. For this reason alone, he should have discussed the problem with all the possible care. 2. The impertinent disregard for the achievements in his particular problem area, which makes itself evident with respect to Bergson, runs through the whole work. When one reads the deliberations on Plato or Hegel, one has the impression that Popper is quite unfamiliar with the literature on the subject - even though he occasionally cites an author. In some cases, for example Hegel, I would believe that he has never seen a work like Rosenzweig's Hegel and the State. In other cases, where he cites works without appearing to have perceived their contents, another factor is added: 3. Popper is philosophically so uncultured, so fully a primitive ideological brawler, that he is not able even approximately to reproduce correctly the contents of one page of Plato. Reading is of no use to him; he is too lacking in knowledge to understand what the author says. Through this emerge terrible things, as when he translates Hegel's "Germanic world" as "German world" and draws conclusions from this mistranslation regarding Hegel's German nationalist propaganda. 4. Popper engages in no textual analysis from which can be seen the author's intention; instead he carries the modern ideological cliches directly to the text, assuming that the text will deliver results in the sense of the cliches. It will be a special pleasure for you to hear that, for example, Plato experienced an evolution - from an early "humanitarian" period still recognizable in the Gorgias, to something else (I can't recall any more if "reactionary" or "authoritarian") in the Republic. Briefly and in sum: Popper's book is a scandal without extenuating circumstances; in its intellectual attitude it is the typical product of a failed intellectual; spiritually one would have to use expressions like rascally, impertinent, loutish; in terms of technical competence, as a piece in the history of thought, it is dillettantish, and as a result it is worthless. This is from a private letter to Leo Strauss, dated April 18, 1950. More on reddit.com

Welcome to r/askphilosophy . Please read our rules before commenting and understand that your comments will be removed if they are not up to standard or otherwise break the rules. While we do not require citations in answers (but do encourage them), answers need to be reasonably substantive and well-researched, accurately portray the state of the research, and come only from those with relevant knowledge. I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns. More on reddit.com

It would be best understood as a criticism of certain interpretations of Plato that existed at the time of his writing that may be the intellectual foundations of some totalitarian ways of thinking (so Popper claimed) rather than an accurate representation of Plato's thought.

More on reddit.com