The Open Society and It's Enemies by Karl Popper

[Odin2005]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Society_and_Its_Enemies

IMO the threat of Neoconservatism has made this classic work of political philosophy a must read. The political philosophy of Leo Strauss, the grandfather of Neoconservatism, was heavily influenced by Plato's reactionary totalitarianism, especially Plato's statement that the rulers should spread "useful lies" as a means of social control. It was this kind of BS Popper criticized in The Open society.

The Open Society and Its Enemies is an influential two-volume work by Karl Popper written during World War II. Failing to find a publisher in the United States, it was first printed in London, in 1945.

In The Open Society and Its Enemies, Popper developed a critique of historicism and a defense of the open society, liberal democracy. The book comes in two volumes, volume one subtitled "The Spell of Plato", and volume two, "The High Tide of Prophecy: Hegel, Marx, and the Aftermath"

The subtitle of the first volume is also its central premise — namely, that most Plato interpreters through the ages have been seduced by his greatness. In so doing, Popper argues, they have taken his political philosophy as a benign idyll, rather than as it should be seen: a horrific totalitarian nightmare of deceit, violence, master-race rhetoric, and eugenics.

Contrary to major Plato scholars of his day, Popper divorced Plato's ideas from those of Socrates, claiming that the former in his later years expressed none of the humanitarian and democratic tendencies of his teacher. In particular, he accuses Plato of betraying Socrates in the Republic, wherein he portrays Socrates sympathizing with totalitarianism (see: Socratic problem).

Popper extols Plato's analysis of social change and discontent, yet rejects his solutions. This is dependent on Popper's reading of the emerging humanitarian ideals of Athenian democracy as the birth pangs of his coveted "open society." In his view, Plato's historicist ideas are driven by a fear of the change that comes with such a liberal worldview. Popper also suggests that Plato was the victim of his own vanity—that he had designs to become the supreme Philosopher King of his vision.

In volume two, Popper moves on to criticise Hegel and Marx, tracing back their ideas to Aristotle, and arguing that the two were at the root of 20th century totalitarianism.

[Dogmudgeon]

1. Yet Popper himself was strongly conservative

The Libertarians have "discovered" him recently, as well as The Open Society and Its Enemies.

--p!

[Odin2005]

3. The Libertarians ABUSED him you mean.

In The Open Society he never said he is opposed to government intervention in the economy, he was against the centralized economic planning promoted by the Marxists.

[WCGreen]

2. Well and that is true...

About Marx and Hagel...

But Good old Plato and Ari also provided a foundation for monotheism as expressed by the Catholic CHurch...

[Odin2005]

4. Plato and Aristotle are SOOOO overrated.

There were plenty other brilliant philosophers in Classical Greece besides those two anti-democratic gasbags. You have Thales of Miletus, who can be considered the founder of Western Philosophy as well as the first physicist, he was the first Greek intellectual to reject myth and superstition. Then there is Democritus, the first major Materialist in the Western tradition and the one who popularized the notion that the universe is made of elementary particles. Socrates's contemporary Protagoras was a clever devil's advocate and a ruthless critic of tradition and social convention, he was also a very big supporter of Athenian Democracy and an agnostic atheist. Socrates himself is hard to understand because most of what we know about him comes from Plato, and Plato had his own agendas.

[WCGreen]

5. I picked up Bertram Russell's History of Western Philosophy

and have found it a very good read...

[Odin2005]

6. Yes it is.

And Russel himself was himself was an extremely interesting character!