Open Society and Its Enemies, Volume 2: The High Tide of Prophecy: Hegel, Marx, and the Af

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

Fast delivery . Tudy purposes

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.

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.