Karl Popper on the Open Society (1974)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 มิ.ย. 2021
- A short of clip of Karl Popper discussing the Open Society from a 1974 interview. The translation is mine. For more Popper: • Karl Popper
More Short Clips: • Shorter Clips & Videos...
#Philosophy #Popper #OpenSociety
Every time.
Are you recognising patterns over there.
^^Shut it down!
Thankyou Dear for Uploading this....Greetings From India🥰❤
Thanks! Hope you upload more videos of Popper!
Yeah, definitely!
@@Philosophy_Overdose completely ignore my requests to upload Socrates to Sartre thanks dude. 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬
@@dann6067 I don't know if I can yet...I'm trying to be careful!
@@Philosophy_Overdose you replied 😅😅 sorry for being so adamant. Take your time.
Test
Madness
The video cuts out the bit before he states the easy changes to constitutions. At 2.44
What are the easy changes he says?
It's all an experiment to philosophers. But there's a distinction with scientific and social experiments. Plus they're much more costly and the results can rarely be reproduced over a small period of time.
One of the founders of our modern world!
Unfortunatly
You have other alternatives - the nazi world, communist GULAG world, North Korea, China, Islamic extrimists world. Feel free to choose.
Why is everyone whining about the modern world?
@@prometheus5405 Who is whining? Modern world IS GREAT!
@@predragnikitz9106outbound184 and digger6843 are whining quite publicly here
Karl popper on "Absolute Truth"
Please reupload that video.
Yes, I will very shortly!
Freedom is the only absolute truth, because it denies absolute truth.
@@alexrichter1362if it denies absolute truth then its adherents would have to rule it out as being absolutely true and that is the absolute truth
Does George Soro's "Open Society Foundation" has anything to do with open society?
of course, Soros was a student and admirer of Popper, and named his foundations after Popper's book
This man is Soro's ideological influence, but I doubt that what Soro's is doing has the same meaning and intention with Popper's idea. I think it's kinda the same with Karl Marx and the communist system
@@Lsr000 of course, Popper would be probably outraged at the sort of stuff Soros is funding though its Open Society Foundations (Popper was a political liberal, but not a cultural leftist)
Yes. He was Sorros mentor
@@Lsr000 Exactly. Soros got Popper's Open Society backwards
This guy.
He’s a sociologist people
As a fellow Ashkenazi jew, Open Society values are of existential importance!
I'm embarrassed to admit that I'm one too.
This man is a genius but he creates rivers of blood with his ideas
One of the founders of the 21century agenda
"the 21st century agenda" you make it sound like a conspiracy theory 😂
I don’t know if that’s on the agenda or even something he came up with
@@Sintinx2 I was naive. Obviously this comment is referencing George Soros and nwo adjacent theories. Do better people!
@@tristanreynolds You said we name it like that because we are conspiracy theorists. But no, that’s what the United Nations named their plan, not us. Stop beating around the bush
@@Sintinx2 The united Nations has "agendas" (they usually turn out poorly)...but no The 21st Century Agenda. It's a coincidence because both Popper and Hayek (they were good friends) address the mentality of the "conspiracy theory of society". Things are more complicated than just assigning blame to the intentions of evil people. I understand the impulse but yeah.
His definition of democracy is very bourgeois
And conservative. Distributing power in democracy is a recipe for stasis, stagnation, or even regression. The conservatives fear the might of a radical majority that rises up and transforms everything at once. What do the progressives fear? The passage of time. The longer we are restrained, the longer injustice continues to reign.
flaws of constitutions, but I didn't hear an option.
The herald of the Habiru Anti-national League.
Philanthropist Soro's wow just wow. Eric Voegelin "Dilettantish crap"
Man's achievement is to have created a world of rhyme, in the intimate imagination, which is as real in its way as any country on the map. Sir Karl Popper, in one of his most important papers, calls it "The Third World" or "World 3". The first world is the objective world of things. The second world is my inner subjective world; but, says Popper, there's a third world, the world of objective contents of thoughts. Teilhard de Chardin calls this third world the "Noosphere", that is, the world of the mind.
There isnt a modern government on earth smart enough, capable enough, and nimble enough to accomplish this hyper pragmatic approach to its politics. Nor is there a civilian base anywhere in the world willing enough to grant such free reign required of a government to socially engineer at the level he describes throughout his work.
The paradox of Popperian politics is that it is inevitably closed. It looks to limit a government "just so" while allowing it the necessary power of coercion to socially engineer; but at whose behest and towards what ends? Once you answer those two questions, you have closed your doors. I've always felt that his ideology was best digested as a liberal fantasy, something you only use in a thought experiment that has left the world behind for the purely abstract. While his approach may be an extreme, it still might be a useful polemic, but it is not realistic.
I'd also add that his pragmatic approach is in direct conflict with pragmatic theories of truth. We don't run experiments and find new data just to restructure our entire theory. We blend the two and conform them in ways that uphold what has been previously held as truth
Very good points. Reading Soros’s books is a very good insight into what the ideas of Popper look like when fleshed out into reality. It’s essentially left-hand path which is why Soros wrote a book called “The Alchemy of finance”. His whole idea is to weaponize degenerative forces to inject chaos into the market, and then following his principle of “reflexivity” he capitalizes on the seemingly irrational behavior of human beings when they begin acting on fear.
It's very easy to misunderstood philosophy.
Every political person wants power and more of it and some are prepared to do what it takes. Nice guy then into 😈
But the idea something can't be true unless it is susceptible to the possibility of falsification is logically absurd.
*can't be scientific
@@DiotimaMantinea-qm5yt They say more: that if it isn't scientifically falsifiable it shant be believed true....
"Democratically elected parliaments have too much power." - member of silver-tongued minority that definitely isn't trying to take control
Working for the devil is a losing proposition. It doesn't pay.
Devil doesnt exist 🤭
@@mortiel84 the Bible says he does. He was an angel, Lucifer, who rebelled against God, and became Satan. It seems that one third of the angels followed him in the rebellion and became demons.
Are you saying popper worked for the devil? 😁
@@tristanreynolds I think Soros is.
@@tristanreynolds no, because I know nothing about him. I didn’t even watch the video. I think George Soros works for the devil.
He should've stayed with philosophy of science
Why? Just read the book happy to defend his critique on fascism and historicism which is embedded in communist thought. I’d enjoy to be tested if you find that exchange worthwhile.
So, you a communist or a right wing conspiracy theorist?
@@tannerhagen774 Popper takes all of this book to critique historically fatalist narratives and grand plans and somehow link them to genocidal, totalitarian regimes. But his thorough criticism that these are all somehow "not good" can only be backed up by a fatalist, grand narrative like those he is critiquing. Plus he poses that democracy is the system that minimizes death in regime change, which might be true in principle, but that is meaningless in a book critiquing the use of grand principles for political planning.
In the end, this book is a stillborn attempt to link Popper's brilliant scientific principle to politics, which serves as a great deconstruction of past absolute narratives, but doesn't refute the need for such narratives at visions *at all*. He just gestures towards a somehow coherent "open, incremental process" that's somehow mostly free of these forces, but no such processes have ever actually existed.
@@jonathanthethird52 Do you really think he is offering a grand narrative or just a roadmap to critically think about the issue at hand and what evidence prior we can utilize to assist in guiding towards solutions which doesn’t exclude some methods of experimentation as long as it is rational? It’s quite frankly banal observation, but the “science” charge is something I find him to be critiquing in politics as he admits there are unintended consequences to policy making and when there are those who religiously adhere to various propositions (historicism) that have no corollary to reality or at very least excludes any evidence to the contrary is bad policy especially when not going by “piecemeal” methods but the changing of the entire system (unintended consequences compounded further). I can pull some quotes from the book but the very essence of his critique of Marxism is that it claims to be a science applying it to politics which is messy. To help clarify what you are saying if we take Popper’s “science” application and reduce it to the meaning of “be rational when applying policy” would you find this a highly contentious and if so why?
An analogy for clarification: my house has a leak and I go to someone who takes into consideration the causes and what remedies would be effective (I’m sure you can have some form of postmodern critique saying it’s a narrative, house still needs fixed by proven means). I have choices in how to go about it compared to a fanatic who says the whole house actually has to be torn down, I doesn’t care if 80% household rejects propositions as he knows what is best (perhaps doesn’t even know construction in the first place).
Democracy allows for such discussion to take place where narrative can compete while a religion already claims to know what is best.
@tristanreynolds A right wing truther. ( Only right wing due to the huge slump to the left)You are using loaded terms which has damaged your logical facilities. It is a common fault with libtards
I like Popper, but I think his obsession with the scientific method prevents him from answering the more relevant question of whether democracy is sustainable (or even possible) under capitalism.
Capitalism has provided more freedom than any policy or political person. Iphone for example or convenience stores.
You have the reverse Q as well. Can capitalism withstand democracy.
@@madhupran4 What democracy would that be?
well good thing in the US we are a republic
@@Josh-fz9rh You mean it’s a good thing that we have a plutocracy which props up figureheads under the guise of republic, under the additional rhetorical disguise of democracy?
Amen. If people found out, they might get offended at the idea that they’re nothing but tools for someone else’s profits.
Pimple popper
disagreeable ISFJ with developed Fe and Ti
He was an influencer in the way of thinking of Mr.George Soros¡¡
my guess, is that he is j e wish?
correct
Absolutely. The so called chosen ones. One Judgement Day, we'll see how they're really chosen. The self entitlement is on another level, for such folks like them. No wonder why they believe they are chosen!
What difference could it possibly make if he is Jewish, unless you are anti-Semitic?
And Popper was of Lutheran background.
@@locomotive9000Wrong.
Popper was a Lutheran.
An all-powerful parliament is the problem… all-powerful is an attribute only for Allah and his system is the one