Customer Reviews

Popper: The Great Philosophers (The Great Philosophers Series)

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I've not read any others in the "great philosophers" series but I have read a few of the "x in 90 minutes" and " on x" series (very similar in that they run about 70 pages each and are meant to serve as brief layperson's overviews). From what I know of this type of book, this one is quite badley done.

As a long time fan of Popper, I sympathize with how Mr. Raphael must have felt in attempting this project. Karl Raimond Popper was a thinker whose ideas lead him from and to many topics. From ontological speculation (realism) to epistemology (critical rationalism) to the progress of science (conjecture and refutation) to ethics (a very bizarre and unfortunately not so discript pragmatic liberal humanism) to politics (democracy with again, not so discript piecemeal engineering). If you read his autobiography "An Unended Quest", he even has a philosophy of music!

For all that, Mr. Raphael could have done 10 times better than he did. Out of all the ideas above, Mr. Raphael talks about only conjecture and refutation (in 10 intro pages that compares in attitude to a kid being forced to eat her brussel sprouts).

The next 49 pages are spent discussing Popper's views on the impossibility of historical prophecy. Not that these views arent important but in light of Popper's humongous contribution to the philosophies of science and epistemology (and the non-contriversial nature, at least in todays world, of Popper's anti-historicism) focusing, by in large, the whole book on it is putting pages to bad use.

What caused me, though, to give the book 2 stars (I may have given it 4 otherwise) is that the book is marketed as an introduction to the ideas of Popper for those who've either never heard of him or never read of him. Had this book been marketed as an intro specifically to his anti-historicism, it would have been much easier to swallow. As it is, the reader taking this as an apropos introduction will be infinitely misled.

Fortunately there are better introductions. Bryan Magee's "Philosophy in the Real World: An introduction to Karl Popper" is, with maybe 40 more pages than this volume, a much better, more accurate, and proportional volume written by someone who knew Popper as a teacher and friend. For the student who has more time, Geoffrey Stokes "Popper: Philosophy, Politics and the Scientific Method" is a book that examines, first, Popper's political philosophy and works backwards to reveal how his philosophy of science gets him there. The best introduction, however, is going to be Popper's own "In Search of a Better World".

I purchased this small book of only fifty-nine pages regarding the twentieth century philosophical giant Karl Popper with a certain degree of pessimism. Could the author truly succeed in doing justice to the person and thoughts of this great man in such a brief manner? The adamant and unhesitating answer is in the affirmative. Raphael brilliantly outlines the impact of Popper's thinking upon both the political and scientific spheres of human investigation. Popper thoroughly demolished the philosophical underpinnings of totalitarianism. It is an utter disgrace, I might add, that Popper's brilliant attack on the error of historicism is rarely discussed in today's academic circles. Much horror and blood shed could have been avoided in the previous century had the Austrian born philosopher received the attention he had overwhelmingly earned.

The blunt side of Popper's character often irritated those around him. Karl Popper and Ludwig Wittgenstein, for example, on one occasion almost came to blows. Was Popper a pleasant man to know on a personal basis? He may very well have been inclined to treat disagreement in an unfair manner. Nonetheless, this possible character fault should not blind us to the value of Popper's philosophical insights. After all, since when has philosophical inquiry been about winning a popularity contest? I wholeheartedly recommend this book. Even someone already familiar with Karl Popper's thinking will find it of value. This is the first book I have ordered in "The Great Philosophers" series put together by Frederic Raphael and Ray Monk. It most certainly will not be the last!

Another short book from The Great Philosophers Series. Although Popper is most famous for his philosophy of science, this book dwells mostly upon his political theory. I suppose that is okay, but this approach somewhat misrepresents why Popper is an important philosopher for us today. After all, he is generally regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of this century. I get the feeling Raphael was not comfortable with science writing, which makes me wonder why the editors put him on this project. Don't get me wrong, the writing was accessible and informative on Popper's political theory, but it just seemed a bit misplaced, given what I take this series of books is concerned with.

The beginning of the book reiterates what anyone with a brief introduction to the philosophy of science will already know (which is all I have--this review is not from someone with a deep background in this area but just a dabbler). Raphael then looks specifically at Popper's book The Poverty of Historicism, making what appears to be justifications for Popper's opinion (historicism misuses and abuses science) by stating that Popper was not throwing out the baby with the bath water--social sciences do not have merit, just not acting like sciences. Lots of reptition of this theme.
Science, Popper argued, could never have an end nor could social engineering. That is, the social sciences can not predict nor head towards a known future, and such acts or intentions mislead at best and destroy at worst. Plato's ideas of pure forms misled people to believe that such things should be aimed for and that they could exist. Popper disagrees. Through reason, popper did believe (or at least hoped) a better world could be achieved. Historicism, he argued, denied reason as the means toward the better world.
Raphael does well to the point out that Popper's belief in the primacy of the West sometimes gets in the way of his thought (as when he states that technologists could import engineering advances and democracy similarly to the east). Popper emphasized doing the small thing because it could be accomplished rather than tilting at windmills and hoping for utopian outcomes that were impossible to achieve.
At times, the quotes Raphael uses from Popper to support his arguments don't seem to fit. Perhaps I just didn't understand them.

I love this book with the kind of feelings I get when I am not a highly medicated individual. I forgot to take my hypertension pill the day I got this book. Living in Saint Paul, Minnesota, under constant pressure to be disguised as a normal person, I usually forget how easy it is to hop on a bus over to Minneapolis, where the University of Minnesota pretends to be a major university. Not every bookstore in that area is limited to literature that is considered suitable for students to study at the highest levels of philosophical discourse. The copy of POPPER I found was published by Routledge (1999) with a credit to the 1997 Orion House edition and had a subtitle: Historicism and Its Poverty. This is an area of Karl Popper's thought that I find extremely interesting, the book was small and cheap, and I was not as concerned about understanding Karl Popper as much as a great philosopher as I was interested in the thoughts of someone who had witnessed stupendous times and tried to analyze them at a level of abstraction that might be useful in the present situation.

In a topic called HISTORICISM AND SOCIETY, there is a sufficient quotation from page 23 of THE POVERTY OF HISTORICISM which is sufficient to show the nature of Karl Popper's thinking:

the method of historical understanding does not only fit in with the ideas of holism. It also agrees very well with the historicist's emphasis on novelty; for novelty cannot be causally or rationally explained, but only intuitively grasped.

Rhetoric consists of the manipulation of worlds, and descriptions of situations carry the kind of weight which is implied by any understanding of Plato. The negative nature of Popper's understanding of Plato is clear, as is my negative view of the current situation when I call it the monetary mulch of America.

The name Karl Popper is almost tantamount to "Philosophy of Science." Popper's famous theory of falsification influenced numerous 20th century philosophers of science, including Paul Feyerabend and Imre Lakatos. Articles summarizing his long acclaimed career usually begin with and comprise 75% or more of pure Philosophy of Science. Newcomers to his thought may think Sir Karl did nothing else. Those same people will be thrown like bricks from mules by this little essay-disguised-as-a-book entitled simply, in stylistic conformance with Routledge's "Great Philosopher" series, "Popper."

First, this little essay does discuss Popper's contributions to the Philosophy of Science. No tract on the man could ignore them. But the subtitle of the work, "Historicism and its Poverty," should provide a clue as to the author's focus. As such, Popper's philosophy of science remains relegated largely to the book's first 14 pages. The author, a novelist who read philosophy at Cambridge (and whose Wikipedia page, as of this writing, neglects to mention this book), weaves it in with biographical details. So, those looking for a detailed introduction to Popper's philosophy of science will not find it here. A possible clue as to why appears on page 15: "Recently, there has been a reaction - for example, on the part of Lewis Wolpert and David Papineau - against the idea that we need, or can sustain, a philosophy of science along Popperian lines. Whether or not this challenge is justified, I cannot judge." This may suggest that philosophy of science isn't the author's forte. Hence the focus elsewhere. In any case, the book then launches into a detailed examination of Popper's refutation of what he called "historicism" as outlined in "The Open Society and its Enemies" and "The Poverty of Historicism." The discussion remains an interesting one throughout, regardless of the de-emphasis on philosophy of science.

Popper took umbrage with social theories that paraded behind imaginary auspices of science. He accused communism and fascism (ancestors of Plato's "essentialism") of doing so, while claiming that their political theories and actions represent "the destiny" of humanity. These "systems" do not constitute science due to their protectors' insistence that they remain unfalsifiable (here philosophy of science sneaks in). In other words, communism and fascism don't allow objective criticism to seep into their ideologies. They thus put themselves above criticism while condemning critics as political heretics or misguided fools. According to Popper, nothing considered a science can allow such myopia. Worse still, the ideologues of these quasi-scientific systems claimed possession of predictive and prophetic power over world events. Such prophesies were treated as laws, and Popper agonized over the intelligentsia's dismissal of Hitler as a mere phase on the road to communist rule. That event alone shows the potential damage of literal unshakable ideology and shortsighted reliance on theory. Popper strongly refuted any attributions of "crystal ball" or clairvoyant powers to science. In the end, he thought that democracy and science, practiced "correctly," could help "correct," but not provide a panacea, to the world's political problems.

"What can and cannot be done," the book's final section, criticizes Popper's stance. The author argues that Popper's reliance on democracy and science may itself be an ideological stance similar to the ones he accused the "quasi-scientific" systems of holding. After all, he argues, democracy and science are not neutral. He also mentions the ever increasing and ominous dominance of global corporations that may affect democracy's effectiveness as "rule by the people." Ultimately, the essay depicts Popper as a skeptic and "an indeterminist who is determined to accept no argument that our fate is not only fixed, but also predictable." Like Popper's conception, this book moves in unpredictable ways. It shows a side not often seen. And though many will see it as an incomplete depiction of one of the twentieth century's most distinguished philosophers of science, it remains an intriguing read nonetheless.

This small book deals only with the political and not the scientific part of Popper's work, thus mainly with 'The open society and its enemies' and 'The poverty of historicism'.
It is an excellent introduction for this part of Popper's work.
The author clearly explains that improvement or self-correction through freedom of speech (criticism) is only possible in democracies and not in dictatorial (fascist) or pseudo-scientific (marxist) systems of government.
For me, he correctly recognizes the possible limits of Popper's proposition of 'piecemeal engineering' of political, social or environmental problems: "Is piecemeal engineering grand enough to deal with global pollution, genocidal oppression of minorities and pandemics such as AIDS?"
He also sees clearly the actual dangers for democracies: "How are major corporations, with transnational funds and managements, to be controlled by democratic authorities whose writs run only to their frontiers?"
Also some interesting facts (rare) about Popper's personal life.
A very worth-while read.

I will ditto the previous review... an outstanding short summary. Raphael does an outstanding survey and treatment. He grandly collapses pages of Popper into individual "magic paragraphs". My only complaint is that Raphael often uses a past and almost passive tense, which really saps some of his sentences' potential electricity.

I would dearly love to see a full Raphael treatment of the entire Popper library.

I forgot to take my hypertension pill the day I got this book. Living in Saint Paul, Minnesota, under constant pressure to be disguised as a normal person, I usually forget how easy it is to hop on a bus over to Minneapolis, where the University of Minnesota pretends to be a major university. Not every bookstore in that area is limited to literature that is considered suitable for students to study at the highest levels of philosophical discourse. The copy of POPPER I found was published by Routledge (1999) with a credit to the 1997 Orion House edition and had a subtitle: Historicism and Its Poverty. This is an area of Karl Popper's thought that I find extremely interesting, the book was small and cheap, and I was not as concerned about understanding Karl Popper as much as a great philosopher as I was interested in the thoughts of someone who had witnessed stupendous times and tried to analyze them at a level of abstraction that might be useful in the present situation.

In a topic called HISTORICISM AND SOCIETY, there is a sufficient quotation from page 23 of THE POVERTY OF HISTORICISM which is sufficient to show the nature of Karl Popper's thinking:

the method of historical understanding does not only fit in with the ideas of holism. It also agrees very well with the historicist's emphasis on novelty; for novelty cannot be causally or rationally explained, but only intuitively grasped.

Rhetoric consists of the manipulation of worlds, and descriptions of situations carry the kind of weight which is implied by any understanding of Plato. The negative nature of Popper's understanding of Plato is clear, as is my negative view of the current situation when I call it the monetary mulch of America.