Customer Reviews

In Search of a Better World: Lectures and Essays from Thirty Years

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

 

 

This book was my first exposure to Popper's philosophy, which I have since found to be consistently convincing, enlightening, and inspiring. In the face of fashionable twentieth-century irrationalism and associated political fanaticisms, Popper stresses the importance of intellectual modesty, rational discourse, non-violence, tolerance, and an open society. In this series of collected essays Popper makes a lucid and compelling case for a philosophy that accepts that all of our knowledge is conjectural and uncertain, but that this, far from leading to irrationality, makes science and reason the best tools we have for confronting the universe that surrounds us. In contrast with the impenetrable, self-important nonsense of many modern philosophers, Popper writes with a refreshing simplificity and modesty. A truly beautiful and extraordinary book.

The burden of being a philosopher that says something both new and counter-intuitive is that throughout one's career, you end up repeating yourself, re-clarifying your arguments to the endless number of critcs that misunderstand you. In Popper's case, the views advanced were that all knowldedge must be held as tentative and that real intellectual progress comes not from verifying true theories (which can never be 'for sure) but in falsifying and eliminating old ones (which you only need to do once). The critics misinterpreted and Popper did repeat himself time and time again.

This is one of the very few bad things about the book. Honestly, if you've read Popper before (Conjectures and Refutations, Objective Knowledge, Logic of Scientific Discovery) this book will have little, if any, to add. If you've not, this is a great introduction.

There are 3 sections: On Knowledge, On History and a section for miscellaneous essays. The first section touches on Popper's views on how we recieve, criticize, falsify and act on knowledge. The second is an expansion of the first. Here, Popper focuses on historical events hee deems important: Immanuel Kant's phiosophical formulation, the invention of the book. He also gets a tad bit into politics, where a liberal democracy is preferred.

It is the third section, though, that is the payoff. Essays ranging in diversity from "How I See Philosophy" to "What Does The West Believe In". The best essay in the book, "Toleration and Intellectual Responsibility", is a critical rationalist's look at the role of intellectuals (Popper carefully avoids snobbery here) role in perpetuating a tolerant, non-violent society. As crucial now in '03 as when he gave the lecture in '82.

To conclude, if you are new to Popper, this is a good intro (but Conjectures and Refutations or Popper Selections might still be better. If you've read those or much other Popper before, you will probably find yourself able to guess what Popper says in each essay without much problem. You can safely skip this one.

In this rather optimistic book, Karl Popper explains his own credo, his vision on Kant, the Frankfurt School and Darwinism as well as the `new' task for the intellectuals.

His credo, his task
`I am a rationalist. I believe in truth and in human reason. I have in mind the hope that inspired Pestalozzi that knowledge may make us free.' But, `I have in mind a serious obligation of never to pose as a prophet.'

Intellectuals
Karl Popper is rightly extremely harsh for those who should be at the forefront of human progress: `Intellectuals have done the most terrible harm for thousands of years. Mass murder in the name of an idea, a doctrine, a theory, a religion - that is all our doing, our invention.'
`If only we would stop setting man against man, much would be gained.'
IMHO: all these `theories' are a veil for the interests of those in power, who with any means (war, terrorism, censure, indoctrination, lies, corruption) (try to) defend their power base.

Kant
Kant has shown that every man is free, not because he is born free, but because he is born with the burden of responsibility for free decision.

Frankfurt School
Popper's verdict is extremely hard: `What have the neo-Dialecticians learnt? The basic thesis of Adorno and Habermas is the claim that factual knowledge and value judgments in sociology are inextricably linked.' (!)

Darwinism
Popper had terrible difficulties to accept Darwinism as a scientific theory, because one couldn't test it. He found a solution which he explained in `Unended Quest'.
Here, he develops his vision on Darwinism a little more.
The great American biologist G.C. Williams wrote that `natural selection, albeit stupid, is a story of unending arms races, slaughter and suffering. It is a law of nature and its immorality has to be accepted and, at least, to be thought about.'
Popper adopts a more Leibnizian view of `a world that has become more and more agreeable and more and more favourable to life, thanks to the activities of life and its search for a better world.' His view is idyllic: `the first cell is till living after billions of years and transformed out atmosphere with green plants. And it created our eyes and opened them to the blue sky and the stars.'
IMHO: This vision is extremely naïve and false. Evolution was only favourable for life of mankind, not for all other species on our planet. His optimistic viewpoint of `active selection for a better environment, active organisms constantly solving problems that improve life' should be replaced by selection through extermination and mutations by pure chance.
Mankind should give more attention to G.C. Williams's more pessimistic, but all too realistic, interpretation of the way of the world.

This book is a must read for all intellectuals and for all critical Popper fans.

I bought this book since it was recommended as a good introduction to Popper's work and ideas. I have no pretensions to understanding philosophy beyond a few college-level courses and some of my own reading.

As a more-or-less casual reader I was particularly struck at how good Popper is at explaining his ideas. As I read further, I understood. I very much liked his ideas about the obligation of specialists and the educated to simplify and not to obfuscate. I found his consciously common sense prose had much more claim to understanding the responsibility of intellectuals than I found in (for instance) the Chomsky essay on the same theme. I'm sure that some credit for the clarity should go to the translator, Laura J. Bennett. I haven't read the original, but this was about as clean of a translation as I have found.

There was a lot to interest and inspire. The emphasis on rational criticism and the nature of knowledge made intuitive sense. I struggled harder with his issues with relativism, but found his arguments engaging and ultimately quite convincing.

I don't really feel smart enough to do anything except damn this book with faint praise, sorry.

Very much recommended. Seems to me something for nearly anyone. Any ideas where to do next with Popper, bearing in mind my (non) background?