Naked Emperors of Philosophy
#1 Introduction to essays on The Open Society and Its Enemies by Karl Popper
Here we go again. Seven years ago, as Donald Trump had just been sworn in as President of the US, a novel about a dystopian society published in 1949 suddenly became highly relevant. We survived an Administration and an election that should have destroyed one major political party and prompted bold action by the other, yet — incredibly — we are staring at a rematch in November.
As Jon Stewart recently asked in his return to The Daily Show in their Indecision 2024 segment, “WTF Are We Doing?!”
As a dismal scientist (economist), I have a relatively high tolerance or maybe even an appetite for insight into the dark sides of social science. If fascism is on the ballot for the GOAT democracy, I wanted to understand its politics — so my reading this year started with The Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt (1951). Here is my very brief (5 star) review on Goodreads: “A thorough, very well documented scholar’s explanation of why and how Hitler and Stalin seized power. Timely reminder that nonsense and lying were their primary tools.”
Appetite whetted. I borrowed a copy of The Open Society and Its Enemies from my local library. I was familiar with Popper’s falsifiability standard for scientific methods, but had not read his work. In this book, I found an incomparable page-turner. For some, this removes any doubt that I have odd taste. My review of this book (also 5 star) reads: “Pure joy! Popper’s application of science to philosophy and both to politics is genius, and his writing is as clear as his thinking. The very important lessons in logic and ethics in this book are too numerous to count. It should be required reading for any social sciences Ph.D. student.”
I decided this was a book that should be on my shelf at home, so ordered it as soon as I returned the borrowed copy. I have read very few books twice, but this one was so rich that I knew it would provide source material for an essay on Medium, so I pulled out my highlighter and fired up Google Keep. I soon realized it would take more than one essay to capture and share what this volume offered. Four appears to be the right number.
As noted in my review, Popper’s writing is exceptionally clear. My interpretation is unlikely to add anything but confusion. Since the book was published in 1945 and refers to much older works, there are opportunities to compare and contrast context. That might make an interesting book. However, I believe most of the lessons are obvious to those who would read this at all, and Popper has already done the heavy lifting of abstraction for us. For that reason, I’m going to present my notes without commentary.
I’m going to start with his conclusion — the last two chapters — where he summarizes what he sought to explain in his case studies of Plato, Hegel, and Marx. In short, we learned the differences between rationalism and irrationalism and between science and historicism, and why it matters.
Here is my very last note, which sums up the whole book in a single quote regarding progress:
“History” cannot do that; only we, the human individuals, can do it; we can do it by defending and strengthening those democratic institutions upon which freedom, and with it progress, depend.
Rationalism is an attitude of listening to critical arguments and learning from experience. It resembles the scientific methods of objective search for truth and considers the argument rather than the person presenting it. It flourishes only with freedom of thought — which requires institutional safeguards.
Irrationalism, on the other hand, is the belief that most men are moved by emotion, not reason, and that only a gifted few possess the intuition or mystical insight to create works of art or thought. They are not men of reason.
The choice is moral. Rationalism is a belief in the unity of mankind; Irrationalism is not bound by anything.
In science, we use experiments to test our theories. Moral theories use rational analysis to confront the consequences of a decision by our conscience.
Irrationalism is resigned to scorn for reason and must lead to violence as the arbiter in any dispute. If constructive emotions do not prevail, the inherent attitude of inequality among men will become the determining factor. “He who teaches that not reason but love should rule opens the way for those who rule by hate.”
There is no actual history; there are only historical interpretations. This means the historicist errs in claims that history determines anything; rather, we select and order history according to our own point of view and purpose. Instead of studying history to solve a real problem, the historicist seeks to discover a secret of human destiny. What most have in mind is the history of political power, which is really just the history of international crime and mass murder.
Our intellectual and ethical education has been corrupted by a romantic view of the history of power that places undue importance on the relationship of individuals to the collective. We are taught to dominate or submit.
Facts have no meaning. Only our decisions can produce meaning. Historicism is a fearful avoidance of responsibility for human choices and their consequences. It is a debased faith in destiny that displaces moral enthusiasm. Moreover, it is in conflict with rationality and any religion that teaches moral conscience.
