Karl Popper answer

Karl Popper was a prominent 20th-century philosopher whose works have greatly
influenced the field of political science. Among his notable contributions are his book
on the theory of knowledge, "Logik der Forschung", and his treatise on the concept of
an Open Society, "Open Society and Its Enemies." These works introduced novel
concepts that have shaped the way scholars approach scientific inquiry and political
governance.

In "Logik der Forschung," Popper emphasized the importance of advancing scientific

knowledge through refutation rather than corroboration. He argued that progress in
science comes from questioning the norm and criticizing other scientists, while
recognizing authority. To illustrate this point, Popper used the example of swans.
Before the discovery of a black swan in Australia, it was commonly believed that all
swans were white. However, the discovery of a black swan refuted this notion and
advanced scientific understanding. Popper believed that science is about finding the
truth, which is like finding a black hat in a dark room. We can only make progress by
seeing where the hat is not.

Furthermore, it is important to note that according to Popper's philosophy, freedom

and liberty are fundamental prerequisites for a society to remain open and flourish.
The ability to freely question societal norms and to constructively criticize authority,
while still acknowledging its importance, is the cornerstone of progress. It is similar to
the sport of Clay Pigeon Shooting, where progress seekers evaluate and take aim at
arguments presented by others, rather than targeting the originators themselves. It is
vital to recognize that ideologies such as Marxism/Communism and Nazism have
already been proven to be flawed and refuted by history and Democracy is “still a plate
in the air”. Democracy will not always be right. We do not even say that it will usually
be right. We say only that this very imperfect procedure is the best so far invented.
Winston Churchill once said, jok- ingly, that democracy is the worst form of
government - with the exception of all other known government.

“A democracy, imperfect though it is, is worth fighting and dying for.”

“We could base our whole theory on this, that there are only two alternatives known to
us: either a dictatorship or some form of democracy. And we do not base our choice on
the goodness of democracy, which may be doubtful, but solely on the evilness of a
dictatorship, which is certain.”

In "Open Society and Its Enemies," Popper delved into the concept of an open society,
where individuals are free to pursue their goals and express their opinions without fear
of persecution. He contrasted this with the closed or tribalistic societies where
individuals are expected to conform to the norms and traditions of the group.
According to Popper, democracy is a crucial component of an open society. He
believed that democracy is a "two-fold concept," which encompasses both the rule of
men and the rule of law.
While ancient philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle argued that the best form of
governance was one where the most virtuous individuals ruled: when one rules (the
king, the “one good man”) we are in a monarchy, when few good men rule (the
excellent ones) we are in an aristocracy and when the many rule (the rule of all the
people) we are in a democracy.

Popper observed that such systems inevitably decay into tyranny (from monarchy) or
oligarchy (from aristocracy).

In a democratic system, when power is attributed to all, and the criterion for
excellence is based on virtuosity or selflessness, a significant challenge arises in
distinguishing between virtuous and vicious individuals. Since everyone holds power,
there is no distinction between the two, which makes it challenging to find the most
virtuous person to dedicate themselves to the public's concerns.

It is also difficult to ascertain whether individuals are truly working towards advancing
the interest of the public or only their own self-interest. In a democracy, everyone is in
charge, and their actions can either benefit or harm the public interest. However, the
distinction between the two is often unclear as individuals may prioritize their self-
interest over the common good.

This dynamic can lead to anarchy, where everyone tries to impose their will against
everyone else, leading to turmoil. To address this, some individuals may claim that we
need order and use this as a platform to advance their agenda. These demagogues
present themselves as saviors of democracy and call for a return to earlier stages of
democracy.

However, demagogues are not necessarily virtuous individuals and may fight against
one another for power. When one emerges as the winner, they may become tyrants
and exercise unchecked power. Therefore, it is crucial to be cautious of individuals who
present themselves as saviors and remain vigilant about protecting democracy from
those who seek to exploit it for their own benefit.

According to ancient philosophers, such as Plato and Aristotle, the aristocracy is a

legitimate form of government where the few who are best suited to rule are in
power. However, if power is delegated to only one individual within the aristocracy,
then it becomes a monarchy. Popper argues that this event – called paradox of
sovereignty - demonstrates the limitations of trying to identify a specific group or
individual who is most suited to rule.

In political philosophy, the question of “who should rule the state” has been a source
of much debate and controversy – Plato’s answer was simple and naïve: “the best”
should rule. Next choice: the best few, the aristocrats. But certainly not the many, the
rabble, the demos. It looks like “a divine, or a morally legitimate, right of the people to
rule.” Is royal legitimacy a reliable principle? Karl Marx was still dominated by the old
Platonic problem, which he saw as: “Who should rule? The good or the bad – the
workers or the capitalist?”.
However, the Athenians were the ones that were right: “decision arrived at
democratically, and even the power conveyed upon a government by a democratic
vote, may be wrong.

According to the philosopher Karl Popper, this question may not be the most crucial
one to ask. Popper suggests that instead of focusing on who should rule, we should ask
how we should rule and who should not rule. “How is the state to be constituted so
that bad rulers can be got rid of without bloodshed, without violence?” A more
practical, almost technical problem. We will look for ways to take the uncivil mastérs
(as Winston Churchill said) – “the bloodless dismissal of the government by a majority
vote.” How can we best avoid situation in which a bad ruler causes too much harm?

Rather than advocating for a rule of men, Popper argues for a rule of law. To achieve
this, it is essential to tie the hands of those in power to prevent corruption and abuse
of power. Popper highlights four essential elements for achieving this: signing the
Magna Carta, implementing a Bill of Rights, establishing a Constitution, and separating
the powers of government.

Therefore, instead of focusing on identifying the most virtuous individuals to rule, we

should aim to prevent those who are corrupt from gaining power. This requires
creating a system of checks and balances that limit the power of those in government
and ensure that they are held accountable for their actions. By implementing these
measures, we can establish a society governed by the rule of law and protect it from
the dangers of tyranny and corruption.

Popper's idea of tying up corrupt governments draws on the metaphor of tying up ship
captains to prevent them from being lured towards danger by the Sirens' songs, as
seen in Homer's "The Odyssey." Restraint is necessary to prevent temptation from
leading to disaster.

The immediate consequence of proportional representation is that it will tend to

increase the number of parties. This, at first glance, may seem desirable: more parties
mean more choice, more opportunism, less rigidity, and more criticism – and a greater
distribution and influence of power. However, this first impression is totally mistaken.
The existence of many parties means, essentially, that a coalition government
becomes inevitable. It means difficulties in the formation of any new government, and
in keeping a government together for any length of time – a proper attitude towards
the political Day of Judgement.

In his book "The Open Society and Its Enemies," philosopher Karl Popper identified
four enemies of an open society. One of these enemies is ethical positivism, which is
the idea that moral claims can be derived from facts. This belief suggests that might
makes right and that ethics and morals are essentially positive concepts.

However, Popper disagreed with ethical positivism, arguing that we cannot reduce
moral judgment to facts or extract morality from them. He used examples like the
promise of "Free Beer Tomorrow" and the idea that Marxism represents the future to
illustrate how might does not necessarily equal right, and how goodness and winning
are not always synonymous.

For Popper, an open society required individuals to be open to considering moral

arguments from multiple perspectives, rather than relying solely on factual evidence.
This means that individuals must be free to dissent and challenge prevailing moral
norms and beliefs without fear of persecution or censorship.

Popper's critique of historicism centers around the idea that historicism undermines
individual agency and the possibility of change. According to historicism, the future is
predetermined and inevitable, and individuals are powerless to affect the course of
history. However, Popper argues that this view is flawed, as it fails to recognize that
the future is inherently uncertain and that individuals have the power to shape their
own futures.

Popper uses the example of the transition from capitalism to communism to illustrate
the flaws of historicism. According to historicism, this transition is inevitable due to the
friction between the structure of society and the means of production. However, this
assumption rests on the belief that we can accurately predict the future development
of technology and the means of production, which is impossible due to the inherent
uncertainty of the future.

Popper argues that the future is always open and uncertain, and that individuals have
the power to shape their own futures. The idea that the future is predetermined and
inevitable undermines the possibility of change and progress, and it is therefore
incompatible with the open society. Popper's critique of historicism highlights the
importance of recognizing the power of individual agency and the need for openness
and flexibility in the face of uncertainty.

Popper criticized collectivism because it denies individual agency and accountability,

reducing individuals to mere components of a larger collective. This, in turn, makes it
easier for blame to be placed on the group rather than holding individuals accountable
for their actions. Popper cited the example of the Holocaust, in which Jews were
targeted as a group, as evidence of the dangers of collectivist thinking.

Regarding utopianism, Popper argued that everyone has their own vision of what
constitutes a perfect society, and these visions often conflict with each other.
Therefore, it is not possible to create a utopian system where everyone is happy
simultaneously. Popper advocated for a negative utilitarianism approach that focuses
on reducing suffering rather than maximizing happiness. This involves taking small,
gradual steps to address concrete problems such as poverty, disease, and inequality,
rather than pursuing abstract ideas like happiness.

Piecemeal social engineering can be seen as a way of implementing this approach. By

focusing on concrete problems like poverty, disease, and inequality, we can take small
steps to address the needs of the most vulnerable members of society. This can have a
meaningful and tangible impact on people's lives, without trying to impose a grand
vision of happiness or societal perfection – much more abstract terms.