The Open Society and its Enemies: The High Tide of Prophecy: Hegel, Marx and the Aftermath (Vol. 2)

356 Pages·1947·18.35 MB·English

by  Karl Popper

THE OPEN SOCIETY
AND ITS ENEMIES
THE HIGH TIDE OF
PROPHECY:
AND
HEGEL, MARX,
THE AFTERMATH
THE OPEN SOCIETY
AND ENEMIES
ITS
K. R. POPPER
by
Volume II
THE HIGH TIDE OF PROPHECY
HEGEL, MARX,
AND THE AFTERMATH
London
GEORGE ROUTLEDGE & SONS, LTD.
BROADWAY HOUSE : 68-74 GARTER LANE, E.C,
To the debacle of liberal science can be
traced the moral schism of the modern world
which so tragically divides enlightened men. -
WALTER LIPPMANN,
THIS BOOK IS PRODUCED IN COMPLETE
CONFORMITY WITH THE AUTHORIZED
ECONOMY STANDARDS
PrintedinGreatBfTtainbyButler&TannerLtd.,FromeandLondon
CONTENTS
VOLUME THE HIGH TIDE OF PROPHECY
II : ......
PAGE
...
THE RISE OF ORACULAR PHILOSOPHY .... i
Chapter n. Aristotle. The Roots of Hegelianism I
Chapter 12. Heg.el a.nd Th.e Ne.w Tr.ibali.sm .... 25
MARX'S METHOD ..... 77
-77
Chapter 13. Sociological Determinism.... .. .. .. .
Chapter 14. The Autonomy of Sociology 85
Chapter 15. Economic Historicism 93
Chapter 16. The Classes . . . . . . . ..1n0o3
Chapter 17. The Legal and The Social System . . .
MARX'S PROPHECY .124
. . . . . . . .
Chapter 18. The Coming of Socialism . . . . .124
Chapter 19. The Social Revolution . . . . . 135
Chapter 20. Capitalism and Its Fate . . . . . 155
Chapter 21. An Evaluation . . . . . . .181
MARX'S ETHICS .187
Chapter 22. The.. Mor..al T.h.eory..of H.is.tor.ic.ism... ... .....187
.....
THE AFTERMATH 200
Chapter 23. The Sociology of Knowledge 200
Chapt.er 24.. Or.acula.r Phi.losop.hy an.d th.e Rev.olt a.gainst.Rea.son . 212
Chapter 25. Conclusion. Has History any Meaning? . . . 246
NOTES 268
INDEX 347
THE OPEN SOCIETY AND ITS ENEMIES
VOL.
II
THE HIGH TIDE OF PROPHECY:
HEGEL, MARX, AND THE AFTERMATH
THE RISE OF ORACULAR
PHILOSOPHY
CHAPTER 11: ARISTOTLE. THE ROOTS OF
HEGELIANISM
In some ofPlato's latest writings, we can find an echo ofthe
political events in Athens, of the consolidation of democracy.
It seems that even Plato began to doubt whether some form of
democracy had not come to stay. In Aristotle, we find indica-
tions that he did not doubt any longer. Although he is nc
friend of democracy, he accepts it as unavoidable, and is ready
to compromise with the enemy.
Readiness to compromise is one of the outstanding charac-
teristics ot Ansfolle^ encyclogaed^c_jvmtingsr They show no
trace ot the"~tragic~lind stirring conflict that is the motive of
Plato's work. Instead of penetrating insight and bold thought,
we find dry systematization and the love, shared by so many
mediocre writers of later times, for settling any question what-
ever by issuing a * sound and balanced judgement ' which does
justice to everybody ; that is to say, by elaborately and solemnly
missing the point. This exasperating tendency which is systema-
tized in Aristotle's famous c doctrine of the mean ' is one of
the sources of his so often quite pointless criticism of Plato *.
An example of Aristotle's lack of intuition, in this case of his-
torical intuition (he also was a historian), is the fact that he
acquiesced in the apparent democratic consolidation just when
it had been superseded by the imperial monarchy of Macedon ;
a historical event which happened to escape rjis notice. Aristotle,
who whs, as his father had been, a courtier at the Macedonian
O.S.I.E. VOL. II I B
2 ORACULAR PHILOSOPHY
court, chosen by Philip to be the teacher of Alexander the
Great, seems to have underrated these men and their plans ;
perhaps he thought he knew them too well. * Aristotle was
having dinner with Monarchy without being aware of it ', is
Gomperz's appropriate comment.2
He
Aristotle's thought,js entirely (iomijiated by Plato's.
,
followed his great teacher a,s glosely as his inartistic temperament
permitted, not.only in hisgeneral political outlook but practically
everywhere. So he endorsed, and systematized,, Plato's naturalis-
tic theory of slavery 3 : ' Some men are by nature free, and
oasthjeursst s.l.av.es ;Aamnadnfworhothies blyattneart,urselanvoetryhiissoowpnp,orbtuutnaenoatshewre'ls,l
is by nature a slave. . . Hellenes do not like to call them-
selves slaves, but confine this term to barbarians. . . The slave
is totally devoid of any faculty ofreasoning ' (while free women
have just a very little of it). In some minor points Aristotle
slightly mitigates Plato's theory of slavery, and duly censures
his teacher for being too harsh : hejust cannot resist the oppor-
tunity for a compromise, not even ifit is a compromise with the
liberal tendencies of his time, provided they are moderate and
balanced.
But the theory ofslavery is only one ofPlato's many political
ideas to be adopted by Aristotle. Especially his theory of the
Best State, as far as we know it, is modelled upon the. theories
ofthe Republic and the Laws ; and his version throws considerable
light on Plato's. Aristotle's Best State is a compromise between
thjcee things, a Platonic aristocracy, a e sound and balanced
feudalism ' and some democratic ideas but feudalism has the
; ;
best of it. With the democrats, Aristotle holds that all citizens
should have the right to participate in the government. But
this, of course, is not meant to be as radical as it sounds, for
Aristotle explains at once that not only slaves but all members
of the producing classes are excluded from citizenship. Thus
he teaches with Plato that the working classes must not rule
and the ruling classes must not work, nor earn any money.
(But they are supposed to have plenty.) Only hunting, war,
and similar hobbies are considered worthy of the feudal rulers
;
they possess land, but must not work it themselves. Aristotle's
fear of any form of money earning, i.e. of all professional
activities, goes eveot further than Plato's. Plato had used the
term ' banausic ' 4 Jo describe a plebeian, abject, or depraved
state ofmind. Aristotle extends the disparaging use oftfie term
CHAPTER II I ARISTOTLE 3
so as to cover all interests which are not pure hobbies. In fact,
his use of the term is very near to our use of the term ' profes-
sional ', more especially in the sense in which it disqualifies in
an amateur competition, but also in the sense in which it applies
to any specialized expert, such as a physician. For Aristotle,
every form of professionalism means a loss of caste. A feudal
gentleman, he insists 5 must never take too much interest in
,
' any occupation, art or science. . . There are also some liberal
arts, that is to say, arts which a gentleman may acquire, but
always only to a certain degree. For if he takes too much
interest in them, then these evil effects will follow ', namely,
he will become proficient, like a professional, and lose caste,
This is Aristotle's idea ofa liberaleducation, the idea, unfortunately
not yet obsolete 6, of a gentleman's education, as opposed tc
the education of a slave, or of a professional man. It is in the
same vein when he repeatedly insists that ' {hj^filSJLprinciple
o $11_action is leisure ' 7. Aristotle's admiration and deference
for the leisured classes seems to be the expression of a curious
feeling of uneasiness. It seems that the son of the Macedonian
court physician was troubled by the question of his own social
position, and especially by the possibility that he might lose
caste because of his own scholarly interests, which might be
considered professional. ' One is tempted to believe ', says
Gomperz 8 ' that he feared to hear such denunciations from
,
his aristocratic friends . . It is indeed strange to see that one
of the greatest scholars of all times, if not the greatest, does
not wish to be a professional scholar. He would rather be a
dilettante, and a man of the world . .' Aristotle's feelings of
inferiority have, perhaps, still another basis, besides his own
c professional ' origin, and besides the fact that he was, un-
doubtedly, a professional c sophist ' (he even taught rhetoric).
For with Aristotle, Platonic philosophy gives up her great
aspirations, her claims to power. From this moment, it could
continue only as a teaching profession. And since hardly
anybody but the feudal aristocrats had the money and the leisure
for studying philosophy, all that philosophy could aspire to was
to become an annex to the traditional education ofa gentleman.
With this more modest aspiration in view, Aristotle finds it very
necessary to persuade the feudal gentleman that philosophical
speculation and contemplation may become a most important
part of.their ' good life ', since it is the happiest and noblest
and the'most refined method ofwhiling away one's time, ifone
4 ORACULAR PHILOSOPHY
is not occupied with political intrigues or by war. It is the
best way of spending one's leisure, since, as Aristotle puts it,
c nobody . ., would arrange a war for that purpose ' 9.
It is plausible to assume that such a courtier's philosophy
will tend to be optimistic, since it will hardly be a pleasant
pastime otherwise. And indeed, in its optimism lies the one
important adjustment made by Aristotle in his systematization
and vulgarization 10 of Platonism. Plato's sense of drift had
expressed itself in his theory that all change, at least in certain
cosmicperiods, must befor theworse ; allchangeis degeneration.
Aristotle's theory admits of changes which are improvements
;
thus change may be progress. Plato had taught that all develop-
ment starts from the original, the perfect Form or Idea, so that
the developing thing must lose its perfection in the degree in
which it changes and in which its similarity to the original
decreases. This theory was given up by his nephew and
successor, Speusippus, as well as by Aristotle. But Aristotle
censured Speusippus' arguments as going too far, since they
implied a general biological evolution towards higher forms.
Aristotle, it seems, was opposed to the much-discussed evolu-
n
tionary biological theories of his time . But the peculiar
optimistic twist which he gave Platonism was an outcome of
biological speculation also. It was based upon the idea of a
final cause.
According to Aristotle, one of the causes of any movement
or change is the final cause, or the end towards which the move-
ment aims. In so far as it is an aim or a desired end, the final
cause is also good. It follows from this that some good may not
only be the starting point of a movement (as Plato had taught,
and as Aristotle admitted 12 but that some good must also stand
)
at its end. And this is particularly important for anything that
has a beginning in time, or, as Aristotle puts it, for anything
that comes into being. The Form or essence ofanything developing
is identical with the purpose or end or final state towards which it
develops. Thus we obtain after all, in spite of Aristotle's dis-
claimer, something very closely resembling Speusippus' adjust-
ment of Platonism. The Form or Idea, which is still, with
Plato, considered to be good, stands at the end, instead of the
beginning. ThischaracterizesAristotle'ssubstitutionofoptimism
for pessimism.
Aristotle's teleology, i.e. his stress upon the end or^im of
change as its final cause, is an expression of his predominantly
CHAPTER II : ARISTOTLE 5
biological interests. It is influenced by Plato's biological
theories 1S, and also by Plato's extension of his theory ofjustice
to the universe. For Plato did not confine himself to teaching
that each of the different classes ofcitizens has its natural place
in society, a place to which it belongs and for which it is naturally
fitted ; he also tried to interpret the world of physical bodies
and their different classes or kinds on similar principles. He
tried to explain the weight ofheavyjbodies, like stones, or earth,
and their tendency to fall, as well as the tendency of air and
fire to rise, by the assumption that thw^strive to retain, or to
regain, the place inhabitated by theuJBjd.^ Stones and earth
fall because they strive to be wher^jj^BjTstories and earth are,
and where they belong, in the JB^^^^B f nature air and
;
fire rise because they strive to b^wOT^^Kand fire (the heavenly
bodies) are, and where they belongJBM^ust order ofnature 14.
This theory of motion appealed -to^the zoologist Aristotle ; it
combines easily with the theory offinal causes, and it allows an
explanation of all motion as being analogous with the canter
of horses keen to return to their stables. He deyeloped^it, as
his famous theory of^nqtural^laces. Everything ifremoved |rorn
its own naturaTplace has a tendency to return to it. " *-<
Apart from these alterations, Aristotle's version of Plato's
essentialism shows only unimportant differences. Aristotle
insists, of course, that unlike Plato he does not conceive the
Forms or Ideas as existing apart from sensible things. But in
so far as this difference is important, it is closely connected with
the adjustment in the theory of change. For one of the main
points in Plato's theory is that he must consider the Forms or
essences or originals (or fathers) as existing prior to, and therefore
apart from, sensible things, since these move further and further
away from them. >Aristotle makes sensible things move towards
their final causes or ends, 'and these he identifies 15 with their
Forms or essences. And as a biologist, he assumes that sensible
things carry potentially within themselves the seeds, as it were,
oftheir final states, or oftheir essences. This is one ofthe reasons
why he can say that the Form or essence is in the thing, not,
as Plato said, prior and external to it. Thus for Aristotle,
movement or change means the realization (or c actualization ')
ofsome ofthe potentialities inherent in the essence ofa thing 16,
It is, for example, an essential potentiality of a piece of timber,
that it can float on water, or that it can burn$ these potentialities
remain*inherent in its essence even if it should never float 01
6 ORACULAR PHILOSOPHY
burn. But ifit does, then it realizes a potentiality, and thereby
changes or moves. Accordingly, the essence, which embraces
all the potentialities of a thing, is something like its internal
source ofchange or motion. This Aristotelian essence or Form,
this * formal ' or * final ' cause, is therefore practically identical
with Plato's * nature ' or c soul ' and this identification is
;
corroborated by Aristotle himself. * Nature he writes 17 in
',
the Metaphysics, ' belongs also to the same class as potentiality ;
for it is a principle of movement inherent in the thing itself.'
On the other hand, he defines the e soul ' as the * first entelechy
of a living body ', and since c entelechy ', in turn, is explained
as the Form, or the formal cause, considered as a motive force 18
,
we arrive, with the help of this somewhat complicated termino-
logical apparatus, back at Plato's original point of view : that
the soul or nature is something akin to the Form or Idea, but
inherent in the thing, and its principle ofmotion. (When Zeller
praised Aristotle for his c definite use and comprehensive develop-
ment of a scientific terminology ' 19 I think he must have felt
,
a bit uneasy in using the word ' definite ' but the comprehen-
;
siveness is to be admitted, as well as the most deplorable fact
that Aristotle, by using this pretentious jargon, fascinated only
too many philosophers ; so that, as Zeller puts it, ' for thousands
of years he showed philosophy her way '.)
Aristotle, who was a historian of the more encyclopaedic
type, made no direct contribution to historicism. He adhered
to a more restricted version of Plato's theory that floods and
other recurring catastrophes destroy the human race from time
to time, leaving only a few survivors.20 But he does not seem,
apart from this, to have interested himself in the problem of
historical trends. In spite of this fact, it may be shown here
howhis theoryof change lendsitself to historicist interpretations,
and that it contains all the elements needed for elaborating a
grandiose historicist philosophy. (This opportunity was not
fully exploited before Hegel.) Three historicist doctrines which
directly follow from Aristotle's essentialism may be distinguished.
(i) Only if a person or a state develops, and only by way of
its history, can we get to know anything about its ' hidden,
undeveloped essence' (to use a phrase of Hegel's 21). This
doctrine leads later, first of all, to the adoption of a historicist
method ; that is to say, ofthe principle that we can obtain any
knowledge of social entities or essences only by applying the
historical method, by studying social changes. But the tioctrine