[lit-ideas] Re: Popper in the Third World
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:28:57 +0100 (BST)
> Typical of the neo-con that Sir Karl was.
Sorry, but "Sir Karl" was never a neo-con. In fact, it is probably more true
to say he was a marxist, and in a way always remained one.
It is true that a kind of Thatcherite "neo-con" adopted him to their cause
-for many reasons, including his opposition to highly state-controlled
politics. [Sir Keith Joseph, All Souls and Thatcher minister, put Popper's
OSE as his contribution to the Cabinet library - as per tradition where each
new minister must contribute a book].
Hacohen's (to me surprisingly brilliant autobiography) makes clear its target
audience is not the neo-cons, but the left-wing intelligensia. They have a
lot to learn from Popper and would be better taking it on board sooner rather
than later - so he cogently argues. [Admittedly, a lot of Popperians are
libertarians and disagree with this
'supporting-new-new-but-please-not-brain-dead-Left-advocating-just-ideologically-driven-falsehoods'
take on his philosophy].
On two personal notes:-
Hacohen's book first came to my awareness via Bryan Magee who I ran into at
an art museum in Edinburgh (poor man) where he was contemplating pictures in
a room with an oil of David Hume. (He initially wanted to be left alone,
Dietrich style). But later we ran into each other in another room and he made
some time for a chat and mentioned Hacohen's book, without explicit praise or
criticism. My view is that Hacohen's book is a must-read, as even the
anti-Popperians who have reviewed it seem to agree - for at least the reason
that it is a gripping and sophisticated book on the history of [modern]
ideas.
When a student I wangled (with an acquaintance) a visit to Popper's home
where we spent a couple of hours talking. He was asked his current political
preferences. He said "Conservative - *reluctantly*".
Popper was knighted by a Labour administration and it must be borne in mind
that in the 70s every leader of all three major political parties in Germany
expressed allegiance to his political ideas.
When I wrote to him as a school-boy, criticising his ideas, he replied with
great charm and intelligence and described me as a "leftist" (as indeed I
was). Running out of space at the bottom of the letter he signed off with one
of those little arrows pointing up to the side of the page - there he
scribbled (from my recollection) "All the best, yours KR Popper (I was also a
leftist once)". (Nb. no "Sir Karl" arrogance). [When I subsequently sent him
a letter attacking him on his birthday, again as a school-boy, he wrote
another reply [my argument was apparently "a little too sophisticated"] and
even enclosed one of his books - one of his best imho - "The Open Universe",
which due to his reluctance to let things go to print had only gone to print
in 1982ish, some thirty years after it was written].
This is not the behaviour of a neo-com [imho].
The weakness of the left is not perhaps the result of some great conspiracy,
or that left-wing politics is intrinsically weak, but may in fact be a result
of the _intellectual_ weakness of left-wing politics, as currently
constituted.
This is what Hacohen, a leftist, tries to argue anyway.
As a flavour of Popper's actual views:
1) he made clear near the end of his life that he retained many of the ideals
and aims of his "socialist" youth.
2) modern right-wing nonsense is generally just as bad, if not worse, than
modern left-wing nonsense.
Donal
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo!
Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
