![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I almost didn't read this, having been very underwhelmed by Popper's Logic of Scientific Discovery. However, the "paradox of tolerance" is coming up so much these days I figured I should really go direct to the source. And I'm extremely glad I did! This is a phenomenal book that had me nodding and taking notes all the way through it. (I almost never take notes!) One of those rare texts that I can feel rewiring my brain as I read it, leaving a lasting change in how I see the world.
Volume 1 is a glorious, extended attack on Plato. It put into words a lot that I had been feeling on the subject but never been quite able to vocalize before. Rather or not he is correct about how he splits the views of Socrates from those of Plato is unknowable and actually rather irrelevant. The important part is how Plato has been interpreted over history, and there he is definitely spot on. If you've ever read The Republic and been fascinated but still spluttering objections several times a page, you should at least read volume 1 here.
Volume 2 extends this thinking to Hegel and Marx, and the dangerous of grand, sweeping theories of historical forces. I haven't read any Hegel, so it's hard for me to judge how fair he is being there. I thought his analysis of Marx's Capital was spot on, though, and a refreshingly fair assessment of that book's strengths and weaknesses. I definitely like his formulation of how believing in any form of historical destiny inevitably leads to terrible outcomes. This volume also starts by taking Aristotle to task, and I'll never tire of that. "They show not trace of the tragic and stirring conflict that is the motive of Plato's work. Instead of Plato's flashes of penetrating insight, we find dry systematization and the love, shared by so many mediocre writers of later times, for settling any question whatever by issuing a 'sound and balanced judgement' that does justice to everybody; which means, at times, by elaborately and solemnly missing the point." This volume ends with one of my favorite sections from the entire book, arguing against the fundamental reality of any history, short of a complete chronicle of literally every human who has ever lived. This includes examining what it says that we still see the history of empires and oppression as the default, most important kind of history to be taught. I posted extended chunks of text to Twitter yesterday while reading it, and I could have posted a lot more. He doesn't phrase it in these terms, being written in 1945 outside of Paris, but he takes a deeply existentialist view of the meaningless of history, and how we need to find comfort in creating our own meaning, instead of having it thrust upon us by those who see meaning only in the conflict of countries or races or classes.
Overall, it is a powerful defense of incremental improvements to society, as compared to revolutionary changes. "The political artist clamors, like Archimedes, for a place outside the social world on which he can take his stand, in order to lever it off it hinges. But such a place does not exist; and the social world must continue to function during any reconstruction. This is the simple reason why we must reform institutions little by little, until we have more experience in social engineering." It also lays out a very good guideline for when a violent revolution should be considered: "In other words, the use of violence is justified only under a tyranny which makes reforms without violence impossible, and it should have only one aim, that is, to bring about a state of affairs which makes reforms without violence possible."
It's interesting that everyone points to this book as the source of the "paradox of tolerance". He does talk about it here and there, but it definitely isn't a focus, and he writes about it as an existing concept. This book is above all else a passionate -- yet very well reasoned and argued -- love letter to democracy. He makes a strong case that not only is it the best form of government we've discovered, but that anything better would still have to be democratic in nature, as it is only through those feedback loops that centralized power can be contained.
Volume 1 is a glorious, extended attack on Plato. It put into words a lot that I had been feeling on the subject but never been quite able to vocalize before. Rather or not he is correct about how he splits the views of Socrates from those of Plato is unknowable and actually rather irrelevant. The important part is how Plato has been interpreted over history, and there he is definitely spot on. If you've ever read The Republic and been fascinated but still spluttering objections several times a page, you should at least read volume 1 here.
Volume 2 extends this thinking to Hegel and Marx, and the dangerous of grand, sweeping theories of historical forces. I haven't read any Hegel, so it's hard for me to judge how fair he is being there. I thought his analysis of Marx's Capital was spot on, though, and a refreshingly fair assessment of that book's strengths and weaknesses. I definitely like his formulation of how believing in any form of historical destiny inevitably leads to terrible outcomes. This volume also starts by taking Aristotle to task, and I'll never tire of that. "They show not trace of the tragic and stirring conflict that is the motive of Plato's work. Instead of Plato's flashes of penetrating insight, we find dry systematization and the love, shared by so many mediocre writers of later times, for settling any question whatever by issuing a 'sound and balanced judgement' that does justice to everybody; which means, at times, by elaborately and solemnly missing the point." This volume ends with one of my favorite sections from the entire book, arguing against the fundamental reality of any history, short of a complete chronicle of literally every human who has ever lived. This includes examining what it says that we still see the history of empires and oppression as the default, most important kind of history to be taught. I posted extended chunks of text to Twitter yesterday while reading it, and I could have posted a lot more. He doesn't phrase it in these terms, being written in 1945 outside of Paris, but he takes a deeply existentialist view of the meaningless of history, and how we need to find comfort in creating our own meaning, instead of having it thrust upon us by those who see meaning only in the conflict of countries or races or classes.
Overall, it is a powerful defense of incremental improvements to society, as compared to revolutionary changes. "The political artist clamors, like Archimedes, for a place outside the social world on which he can take his stand, in order to lever it off it hinges. But such a place does not exist; and the social world must continue to function during any reconstruction. This is the simple reason why we must reform institutions little by little, until we have more experience in social engineering." It also lays out a very good guideline for when a violent revolution should be considered: "In other words, the use of violence is justified only under a tyranny which makes reforms without violence impossible, and it should have only one aim, that is, to bring about a state of affairs which makes reforms without violence possible."
It's interesting that everyone points to this book as the source of the "paradox of tolerance". He does talk about it here and there, but it definitely isn't a focus, and he writes about it as an existing concept. This book is above all else a passionate -- yet very well reasoned and argued -- love letter to democracy. He makes a strong case that not only is it the best form of government we've discovered, but that anything better would still have to be democratic in nature, as it is only through those feedback loops that centralized power can be contained.