anon_lemy said in #3579 3w ago:
Karl Popper pulled a nasty trick on us with the idea of the "open society". He defined it as the society in which anything can be said or done except that which threatens tolerant neutrality. This he called the "paradox of tolerance". In other words the "open" society is one which tolerates no openly stated particular ideas of the good, no dissent from its contentless totalitarian tolerance.
Of course in practice it is impossible to have a society with no particular intolerant idea of what is good, so the "open society" serves only as a magic formula to obscure the intolerant actions of power under the guise of merely defining what counts as intolerance.
Is this a cheap pedantic objection? Only somewhat. There is a practical problem: if the purposes of power are not openly stated and legitimate on their own terms, but have to be hidden behind a false neutrality, they are likely to become incoherent and illegitimate in actuality. "Paradoxical tolerance" legitimized as a formula to protect western civilization from pathological extremist intolerance against foreigners and moral degeneracy, becomes in practice a formula for legitimating the destruction of western civilization by privileging foreigners and moral degeneracy against all attempts at societal self-regulation.
Popper and his students like Soros may have known exactly what they were doing, but one way or the other results which would be criminal treason if endorsed openly become the law of the land under the guise of "tolerance" because of this indirection.
But lets look also at why tolerance was legitimate in the first place. There was before the chaos of the 20th century an era of relative openness and tolerance which many up-and-coming elite groups enjoyed. This was the result of mature and healthy power, which is tolerant by nature because it is strong and lazy. In proper balance, this tolerance is a great thing. But it is a result, not a cause. The cause was something intolerant: a power composed of the european monarchies, aristocracy, and church that guarded its own interests and the health of its society. It may in fact have proved to be too tolerant, and not only against "intolerant" extremists but also against those like Popper who enjoyed that tolerance as political license without responsibility.
20th century open society liberalism is an attempt to recapture that tolerant result through the vehicle of totalitarian ideology. But this doesn't work. Ideology isn't stable or strategic enough to create the real thing. There is always some group of more extreme activists who can claim to represent the more pure ideological position, or are better at manipulation. Thus ideological coordination creates purity sprials towards the "left singularity" which in our case has taken the character of ever purer expressions of that which was or would be banned under a sensible "intolerant" regime.
The lesson for us as we consider our politics now in the 21st century is that while we might like *results* like colorblind meritocracy, liberal economic freedom, and general tolerance, those are neither effective means nor acceptable rallying ideologies. They may be good campaign promises for the base who just wants sane defaults and for coexistence with the west, but the hardcore must be motivated by something more actually intolerant, and if it's not going to be insane and evil, it should be some purpose that can be declared and debated openly. But furthermore, to avoid the holiness spiral, it should not itself be a formula of legitimation-by-purity. Legitimacy must come from something much more incumbency-biased like a claim on the mandate of heaven.
(This is a further reflection on the example of LKY's politics as we discussed around >>3381, and what precise political lesson should be taken from his three commitments: antiracism, democracy, and pragmatism. Point being, don't put more stock in them than they are worth, but understand that what really counts is the more positive vision.)
Of course in practice it is impossible to have a society with no particular intolerant idea of what is good, so the "open society" serves only as a magic formula to obscure the intolerant actions of power under the guise of merely defining what counts as intolerance.
Is this a cheap pedantic objection? Only somewhat. There is a practical problem: if the purposes of power are not openly stated and legitimate on their own terms, but have to be hidden behind a false neutrality, they are likely to become incoherent and illegitimate in actuality. "Paradoxical tolerance" legitimized as a formula to protect western civilization from pathological extremist intolerance against foreigners and moral degeneracy, becomes in practice a formula for legitimating the destruction of western civilization by privileging foreigners and moral degeneracy against all attempts at societal self-regulation.
Popper and his students like Soros may have known exactly what they were doing, but one way or the other results which would be criminal treason if endorsed openly become the law of the land under the guise of "tolerance" because of this indirection.
But lets look also at why tolerance was legitimate in the first place. There was before the chaos of the 20th century an era of relative openness and tolerance which many up-and-coming elite groups enjoyed. This was the result of mature and healthy power, which is tolerant by nature because it is strong and lazy. In proper balance, this tolerance is a great thing. But it is a result, not a cause. The cause was something intolerant: a power composed of the european monarchies, aristocracy, and church that guarded its own interests and the health of its society. It may in fact have proved to be too tolerant, and not only against "intolerant" extremists but also against those like Popper who enjoyed that tolerance as political license without responsibility.
20th century open society liberalism is an attempt to recapture that tolerant result through the vehicle of totalitarian ideology. But this doesn't work. Ideology isn't stable or strategic enough to create the real thing. There is always some group of more extreme activists who can claim to represent the more pure ideological position, or are better at manipulation. Thus ideological coordination creates purity sprials towards the "left singularity" which in our case has taken the character of ever purer expressions of that which was or would be banned under a sensible "intolerant" regime.
The lesson for us as we consider our politics now in the 21st century is that while we might like *results* like colorblind meritocracy, liberal economic freedom, and general tolerance, those are neither effective means nor acceptable rallying ideologies. They may be good campaign promises for the base who just wants sane defaults and for coexistence with the west, but the hardcore must be motivated by something more actually intolerant, and if it's not going to be insane and evil, it should be some purpose that can be declared and debated openly. But furthermore, to avoid the holiness spiral, it should not itself be a formula of legitimation-by-purity. Legitimacy must come from something much more incumbency-biased like a claim on the mandate of heaven.
(This is a further reflection on the example of LKY's politics as we discussed around >>3381, and what precise political lesson should be taken from his three commitments: antiracism, democracy, and pragmatism. Point being, don't put more stock in them than they are worth, but understand that what really counts is the more positive vision.)
Karl Popper pulled a