Talk:Open society

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (core areas): Social and political philosophy

I am not a social scientist or something similar, but I recall one of definition of open societies something like "society where vertical movement is easy"; i.e. where changes in social status are easy. But I cannot find anything similar on the page.

saigon_from_europe

This article seems to be talking about the concept of the "open society" in politics. While politics and social/economic structures are typically closely related, they are not the same; therefore the concept of "open society" in economics would either be a distinct section of the article or a different article. --Dpr 09:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

What you are touching on, Dpr, is the distinction between social mobility and economic mobility. Mobility in social status is relevant. Indeed, Popper discusses it in The Open Society and Its Enemies. For that reason I have attended to saigon_from_europe's suggestion for the article. Robnpov 21:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soros and the Open Society Institute

Today I spent several hours reading volume one of Karl Poppers The Open Society and its Enemies, and just now I finished the article at the external link on this page [1]. The contrast between the views expressed by Popper and LaMarche vary widely. In fact, they would have strongly disagreed on what an open society is and ought to be. Ideally this page would be rewritten to contrast the two different versions of 'open society'. Because I lack the expertise to write such an article I cannot resolve the issue. I have deleted the external link because it does not offer any explanation of what an open society is or ought to be. The article claimed that the right wing in America is destroying our open society in vague references to current political events. The concept of an open society is a philosophical one and should be represented here as such and not in editorial rants by partisans.

Soros has a new book comming out December 25th. I don't recall the exact title but it is on his conception of the open society. This would povide a good source for the article.

Collingsworth 02:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] From or for

"keeps no secrets FROM itself", or "keeps no secrets FOR itself", or "keeps no secrets from de public"

Above comment also seems relevant: "society where vertical movement is easy"

As it is, "from", would be applicable to the left hand not knowing what the right is doing. "For" would be redundant. "From the public" is distinctly different. "The public" is not the same as "the State", though they are a defining part. However, while the sentence as it stands is grammatically correct, it is ambiguous. Also, whoever wrote it is by no means perfect. What source can we check this against, I wonder? --Talionis ^{(Shout me · Stalk me)} 10:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)