Suchergebnisse

Karl Popper y Friedrich von Hayek son recordados como dos de los mayores defensores en el siglo XX, del concepto de sociedad abierta. Ambos nacieron en Viena. Ambos se sintieron atraídos hacia el socialismo en sus años mozos, y los dos escribieron críticas seminales contra el socialismo, que revelaban sus defectos fundamentales. También eran muy buenos amigos, que se ayudaron mutuamente en sus carreras, y generalmente se los consideró aliados filosóficos. Sin embargo, los puntos de vista de Hayek sobre la democracia, la racionalidad y el economicismo, eran fundamentalmente opuestos a los de Popper -e incluso quizás- a la sociedad abierta en sí. El presente artículo, se centra en sus diferencias sobre el economicismo.Argumenta que la crítica popperiana al economicismo de Marx, también puede aplicarse a Hayek; que éste estaba "preparado" para aceptar el socialismo si pudiera ser tan eficiente y productivo como el mercado; que Popper no; y que es imposible realizar la idea de Hayek sobre la libertad por la misma razón que éste pensaba que el socialismo no podría tener éxito. ; Karl Popper and Friedrich von Hayek are remembered as two of the 20th century's greatest proponents of open society. They both were born in Vienna. They both were attracted to socialism early in life. And they both wrote seminal critiques of socialism that revealed its fundamental flaws. They were also very close friends, helped each other in their careers, and were generally regarded as philosophical allies. But Hayek's views about democracy, rationality, and economism are fundamentally at odds with Popper's -and perhaps even- with open society itself. This paper focuses upon their differences about economism. It argues that Popper's critique of Marx's economism also applies to Hayek; that Hayek was 'prepared' to accept socialism if it could be as efficient and productive as the market; that Popper wasn't; and that it is impossible to realize Hayek's idea of freedom for the very same reason that Hayek thought socialism could not succeed.

Karl Popper is widely regarded as the twentieth century's greatest critic of Marxism. This article, based upon his 1942-47 correspondence with Rudolf Carnap, shows that Popper's critique of scientific socialism had less to do with Marx's social goals than with the attitudes that Marxists adopted toward their means of achieving them. It also reveals how Carnap, who tried to keep his politics separate from his epistemology, managed to mix the two when refusing to give Popper his wholehearted support in finding both a publisher for The Open Society and Its Enemies and a position that would give him greater opportunities for research.

The Rationality Principle says that people act adequately to their situation, but does not specify how they must act in order to do so. Situational Analysis uses the Rationality Principle, together with a model of the social situation, to explain actions in the past. Unlike Rational Choice Theory, Situational Analysis does not try to predict or influence actions in the future. Popper regarded the Rationality Principle as false, but thought that we should use it nonetheless. This poses a problem for understanding his views about conjecture and refutation. Popper, however, thought that all scientific models are false, and that whether or not we should reject a model depends on the problem that we are trying to solve.