Plato's Closed Society vs. Popper's Open Society

Paper Summary:

This paper discusses how an open society, as Karl Popper defines it, at its core is simply envisioned as a civilization in which the government progresses based on criticism sparked by individuals and their thoughts. In comparison, it looks at how Popper believes that in Plato's closed society, change of leadership would more than likely involve violence and how Plato's viewpoints are a way for dictators to hold people back.

From the Paper:

"In the non threatening environment of an open society, it is seen as likely for people to live peacefully, with the possibility of debates, but limiting them from developing into disputes. Popper backs this assertion up by saying, "[O]ne of the best sense of 'reason' is openness to criticism." As individuals discuss their ideals, progress is continual, with additions and alterations to social policy persisting; it is expected that this progress grants the authority to oust political leaders and their practices in a peaceful and intelligent manner. Bullying through violence and intimidation does not align itself with an open society."

More papers on Plato's Closed Society vs. Popper's Open Society:

• Film Review # 54712 : "Plato's Myth vs. "A Time to Kill"
• Comparison Essay # 5312 : "Plato's Cave vs. Lao-tzu's Way"
• Comparison Essay # 148715 : "Twain vs. Thoreau on Society and Humanity"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: