La miseria del historicismo

by Karl Popper, Pedro Schwartz (Translator)

Brillante y apasionado ensayo que ha ejercido una decisiva influencia sobre la teoría social y política contemporánea, “La miseria del historicismo” incide en la debilidad interna que aqueja a la estructura teórica de esta corriente de pensamiento y que es partir de una premisa tan errónea en su planteamiento como falaz en sus implicaciones: la certeza de que la evolución humana puede ser objeto de predicción mediante el descubrimiento de los ritos, modelos, leyes o tendencias que supuestamente gobernarían su curso. Ahora bien, como argumenta Karl R. Popper en esta audaz crítica, dado que la historia humana está influida de forma crucial por el crecimiento del conocimiento, y dado también que no cabe anticipar hoy lo que sabremos mañana, la pretensión de predecir así el futuro carece de todo fundamento científico y pertenece al campo de la pura superstición.

Genres: Philosophy, History, Nonfiction, Politics, Science, Sociology, Social Science

214 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1957

About the author

Sir Karl Raimund Popper, FRS, rose from a modest background as an assistant cabinet maker and school teacher to become one of the most influential theorists and leading philosophers. Popper commanded international audiences and conversation with him was an intellectual adventure—even if a little rough—animated by a myriad of philosophical problems. He contributed to a field of thought encompassing (among others) political theory, quantum mechanics, logic, scientific method and evolutionary theory.

Popper challenged some of the ruling orthodoxies of philosophy: logical positivism, Marxism, determinism and linguistic philosophy. He argued that there are no subject matters but only problems and our desire to solve them. He said that scientific theories cannot be verified but only tentatively refuted, and that the best philosophy is about profound problems, not word meanings. Isaiah Berlin rightly said that Popper produced one of the most devastating refutations of Marxism. Through his ideas Popper promoted a critical ethos, a world in which the give and take of debate is highly esteemed in the precept that we are all infinitely ignorant, that we differ only in the little bits of knowledge that we do have, and that with some co-operative effort we may get nearer to the truth.

Nearly every first-year philosophy student knows that Popper regarded his solutions to the problems of induction and the demarcation of science from pseudo-science as his greatest contributions. He is less known for the problems of verisimilitude, of probability (a life-long love of his), and of the relationship between the mind and body.

Popper was a Fellow of the Royal Society, Fellow of the British Academy, and Membre de I'Institute de France. He was an Honorary member of the Harvard Chapter of Phi Beta Kappa, and an Honorary Fellow of the London School of Economics, King's College London, and of Darwin College Cambridge. He was awarded prizes and honours throughout the world, including the Austrian Grand Decoration of Honour in Gold, the Lippincott Award of the American Political Science Association, and the Sonning Prize for merit in work which had furthered European civilization.

Karl Popper was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II in 1965 and invested by her with the Insignia of a Companion of Honour in 1982.

(edited from http://www.tkpw.net/intro_popper/intr...)

Reviews

[Peiman E iran · Rating 3 out of 5]

دوستانِ گرانقدر، از میانِ نوشته هایِ زنده یاد «کارل پوپر»، به انتخاب چکیده ای از این کتاب که به نظرم از اهمیت بالاتری برخوردار بود را به زبانی ساده و گویا، در زیر برایِ شما دوستدارنِ فلسفه و خردگرایی، مینویسم
----------------------------------------------
تاریخ مجموعه ای از رویدادهایِ گذشته است و هر نسلی میتواند تفسیرهایِ معین و متفاوتی را از این رویدادها، ارائه دهد
**************
پيشگويیِ جريانِ تاريخِ بشری چه از راهِ دانش و چه به کمکِ روشهایِ استدلالیِ ديگر، غیرممکن میباشد و اعتقاد به سرنوشتِ تاريخی، چیزی جز خرافات و موهمات نخواهد بود
**************
ما نمیدانیم که آينده با خود چه خواهد آورد!! و به آنهایی که فکر میکنند از آینده باخبر هستند، نبايد باور داشته باشیم... ولی میتوانیم از گذشته و حال درس گرفته و آیندۀ خویش را در مسیرِ خرد و مهرورزی بسازیم و از تلاش برایِ ساختِ دنیایی بهتر دست نکشیم
**************
تاريخگرايی یک انديشۀ کهن است.. رؤيایِ خبر دادن از آينده، همیشه از زمانهایِ کهن همراهِ انسانها بوده و اين باور وجود داشته که در پشتِ دستورهایِ به ظاهر کورکورانۀ سرنوشت، پایانی نهفته است... تاريخگرايان تلاش میکنند که با تفسيرِ گذشته، آينده را پيشگويی کنند. آنها با آنکه خواستارِ جهانی بهترند، بر اين باورند که روندِ تکاملیِ تاريخ، به شکلی سرنوشت ساز و مُقدر، انسانها را به سویِ جامعه ای آرمانی میراند.. این یعنی اعتقاد به موهوماتی همچون تقدیر و معجزه.... بهتر است بدانیم که چنين نظری به معنایِ باور داشتن به معجزاتِ سياسی و اجتماعی میباشد و منکر این حقیقت است که این خرد و دانشِ انسان است که توانِ ساختِ جهانِ بهتری را دارد... تاريخگرايان تبليغ میکنند که انتقال از وضعِ کنونی به جهانی بهتر، از طريقِ قوانينِ کور و اجتناب ناپذيرِ توسعة اجتماعی امکان پذير است و به اين ترتيب بايد اين قوانين را شناخت و در مقابلِ آنها سرِ تعظيم فرود آورد، ولی بدانید که این چيزی جز اعتراف به شکستِ عقل و خرد نخواهد بود
**************
کسانی همچون مارکس تصور میکنند که حرکتِ تکاملیِ جامعۀ بشری به سویِ کمونيسم، حرکتی تاریخی و قانونمند است.. در صورتی که این یک نظریۀ غيرعلمی میباشد.. جريانِ تاريخِ بشری به شدت از پيشرفتِ شناختِ انسانی تأثیر میگیرد و ما نمیتوانیم با روشهایِ علمی و استدلالی، پيشرفتِ دانشِ خويش در آینده را پيش بينی کنيم. به عبارتِ ديگر، اگر چيزی به نامِ پيشرفت و رشدِ شناختِ بشری وجود داشته باشد، پس ما امروز نمیتوانيم پيش بينی کنيم که فردا چه چيز خواهيم دانست
**************
آنچه به عنوانِ تاريخِ جهان يا تاريخِ بشر شناخته میشود، چيزی نيست جز تاريخِ قدرتِ سياسی... و اين تاريخ نيز چيزی نيست مگر تاريخِ جنايات و کشتارهایِ جمعی، که در مدارس و دانشگاه ها آن را به سطحِ تاريخِ بشريت ارتقاء داده اند
**************
قدرتِ سياسی همواره در مرکزِ توجهِ تاريخ نويسان بوده است و قدرتمندان و سلاطین همواره آرزو داشته اند که موردِ ستايش همگان باشند. آنها در اين زمينه ابزارِ لازم را نيز در اختيار داشته اند و بنابراین بسياری از تاريخ نويسان در خدمت و زيرِ نظرِ سلاطين و حاکمانِ مستبد و ديکتاتور، به اين امر گردن نهاده اند
**************
ما میتوانيم با درس گرفتن از چالشها و کاستی هایِ نبرد و پيکارِ زور و قدرت، تاريخ را از ديدگاهِ تلاشِ خویش در راهِ برپاییِ یک «جامعة باز» و «حاکميتِ خرد» تفسیر کنیم... و در راهِ دفع جناياتِ بين المللی گام برداریم.. ما میتوانيم مطالعة تاريخ را با اين پرسش همراه سازيم که در گذرِ تاريخ چه بر سرِ ايده هایِ ما و به ويژه ايده هایِ اخلاقی و انسانیِ ما، يعنی ايده هایِ آزادی و رهايی خويشتن از طريقِ خرد و دانش آمده است؟ چه چیزهایی باعثِ ویرانی آرزوها و آزادیِ انسانها شده است؟ چه چیزی مانعِ پیشرفتِ انسانها در دانش در طول تاریخ بوده است؟ و چه چیزی سبب شده تا برخی از انسانها به جایِ برگزیدنِ خرد و دانش، به سویِ موهوماتِ غیر عقلانی کشیده شوند؟؟ با خوانشِ تاریخ، میتوانیم از خود این را بپرسیم که چه پيشرفتهایی را داشته ایم و اين پيشرفتها را با چه قيمتی به دست آورده ايم؟ از اين طريق است که ما میتوانيم به تاريخ، معنا و مفهوم ببخشيم و برایِ آن هدفی تعيين کنيم.. آنهم معنا و هدفی شايستة انسان و خردِ انسانی
---------------------------------------------
عزیزان و نورِ چشمانم، در این سالها تلاش کردم تا در زمینه هایِ گوناگونِ تاریخی، ریویوهایِ زیادی را در گودریدز برایتان بنویسم.. چراکه باور دارم دانستنِ تاریخ میتواند در انتخابِ مسیرِ درستِ زندگی به شما یاری رساند.. پس هیچگاه درسهایی که تاریخ به شما میدهد را فراموش نکنید... امیدوارم این ریویو برایِ شما دوستانِ خردگرا، مفید بوده باشه
«پیروز باشید و ایرانی»

[Xander · Rating 3 out of 5]

In this little book, Karl Popper worked out his earlier thoughts on the phenomenon of - what he called - historicism. This book was originally written in 1935 and revised multiple times before Popper published the final edition in 1957. In the meanwhile, Popper published his magnum opus, The Open Society and Its Enemies (1944), in which he describes the origins of the idea of historicist philosophy - he traces it back to Plato, and via Aristotle and Hegel to Marx.

I had already read The Open Society and Its Enemies, and was curious if The Poverty of Historicism had to offer any new insights. And I can recommend reading this prequel to The Open Society to anyone! Popper is one of the most clearest philosophers ever - he has the amazing gift to explain the most abstract and dry material (e.g. logic) in a clear and concise way. Compare this to such bombastic philosophers like Hegel, Nietzsche and Kant and you will never want to read continental philosophers anymore!

So what is this book exactly? The Poverty of Historicism is Popper's logical refutation of historicism. Historicism is the idea - very old, incidentally - that the philosopher can study history to find historical laws. By using these historical laws, the philosopher of history is able to not only understand the evolution of history, but also - and more importantly - to make prophetical predictions about the future. This has to be clarified though, since it is easy to misunderstand this position.

The historicist claims that history evolves according to laws of progress; history knows different stages and each stage has its own guiding laws. The laws of one stage aren't applicable in the preceding or following historical periods. The historicist, living in a particular historical period, is therefore, by definition, not able to predict the future, only to discern a general trend of pregression and the insight that a next phase is near. This leads the historicist to two options: (1) if the next stage isn't attractive, history has to be arrested and the current stage prolonged indefinitely; (2) if the next stage is attractive, history has to be sped up by active intervention in the current stage. So, even though the historicist believes in an objective progression of progress, developing independent of ourselves (i.e. fatalism), human beings can intervene with activism to arrest or hasten the progress.

Considering the abstract ideas involved, it is good to illustrate historicism with some examples. I will mention Plato, Hegel and Marx, following Popper's own examples.

(1) Plato - according to Popper the first philosopher to truly work out the idea of historicism - observed the continuous change in nature and concluded that all change in this world is degeneration. This is to be related to his Ideas or Forms, which were perfect notions of worldly, imperfect objects. This continuous degeneration means that, if we have a particular state of society, things can only get worse. What should we do? We should postpone the future degeneration by intervening right now: the philosopher-king should dictate what society should be like and should intervene where things start to get out of control. In effect, Plato argues that we need tiranny in order to arrest degeneration.

(2) Hegel was the first to come up with a philosophy of history. He thought that history proceeds according to a dialectic process. First history proceeds in one way, then a counter-movement starts to swing history in the other way, and after this we get a sort of synthesis of both movements. This synthesis, by and in itself, is the next stage in history and the dialectical process of thesis, antithesis and synthesis repeats itself endlessly. So, like Plato, Hegel thought he had discovered a law of history, that let him understand history as a process of dialectics.

(3) Karl Marx took Hegel's notion of dialectics and fused it with his own idea of materialism. According to Marx, history is changed by revolutions, which are in a sense the prelude of a new historical phase. The period he lived in, 19th century Europe, would see the collapse of capitalism (due to internal contradictions) and the revolution in which the proletarians would take over control of the capital and would end, ultimately, in the radical equality of all people.

Marx's theory (history is class struggle), is the clearest illustration of Popper's point. Marx thought he had found, by studying economic history, historical laws. When one has discovered this historical law (i.e. dialectical materialism), one can easily apply it to the current state of affairs to come up with a prophecy about future events. Thus Marx thought that the end of capitalism would herald a new age of radical equality. This was, according to Marx, an inevitable, historical fact. As mentioned above, the historicist doesn't claim that human beings can change the future; he does claim that one can speed up or slow down the future from evolving.

It is easy to see how one can fall into the delusion of wanting to intervene in this world, in order to speed up historical progress. In other words: let's start a revolution to usher in the new time!

An important characteristic of historicism is, according to Popper, the desire to offer holistic and utopian solutions to current problems. The historicist wants to radically change society, to wipe out everything and start all over again. And this is exactly what happened in the 20th century, when Hitler and Stalin thought they had to carry out the historical laws of (respectively) race and class and bring into practice a new, utopian society - with all the horrific results this caused. Holistic and utopian idea(l)s can only lead to suffering and tragedy; as a solution Popper advocates piecemeal social engineering: the scrupulous changing of one variable at a time, with the goal to eliminate the faults in the system. So, while Lenin claimed "you can't make an omelet without breaking a few shells" (i.e. anything goes), Popper argues for twiddling the knobs to alleviate suffering. A much better outlook!

But back to thePoverty of Historicism. Popper first sets out the position of historicism, clearly outlining all the issues involved and giving an honest exposition. After this, he uses the rest of the book to refute all the arguments that historicists use to defend their method. In general, it boils down to the following.

In sociology, the scientist should use the same methods as he would use in the natural sciences. He should by hypothetical-deductive systems: deducing hypotheses and then try to refute these with carefully controlled experiments. Theories should be testable and falsifiable.

In history, the historian should choose an interesting frame with which to tell the historical story, leaving all the irrelevant facts out of it. When one encounters a historical trend, one should not mistake this for a natural law: the trend of demographic growth can abruptly change, and is therefore not a universal law, valid in all time and space.

It is this last point, according to Popper, that lies at the root of the historical trend (pun intended) of historicism. Biological evolution, as well as history of mankind, are both a product of the combination of natural laws and initial conditions. This means that (for example) the biological trend of more and more complex organisms is nothing more than the interaction of (1) the initial conditions when the Earth originated (for example, the abundance of elements) and (2) the relevant natural laws (for example the laws of physics and the law of genetics/inheritance). In other words: claiming that the biological evolution on planet Earth is a law in itself is a fallacy.

In essence, The Poverty of Historicism is just another part of Popper's philosophy. I really like it that he builds a whole new system of logic and science and applies this consequently to practical life. Only truly great minds are able to come up with a consistent, coherent and interesting world picture, and Popper is one of the greatest for sure. He is original, clear, consequent and rigorous. By far my favorite philosopher!

As a last remark: a very short oversight of the connections between his three most important books. In The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934) Popper worked out his system of logic: scientists should give up the hope of positively proving their theories; they should offer daring hypotheses and try to falsify these with experiments and observations. When theories withstand these tests, they are corroborated; if not, they are refuted and should be dropped. In other words: scientists should weed out the bad theories, and what remains is a strong body of knowledge. In The Poverty of Historicism (1936), Popper applies this scientific method to sociology and does away with the mysticism of historicism and all its inherent dangers of trying to control and dominate mankind. In The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945) he delves deeper into the origins of historicism and approaches it from a more philosophical and practical point of view, showing how the philosophies of Plato, Hegel and Marx have been decisive in historicist thought. In his later works, Popper added to these themes, but I think one can safely say that these three works are the foundation of Popper's philosophy.

[Christian Anderson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Popper criticizes 'historicism', particularly its holism, its belief in trends as the proper topic of scientific analysis, and its propensity towards prophesy and utopian engineering. The first two sections of the book offer a mosaic portrait of historicism. Popper then articulates a 'piecemeal' scientific approach in contrast to the all-or-nothing approach of the historicists. His claims are empirical but have a normative undertone in their criticism of utopian engineering.

Popper's piecemeal scientific approach is familiar today, so I found his portrait of historicism to be the book's most novel aspect.

This book is accessible introduction to the works of Popper.

[Ivan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Mah! Pensavo chi sa che, ma per carità, è abbastanza interessante. E' un po' vecchiotto, ma, in fondo, se le scienze socieli si sono evolute nel dopoguerra è stato proprio grazie all'utilizzo dei metodi di ricerca quantitativi. Lo storicismo esiste più? forse no, ma esiste ancora, e forse esisterà sempre (come è sempre esistita)la pretesa (illusoria) di vedere nella storia delle leggi di sviluppo. Non c'è alcun senso nella storia intellegibile all'uomo, a meno che non si sia credenti. Ma questa è un'altra storia (della Salvezza).

[Lisa · Rating 2 out of 5]

Look, it hasn’t held up well. The arguments he’s part of are gone. It was hard going. At the end, I think he’s saying historical studies are just as committed to general laws as physical sciences and for the same reason. I’m someone who is convinced by what he calls “historicism” —the idea that each time and place is different and can’t be combined into universal laws, each assessed on its own. I don’t buy his criticism of that idea. I’m sad because I was looking forward to reading some Popper 😟

[Fried Potato · Rating 1 out of 5]

Popper builds a house, then starts to point all its flaws and demolishing it while saying "you see that guy? he LOVES this house". With the debris he builds another house, that is not so bad designed as the first one, but still has really bad foundations.

[Daniel Wright · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm not qualified to have much of an opinion about this book, I just wanted to note this thing from the blurb:

'Probably the only book published this year which will outlive the century.' Arthur Koestler, reviewing the first edition

'This year' turns out to be 1957, presumably. The following books also came out that year, according to Wikipedia:
* Doctor Zhivago by Boris Pasternak (91.386 ratings on Goodreads at the time of writing)
* Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand (375,366)
* The Cat in the Hat by Dr Seuss (499,901)
* How the Grinch Stole Christmas! by Dr Seuss (380,760)
* Endgame by Samuel Beckett (19,564)
* Anatomy of Criticism by Northrop Frye (1,788)

And that's just the books I've personally heard of. This book, meanwhile, has a mere 1,292 (including mine, presumably). I think this just goes to show the narrow perspective of the specialist.

[Ahmad Abdul Rahim · Rating 2 out of 5]

Aku menyusuli pembacaan aku terhadap buku Poverty of Historicism dengan buku Against Method, nukilan Feyerabend. Dan itu itu ternyata membenarkan beberapa persoalan-persoalan dan bantahan aku yang berbangkit sekitar pembacaan buku Popper ini.

Popper adalah, sebelum apa-apa designatori yang lain, seorang ahli falsafah sains (philosopher of science). Mungkin terdapat bayang-bayang seorang ahli falsafah politik di dalam penulisan beliau yang terdahulu, yang paling ketara antaranya adalah di dalam Open Society. Tetapi itu semua adalah sekondari atau lanjutan mantiki (logical extension) kepada tugasnya yang pertama tadi.

Kerana itu subjek buku ini yang menyentuh berkenaan pandangan kesejarahan atau pendekatan yang diambil oleh ahli sejarahwan adalah unik bilamana kita merenungkan latarbelakang penulisnya. Mungkinkah buku ini ditulis dengan motif yang sama seperti motif di sebalik penulisan Open Society? Berdasarkan prolog, kemungkinan itu adalah warid.

Jika benar, buku ini sememangnya berjaya melakukan sedemikian.

Popper memberikan hujah yang sangat kuat (dan begitu bernuansakan Kantian) berkenaan falasi yang mendasari sebarang projek atau pemikiran yang bermatlamatkan holistik. Beliau kemungkinan memaksudkan antaranya ideologi ‘dialektikal materialisme’ atau ‘pergelutan kelas’ milik Marxis dalam hal ini. Ideologi Marx telah memformulasikan suatu ideologi profetik dan bukannya saintifik. Marx menyangka bahawa ideologi beliau telah merangkumkan segala kemungkinan yang berlaku sehingga beliau berani mengisytiharkan bahawa setiap masyarakat adalah sedang menuju kepada tahap kesama-taraan mutlak ie komunisme. Idea Marx ini, sambil memparafrasakan Popper, tidak dapat disangkal dengan hujah rasional kerana sebarang hujah yang bakal dibangkitkan ke atas ideologi itu sudahpun dibingkaikan lewat lensa mereka (eg: ini adalah hujah bourgeois, berniat jahat kepada golongan pekerja etc).

Jika hujah Popper ini diterima, kita boleh katakan sosialisme dan penyelewengan-penyelewengannya lewat Lenninisme atau Maoisme tidak boleh diasingkan beban salahnya daripada sosok Marx dan Engels.

Tetapi di lembaran-lembaran lain di dalam buku ini, yang menyentuh berkenaan aspek-aspek yang membincangkan falsafah dan metodologi sejarah, tesis buku ini runtuh.

Hakikat bahawa Popper adalah seorang rasionalis degil (obstinate rationalist) dan pada masa yang sama, cuba untuk menyusupkan‘falsifiability criterion’ yang dibangunkannya untuk falsafah sains kepada falsafah sejarah secara umumnya, adalah menyakitkan hati. Contohnya, apabila berbicara tentang sejarah secara pandangan mata helang, berbanding dengan kita membincangkan apakah kriteria-kriteria peristiwa yang boleh melorongkan kepada kemajuan, sejarahwan, menurut Popper, perlu membicangkan terlebih dahulu, apakah kriteria-kriteria peristiwa yang membantutkan kemajuan – satu cadangan yang terlalu naif bagi aku, seolah tiada sejarahwan pernah terfikir untuk melakukan sedemikian.

Malah pembaca kadang-kadang terpanggil untuk mempersoalkan kompentensi Popper di dalam bidang historiografi serta falsafah sejarah. Tambahan pula bilamana beliau menemplak, di lembaran yang lain, bahawa sejarahwan sering mengalami delusi bahawa naratif sejarah yang diajukan mereka bukanlah sebahagian daripada pendapat peribadi mereka sendiri – satu kritikan yang bukan sahaja dangkal malah sombong.

Dualisme sains tabie dan sains sosial juga adalah didapati di mana-mana. Yang satu sentiasa dijadikan kriteria pengukur kepada yang lain. Menyebabkan pembaca teringin untuk berteriak: “Ia tidak semudah seperti itu!”

Sungguh sekali, satu indikator kepada kerapuhan tindak kritikan Popper adalah satu-satunya penyejarah (historicist) yang disentuh oleh beliau dengan panjang lebar adalah Tolstoy (adakah penyejarahan (historicism) merupakan suatu falsafah yang dibangunkan secara sedar, dan mempunyai perintis-perintis dan pelopor-pelopor lain yang boleh disenaraikan dengan yakin?)

Adikarya War and Peace tulisan Tolstoy adalah suatu gambaran kompleksiti peristiwa-peristiwa di sebalik tabir yang melorongkan kepada insiden Perang Perancis-Russia 1812 dan ia merupakan suatu percubaan secara sedar oleh Tolstoy untuk menidakkan naratif perdana sejarah ketika itu yang menekankan peranan kritikal panglima-panglima perang di kedua-dua pihak: Napoleon, Alexander, Kutuzov etc. Menurut Popper, karya Tolstoy itu adalah tidak kurang bercitrakan penyejarahan (historicism) sepertimana naratif sediada -versi Great Men- yang cuba dikritik Tolstoy itu.

Ia adalah satu pernyataan yang aku boleh setuju secara prinsip dan apabila membaca buku ini, pembaca boleh lihat bagaimana kritikan tersebut merupakan lanjutan kepada pengkategorian awal penulis. Di sana, Popper yang membahagikan penyejarahan kepada sisi anti-naturalistik dan naturalistik (‘natural’ di sini digunakan dalam erti yang sama yang difahami lewat istilah ‘natural laws’ atau ‘naturalism’).

Naratif sediada yang cuba dicabar oleh Tolstoy itu adalah Naratif Manusia-Manusia Agung. Sejarah adalah fenomena sosial yang unik (novelty). Ia berlangsung hanya sekali tanpa boleh diulang. Sejarah berkembang secara kitaran atau berepisod dengan setiap fasa tersebut mempunyai ‘semangat’ atau ‘zeitgeist’ tersendiri. Ia boleh dikesani lewat manusia-manusia yang paling gah mewajahkan semangat-semangat itu pada era tersebut. Ini adalah tindakan penyejarahan yang anti-naturalistik menurut seorang Popperian.

Tolstoy berpegang kepada lojika peristiwa; bahawa perang Perancis-Rusia berlaku di atas rantaian-rantaian beberapa peristiwa yang menyebabkan kejadian Perang 1812 itu sebagai sesuatu yang tidak mampu terelakkan. Ini adalah tindakan penyejarahan yang naturalistik yang menyebabkan adikarya Tolstoy itu sebuah karya penyejarah par excellence di sisi Popperian.

Lewat suluhan tersebut, pembaca perlu berkali-kali membelek semula pendefinisian Popper di awal helaian buku sambil mempersoalkan ketepatan takrifan tersebut yang menyebut penyejarahan sebagai:

“An approach to the social sciences which assumes that historical prediction is their principal aim, and which assumes that this aim is attainable by discovering the ‘rhythms’ or the ‘patterns’, the ‘laws’ or the ‘trends’ that underlie the evolution of history”.

Hal ini paling meruncingkan sewaktu Popper kemudiannya mula menerangkan ciri-ciri tindakan penyejarahan (historicism) dengan projek Utopianism serta citra holisme sambil menudingkan jari kepada pertindahan antara mereka dan betapa cara fikir penyejarahan (historicism) adalah antara penyumbang utama kepada ideologi sebegitu.

Jika kritikan Popper adalah benar, konklusi yang kita boleh dapati adalah di sana mana-mana karya seni, baik novel, filem, mahupun dokumentari, yang bermawdhuk-kan sejarah tidak akan sekali-sekali mampu dihasilkan dengan erti yang sebenarnya. Di hujung hari, tiada ‘Story’ di dalam ‘Hi-Story’.

Dan itu, bagi aku, mengisyaratkan kemiskinan imaginasi (poverty of imagination) di sisi penulis buku ini. Bisikan-bisikan dalam telinga aku mengatakan bahawa sekiranya dilucutkan daripada rangka seluruhnya, Poverty of Historicism adalah tidak lebih daripada sebuah deklarasi marah Popper terhadap idea fasisme ala Nazisme atau ultra-nasionalisme yang telah dibalut dengan istilah skolastik serta lenggok bahasa akademik.

Hal ini tersangatlah merugikan kerana di sebalik kegusarannya yang wajar, Popper telah meruntuhkan beberapa kerja para sejarahwan mahupun penyejarah yang asalnya adalah konstruktif. ‘Poverty of Historicism’ justeru bertindak sebagai peluru tabur dengan mencederakan juzuk-juzuk dari faham sejarah yang sepatutnya dibiarkan utuh sambil membongkarkan lokasi si penarik picu; bilamana ia seharusnya beraksi persis penembak hendap - terus ke sasaran yang diniatkan dengan kejituan yang tepat dan senyap.

***

Kes Studi Hipotetikal:

Berdasarkan pembacaan seorang sejarahwan terhadap sejarah politik empayar-empayar, kerajaan-kerajaan serta negara-negara yang pernah wujud sepanjang sejarah beliau telah mencapai satu konklusi yang dianggapnya sebagai undang-undang sejarah, lalu membuat pengisytiharan:
Bahawa sebarang perolehan “KUASA YANG ABSOLUT PASTI KAN MENG-KORUPKAN PEMEGANGNYA” (absolute power corrupts absolutely).

Seorang Popperian akan mengatakan itu hanyalah satu kecenderungan sejarah (trend) bukan undang-undang. Ada sahaja pemerintah yang berkuasa penuh tetapi tidaklah korup sepenuhnya malah memanfaatkan kepada bangsanya seperti Charlemagne (?), Muhammad (?).

Sejarahwan akan kata bahawa itu hanyalah pengecualian, dan ia tidak membatalkan undang-undang tersebut. Majoriti daripada pemerintah dengan pengaruh dan kuasa yang penuh adalah korup dan menindas rakyat jika tiada faktor pengekang. Sejarahwan itu mungkin akan menghuraikan rasionalnya dengan mengatakan bahawa hal itu bahkan adalah selari dengan fitrah insan yang condong kepada kezaliman; sejarahwan itu mungkin juga akan menawarkan implikasi daripada pernyataan tersebut dengan mengisyaratkan bahawa suatu beluk pembahagian kuasa adalah diperlukan.

Popperian akan membalas bahawa sejarahwan itu terlalu tergesa-gesa di dalam berkeputusan. Beliau sepatutnya mengambil kira situasi-situasi prasyarat (eg: suasana pembesarannya, pergelutan kelas, pengaruh aristokrat, kepentingan golongan pedagang, ancaman luar, tribalisme masyarakat, etc) yang membawa kepada kejadian di mana pemerintah tersebut mempraktikkan tirani. Popperian itu juga tidak akan lupa untuk memperingatkan sejarahwan tersebut bahawa banyak daripada situasi-situasi yang menjadi prasyarat kepada penggubalan undang-undang sejarah itu masih lagi di dalam kajian dan sebarang penemuan baharu bakal memaksa sejarahwan tersebut untuk merombak semula konklusinya.

Sejarahwan akan kata bahawa itu adalah suatu permintaan yang absurd lagi mustahil. Sesetengah daripada sejarah politik milik empayar atau negara yang dikajinya tidak mempunyai sumber sejarah yang kaya untuk membolehkan analisis sebegitu dilaksanakan. Selain itu, apa yang lebih penting adalah kepada beliau sebagai sejarahwan adalah mengkaji faktor-faktor kritikal (final causes; cf Aristotle) yang menjerumus kepada kejadian tadi (baca: pemerintah korup). Faktor-faktor runcitan lain boleh ditilik melalui pemerhatian kepada masyarakat sediada dan meng-qiyaskan kepada era lampau. Kerna di hujung hari, subjek kajian kita -dan kita sendiri- adalah manusia.

Popperian akan kata bahawa pendekatan sejarahwan itu tidak cukup objektif atau saintifik. Kerana sejarahwan itu menyangka bahawa beliau sudahpun mempunyai maklumat total tentang faktor-faktor kritikal yang relevan. Kalaupun beliau mempunyai maklumat sebegitu, ia hanyalah sah untuk satu-satu masyarakat yang hidup pada satu era (yang datanya telah dimanfaatkan oleh sejarahwan untuk merumuskan undang-undangnya itu tadi) , tidak pada yang lain.

Sejarahwan akan membalas dengan mengatakan totaliti bukanlah bermaksud gugusan-gugusan fakta yang relevan; akan tetapi ia bermaksud ‘pertalian-pertalian’ yang mendatangkan makna kepada fakta itu - peristiwa-peristiwa sejarah takkan mampu ditilik secara rasional oleh itu. Tambahan, sejarah sebagai sains sosial tidak akan sekali-sekali mencapai erti objektif atau saintifik pada takah yang sama seperti sains tabie: pemboleh ubah yang melatari peristiwa-peristiwa sejarah tidak mampu diasingkan di dalam botol tiub kaca; selain itu, dalam kes kajian sejarah, pengkaji (sejarahwan) dan objek kajian (fenomena kemasyarakatan) adalah serupa: kedua-duanya adalah manusia- dan tidak akan sesekali mampu dipisahkan.

Satu-satunya jawapan balas Popperian kepada penegasan sejarahwan ini -yang aku mampu kesan dalam ‘Poverty of Historicism’- adalah beliau akan mengatakan bahawa sejarahwan tersebut telah memandang rendah kompleksiti dan subjektiviti yang tersedia wujud di dalam kajian sains tabie. Yakni bahawa alam semulajadi juga mempunyai sisi-sisi yang subjektif dan kabur kepada analisis para saintis, tetapi itu tidak menghalang mereka untuk merumuskan suatu undang-undang yang objektif yang mampu dimanfaatkan untuk kebaikan manusia.

p/s: Aku tidak tahu jika ‘ujikaji fikiran’ (thought experiment) ini memberikan gambaran tepat tentang sejarahwan vis-a-vis Popperian, tetapi dalam bentuk inilah ia tergambar di dalam fikiran aku. Tidak perlu dititipkan di sini bahawa bias aku adalah kepada sisi sejarahwan.

p/p/s: Bagaimana pula dengan undang-undang sejarah yang lain seperti, “MEREKA YANG MELUPAKAN SEJARAH PASTI AKAN MENGULANGINYA”, atau pandangan Toynbee bahawa “SEMUA KETAMADUNAN YANG WUJUD DI DALAM SEJARAH TERBIT DARIPADA RASA KEBERTUHANAN”. Mungkin sahabat-sahabat goodreads yang lain boleh berkongsikan undang-undang sejarah lain yang diketahuinya.

[Illiterate · Rating 4 out of 5]

Popper’s critiques of prediction and utopianism are broadly right. I’m more skeptical of his swipe at holistic theories and his defense of a unity of method.

[T · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a powerful critique of the popular method in the social sciences that attempts to find universal laws of history that can be used to predict how the course of society will develop. It's somewhat short, but Popper is succinct, clear, and convincing. Although I'm still not sure I agree with his position on the complete deductive nature of science, which works its way into several of his positions, it's not really a necessary point to agree with in accepting the larger arguments (which I do).

There are one or two--mostly ancillary--points he makes that I'm sure I don't accept, however. The first is that the social sciences are no more, or even less, complicated than the physical sciences. The second is that psychology is not the basis of all the other social sciences, but is just itself one of many social sciences. These points are interrelated. The reason that the social sciences are, in fact, more complicated than the physical sciences is that they are based upon human psychology. Popper is right, yes, when he says that we don't need to consider every desire, feeling, ability, etc. of individual persons when we analyze and try to understand various institutions and processes in the social sciences. That much is correct. But these institutions are, nevertheless, irrevocably bound to human psychology. It is the individuals that make up these institutions--both the limitations and the plasticity resulting from their evolutionarily inherited human nature--that determine the workings of the institutions themselves. No, individual desire may not need to be considered in the higher level analyses in, say, sociology, but it does need to be recognized that individual desire, prejudice, and human feelings and thoughts in general are the sole root of all our social institutions.

[Richard Thompson · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think that Karl Popper is brilliant. I loved The Logic of Scientific Discovery and The World of Parmenides, but I thought that in this book, he was a little off his mark. I agree with his basic thesis that grand theories of history don't work and if logically followed, such theories are more likely to lead to suffering than to solve human problems. But he seems to protest a bit too much. He spends much the book setting up straw men and then knocking them down. I am not so sure that someone who considers himself a historicist would feel that Popper had fairly presented the historicist point of view. I think that part of my problem with this book was that it is dated -- when there were still active communist governments out there purporting to follow the path of Lenin, it probably seemed a lot more current and necessary to actively refute some of their nuttier theories that were used to justify actions that caused horrible suffering, but today we have moved on to new justifications for committing atrocities so the whole discussion in this book feels like less of a live issue.

[Muhsin Dogan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Tarihsicilik ve bilimsel metotların comert kullanımlarının sınırlarının anlatıldığı bu kitap “Bilimsel Keşfin Mantığı” kitabından önce okunması gereken bir kitap. Çevirisi oldukça iyi olan kitap icin biraz mesai harcamak şart. Bu şartlılık Popper’in mantığındaki ayrıntıları anlamak için dikkatli okumaktan ileri gelmekte. Genel olarak benim icin kült eserler sınıfında olan bu kitabı şiddetle tavsiye ederim!

[Esteban del Mal · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm going to rub my two brain cells together this weekend and see if I can't write something meaningful about this thing.

[محمد عبد العزيز]

يوجد ترجمة للكتاب بعنوان بؤس الايدلوجيا

[Kasparas Skuja · Rating 3 out of 5]

Nobody asked but slayed with ✨logic✨

[Lukas Szrot · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was once said (though I cannot recall by whom) that scientists need philosophers of science like birds need ornithologists. As a sociologist with some background in philosophy, Popper gives me cause to disagree. Many of the arguments in this book are explicated in greater detail in the tome "The Open Society and Its Enemies," but this little book distills many of the essentials as they apply to the actual methodology and practice of the social sciences. Popper's vision of sociology is a bit blinkered (I tend toward quantitative research, but many of my qualitatively-oriented colleagues might take issue with his emphasis on model-building and hypothesis-testing, for example), and he seems to criticize the use of evolutionary analogies outside biology just before launching into his highly evolutionist falsificationist view of science. However, his criticism of historicism is solid, and remains timely today. Overall, I would recommend this book to any serious social science scholar, 'anti-sociologist' who views sociology as a haven for radical ideologues, or curious natural scientist who wonders what we have in common.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

Karl Popper in The Poverty of Historicism, provides a fruitful analysis into a group of traditions he calls "historicism." Simply put, these are individuals who provide society at large a specific means of understanding our society and our role in history through a particular social law.
Based on my personal exploration of these particular world-views, his characterization are accurate (albeit simplified). Critics of his characterization should read his other (longer) books to gain understanding of why and how Popper reaches his conclusions. Merely attacking the conclusions a flawed method for academic discourse.
His critique is a worthwhile and necessary read for Marxists, Fascists, and others who view the world as social processes leading to a particular end (so called "progress"). While it is quite possible his viewpoint could be inaccurate (as other reviewers have alleged), it does not mean that he is wrong per se. People who fit within one of his two camps of historicism should review their professed worldview and answer his questions.

[Earl Leonard Mcgowen IV · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think this will be my favorite Popper book. In the darkest night, I have definitely been on a quest to unearth myself, and Popper and other critical rationalists have been of great importance by keeping me from betraying myself. I have to admit that I used to read sociology, economy, and theology from somewhat of a historicist method. It is hard not to divorce oneself of the broad sweeps of history. The Open Society and its Enemies warns against Platonic essentialism and Hegelian Geist in such ventures; however, I think I instinctively grasped that. The ideas, here, of piecemeal social engineering, situational logic, methodological individualism, and many other nuggets will be much more instructive for me as bias indicators more suited for the areas of life where I venture. What an apostrophe on my quest. I will leave with the quote that captures this book, "if there is such a thing as growing human knowledge, then we cannot anticipate today what we shall know only tomorrow."

[Hamdanil · Rating 3 out of 5]

In which Karl Popper describe a method of analysing history that he calls 'historicism', proposes some reasons why it might be deemed good, and then attacks it. The arguments are clear and often (not always) very convincing when I follow it. But the book is not very easy to follow. Probably because (1) he often makes complicated arguments in a very abstract way without examples or other means to help readers understand (2) 'historicism' which he attacks IMO are not defined clearly. For example, he seems to mix two types of thought - one he calls pro-naturalistic and the other anti-naturalistic into the bag even though those two are often very different - makes it hard to keep track who he is attacking. Nevertheless, I enjoyed reading many parts of the book, and it does clarify many points about history and other social sciences, and their contrasts with natural sciences.

[Blake · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a remarkable little book with many interesting points, keen insights and worthy ideas. Popper writes with the clarity of thought and preciseness of meaning one would more expect of Russell.

Few of these main ideas are new to me (many of them are those I've previously defended in my own writing and dialogues), but Popper gives powerful, original and complex arguments for them.

A warning for some left-leaning readers that this book makes clear from the beginning Popper's distrust of communism. It is:

"In memory of the countless men and women of all creeds or nations or races who fell victim to the fascist and communist belief in Inexorable Laws of Historical Destiny.”

[David Antoš · Rating 3 out of 5]

Didn't overwhelm as the debate is largely over. Some arguments felt inconclusive. Being in apparent love with economics - which I surely approve :-) - he doesn't address well the biggest pain of social sciences (in my perception) of impossibility to isolate effects of some phenomenon / intervention. That allows libertarians, Keynesians and free market economists all keep using the recent economic crisis as a proof of their (mutually incompatible) teachings.

[Richard]

Published shortly after the end of World War Two, Popper dedicated the Poverty of Historicism to all those who fell "victim to the fascist and communist belief in Inexorable Laws of Historical Destiny." That so little about the Poverty of Historicism strikes me as remotely controversial is a testament to the generally conservative intellectual currents of the postwar era - of which Popper's lucid critique of "historicism" was a significant part.

[P · Rating 5 out of 5]

Popper crams more useful logic into these 150 pages than in the entire corpus of LSAT preparation material. Popper proves his scientific legitimacy through clarifying his terms from his vast erudition. This book requires the reader's attention, but it's rewarding, especially in the validity of his main points. I definitely need to enter "The Open Society."

[Lisa Hope · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dedicated to those who lost their lives to Fascism, Popper's treatise examines the failure and inherent oppression of historicism applied. This along with his Open Society and its Enemies are among the most important works of 20th century political philosophy. Today's proponents historicism would do well to read it.

[Alger Smythe-Hopkins · Rating 4 out of 5]

Like many of Popper's publications, this is a careful refutation of the premise that social sciences respond to the scientific method. The degree to which this is now viewed as obvious is largely a measure of Popper's success. Finely written and closely reasoned, the key point is that history cannot be controlled to the degree that the causes of effects can be identified.

[Francisco Tapiador · Rating 5 out of 5]

Popper reveals here the far reaching implications of negating the possibility of a scientific approach to social sciences. Must read if someone try to persuade you that History cannot be analyzed by formal tools, i.e., scientifically.

[Ivan Vuković · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well written, concise, logical instead of rhetorical, clear and rational, just the way I like it!

I think Popper really did a good job comparing social and natural sciences and showing that historicism is largely based on a great misunderstanding of method of natural sciences.

[Tyler · Rating 4 out of 5]

I would suggest that Popper's critiques will always be relevant but with so much ideological idiocy driving American politics (or politics in general?) it seems timely resurrect some of Popper's more political works.

[Fahad Alqurain · Rating 2 out of 5]

كان بالإمكان اختصار الكتاب في عشرين صفحة
الفكرة مكررة من اول الكتاب الى اخره

[Vicente · Rating 1 out of 5]

Encuentro el libro desorganizado, muy repetitivo, lleno de ideas ya desarrolladas en sus otros libros, incluso párrafos enteros copiados... Me esperaba más.