The content of the article

OPEN SOCIETY. The concept of an open society is part of the philosophical legacy of Karl Popper. Put forward as an antithesis to the concept of a totalitarian society, it was later used to refer to the social conditions for achieving freedom. Free societies are open societies. The concept of an open society is the social equivalent of the political and economic concept of a "constitution of freedom". (The last phrase is taken from the title of a book by Friedrich von Hayek, who supported the appointment of Popper as a professor at the London School of Economics and political science after World War II. Popper was also helped to get this position by his book The open society and its enemies.)

Karl Popper and the open society.

Karl Popper (1902–1994) dealt mainly with the philosophy of science. The approach he developed is sometimes called "critical rationalism" and sometimes "fallibilism" for its emphasis on falsification (proof of falsity) rather than verification (proof of truth) as the essence of the scientific method. In his first work Logics scientific discovery (1935) details the "hypothetical-deductive method".

Popper's approach boils down to the following. Truth exists, but it is not revealed. We can make guesses and test them empirically. Such guesses in science are called hypotheses or theories. One of the main features scientific hypotheses is that they exclude the possibility of certain events. For example, if the law of gravitation is put forward as a hypothesis, objects heavier than air should not by themselves get off the ground. Therefore, statements (and the prohibitions they imply) can be deduced from hypotheses that we are able to test. However, verification is not "verification". There is no final verification, because we cannot know all the relevant events - past, present and future. Checking is trying to find events that are incompatible with existing theory. The refutation of the theory, falsification, leads to the progress of knowledge, because it forces us to put forward new and better theories, which in turn are subject to verification and falsification. Science is thus a series of trial and error.

Popper developed his theory of scientific knowledge in several works, in particular in relation to quantum mechanics and other issues of modern physics. Later he became interested in the problems of psychophysiology ( me and brain, 1977). During the war, Popper wrote a two-volume work open society, which he later called his "contribution to the war effort". The leitmotif of this work is a controversy with classical authors, the subtitle of the first volume is Platonic obsession, the second - Tidal Wave of Prophecy: Hegel and Marx. Through a careful analysis of the texts, Popper showed that the ideal states of Plato, Hegel and Marx are tyrannies, closed societies: individuals make their own decisions – an open society.”

Popper's book open society received an instant wide response and was translated into many languages. In subsequent editions, Popper made several notes and additions. His later works, mainly essays, lectures and interviews, develop some aspects of the concept of an open society, in particular in relation to politics (the method of "elemental engineering" or "successive approximations" or "trial and error") and institutions (democracy) . There is an extensive literature on this subject, institutions have been formed that use the term "open society" in their name, and many have sought to inject their own political preferences into this concept.

Definition of an open society.

Societies are open that make "trials" and recognize and take into account the mistakes made. The concept of an open society is the application of Popper's philosophy of knowledge to social, economic and political issues. You can't know for sure, you can only speculate. These assumptions may turn out to be erroneous, and the process of revising unsuccessful assumptions constitutes the development of knowledge. Therefore, the main thing is that the possibility of falsification always remains, which neither dogma nor even the own interests of the scientific community could interfere with.

Applying the concept of "critical rationalism" to the problems of society leads to similar conclusions. We cannot know in advance what a good society is, and we can only put forward projects for its improvement. These projects may turn out to be unacceptable, but the main thing is to preserve the very possibility of revising the projects, abandoning the dominant projects and removing from power those associated with them.

This analogy has its weak points. Popper, of course, was right in pointing out the profound differences between the natural and social sciences. The key here is the time factor, or rather, history. After Einstein disproved Newton, Newton can no longer be right. When a neo-social democratic worldview takes the place of a neoliberal one (Clinton replaces Reagan and Bush, Blair replaces Thatcher and Major), it may mean that the correct worldview for its time has become false over time. It may even mean that all worldviews will in due course be "false" and that there is no place for "truth" in history. Therefore, a utopia (a project accepted once and for all) is in itself incompatible with an open society.

The society not only has its own history; Society is characterized by heterogeneity. Trial and error in the political sphere leads to democracy in the narrow sense that Popper gave to this concept, namely, the possibility of changing governments without the use of violence. When applied to economics, the market immediately comes to mind. Only the market (in the broadest sense) leaves open the possibility for changing tastes and preferences, as well as for the emergence of new "productive forces". The world of "creative destruction" described by J. Schumpeter can be considered an economic scenario of progress carried out with the help of falsification. In a society taken in a broader sense, it is more difficult to find an equivalent. Perhaps the notion of pluralism is appropriate here. We can also recall civil society, i.e. the pluralism of associations whose activities have no coordinating center, either explicit or indirect. These associations form, as it were, a kaleidoscope with a constantly changing pattern of constellations.

The concepts of democracy, market economy and civil society should not lead to the idea that there is only one institutional form that makes it possible to translate them into reality. There are many such forms. Everything essential to open societies boils down to formal rules that allow for continued trial and error. Will it be a presidential, parliamentary democracy, or a democracy based on referendums, or - in other cultural conditions - institutions that can hardly be called democratic; whether the market will function along the lines of Chicago capitalism, or Italian family capitalism, or German corporate entrepreneurial practices (variations are also possible here); whether civil society will be based on the initiative of individuals, or local communities, or even religious organizations, - in any case, only one thing is important - the preservation of the possibility of change without the use of violence. The whole point of an open society is that there is not one path, or two, or three, but an infinite, unknown, and indefinable number of paths.

An explanation for the ambiguity.

The "military actions" to which Popper contributed in his book meant, of course, the war with Nazi Germany. In addition, Popper was engaged in identifying those implicit enemies of an open society, whose ideas could be used to justify totalitarian regimes. Plato's omniscient "philosopher-rulers" are no less dangerous than Hegel's "historical necessity." As it rolls out cold war All greater value in this sense, Marx and Marxism acquired. The enemies of an open society excluded the possibility of trial, not to mention error, and instead built a seductive mirage of a happy country that knows no conflict and change. Popper's thoughts at the end of the first volume open society have not lost their relevance: “Containing political change does not help the cause and does not bring us closer to happiness. We can no longer return to the ideality and charm of a closed society. Dreams of heaven cannot be realized on earth. After we have learned to act based on our own reason, to be critical of reality, when we have heeded the voice of personal responsibility for what is happening, as well as responsibility for expanding our knowledge, the path to humble obedience to the magic of shamans is closed to us. For those who have tasted from the tree of knowledge, the road to paradise is booked. The more persistently we strive to return to the heroic era of tribal isolation, the more surely we come to the Inquisition, the secret police and the romance of gangster robbery. Suppressing the mind and striving for truth, we come to the most cruel and devastating destruction of all human principles. There is no return to harmonious unity with nature. If we go this way, we will have to go through it to the end and turn into beasts.

The alternative is obvious. "If we want to remain human, then there is only one way before us, and it leads to an open society."

Those who still have fresh memories of the time when Popper's book was written will certainly recall the archaic tribal language of Nazism: the romance of blood and soil, the pretentious self-names of the leaders of youth - Hordenführer (leader of the horde), even Stammführer (leader of the tribe), - constant calls for Gemeinschaft (communities) as opposed to Gesellschaft (society), however, coupled with the "total mobilization" of Albert Speer, who spoke first of the party's campaigns against internal enemies, and then of "total war" and the mass extermination of Jews and Slavs put on stream . And yet there is an ambiguity here, pointing to a problem in defining the enemies of an open society, and, moreover, to an unresolved issue in the theoretical analysis of totalitarianism.

The ambiguity lies in the use ancient language tribal strife to justify the latest practice of totalitarian rule. Ernest Gellner spoke of this ambiguity when criticizing nationalism in post-communist European countries. Here, he wrote, there is no revival of ancient fidelity to the family, it is just the shameless exploitation of historical memory by modern political leaders. In other words, an open society must reject two claims: one is a tribe, traditionally closed society; the other is modern tyranny, a totalitarian state. The latter can use gender symbols and mislead many people, as happened with Popper. Of course, the modern Stammführer is not a product of a tribal system, it is a “cog” in the mechanism of a rigidly organized state merged with the party, the whole purpose of which is not to revive, but to break ties between people.

The world has been updated. The process of transition from estate to contract system, from Gemeinschaft to Gesellschaft, from organic to mechanical solidarity has been repeatedly described, but it is not easy to find examples of the transition in the opposite direction. Therefore, the danger today does not lie in a return to the tribal system, although it may return in the form of banditry painted with romantic colors. The happy state that Popper wrote about is not so much an enemy of the open society as its distant predecessor or a kind of caricature. The real enemies of an open society are its contemporaries, Hitler and Stalin, as well as other bloody dictators, who, we hope, will suffer a just punishment. In evaluating their role, we must be mindful of the deceit in their rhetoric; they are not the true heirs of the tradition, but its enemies and destroyers.

The concept of an open society after Popper.

Karl Popper liked clear definitions, but he rarely gave them himself. Naturally, the later interpreters of his works tried to deal with the author's assumptions underlying the idea of ​​an open society. It was pointed out, for example, that in order to realize the idea of ​​an open society, appropriate social institutions. The ability to try and correct mistakes should be, as it were, embedded in the forms of political, economic and social life. This raises similar questions about democracy (which Popper defined as the ability to get rid of government without resorting to violence). It is assumed that in an open society there is a plurality of groups and forces, and therefore there is a need to support diversity. The desire to prevent monopoly presupposes that an open society has its own institutions, not only in the economic but also in the political sphere. It is also possible that there will be (as Leszek Kolakowski pointed out) enemies of the open society, generated by the open society itself. Should an open society (like democracy) remain a "cold" concept that does not give people a sense of belonging to a circle of like-minded people and complicity in a common cause? And therefore, doesn't it contain within itself a destructive virus that leads to totalitarianism?

These and other dangers inherent in the concept of an open society have forced many authors to introduce clarifications into its definition, which may be desirable, but overly expand the meaning of the concept, making it similar to other, close concepts. No one has done more to spread the idea of ​​an open society and bring it to fruition than George Soros. The "Open Society Institute" he created contributed to the transformation of post-communist countries into open societies. But Soros, too, sees now that the open society is threatened by a danger emanating from the open society itself. In his book Crisis of world capitalism(1998) he says that he would like to find a new concept of an open society containing not only "market" but also "social" values.

One more aspect in the concept of an open society requires clarification. Trial and error is a fruitful and creative method, and the fight against dogmatism is a noble task. Non-violent change presupposes the existence of institutions as stimulators and mechanisms of these changes; institutions should be created and further supported. However, neither Popper nor those who after him raised the banner of the open society realized that another danger threatened the open society. What if people stop "trying"? It would seem a strange and implausible assumption, but authoritarian rulers knew how to take advantage of the silence and passivity of their subjects! Whole cultures (e.g. China) for a long time were unable to use their productive forces because they did not like to try. The notion of an open society should not be burdened with too many virtues, but one of them is necessary condition the reality of this concept. In a lofty style, this is active citizenship. We must continue to "try" without fear of making mistakes and hurting the feelings of the defenders of the status quo if we are to create modern, open and free societies.

Lord Darrendorf

It would seem, what could be easier than asking a question? However, there are many rules and varieties of questions in both English and Russian. In addition, their use in a conversation always depends on. And as we will see, the situations in both English and Russian conversation are very similar to each other. We will analyze the types of questions in more detail in this article.

What questions exist in Russian?

In this paper, we will consider 5 types of questions. There are a number of other classifications, the number of questions in which may vary, but today we will focus on this one.

So, according to our classification, there are five closed, open, critical, rhetorical, questions for reflection. Note that open and closed questions are distinguished in almost all types of classifications. This fact makes them essential.

Now let's look at each type in more detail, and also give examples.

Open question

Open-ended questions are questions that require a detailed answer and some explanation. They cannot be answered either "yes" or "no". Such questions begin with the following interrogative words: “how”, “who”, “what”, “why”, “how much”, “which”, etc.

Such questions allow your interlocutor to choose the information for the answer at their own discretion. On the one hand, this can lead to the fact that the interlocutor will hide what he does not want to disclose. But on the other hand, if you ask a question in a suitable emotional situation, the interlocutor can open up and tell much more than the question you asked required.

Open-ended questions allow you to turn your monologue into a conversation. However, there is a danger that you will lose control of the conversation, and it will not be easy to regain control.

Here are some examples of such questions:

• Why do you want to study at our university?
• When did you decide to agree to this conversation?
• How much do you earn per month?
• Who is cleaning your house?
• What do you usually do in the evenings?

closed question

Questions closed type- such, in response to which you can answer either "yes" or "no". Often in closed questions, the particle “li” is used. They limit the freedom of the interlocutor as much as possible, leading him to a monosyllabic answer.

In addition, closed questions have a number of negative features:

• the information received when answering them will be superficial;
• two response options create an impression of coercion, so the interlocutor will gradually feel more and more uncomfortable, which ultimately hello to the fact that he wants to end the conversation as soon as possible;
• they lead to the reluctance of the interlocutor to open up and provide more information.

Closed questions are recommended to be used in cases where it is necessary to collect a lot of information in a short time. For example, when conducting various studies. If you plan to get to know the interlocutor better and assume that your acquaintance will continue, closed questions must be alternated with open ones, allowing the partner to speak.

• Do you like to run?
• Would you like to learn how to swim?
• Do you play musical instruments?

A rhetorical question

We continue to consider types of questions. Next in line is a rhetorical question, which serves for a deep and detailed consideration of the subject of conversation. It is impossible to give an unambiguous and unbiased answer to such questions. Their purpose is to point out unresolved issues and raise new questions, or to win support for your opinion by the participants in the discussion by tacit agreement. When composing such questions, the particle “li” is also often used.

• We all share the same opinion on this issue, don't we?
• Can we accept such actions as normal?

Tipping point

Another basic type of question is the tipping question. These are questions that help keep the discussion in a certain direction. They can also serve to raise new issues. They are set in those situations when you have received comprehensive information on the problem under consideration and would like to switch the attention of the audience to another, or when there is resistance from your opponent and you want to overcome it.

The interlocutor's answers to such questions make it possible to find out the vulnerable points in his judgments.

• Tell me, do you think it is necessary? ..
• How is it really going for you?..
• What do you think?..
• What do you see in the future?

Question for consideration

These types of questions encourage the interlocutor to reflect and carefully consider what was said earlier and prepare comments. In such a speech situation, the interlocutor gets the opportunity to make his own changes to the position already stated by someone. This allows you to look at the problem from several angles.

Examples of such questions:

• Do you think that?..
• Have we correctly understood your judgment about what? ..
• Do you agree that...

Thus, we have considered the meaning and examples of the types of questions used in the Russian language.

How many types of questions are there in English?

There are also several types of questions in English. There are five of them, as in Russian. The use of questions will depend on the situation, the context, and the purpose for which you ask them. So, let's look at the types of questions in English with examples.

General question

General questions are identical to closed ones in Russian, that is, they require a one-word answer: “yes” or “no”. They are used to obtain general information only.

Such questions are composed without interrogative words, but begin with auxiliary verbs. And as you remember, in English for each tense there are certain

Word order when composing a question: auxiliary verb - subject - semantic verb- addition - definition.

• Is he a good driver?
• Did he go to the disco today?
• Do you play basketball every day?

Separated question

We continue to consider the types of questions in English with examples. This type is called separating because it consists of two parts, which are separated by a comma:

• 1st part is a statement;
• 2nd part - "spine", a question regarding this statement.

"Spine" is usually the opposite of a statement. That is, the purpose of the question is to verify the authenticity of the statement made.

• You play basketball every day, don't you?
• Steven is a famous artist, isn't he?

Special question

Question types can also serve to get additional information. For example, It necessarily begins with question words. The following are commonly used: when, why, where, which, how etc. These words do not apply what And who when they act as subjects.

Thus, the question has the following structure: interrogative word - auxiliary verb - subject - semantic verb - object.

• What is your name?
• When did you go to England last time?

Questions from or("or")

These questions involve choosing between two different options answers. The word order is the same as in general question, but it is imperative to offer an alternative possibility.

• Do you like tea or coffee?
• Will you go to Moscow by plane or by train?
• Does your father or your mother help you with your homework?

Question from who (what)

This type is used when it is necessary to ask a question to the subject in a sentence. It will start with the words what or who. The main feature of this type of question is that the word order in its composition remains the same as in the statement. That is, the word order will be as follows: who / what - semantic verb - addition.

Here are some examples:

• Who is this man?
• What was that?

So, we have considered possible types of questions both in Russian and in English. English. As you can see, in both languages, despite the huge difference in origin and grammar between them, questions perform approximately the same functions. This tells us that the conversation in any language is conducted with certain goals. Moreover, the reasoning control mechanisms governed by questions also appear to be similar.

The living organism is a complex system, consisting of interconnected organs and tissues. But why do they say the body is an open system? Open systems are characterized by the exchange of something with their external environment. It can be the exchange of matter, energy, information. And all this living organisms exchange with the external world for them. Although the word "exchange" is more appropriate to replace the word "flow", since some substances and energy enter the body, and others come out.

Energy is absorbed by living organisms in one form (by plants - in the form solar radiation, animals - in chemical bonds organic compounds), but is released into the environment in another (thermal) one. Since the body receives energy from outside and releases it, it is an open system.

In heterotrophic organisms, energy is absorbed along with the substances (in which it is contained) as a result of nutrition. Further, in the process of metabolism (metabolism within the body), some substances are broken down, while others are synthesized. At chemical reactions energy is released (going to various life processes) and energy is absorbed (going to the synthesis of the necessary organic matter). Substances unnecessary for the body and the resulting thermal energy(which can no longer be used) are released into the environment.

Autotrophs (mainly plants) absorb light rays in a certain range as energy, and they absorb water, carbon dioxide, various mineral salts, and oxygen as initial substances. Using energy and these minerals, plants as a result of the process of photosynthesis carry out the primary synthesis of organic substances. In this case, radiant energy is stored in chemical bonds. Plants do not have an excretory system. However, they emit substances on their surface (gases), dropping leaves (harmful organic and mineral substances are removed), etc. Thus, plants, as living organisms, are also open systems. They release and absorb substances.

Living organisms live in their own environment. At the same time, in order to survive, they must adapt to the environment, react not to its changes, look for food and avoid threats. As a result, in the process of evolution, animals have developed special receptors, sensory organs, and the nervous system, which allow receiving from external environment information, process it and respond, i.e. influence the environment. Thus, we can say that organisms exchange information with outer habitat. That is, the body is an open information system.

Plants also react to environmental influences (for example, they close their stomata in the sun, turn their leaves towards the light, etc.). In plants, primitive animals and fungi, regulation is carried out only chemically (humorally). In animals that have nervous system, there are both ways of self-regulation (nervous and with the help of hormones).

Single-celled organisms are also open systems. They feed and secrete substances, react to external influences. However, in their body-system, the functions of organs are essentially performed by cell organelles.

Biological objects are open thermodynamic systems. They exchange energy and matter with the environment.

A living organism is a developing system that is not in a stationary state. However, usually in some not too long time interval, the state of the biological system is taken as stationary.

For an organism, a large entropy should be in the products of excretion, and not in the products of absorption. The entropy of the system "organism - environment» increases as in an isolated system, but the entropy of the organism remains constant. Entropy is a measure of disorder, so we can conclude that the orderliness of an organism is preserved at the cost of reducing the orderliness of the environment.

Under some pathological conditions, the entropy of biological objects can increase, this is due to the lack of stationarity, an increase in disorder: for example, in cancer, chaotic, disordered cell growth occurs.

The basis of the functioning of living systems (cells, organs, organism) is the maintenance of a stationary state under the condition of a flow various processes and biochemical reactions. When external conditions change, the processes in the body proceed in such a way that its state will not be the same stationary state.

It is possible to indicate some thermodynamic criterion for the adaptation of organisms and biological structures to changes in external conditions (adaptation). If external conditions change (increase or decrease in air temperature, humidity, etc.), but at the same time the body (cells) is able to maintain a stationary state, then the body adapts (adapts) to these conditions and exists. If he is not able to maintain a stationary state, leaves it, then this leads to his death. In this case, the organism could not adapt; could not relatively quickly find itself in a stationary state corresponding to the new conditions.

System - a set of interrelated active elements, organized for a specific purpose and in relation to the external environment. The features of the system are: - the totality of its constituent elements;

The unity of the main goal for all elements is a system-forming factor;

The presence of a connection between them is a condition for the formation of a system;

Integrity and unity of elements;

The presence of structure and hierarchy of elements;

Relative independence of elements - each of them has its own properties

systems; - the presence of inputs, outputs, control and management of elements.

The properties of the system are:

The property of the interconnectedness of the elements of the system - the system is formed only as a result of the connection between the elements of the population. The occurrence of a systemic effect depends on the presence of this connection - a change in the overall efficiency of interrelated elements. The quality of the connection determines the increase or decrease in the result. The efficiency of a simple sum of unrelated elements is low;

Emergence property: the potential of the system can be greater, equal or less than the sum of the potentials of its constituent elements, which is determined by the nature of the connection of the elements;

The property of self-preservation - the system strives to keep its structure unchanged in the presence of transforming influences;

The property of organizational integrity - the system as a differentiated whole has a need for structuring, coordination and management in order to maintain its integrity.

A closed system does not depend on the environment, is separated from it and does not interact with it - it is a self-sufficient whole.

An open system is in constant interaction and exchange with the external environment, on which its functioning depends. It is able to adapt to the changed external conditions of its existence, changing its structure.

However, the distinction between closed and open systems is more quantitative than qualitative. Any system is partly closed, partly open, and the question is how big is the role of the external environment in the functioning of a particular system. Open systems are capable of self-management, adaptation and development due to properties such as homeostasis and feedback control.

The traditional metaphor of the organization as a military/mechanical bureaucracy is a model of a closed system, because the environment is taken as a given in it, its influence on the functioning of the organization was ignored. In contrast to this approach, metaphors of the organization as a biological or cognitive system emphasize its interaction with the environment. These models are based on the open systems approach. Careful consideration of these three metaphors will provide an understanding of organizations and how they function. Each point of view brings something of its own to this understanding. Additional Information A distinction is made between open and closed systems. The concept of a closed system is generated by the physical sciences. Here it is understood that the system is self-contained. Its main characteristic is that it essentially ignores the effect of external influences. A perfect closed system would be one that does not receive energy from external sources and does not give energy to its external environment.

A closed organizational system has little applicability.