Philosopher Karl Popper says a closed society is the most dangerous

by yadda yadda 2 7 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  yadda yadda 2

  The eminent 20th century philosopher Karl Popper condemned a closed society where criticism is suppressed as the most undesirable and dangerous type of society (eg, George Orwell's 1984). Yet the Watchtower organisation is a religious Society that forbids criticism, open debate and has a leadership that is completely unaccountable to it's members. The Watchtower leaderhship enjoys unquestioned authority over all doctrine, policy and teaching and total submission from it's adherents. This is anathema to the philosophy of Karl Popper, who is regarded as having produced the most effective refutation of Marxism.

  "...criticism becomes the chief means by which we do in fact make progress...The most undesirable and indefensible forms of modern society are those in which centralized planning is impossed, and dissent is disallowed....Therefore a society that allows critical discussion and opposition (what Popper calls an "open" society) will almost certainly be more effecive at solving the practical problems of its policy-makers than one that does not." (Bryan Magee - The Story of Philosophy)

  The Watchtower Society would respond by saying it is open to criticism and anyone can write to them with questions or ideas at any time; however, persons who continue to espouse a doctrinal position that is at odds with Watchtower doctrine will eventually face a judicial investigation by the elders and will be ousted if they do not recant their criticisms/dissent. The fact of the matter is that the Society condemns all critical discussion and dissent and does not tolerate it, regarding it as apostacy punishable by disfellowshipment.

  It is also interesting that Popper teaches: "that what we have to do is manage a process of endless change that has no stopping place. So what we are engaged in is perpetual problem-solving. We should all the time be seeking out the worst social evils and trying to remove them: poverty and powerlessness, threats to peace, bad education and medical care, so on....We do not know how to make people happy, but we can remove avoidable suffering and handicap" (ibid).

  While the Society does make a token effort to correct some of it's interpretations from time to time, Popper's philosophy dictates it would be better served by focusing less on trying to improve inconsequential creeds and interpretations (eg, ongoing flip-flopping on the meaning of "this generation") and instead focus it's energies on mitigating and removing those policies that are causing real suffering and even death, eg, the flawed blood policy, the flaws in the policy on child abuse accusations (application of 'two-witness' rule), the harsh total shunning policy.

  yadda
• 

  mindmelda

  Yeah, but it's God's closed society so it doesn't count. LOL That's the thinking though, they get you believing that questioning them is questioning God.

  When you really think about it, people who claim any sort of divinity are the people who should be getting questioned a LOT.

  Questions like, "Are you crazy?" and "Do you think we're stupid?"

  But, Popper is right, closed societies have always imploded in the past. Some believe the Mayan priests theocratic stranglehold on that empire is what destroyed the Mayan society.

  They lost the ability to convince the populace of their divinity in spite of all their tricks and blood sacrifices. The Egyptians had the same problem. Even the Romans. When they made the emperor or Pharoah a divine figure to close ranks on power but they kept screwing things up in an ungodly fashion, it all kind went down hill from there.

  Democracy is the first system of government to not acknowledge the divine right of kings that monarchies have always had, and to sanction the right to question and protest your government.

  Step in the right direction. And the WTS wants to go back to theocracy, which has never worked in the whole known history of humans. Oookay. Yeah, theirs will be the one that works because it's the one with God running it. Yeah...right. Lots of evidence of that. (sarcasm)

  But if they dropped all the weird doctrine, they'd be too much like other religions, and we can't have that! They're special snowflakes! God loves them best because everyone hates them for waking people up on Saturday morning, killing their kids, not saluting flags and treating everyone like they have cooties!
• 

  Narkissos

  One word of caution though. What is true (or at least, hopefully, falsifiable ;)) about a society which holds unchallenged rule over a definite geographical territory with definite borders doesn't necessarily apply to a sub-society which exists within a broader society. Out of necessity such a sub-society is never "closed," as all its members hold (nilly-willy) a dual membership: they also belong to a wider society with which they have everyday contact (through school, work, media). They know there is an "outer world" and they can get out of their subculture whenever they wish. In this particular economy a zone of "inner totalitarianism" is certainly more viable, in fact its difference is part of its potential of attraction and survival.
• 

  yadda yadda 2

  It's the principles I'm highlighting Narkissos, the principles of critical debate, the freedom to criticise, etc. I do not agree that "inner totalitarianism" is ever justified in a religious organisation. It's only viable as a form of survival for those who wish to hold and maintain their power unchallenged (abusively).
• 

  Leolaia

  I think the organization is ripe for a Foucauldian analysis. Think about it... subjugation of the R&F by powerful elite who promulgate a steady series of rules and ideological discourses for conformity, internalized by many as ontological truth....but not by all. Dissent is woven throughout the fabric of the population but suppressed; the power for change is distributed throughout the interpersonal level within the group, where it is unrealized and manifests only in small, local exchanges. Boundaries closing off the people from the outside are illusory and do not really exist (the kingdom hall is just one of many communities of practice that the members participate with in their daily lives); the organization's effort of "keeping the organization clean" is futile if that is the actual goal -- rather the effort suppresses counter-discourses that could lead to overt conflict. The system as it is currently run has been effective in maintaining general acceptance of the institutional discourse and maintaining order. But perhaps a close analysis of the structure of the organization may reveal cracks and seems that could lead to change, or how dissent may be quietly have small effects at the local level.
• 

  Spook

  The WTBTS does not have progress as it's goal. Neither does it have solving problems as it's goal. It has as it's goal the maintaining of order, in other words, progressing through time with as little change as possible to the basic structure of the organization.

  In this case, they are rationally maximizing their decisions. It is rational for them to disuade the internet, higher education, sharing personal opinions and having close relationships outside the organization. If it were true that Jehovah existed and that their theism were correct, this is exactly what they should be doing. Unfortunately, it is not true.
• 

  gubberningbody

  Of course a person could ask...

  "What do you mean by ___ ?"

  And then by

  "How do you know ___ to be ___?"

  If this is repeated I think you can see where this will lead anyone who wants to take an authoritative position on anything.
• 

  Spook

  LOL at gubbering body: With a little bit of good philosophical lawyering, you can get anyone to complete ignorance within three questions unless they have prepared in advance for the discussion.