czech version

Open Society and other contemporary philosophies of current modernity

  Against timelessthinking that is the original worldview in this book, there is a hugewall oftheories, concepts, ideals, feelings and ingrainedintellectualclichés.Allthis is usuallyoldand does not apply beyond the point of artificiality. Most of itrelates to the periodwhen natural principles stillcontrolled human lifethat countson themand does not wantto admit that they no longer apply. Lastnaturalprinciplescontainedtraditionalorder, which was left after the disjunction campaign of the nineteen sixties. From this point of view it’s hard tofinda unifyingideafor the contemporary world. Contemporary worldcan be described and explain malignant phenomenaand theircharacter -artificiality. It is possible to determinethe essence -seclusion– based on the „pride of wisdom„. Butcontemporaryphilosophicalsystemscan only becriticized for obsolescence, blindness, self-centeredagendas, and especially absence ofabstractthinking.The fundamentally erroneous nature ofthe currentleading andthe most modern belief system -the theory ofthe „opensociety“,which has alreadysurpassedall previous ones, cannot be found,apart from the fact that it is also outdated.On this I wouldcoment thatmost opposition theories do not reach this level and areeven more outdated and lack philosophicalcogency(current environmental agenda), usually because they arereduced to justtheir own problem. Therefore,I will deal withcriticalrationalism(opensociety),which together withneo-positivism is teh mainphilosophical basis ofcontemporarymodernity.

  The mainapologistof modern rationalismKR Popper(see26)formulates hisconformalidea of ​​“open society“. Openness isideological, spatial and temporal. Competitionof ideasin a free societyhas certain rulesof criticaldiscussion;people no longer die for their ideason the battlefields andpeople „let their ideasdieforthem„. Spaceis openfor the movement ofgoods, moneyand people.The futureis open,it is not limited byanyagendaand the society is onlyfocusing on tools.Historicalpredeterminationis rejected.This, however,does not contradict sociologicaltheories,which are onlytools.This conceptseems to beobvious today andin facttodaywe mightask whythere was so muchfussaboutit; butatthe beginning Popper’s intent was to create an opposition toconstructivistideologies.Eventoday, however,we can use thistheory of Popper’s„open society“, recognizing thelimitations ofits mereconformism; and accept it unconditionally,if weonly could stick to it. Timelessthinkingis not mentioned by Popper, but it can be added itto the tools, although it is quite clear thatit is basedon the parametersof naturallife, whichPoppersomehowdid not address.Popper, due to his openness does not reject emotionalbehavior, although he does not welcome it in his appreciation ofolder theories.

  It is correct thatPopper’s works are based onhuman knowledge andscientificconclusions.It is not possiblein the eraof reasonto do otherwise, unless this is notpride of reason.“ He is not expecting perniciousinfluence of „pride of reason„, „deification of man“, and rides the wave ofconformitybased on individualconceptof open society.Modernrationalismthus can allow „timeless“ critique of society, however, the foundersof this theorydid not addressthese issuesandfrom thetimelessperspective they stick to conformism.

  Like manyotherconformalideasof modernity, the new rationalismin its essencepromotesdisjunction and slowlymanifests itselfbyuprooting, despite not being in opposition tobelonging.In rhetoric, which Popper projected againsthistoricism, he directed hisapologists towardthe doctrineof opennessas a myth; although in principleitcan not be this way,and was not meant this way either. Not all can be open for God’s sake!Statescan not bewithout borders,plans for the future mustn’t be absent; projectswith forecasts cannot be non-existent!Crowds of people cannot freely move around the globe and destroyother cultures;untaxedcapitalcan nottravel around the globe without responsibilityand relationshipto its state of origin! Popperassumed the existence ofstates, borders with customs, and capital with taxes.The whole ideais now taken to the extreme by ideologuesand misusedby them as it suits them.

  „OpenSociety“, understood as doctrine, is now considered a problematictheory which used to apply in its era and no longer offersanswers to manyquestions,perhapsabout thedecadenceof the human race, on the lawof natural selectionin human society, on misgivings about the limitlesshuman freedom, and on someenvironmental issues, especially those that directlydestroyhumans(contaminated food anddrugs).In particular, therefore, where there are problemson the basis ofopenness.However, if these are maintained in a specific society, albeit in Popper’ssensepartially open,it is possible tosolve these problems,ifthistheory is utilized todeepenisolationwithincommunities and theirdecay; there will be no force thatwould stand up thisdecadentdevelopment.

  Criticalrationalismwasan offensive ideaagainst olderunsatisfactory theories with constructivist characterthat did not shed the sealof itsbirth. It defeated old agendas, but over time it was shown thatthis is where its actual effectivenessends.Times are changing, openness to the futureitself does not solve anything;openness inspacebegins showingits own problemsand losingagendasbegin toregroupandpullinto the battlewith new weapons. Against those opennessseemsto be an ineptopponent.

  An opensociety is ageneralizationlargelyachieved through nothingness.To betruly universal it rather does not sayanything specific. Opennessitselfhad already becomecommonplace.This shall not be complained against; only againstits spiritimplementedin products derived from it;especiallyin importantidea of​​the time -skepticalfatalism.In thisideathevacuousgenerality of „open society“ found its concrete form.Rationalismitself, however, does not supportfatalism.

  Open Society is also supported by FAHayek (see 13); it is being calledan „extended order“. While theolderterm „spontaneous order“ was actually a „concretesociety“and hisstatement wasdefense of what I callthe traditionalorder; „extendedorder“ refers to the world space.From the ideas of „open society“ and „extendedorder“stem all the othertheoriesof modernity,including the theory ofa multicultural society; some of them discontinuous, others merely conformal. According toHayek,the so called large andincreasinglyopensociety can notbe basedon instinctsandemotionsin general. Vitalhuman characteristicsare thereforethe enemy ofthe „extendedorder“ andnatural lifeis to a certain degreebad.Man can notprioritizehiskinsfolk and must only bea cog in themechanism; he does havefreedom though, butits application within theinstincts and emotionsis not right.Hayekprefers„pure reason“ driven primarily by benefit.That peoplein a free societywill primarily apply instincts is somehow not taken into account.Especiallyinstinctstoward peoplewithina nation orcommunityareinappropriate and should disappear.Strangeris the sameperson asnative,and is subject to thesamerelations.Hayek therefore asks forrootlessness. Manpursueshisindividual interests, cooperates with unfamiliar peoplein workplace, the ultimate purpose of hisworkhemay not beknown to him,even if he is involvedandbenefits from it.Preferingsomeone on the basisof instinctsis within this theory not possible.Hereis, amongother things,clearly showndisrespect forthe work doneancestors,towhich especially the offspring shall be entitled, not a stranger.Continuity is deniednot only in relationto the past,but consciouslytoward the future; that is only ensuredby the „spontaneous order“, in which onemust actuallybelieve that it alwaysworks well.

  Thosewho oncerecognizedhumanimperfection when constructing social structures andreliedon openness andspontaneity of the order (Hayek, Meyer), were in essence not wrong; yes the generalorder isstillspontaneouslytransformed through transposition (although notwell), and cosmic orderworksquitefirmly.However, if thebelief inspontaneous orderbecomesideology, it leads to fatalism(do not do anything,everythingis self-governed). Ifwe are awareof conditions the cosmic order gives us for oursurvival, we can not completely and unconditionally accept the ideathat everything is best controlledby itself.Ouremotionalrelationshipto humanityand to the planetleads usto accountability forthefuture and those spontaneousprocesses that aremalignant, we have to stop.

  Creators ofideasthatuprootedpeople withoutanyemotional tiestothe community can norally morallycan function in allinstitutions thatsociety needswere guided byexperience ofbig society, in which many people behavedfairlyevento strangers.Thisled them tobelieve that there issome „pure humanity“; that man will treatall mengenerouslyand helpfullyjustsomehow by himself, orperhaps on the basisof some theory. Let’s remember thatbig societies thatexisted usually as stateshad at their disposalpeoplebrought up by this societyrooted in it andfollowing rules of this society.Citizenship was the basisof education, which was directed toward natural tribalhumanemotion into an intimaterelationshipwith society, usually calledpatriotism.Peoplebehaved in a way that would not to infringethe interests oftheir state andthe nationand worked toward preservation of its interest.Hisrole wassupported bybelonging to something bigger. Fallacy of aforementionedphilosophersoriginated in the assumptionthat people will always behavethis way, even after a society like thatceases toexistor after theemotionaltiesto it vanish. They did not takeinto account thediscontinuousnature ofuprooting.Although I a not explainthis in more detail, but there is an assumption that can be expectedand that is that only has to pay people to make them perfor well intheirroles.Today, thistragicfallyacy is self-fullfilling; originally conformally-looking ideasmorphed intomalignantform. Through uprootingtheemotionalrelationship with the stateand nation were disrupted andpeople started behavingimmorally. The role ofindigenoussentientpatrioticpublic officialschanged into the role ofmechanisms. Simply put, theyjustdo not understand whythey shouldengagein somethingwhat is notclose to them.Others willcontinue intheirprotestsregardless of theirfellow citizens, destroy shopwindowsand cars during demonstrations; and many will be influenced by some ideology, usually a terrorist one. Unlimitedopenness which has cosmopolitancharacter androotlessnessare mutually supportive.

  Thisway I however do not condemn openness, in accordance with the existence of specificsocieties, in which people arenormallyrooted, as explainedbyPopper, which among other things praisedthe CzechoslovakFirst Republicas a state which inthissense wasshowing signs of„open society„. Global market, traveling, and moving are necessary. It can not, however, have such a characterthatpeople of a particular society become uprooted; a society which of coursemay not be completelyclosed,but still it mustdefenditsautonomywithin thediversifiedworldas a separatemodel competingwith others.Openness isratherthe behavior ofsociety as awhole. At the same time it does not matterat all whetherthe society isbig or small;it isonly important thatthe peoplein itwerewell settled.

  Disjunctionactually leads to an extremelyopen societyleads spontaneously, because a man uprootedfroma particular societyneeds to livein somespace whichhas to be givena name. Opensociety isan appropriate name forthis openspace of uprootedcosmopolites, even though it is notquite the same whatPopper had in mind.

  Honesteffort to create a conception as part of thecurrent „uprooted society“forastrategic choice(MartinPotucek at al, see 58)means getting into conflictsand pronounceunrealisticforecasts.Thesecan essentially besummed up as follows: Society shouldbemulticultural andtolerant to alldifferentphenomena, and yet should havesocialcohesion, civic initiative andshared identity.People shouldbe flexible andadaptable, absorb ideas from outside, move to getwork, travel the worldand yetnot to becomecosmopolitanoutcasts; they should start families, create „social capital“, and share identity oftheirnation and state, including preservationof its traditions.

  Thisonlycreatesan eclecticset ofcontradictory measures which are mutuallydepriving themselves of their efficiency.We can assume thatpeople who are rooted recognizetraditions and socialcohesionnaturallyopposetoleranceto foreignculturalimpositionand foreignethnic groupsbringingdifferent civilization. Thoseuprooted ones who through their innerconceptexpressexpress their wide toleranceandmulticulturalism,must necessarilywithdrawfrom socialcohesion andtraditions.

  Even if the currentopen societywentbeyondthat one considered by Popper, it is still a child ofrationalism andpositivism.Yettimeless humanism can also be built on the originalidea of​​ open society.It is mainlyideologicalopenness: a scientific approachin sociology,exploringnaturalprinciples andtheir application, critical evaluation,free discussion, openness to ideas,respect forobjective truth, rejection of doctrinaire, logical reasoning, and democratic and free society.Opennessis a generalidea which if it does notslipinto nothingnessshould indicatedistancefrom reducedideologies, andshould bea discussion forum forideas.Spatialopennesshas its limits. Temporal opennesstimeis a mustprovidingideologicalopenness exists.

  Skepticalfatalism is detachment fromthe temporal abstract; it is thinking reducedto the present shielded by the idea of spontaneousdevelopment.JanPatocka(see81)calls itself-abdicationSelf-abdication is reliance on nature (which of course no longer affectshuman life), accepts life, but does not create one. Sensing isjustreceivingimpulses „.It is an exampleof conformingand discontinuousthinking.Isitnot areliance on thefate thatwould perhapsbe writtenin the stars, but it’s reliance onexternal circumstances of social natureto solveproblems forhumans.It is simply ignorance ofthe process ofdecadenceas anegativephenomenon.Skepticismis reflectedin anyproposals relating tosolving importantsocial problems, especially those of timelesscharacter.Sometimes these are manifested in catastrophicfatalisticscenarios (see 40),yet I do not disputethosehere. Skepticismwas based onfailureof human wisdomin the management ofsociety(communistregime andwelfare states).

  Reliance onspontaneoussolution is notentirelynew behaviors anddoes not originatein modernity. People have alwaysrelied onnaturalprinciples that would solve everything for them andthat mandoes not have todeal withthe future. In the absence of understandingthat after the„point ofartificiality“ matters are no longer resolved by themselves, the laws of natureare discardedby human interventionand spontaneousprocess becomesunnatural.Evenreligionusuallypointedbelievers toward the afterlifeandadvised them not to cling to thepresent lifetoo much. Therefore contemporary man cannot beblamed for thinking alike and that his current probles will be solvedfor him by spontaneoussupernaturalforces.MedievalChristian call tofatalism: „let’s God’s will take overwas meant to turn peopleaway fromtheir foolishattemptsto change the worldandwas correctat time when thenaturallaws determined human life.After the „point of artificiality“ this challenge means to let spontaneousunnaturalprocessflow anddotheirdestructivework.
  Most ideas, values​​and theoriesof modernity, which I will bring up, were createdunder the influence ofa skepticalfatalism.
They could only arise becausespace was created for theiradolescentcharacter.Solving of problems of the future requiresapproach of awisehousehold manager, energetic action, and formation of ideas andthecorrespondingrules.Skepticismcreated theimpression thatit will solve nothing, and that it is unnecessary tooccupy one’s mindwith seriousquestions; fatalismcreated reliance onspontaneity ofsocial evolutionandconsequentlybelief that there is no need for consciousproblem solving.Peoplethenonly engaged in solvingtheirrelationshipissues andfro the society they demanded implementation of rightsthey did notdeservethrough obligations. At the same time the feeling that everythingsolvesitself spontaneously andthat socialinterventions inspontaneous processesare unproductive, led to thebelief that societyis unnecessary.


  Quasi-conservativism is a belief in need of outdatedrules andideas which already became obsolete due tochanges inthe realities of life. Children are no longer born as a matter of courseand nature understandably cannot help itself from the pollution; despite thisit is claimed thatyoungpeoplecanwait with children to simplyenjoy free life, and they do not have any at all, nothing will happen.Thatdischarge of sewageinto a creekandthrowingrubbishinto a pitdoes not matter because it has been done this way forever.

  Here arealso representededucationalmyths.Educationis preferred tohaving a familyand is in fact adisruptivefactor.The very myth of educationpurelymerit-based; it does not include any help to society, butonly self-interest. Everybody can graduate, ifhe is trying hard enough and hasenough time. Therefore,thisis pursued by large number ofpeople, even though there are not enough jobs for graduates while artisans are needed but are scarce. Time-wisely then highereducation is not compatible with the foundation ofthe family,andmateriallyit is not compatible either. It is oneof the waysof not founding familiesand reducingtheir size. However, this is based onold models, from days when only limited number of people studied there were high standards imposed on graduates; schooling ended earlier, and graduateshadgreater opportunities to assert themselves.

  Detachment (disjunction) fromcosmiccriteria in thiscasewas pursued via the idea of quasi-conservatism: Paradigm is changing andunderstanding itsactual conditionis not happening; new rules for new situations are not being created and compliance with obsolete old ones is still required. With understanding that a paradigm is modified,return of the original one is required to allow oldideas to apply. Thisis rarelysensible.



Constructivism is the formal opposite of fatalism. It is derived from existentialism. It deals with existential anxiety and focus on the person, however it does not rely on circumstances but rather tries to solve things using the human mind. In the following text, I will explain why human projects are imperfect and why pure dirigisme is counterproductive (e.g. if the birth rate is low, parents get paid for every child they have, or if the market system is immoral, it is abolished and assignment system is introduced). Dirigisme does not lack the awareness of the process of unnaturalness completely and sometimes it tries to solve individual signs of unnaturalness. However it does not contain the awareness of imperfect human nature and therefore the imperfectness of human projects. On a small scale, in partial mutations of an order, dirigisme is not considered an obstruction if it is possible to try the manifestations in practice and possibly avoid using this approach. Real constructivism means that human projects are put above the natural and traditional order and these traditional rules are broken, without being replaced with something valuable. A typical example of this is the Communist regime. Dirigisme does one-time transposition (usually via a revolution), but new rules do not correspond to cosmic criteria, often relying on directive leading of a person (a ruler, an official) and does not create a system of automatic transposition. Constructivism is usually pejoratively connected to an ideology, because it wants to “change the world” and natural principles and traditional order get in its way. Therefore it destroys them (e.g. the market). Such ideology is then on the “top of unnaturalness”.

 The most damaging effects of dirigisme are invasive interventions into functioning mechanisms of the market, the family, the society, the municipality etc., which they subvert, destroy or at least disrupt. In the case of market, these are usually communist beliefs; in case of families they are feminist, individualist and relativist beliefs.