tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3486390395644579022.post5376929551033249030..comments2020-01-16T14:24:54.513+03:00Comments on Youthful Follies: Society of Foolsvacuus viatorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07511253135488142808noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3486390395644579022.post-8369048603710169562010-04-08T15:19:25.546+03:002010-04-08T15:19:25.546+03:00I guess "encouraging thoughtful dissent"...I guess "encouraging thoughtful dissent" is an ideal I find really pragmatic and practical: we can do it!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3486390395644579022.post-55075188993425475492010-04-08T01:55:24.172+03:002010-04-08T01:55:24.172+03:00Sorry; make that "harm more than help me.&quo...Sorry; make that "harm more than help me."Kirstihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11041588006785004212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3486390395644579022.post-9083851083917665482010-04-07T22:48:42.031+03:002010-04-07T22:48:42.031+03:00As a member of one or the other community, I admit...As a member of one or the other community, I admit it would make a difference, though even in an "open" community -- or, at least, in the American one -- my voice doesn't make any difference. At least I can still be a member of the community whose leaders make decisions that I feel harm more than hurt me, though! That's something, right?<br /><br />I really just wanted to say that both Plato and Popper are discussing the idealized versions of these communities. In its most ideal state, one might argue that Plato's "closed" community would be an improvement over America's so-called "open" one. But then, I've studied neither Plato (to any great extent) nor Popper (at all, unless your blog entry counts as "study.")Kirstihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11041588006785004212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3486390395644579022.post-85163752487611972022010-04-07T22:02:45.488+03:002010-04-07T22:02:45.488+03:00I largely agree with your assessment. From my poi...I largely agree with your assessment. From my point of view, the problem is one of argument: I can make my case against the closed society of America articulate without getting my rights as an American revoked. I cannot make my argument against the closed society of the LDS church articulate without losing my place in the community. The church has no place "inside" for faithful dissent: all dissenters are defined as apostates and either silenced or kicked out. Every society wants (and tends) to close, but not every society makes it impossible to point out this problem and/or try to counteract it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3486390395644579022.post-55355161359385247492010-04-07T16:21:19.542+03:002010-04-07T16:21:19.542+03:00The "open society" seems just as idealis...The "open society" seems just as idealistic as the "closed," IMO. It seems to me that the good ol' US of A are <i>supposed</i> to function as open, but our leaders (presidents, senators, local leaders, etc.) are too caught up in constituencies, parties, and condescending superiority to be truly "open" to the protests of the citizens they "represent."<br /><br />On the other hand, the "closed" society of the Church (or any such community) is also prone to the promote the failings of its leaders. members can toe the party line, or get out!<br /><br />The irony lies in the fact that the leaders in the "open" community reflect the attitudes of the "closed" that you list above, while the leaders of the "closed" tout ideals of governing "by common consent." In other words, I find myself rather skeptical of the idealistic, unrealistic societies discussed by either Plato <i>or</i> Popper. But maybe that's just the skeptic in me talking.Kirstihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11041588006785004212noreply@blogger.com