Book · 1945
The Open Society and Its Enemies
by Karl Popper
Karl Popper dismantles Plato, Hegel, and Marx to argue that any philosophy treating history as destiny is a blueprint for tyranny.
What does Reddit think of The Open Society and Its Enemies?
Thirteen mentions across 7 years, concentrated almost entirely in r/askphilosophy (10 of 13), where Popper gets cited the way people cite a dictionary: authoritative for a specific claim, rarely read cover to cover. The paradox of tolerance is the most-quoted passage by some distance — the ↑86 comment invokes Popper to argue that tolerating intolerance ends tolerance, a reading that surfaces whenever speech limits get debated. The ↑121 thread pairs Open Society with The Poverty of Historicism as Popper's double-barrel attack on Hegel and his Marxist descendants. That framing — Popper as anti-Hegel more than anti-Marx — is the thread's actual argument, and it tracks the book. But the ↑16 comment lands the counterweight: academic philosophers today largely respect Popper on philosophy of science and largely dismiss him as a historian of philosophy. r/philosophy adds 3 mentions, the most recent from 2019. The book functions here as citation infrastructure rather than reading recommendation.
Community feedback & reader fit
Themes
- · Paradox of tolerance and the limits of liberalism
- · Historicism as the intellectual root of totalitarianism
- · Popper's critique of Hegel and Platonic political philosophy
- · Falsificationism applied to social and political theory
- · Open society as a framework for institutional reform over utopian planning
Common praise
- + The paradox of tolerance argument gives readers a defensible position on speech limits that philosophers actually cite (↑86).
- + The pairing with The Poverty of Historicism makes the anti-Hegel case feel systematic rather than merely polemical.
- + r/askphilosophy treats it as the go-to source when someone needs Popper's actual words rather than paraphrases.
Common criticism
- − Academic philosophers working in history of philosophy regard Popper's readings of Plato and Hegel as selective and contested, per the ↑16 comment.
- − Thirteen mentions over 7 years suggests it circulates as a reference rather than a book people finish and discuss.
- − Most Reddit invocations pull the tolerance footnote in isolation; the broader political theory rarely enters the conversation.
Who it's for
If your interest in Popper starts and ends with the tolerance paradox, you probably only need the footnote — it's freely quoted in every ↑80+ thread on the subject. Read the book if you want to understand why Popper thought Hegel, not Stalin, was the real problem: the r/askphilosophy consensus frames Open Society as an anti-historicism argument first and an anti-Marxism argument second. Philosophy-of-science readers who know Popper from Conjectures and Refutations will find the political application here either satisfying or frustrating depending on how much they trust his Hegel reading.
Mentions over time
Top subreddits
Which Reddit comments matter for The Open Society and Its Enemies?
Top-upvoted quotes across the subreddits where this book is mentioned. Click through to read the full thread.
“Although Popper does address Marxism specifically, much of his work focuses on the Hegelian idea of Historicism which heavily influenced Marx. His two most widely-accepted books (The Poverty of Historicism, The Open Society and Its Enemies) offer a number of scathing rebuttals to Hegel. There are …
“One view of this question, advanced by Karl Popper, is that unlimited tolerance can only result in the collapse of all tolerance. That is, when intolerant voices abandon rational argument in favor of violence, those who value tolerance should *not* tolerate them any further. This is not endorsing th…
“There is a circle of philosophers among whom he was/is taken seriously, to varying degrees or extents: e.g. people like Isaiah Berlin, or generally the people referred to as “Cold War liberals” nowadays. You can check out Samuel Moyn’s *Liberalism Against Itself* for a book that covers this topic, t…
“Popper lays it out in a rather long note (51) in his *Open Society*, I'll copy it here: >Wittgenstein teaches in the Tractatus (cp. note 46 to this chapter where further cross-references are given) that philosophy cannot propound propositions, and that all philosophical propositions are in fact sen…
“>what would the 5 books you would recommend to read in your life Good question, and made me pause to reflect (my journey): 1. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values by Robert M Pirsig - made philosophy accessible and down to earth, became interested in the idea of qual…
“I mean, if you're so impressionable that literally reading fascist ideas might make you a fascist, maybe choose to read something more productive? But for a start, read Primo Levi's If This Is A Man. It's not philosophy - it's the real account of a man suffering the consequences of Italian fascism.…
“Karl Popper is not currently regarded as an authority on the history of philosophy by people who work in academia. He remains important and influential (though by no means universally accepted) in the philosophy of science, but as a political philosopher and an interpreter of previous famous philoso…
“Well, of course, there are plenty. The question is a bit vague. Famous cases in the US Supreme Court recognized limits on "freedom of speech", such as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater, death threats, sexual harassment, etc. and these are pretty widely recognized as not covered by "freedom …
Convinced? Pick up The Open Society and Its Enemies
What else does r/askphilosophy read?
Other books mentioned in the same sub, ranked. Shared-sub overlap with this title breaks ties.
Critique of Pure Reason
Immanuel Kant
Kant's 1781 attempt to settle the limits of human knowledge — the book that split philosophy in two and still hasn't been fully digested.
The Myth of Sisyphus
Albert Camus
A 1942 essay that opens with the question of whether life is worth living and ends by insisting Sisyphus is happy.
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Wittgenstein built a numbered ladder from logical atomism to the inexpressible, then said the ladder had to be discarded once you climbed it.
Being and Time
Martin Heidegger
Heidegger's argument that human existence only gets its meaning from death — 162 Reddit mentions, mostly from people explaining why it's so hard to read.
Nicomachean Ethics
Aristotle
Aristotle's 2,400-year-old argument that living well depends on virtue, leisure, and the company you keep — still the canonical text for the field.
Beyond Good and Evil
Friedrich Nietzsche
Nietzsche dismantles the moral framework Western civilization built on, then refuses to tell you what to replace it with.
The Open Society and Its Enemies — frequently asked
What does Reddit actually use The Open Society and Its Enemies for?+
Mostly citation. Of 13 mentions, the overwhelming majority appear in r/askphilosophy threads on tolerance, free speech, or Hegel — and commenters quote specific passages rather than recommend the book. The ↑86 paradox-of-tolerance comment is the canonical example: Popper is the source, not the subject.
Is The Open Society and Its Enemies worth reading if I already know the tolerance paradox argument?+
Depends on your goal. The tolerance paradox is a footnote; the actual book is a sustained attack on historicism — the idea that history moves toward a predetermined end. If that's the Popper you want, yes. If you just need the tolerance argument, the ↑86 r/askphilosophy comment copies the relevant passage verbatim.
Does Reddit think Popper's reading of Hegel and Plato in The Open Society holds up?+
The ↑121 thread treats it as authoritative on historicism. The ↑16 comment pushes back directly: academic philosophers respect Popper on philosophy of science but regard his history-of-philosophy interpretations as unreliable. Both views appear in r/askphilosophy, with no clear consensus winner.
How does The Open Society and Its Enemies compare to The Poverty of Historicism?+
r/askphilosophy pairs them as Popper's two most widely-accepted books (↑121), with Open Society as the broader political argument and Poverty of Historicism as the tighter methodological case. The thread suggests reading both if you're serious about the anti-Hegel argument; Open Society alone is the more commonly cited of the two.