Reviews for Gmelin Handbook of inorganic and organometallic chemistry

The average rating for Gmelin Handbook of inorganic and organometallic chemistry based on 2 reviews is 4 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2013-04-18 00:00:00 Timothy Makas This is the second volume of Popper's work that warns of the great influence of thinkers who were no friends of the open society, a society in which the rights of the individual are valued over the glory of the state. In volume one, Popper uses Plato's writings, quoted extensively, to indict Plato very effectively as an advocate of totalitarianism. In this volume, it is Hegel and Marx that are up on charges of abandoning reason for historicism, Popper's term for a mythological belief that there is a force directing the course of societies that dictates their fate and, by extension, allows prophecy about what societies will come. Historicism defeats effort. Why should you and I do anything when the lessons of the past dictate an inevitable future, for better or worse? The future will be inevitably worse, part of the predictable degeneration from the original ideal thought Plato, a pessimist, while Hegel and Marx, optimists, thought improvement was the rule. Hegel is all but entirely dismissed by Popper as a pretentious windbag writing difficult if not unintelligible prose about a world spirit moving through the ages coming to fruition in the the glorious Prussian monarchy by which Hegel was employed to philosophize for the state. For him, there is no higher calling for the individual than to be of service to the state. Marx, on the other hand, is given a significant amount of credit by Popper for being a very observant, insightful analyst of capitalism as it had developed up to the time at which Marx wrote his magnum opus, Capital (1867). Where Marx falls down, Popper writes, is in his prediction of the inevitable demise of capitalism at the feet of the proletariat (the working people) and his far too simplistic view of society as composed of only two classes, the workers and the bourgeoisie (the employers/capitalists). This mystical view of the future turned out to be wrong. The most obvious reason for the error is that Marx could not foresee the power of labor, through democracy, to impose restrictions on capitalism, taming it for a while. Popper's reasoning here, written in 1962, fails to see the power of capitalism to come roaring back in our time to essentially dismantle all of the reforms (and the unions) that restrained it, doing so through the corruption of democracy by unrestricted campaign funding that empowers the corporate lobbies. But this doesn't detract from Popper's argument, he would never claim to be able to predict the future. As powerful as volume 1 was in explaining the writing of Plato for the layman, volume 2 is even more powerful in explaining the voluminous writing of Marx, not in detail but in the fundamental ideas that Marx was attempting to relate to his readers. Thanks to Popper, I have never understood the basis of Marx' work as well as I do now, nor the atmosphere of the time in which Marx wrote that so forcefully directed his thoughts. This book is well worth reading for two reasons. The first is that Popper demonstrates the power of reason in the careful way he writes and the distance he goes to provide evidence for his thinking. This work is most of all a defense of reason. Popper is adamant that for reason to work, ideas must be able to contend for approval. Argument is vital. Advance comes only out of disputes that are resolved on evidence, concerning society this means the evidence found from "piecemeal engineering" where society is exposed to change in one small area at a time and the result is seen to be beneficial or not. Never will some grand plan for a new society work because it can never account for the many errors in detail and the internal contradictions that will defeat it. In the face of unavoidable problems with a grand plan, it will end up imposed no matter what, meaning heads will roll to take care of opposition (see the French Revolution). This is exactly the opposite of a just society that values the individual. The second reason to read this book is to get a solid grip on Marx, a man Popper feels was a humanitarian at heart, honestly eager to advance the cause of the virtually helpless multitudes of the mid 19th century. Though Marx was a believer in reason he was unable to hold to it, falling victim to a view of inevitable social change in a specific way that would follow his prophesy. That prophesy, thoroughly discredited by events since his time, has unfortunately led most to make the error of dismissing his work entirely. As for Popper's writing, a high school student would have no trouble following the logic and just might learn the power of logic in the process.

Review # 2 was written on 2007-04-26 00:00:00 Garrett Stauffer I don't know what I would do without this book. Popper fled the Nazi takeover of Austria, and set out to write a book that would somehow fight bad ideologies. He succeeded. If only anyone actually read it. Open Society begins with an attack on Plato. Popper argues that we need to realize that Plato chose Sparta over Athens, and every other vaguely cosmopolitan city. He spends time describing just how controlled, misogynistic, and totalitarian Spartan life really was. Popper then moves on to show Plato worshiping that lifestyle in The Republic. Plato based his political theory on his belief in forms (perfect concepts outside of time of which all our ideas and creations are mere shadows), and so the political system which best resembled a form (unchanging) was the best system. This best system was a totalitarian city ruled by corrupt philosophers who taught lies. Popper links this belief of Plato The heart of Open Society is the criticism of any philosophy or theory of history that claims to know the future. Branding these philosophies 'Historicism,' he argues that Marxism by arguing that history moves in stages (feudal, capitalist, communist) makes itself unable to choose a better world. By accepting that history is an inevitable march of economic forms, socialists become unable to work in the now. Popper blames this aspect of Marxism for allowing fascism to rise in Europe. He believed that if Austrian socialists had been more willing (and less confident in History's march) to ally with moderates they could have stop the rise of fascist and rightist parties. This is truly one of my favorite books, and there's a good chance I'll pick it up and write a proper review with citation and deep thoughts one of these days.