Some arguments in defence of rationality in the light of Karl Popper’s political philosophy

Abstract

This article proves the groundlessness of the criticism of rationality on the example of Hannah Arendt, Giorgio Agamben, and Sigmund Bauman’s thoughts on concentration camps and the possibility of their transformation into a concentration camp society. The article refutes the views on the connection between rationality and concentration camps on the basis of Karl Popper’s views on open society and its enemies, in particular, the distinction between two types of social engineering – gradual and utopian, as well as the distinction between rationalism and irrationalism. It is found that while concentration camps demonstrate the possibility of a concentration camp society, they are similar in their features to utopian engineering, which cannot be called rational due to the absence of any responsibility for human life. If we evaluate the actions of concentration camps from a moral standpoint, we will find that turning a human being into an ordinary object is irrational. Concentration camps bear no responsibility for human life. Sacrificing the most precious thing – a human being – can only be considered evil. And this sacrifice cannot be overlooked or ignored. The irrationality of the concentration camps is also evidenced by the hatred of people provoked by politicians’ disregard for reason, argumentation, and rational and responsible analysis of the consequences of their actions. It is irrationalism that causes inequality in society, as it leads to the division of humanity into friends and enemies. Under such conditions, political equality is impossible, and anti-egalitarianism can be used to justify murder. Ultimately, it is irrationalism that leads to crime. In conclusion, the author proposes to consider the problem of concentration camps in connection with the problem of man, since it is his desire to overcome the limits that determines the development or degradation of society.