Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > [Jos]> I can't see anything online from which you could have derived such an > [positive]> opinion [of Strauss]? > Leo Strauss 101 EDWARD FESER An enormous amount of nonsense has been written > about > Leo Strauss over the last several years.
Thanks Craig. An fine antidote to the nonsense about Strauss written in this forum. Platt (Craig's post cont'd) > Liberal journalists who appear never to > have read a word of the long-dead philosophers work assure us that the war in > Iraq is a practical application of his ideas. Tim Robbinss anti-war play > Embedded > portrays Strauss as a sinister ideologue who promoted deception of the masses > as a > means of fostering a militant nationalism. Nor has the nonsense all come from > the > political left. Conservative writer Daniel Flynn suggests, in his book > Intellectual Morons, that Straussian methods of textual analysis may have led > the > Defense Department into a faulty reading of pre-war intelligence vis-à-vis > Saddams purported WMD stockpiles. Yale professor Steven Smiths book is > intended, > in part, to dispel such myths, and provides a sober and lucid overview of > Strausss thinking about matters of philosophy, politics, and religion, albeit > from Smiths interpretive point of view. > His emphasis is on Strausss defense of liberal democracy as a solution to > what he > called the theologico-political problem; in Smiths telling, Strausss > defense > rests on a kind of philosophical skepticism. Smith is clearly sympathetic to > Strausss views as he understands them; he succeeds in his attempt to show > that > those views bear little resemblance to the caricatures now in circulation, > and are > worthy of the serious consideration of liberals and conservatives alike. > Unfortunately, in his desire to distance Strauss from Bush-administration > policy > in particular and neoconservatism in general, he sometimes overstates his > case. > More significantly, he fails to consider some potential difficulties facing > the > Straussian worldview as he has interpreted it. Still, his take on Strauss is > instructive, and if he doesnt answer all the important questions he at least > raises them. In this, Smith is very Straussian indeed. Strauss understood > philosophy as concerned with the permanent probl > ems traditional questions about the nature and grounds of justice, the > existence of God, and so forth that are permanent because, it is alleged, > no > settled answers to these questions are possible. In Strausss view, the > thinker > who decisively chooses one set of answers over the others has ceased to be a > philosopher and become a sectarian. But if philosophy is concerned with > constant > questioning and discussing, rather than with providing solutions or upholding > hallowed dogmas, it poses a potential threat to traditional societies. Hence > the > theologico-political problem, the inevitable conflict between philosophy and > divine revelation, reason and faith, Athens and Jerusalem. On Smiths > interpretation of Strauss, liberal democracy provides the best solution to > this > problem, or at least (as Churchill would have put it) the worst except for > all the > others. Its tendency to foster toleration and open-mindedness recommends it > to the > philosopher as the sort of regime most conduc > ive to his way of life, and its allowance for private religious > discrimination in > exchange for neutrality between religions in the public sphere makes it > possible > for traditional believers to practice their ancient ways as they see fit > without > threatening the liberty of non-believers to choose to do otherwise. And yet > liberal democracies have dogmas of their own, especially egalitarian ones. > They > also tend to cater to the lowest tastes and impulses, so that while they value > science and technology for the consumer goods they provide, democracies make > high > culture and higher moral sensibilities difficult to maintain. This in turn > threatens the stability and longevity of the democratic regime itself. For > these > reasons Strauss believed that a true friend of democracy ought never to be its > flatterer. The philosopher ought, in his view, to uphold the older ideal of > democracy as a universal aristocracy, in the face of the vulgar mass > democracy > that has displaced it. This requires de > fending and practicing liberal education as a means of inculcating an > understanding and respect for the permanent problems, and thereby producing an > elite fit to govern on the basis of wisdom and merit rather than birth. It > also > requires a certain degree of caution, since given the inherently elitist > character of liberal education the philosopher is bound to find himself at > odds > to some extent even with a democratic regime. Here is where critics of > Strauss and > his followers often accuse them of advocating a resort to the noble lie, > and in > particular of a false populism that cynically caters in public to > fundamentalist > religious believers whose faith Straussians privately reject, as a way of > upholding public order and traditional morality. But, as Smith notes, this > accusation is misconceived on two counts. First of all, while Strauss was not > himself an orthodox believer, neither was he a convinced atheist. Since > whether or > not to accept a purported divine revelation is itself > one of the permanent questions, orthodoxy must always remain an option > equally > as defensible as unbelief. Second, what Strauss was in favor of was neither > lying > nor the active promotion of any particular doctrine, but rather mere tact, > silence, or at worst obfuscation where ones teaching might seem to > threaten > the unsophisticated but decent opinions of the people who make up the bulk of > society. This alleged predilection for the noble lie is something Strauss is > supposed to have inherited from Plato, and, in general, Strauss regarded his > political philosophy as Platonic in character. Here another controversial > aspect > of Strausss work comes into play, namely his idiosyncratic interpretations of > many of the great thinkers of the past. Plato is often regarded as having > proposed, at least as an instructive ideal, a utopian society that can only > be > described as totalitarian, but, as Smith tells us, Strauss considered this > merely > an ironic warning against the dangers of utopi > an thinking. Strauss also showed little interest in Platos famous Theory of > Forms, the idea that there are timeless and objective essences of things, > existing in a realm apart from either the human mind or the material world, > and > knowledge of which is the goal of philosophical inquiry. This view is > typically > regarded as the paradigm of a philosophy committed to the existence of > objective > truth, and it has had an enormous impact on the history of Western thought, > and > indeed Western civilization in general. Yet Strauss was dismissive of it, > regarding it as a fantastic and utterly incredible doctrine. Platos real > concern, in Strausss view, was similar to his own: not contemplation of the > Forms > but rather the activity of contemplation itself, the asking of the permanent > questions rather than the answering of them. Strausss glib dismissal of the > Forms > was oddly reminiscent of the scientism or positivism whose stranglehold over > modern intellectual life he was wont to criticize. > Furthermore, Strausss insistence that the genuine philosopher must be > skeptical > about the possibility of finding solutions to philosophical problems risks > providing aid and comfort to the relativism he believed posed the greatest > threat > to modern liberal democracies. To be sure, to say that we cannot discover > objective answers doesnt entail that they dont exist, but this is a > distinction > that is bound to be lost on the average non-philosopher, for whom the view > that no > answers are possible sounds little different from the view that every answer > is as > good as every other. These are issues Smith would have done well to explore. > Smith > is also unconvincing, and occasionally unfair, when attempting to divorce > Strausss thought from recent neoconservative policy. He tells us that he does > not regard Strauss as a conservative (neo- or otherwise) but rather as a > friend > of liberal democracy as if being conservative (neo- or otherwise) excluded > being in favor of liberal democracy, and > indeed, as if neoconservatives were not frequently accused of being too > eager to > spread liberal democracy around the globe! He informs us that Strauss was a > staunch Zionist, resisted internationalism of the sort enshrined in the U.N., > and > was critical of liberalisms lack of self-confidence in the face of Soviet > Communism. Smith even finds echoes of this failure of self-confidence in the > self-doubt, if not self-contempt evinced by many liberal intellectuals in > response to the rise of Islamism. Yet after all this, he peremptorily asserts > that > Strausss writings imply a critique of the war in Iraq. Smiths justification > for > this claim is that Strauss would have been skeptical of the utopianism > inherent in > pro-war rhetoric about bringing an end to evil; for evil, Strauss would have > insisted, cannot be entirely eliminated in this life. But surely such > political > boilerplate must be distinguished from actual policy. To my knowledge, the > Bush > administration hasnt proposed an invasio > n of Hell. And its willingness to ally the United States with the likes of > Pakistan and Saudi Arabia surely proves that the idealism, however heartfelt, > has > indeed been tempered by an understanding of geopolitical reality. One would > think > a student of Strauss, of all people, would know how to read between the > lines, and > understand that stirring rhetoric is part of the job description of the > statesman. > Mr. Fesers most recent book is The Philosophy of Mind: A Short Introduction. ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/ moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
