David B. Shemano wrote that the Straussian approach is >not mystical.
I took a class in college from a Straussian and we read Machiavelli,
Hobbes and Locke, very "closely" as the Straussians call it. I
remember sitting there thinking -- Jesus, the professor is right!
It's not that people can't see what the Straussians see, it's that
most people don't read the books at all, and those that do claim to
read them do not read them with care.<
("Jesus, the professor is right!" -- sounds like a mild mystical
experience to me.)
Most people don't read these texts carefully (who has the time? who's
really interested?), but there are a lot of non-Straussian political
philosophers who do. It seems quite arrogant for the Straussians to
think that they are the only ones who read texts carefully (that
"those [non-Straussians] that do claim to read them do not read them
with care"), especially if the flaws of other interpretations aren't
even discussed. Sure academics can and do disagree on the
interpretations of texts, but to make the blanket claim that people
who don't agree with the Straussian school can't or won't read with
care is a bit much. We've got the Truth and you don't! That sounds
more than mystical -- it sounds like the assertion of cult members.
Are the Straussians going to move to Jonestown soon?
> And it is not that Straussians believe Straussians should be secretive, it is
> that "philosophers" must be careful, as the story of Socrates shows. <
The Straussians are the ones who take the advice to heart. Almost all
others ignore it.
> "Political philosophy," according to the Straussians, is ultimately about the
> relationship between "philosophers" and the "city." Philosophers (lovers of
> wisdom) are devoted to truth-seeking as the highest good, which is not the
> highest good of the "city", and if the philosopher openly announces in the
> marketsquare that the gods of the city are myths, it (1) endangers the life
> of the philosopher, and (2) endangers the happiness of the non-philosophers,
> who are not prepared to look death in the face and, if they believe there is
> no god, no life after death, no justice, etc., the social order will
> disintegrate. The Straussian view that the philosopher needs to be careful
> seems valid enough to me, even in an open society like the USA.
Hmm... someone like Dawkins or Hitchens or Harris can yell from the
rooftops that the "gods of the city" are myths and somehow their lives
aren't endangered, even in an extremely religious place like the US.
Somehow, all their yelling hasn't endangered anyone's happiness but
has instead mobilized others of the chattering classes, making them
happy by giving them something new to gab about.
Methinks that these Straussian self-styled "lovers of wisdom" have an
exaggerated sense of their own importance. That's likely why they take
their secrecy advice to heart. There are a lot of other philosophers
who say what they mean (though often in a way that's mired in academic
jargon) rather holding their cards close to their chests.
BTW, am I correct to believe that one key (but mildly open) secret
that the Straussians have is that they are atheists and relativists?
(This would explain why they want to keep the true nature of their
beliefs from the "city," especially from other conservatives, who
believe in God and Absolute Morality.)
>For instance, if you believe that it is true that biological differences
>explain the different levels of success of men and women in the hard sciences,
>it is probably a good idea for you to be somewhat circumspect in presenting
>your view, because it challenges the foundational belief of the city that we
>are all created equal....<
This seems a reference to the Larry Summers debacle at Harvard. This
has been discussed to death, including on pen-l. If you look into
this case, you'll find that the problem was not his positing that
biological differences might play a role in causing differential
success. Rather, it's because he's an arrogant jerk (though the Obama
people have convinced him to hide that a bit). Naturally enough, some
people were upset at his puerile theorizing, but it was mostly because
they (often female "hard" scientists) had heard it _many_ times
before. This is because a major "foundational belief" of the US back
in 1776 was that white male property-owners were superior to all
others and (more importantly) that there were major institutional
forces enforcing this belief, including these white male
property-owners' control of state power. The dominance of white male
property-owners may have declined a bit in recent years, but it's
still with us. (That _must_ be part of the explanation of why a lazy
bum and frat-boy ignoramus such as George W. Bush actually became
president of the US (and why Straussians were actually able to
influence US government policy).)
> Defining "capitalism" is very difficult, precisely because Marxists are
> slippery and disingenuous [unlike, say, the Straussians]. .... Marxists are
> forever slipping and sliding between allegedly neutral analysis and
> subjective moral valuations. I can easily agree with you that we can call
> "capitalism" a social system dominated by private property relations and
> proletarianized labor. Fine, that is "capitalism." However, describing a
> social system as dominated by private property relations and proletarianized
> labor to a non-Marxist is, in the abstract, a neutral event, such a society
> has no intrinsic goodness or badness.<
I wasn't making a value judgment, talking about goodness and badness.
I try to describe the world before judging it. And before that, I try
to define terms (though some may like to revel in ambiguity). The
positivist story of value-free social science is a myth, but it's
useful to try, at least if one wants to understand the world. It's a
mistake to try to pile all sorts of moral judgments on at the same
time one is defining terms.
> However, to a Marxist, identifying a specific society as dominated by private
> property relations and proletarianized labor, and therefore "capitalist," has
> all kinds of moral implications. Such a society, depending on the Marxist,
> has inherent contradictions that will result in immiseration, is inherently
> alienating, is premised on exploitation, etc., and deserves revolutionary
> replacement.<
I wasn't talking about the laws of motion of capitalism. I was talking
about what the Marxian definition was. It's a mistake to try to talk
about everything at the same time. Among other things, it's just
confusing.
> Therefore, agreeing with a Marxist that something is "capitalist" is
> necessarily contentious. I could agree with you that Nazi Germany was
> "capitalist" in the sense that yes, property continued to be held in private
> hands and there was a proletariat. But that is the least interesting part of
> Nazi Germany -- only a Marxist could look at Nazi Germany and the USA and
> say: see, in both private property relations dominate and there is a
> proletariat, therefore they are both "capitalist" and their differences are
> one of marginality and not essence. That is a peculiarly Marxist way of
> looking at things not shared by non-Marxists.<
Again, if the goal is to understand some phenomenon, terms have to be
defined before one gets into "what's most interesting" about it.
In an earlier missive in this thread, David defined capitalism as an
ideology of greed (or some such). He left out all of the moral baggage
associated with that definition. Does that make him "slippery and
disingenuous"?
Let's see: trying to be clear in one's definition and to get away from
silly idealist definitions, while trying to avoid talking about
absolutely all related phenomena (at least for awhile), is "slippery
and disingenuous." On the other hand, coming to arcane interpretations
of old books and then actively hiding one's conclusions from the
unwashed masses of "the city" is NOT "slippery and disingenuous." This
view is nothing but self-serving.
that's enough for today. I wrote too many missives yesterday.
--
Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own
way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
