Sean Andrews writes: >> Oh sure. Kind of like the Rodney King video--just slow it down and >> you can see HE was beating the cops. I've read them closely and read >> other people who've read them closely but those are, as the lit crit >> folks like to point out, just "readings." It is not "the" reading; it >> is not some illuminated truth that no one has access to unless they >> read it that one particular way. From this you sound like that >> utterly totalitarian section of Hayek's "The Fatal Conceit" where be >> bemoans the fact that language is polysemic: why can't words just mean >> one thing, he says. It is frustrating but unfortunately >> interpretations vary.
This is a total misinterpretation of the Straussian method or what I wrote. Yes, Straussians have an interpretation of major political philosophic texts. Yes, other scholars dispute their interpretation. But the point is that the Straussian reading is not "mystical" -- if I could understand the interpretation and see the basis of the interpretation when I was an undergraduate, it aint no mystical secret. Look, did Maimonides have one message for the few and a different message for the many, or didn't he? Did Locke "write between the lines" or didn't he? I think the Straussians are convincing on these points, but I find them convincing based upon their very open analysis, not because of some secretive rite I attended. >> Oh please, Nietzsche said we had killed god and no one strung him up. >> This is just a ridiculous fantasy about one's own self importance as a >> philosopher. It is also a replication of all the two teired systems >> of the feudal era philosophers you cite--Locke, Hobbes, >> Machiavelli--who all claim that their philosophy is not for the >> masses: for them, give them the false gods of religion and the >> enculturing embrace of the work house. Strauss may have some >> interesting ideas occasionally, but deep down he's an elitist prick. Let's see. Nietzche announces that God is dead, and less than 100 years later the governing powers of Germany, Russia, and China, all sellf-proclaimed athiests liberated from religious dogma, kill more than 100 million people. Maybe it would have been better for Nietzche to be more subtle? Where is the Nietzche of the Muslim world? How does one philosophize (and state what you truly believe) if you live in a society in which religion and society are inseperable and the myths of the city are taken very seriously? I think it is also important to recognize that Strauss worked backward. His formative experince was the behavior of his teacher, Heidegger, and German liberal society in general, in response to the Nazi movement. It became clear to him that something had gone wrong with the modern project, which led him to work backwards to analyze how we got where we are and whether there was an alternative. This led him to the division between the ancients and the moderns (with Machiavelli as the dividing point), the tradition of philosophers writing between the lines, etc. I am not sure why you would think he was an elitist prick -- by all accounts he was a nice guy who picked up after himself. >> Is not slippery and disingenuous. Are people inadequate or are they >> not? Is it just a careful reading that anyone could do if the simply >> took the "time" or is it a brilliant flash of genius that only the >> brave bold few have the courage to look in the face? Excellent question. I have wrestled with the very question and do not know whether there is a satisfactory answer. I believe a Straussian would say that, ultimately, it is partially a matter of capacity, but more so of temperament. We can all see from experience that some people have intellectual capacity that others do not. More importantly, however, even those with capacity have no real interest in living the life of Socrates (the example par excellence of the philosophic life). Instead, they want to live the life of the city, whether that it a religious life, military life, business life, family life. These are all competitors for the philosophic life. >> >> >> Therefore, agreeing with a Marxist that something is "capitalist" is >> necessarily contentious. >> >> >> >> Not necessarily. It is only necessarily contentious if it is >> undermining your wish to have the prototypical evil of the twentieth >> century understood as falling into that category. Otherwise, you >> should feel fine agreeing with a Marxist about it since they are wrong >> anyway. Capitalism is AWESOME! Right? Ok. You win. Capitalism is great and non-capitalism is bad. However, the problem is the following: 1. Capitalism is good. 2. Nazi German was a capitalist society. 3. Therefore, Nazi Germany was good. If I play on your field with your definitions and assumptions, I have to spend too much time explaining why the proof is wrong. >> But the idea that the thing that made Nazi Germany *NOT* capitalist is >> the absence of some consumer fantasy about constant consumption is an >> a-historical projection of post-war western societies of mass >> consumption backwards into the pre-war society (much less into >> capitalism as a system: it was supposed to solve the intrinsic problem >> of overproduction, which could no longer be patched over by direct >> imperialism--though I know that comment takes me into one of those >> slippery interpretive minefields). Pre-war, most people bought things >> because they needed them--and the ideology of the interwar period in >> the US and Europe was one of extreme sacrifice for the cause. Were >> western societies therefore not capitalist because, although they were >> still ostensibly based on the profit motive, and a class of workers in >> the private (monopoly) industry, there was a short term shift in what >> was required of the nation? The whole idea of mass consumption as an >> ideology of capitalism--at least to the extremes that you're implying >> here--is a post-war creation (in thought and, through all kinds of >> financing mechanisms, in deed) that has largely (though probably not >> finally) come crashing on the rocks in the past year or so. If >> Strauss (or you) wants to make the ideological content of capitalism >> more important to its definition than its fundamental character, then >> I'm afraid you've struck upon what is, as you say, "the least >> interesting part" of capitalism: it is the part, incedentally, to >> which many of the Western Marxists who had an affinity for Kojeve >> would be drawn towards, but it doesn't make it any more interesting >> except as a philosophical problem. The most interesting part is how >> quickly the fundamental system can shift ideologies based on what is >> necessary to make a buck. Just ask all the anti-communist business >> people who do mad business in China and Vietnam how hard it is to work >> with ostensible commies. I made the statement in context of my reference that the issue is repeatedly debated on the Strauss list. In the Straussian world, "capitalism" is the social economic phenomena in which the traditional restraints on accumulation are removed and greed and self-interest are turned from vices into virtues. Straussians think that is a bad thing, and they blame Locke. Straussians are not socialists -- they have no problem with private property relations -- but they believe a society in which people make money to make money (the "joyless quest for joy") is not a good society. >> As for Germany, no one said that the regime being capitalist was the >> most interesting thing about it: they just said that it was clearly a >> capitalist country and to act otherwise is a bit, as you say, >> disingenuous. No one said that it was *because* it was capitalist >> that Hitler murdered the Jews (which is, I suppose the more >> interesting part to which you're referring); but several people have >> noted that it was not because he was not capitalist or because he was >> socialist, which, in my experience, tends to be the way this >> conversation drifts (and, I expect, was the question that drew you to >> the definitional quandry to begin with.) It may be the least >> interesting part, but at least its mostly true. But why discuss whether Germany was "capitalist" unless you think its "capitalist" features are relevant to what makes it interesting? Maybe I am projecting, but when I discuss Russia or China in the 20th Century, I think their "socialism" is very relevant to the things that made them interesting. David Shemano _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
