Attn Brin: Re: anti modernism blog continues.
On Monday 2005-05-02 17:39, d.brin wrote: Any of you who haven't joined our regular Thursday pm gathering online, using my Holocene Chat interface, are welcome to let me know. Several brinellers participate. Each Thursday 4pm Pacific. --- This from my blog Still too swamped to continue the formal essay. But let me call to your attention a TV show that has run in some markets, covering elements in our world that I have called anti-modernist. The following (italicized) is from the web site. ib The Power of Nightmares/b explores how the idea that we are threatened by a hidden and organized terrorist network is an illusion. Director Adam Curtis theorizes that it's a myth that has spread unquestioned through politics, the security services and the international media. At the heart of his story are two groups: the American neo-conservatives and the radical Islamists. bSayyed Qutb: Father of Radical Islam /b In the 1950s Sayyed Qutb, an Egyptian civil servant was sent to the U.S. to learn about its public education system. As he traveled around the county, Qutb became increasingly disgusted by what he felt was the selfish and materialistic nature of American life. When he returned to Egypt, Qutb turned into a revolutionary. I have read and forgotten Qutb's biography and some of his work. At this point he is an activist and budding revolutionary. So Brin's narrative is slightly misleading. Determined to find some way to control the forces of selfish individualism that he saw in America, he envisioned an Arab society where Islam would play a more central role. He became an influential spokesperson in the Muslim Brotherhood but was jailed after some of its members attempted to assassinate Egyptian President Nasser. In prison a more radical Qutb Again this is misleading. It is important to make clear that imprisonment and government torture of Qutb and his bretheren radicalized Qutb. Eg. His experience in prison radicalized Qutb, and his revolutionary ideology reached full bloom... wrote several books which argued that extreme measures, including deception and even violence, could be justified in an effort to restore shared moral values to society. He was executed in 1966 for treason in Egypt. Something about the execution making him a martyr. But his ideas lived on and formed the basis of the radical Islamist movement. Break for new subject. Leo Strauss Leo Strauss was a professor of political philosophy at the University of Chicago. bLeo Strauss: A Neo-Conservative /b At the same time Leo Strauss, an American professor of political philosophy, also came to see western liberalism as corrosive to morality and to society. Like Qutb, Strauss believed that individual freedoms threatened to tear apart the values which held society together. He taught his students that politicians should assert powerful and inspiring myths - like religion or the myth of the nation - that everyone could believe in. Glosses over Strauss' (Strauss or Stauss?) glorification of Western Civilization and values in contrast to Qutb's complete condemnation of the same greco-pagan and Judeo-Christian values. I have not read Strauss, but my impression is that it started as a movement WITHIN the liberal or leftist wing of the struggle for Western Culture arguing for the absolute and universal imperative toward Western Civilizational Values and explicitly against liberal and radical relativism. Indeed, the Kennedy administration was Neo-Conservative in contemporary terms. Through the 1960's and 1970's, however, ethical relativism (once the darling of the extreme fascist right) moved to the very center of liberal-leftist-radical thought. Ironically, relativism gives no ideological or political traction to the left. Faith is of no utility and fundamentalism impossible when leftism is hybridized with relativism. Without fundamentalism there is no fanaticism and with no fanaticism, activism dies. Relativism realized leftism thereby rendering leftism impotent. The leftist sea-change in favor of relativism left the Straussian liberals with no one to ally with but the right. It is only in the 1970's than one can properly begin to talk about Neo-Conservatives. Well at any rate you need to mention Alan Bloom since he connects the young turks to Strauss. A group of young students, including Paul Wolfowitz, Francis Fukuyama and William Kristol studied Strauss' ideas and formed a loose group in Washington which became known as the neo-conservatives. They set out to create a myth of America as a unique nation whose destiny was to battle against evil in the world. Both Qutb and Strauss were idealists whose ideas were born out of the failure of the liberal dream to build a better world. Perceived failure, mind you. One could argue that the liberal/communist era DID build a better world. Brin should, it is easy to argue that even communism was an advance over Tsarist
Re: Attn Brin: Re: anti modernism blog continues.
On 5/3/05, Trent Shipley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday 2005-05-02 17:39, d.brin wrote: snip Break for new subject. Leo Strauss Leo Strauss was a professor of political philosophy at the University of Chicago. bLeo Strauss: A Neo-Conservative /b At the same time Leo Strauss, an American professor of political philosophy, also came to see western liberalism as corrosive to morality and to society. Like Qutb, Strauss believed that individual freedoms threatened to tear apart the values which held society together. He taught his students that politicians should assert powerful and inspiring myths - like religion or the myth of the nation - that everyone could believe in. Glosses over Strauss' (Strauss or Stauss?) glorification of Western Civilization and values in contrast to Qutb's complete condemnation of the same greco-pagan and Judeo-Christian values. And this glosses over Strauss's history. He supported some elitist parts of classical education. It has been said that Leo had no problems with 30's and 40's Germany except they attacked the wrong group of people - his people. I have not read Strauss, but my impression is that it started as a movement WITHIN the liberal or leftist wing of the struggle for Western Culture arguing for the absolute and universal imperative toward Western Civilizational Values and explicitly against liberal and radical relativism. Depends on your definition of the words liberal and leftist. Indeed, the Kennedy administration was Neo-Conservative in contemporary terms. Through the 1960's and 1970's, however, ethical relativism (once the darling of the extreme fascist right) moved to the very center of liberal-leftist-radical thought. Ironically, relativism gives no ideological or political traction to the left. Faith is of no utility and fundamentalism impossible when leftism is hybridized with relativism. Without fundamentalism there is no fanaticism and with no fanaticism, activism dies. Relativism realized leftism thereby rendering leftism impotent. I have been following an argument that is being made for that. This could be said for both religion and politics. A certain ruthlessness and non-relativism may be required for broad activism. The leftist sea-change in favor of relativism left the Straussian liberals with no one to ally with but the right. It is only in the 1970's than one can properly begin to talk about Neo-Conservatives. True Well at any rate you need to mention Alan Bloom since he connects the young turks to Strauss. A group of young students, including Paul Wolfowitz, Francis Fukuyama and William Kristol studied Strauss' ideas and formed a loose group in Washington which became known as the neo-conservatives. They set out to create a myth of America as a unique nation whose destiny was to battle against evil in the world. There are antecedents for this myth - for example the Mormon brotherhood in the Nixon White House. There is too much of a tendency to point to the early Trotsky infatuation of a couple of media neo-conservatives and think that is a characteristic and defining element of the group. Many neo-conservative did not have this brief fling with the radical left. Both Qutb and Strauss were idealists whose ideas were born out of the failure of the liberal dream to build a better world. Somewhat agree. It has also been argued that Strauss was reacting to the Hitlerian dream of a better world. He saw its power but thought a better foundation in Greek philosophy would be an improvement Of course, perhaps also Qutb saw the power of the West and Egypt's governement and thought a model that incorporated some of that brutality but started on a foundation of a pure Islam would succeed. Perceived failure, mind you. One could argue that the liberal/communist era DID build a better world. Brin should, it is easy to argue that even communism was an advance over Tsarist monarchy and Bautista's quisling kleptocracy. (Ardent [American conservative] anti-communists do not buy it but the argument is MORE than merely plausible.) The two movements they inspired set out, in their different ways, to rescue their societies from this decay./i For more of this writeup, see: http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeye/powerofnightmares/one.html Interesting. -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Attn Brin: Re: anti modernism blog continues.
My own riffs on the Straussians begin at http://www.davidbrin.com/neoromantics.html What follows are snippet extracts: In A Classicist's Legacy: New Empire Builders James Atlas describes the impact of Professor Leo Strauss on many leading neoconservatives, Bush administration officials, journalists, and intellectuals, e.g. Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Irving Kristol, Bill Kristol, Gary Schmitt, and Francis Fukuyama. A refugee during WWII, Strauss subsequently taught classical political theory in the uniquely faux-European intellectual ambiance of the University of Chicago, stressing the notion -- brought over from his festered home continent -- that classical Greek and Roman philosophy is the key to political wisdom for today as much as in the past. His followers have since promoted neo-platonism -- devotion to a paramount system of well-ordered beliefs, in preference to gritty secular pragmatism. In March 2003, The New York Times Magazine published The Philosopher of Islamic Terror by Paul Berman, describing the writings of Sayyid Qutb, one of the most influential philosophers behind modern Islamic radicalism. Qutb's teachings call for political and social movements that will create a new society, defeating corrupt modernism, and especially dualism -- the division of the world between sacred and secular realms. These teachings found fertile ground in a network of Islamic schools founded under the aegis of the Wahhabi sect, and lubricated with revenues from the sale of Saudi Arabian oil. What commonalities could I possibly see between Islamic fundamentalism and today's American neoconservative movement? I suggest that these are two of the most vigorous and driven essentialist or incantation-based ideological movements of our time. Nostalgic, resentful, and grounded upon unquestionable core liturgical teachings, each is driven by a sense of destiny and contempt for those who disagree. It is vital that we pay attention to these common elements -- and many others -- along with their implications. Now of course American neoconservatism and Islamic fundamentalism would -- at first sight -- appear to be polar opposites. Indeed, that appearance is deliberately promoted by both groups. Many neoconservatives speak of struggle -- even war between the Christian and Muslim worlds -- just as followers of Qutb do. They call for a return to values-based decision making in American society, with those values clearly and explicitly rooted in core religious traditions. While emphasizing cultural conflict with liberals and humanists within Western Civilization, they promote aggressive opposition to non-Western cultural styles overseas. ... Ironic? That tormented, dogma-wracked Europe should dare -- right after WWII -- to preach at happy, progressive, tolerant and pragmatic America? Yet, Strauss's followers gobbled up a fervidly romantic nationalism -- cosmetically americanized -- but modelled on the same thought patterns that had turned the Old World into a living hell while making Strauss a homeless exile. (See books by by Norton and Mann, cited below.) TODAY AS MUCH AS IN THE PAST: How can anyone, reading Thucydides, Plutarch or Gibbon, imagine the Greeks, Hellenists or Romans had anything to teach us about political wisdom, except as cautionary warnings? Few figures in the annals, other than Pericles -- and maybe Cincinnatus -- behaved with the level of maturity we now demand from Cub Scouts. WHat I find hilarious is that the Straussians tout Thucidydes, claiming that no westerner is qualified to make historical judgments without this background. AND I AGREE! But they are so ensnared by superficialities, the realpolitik ruthlessness displayed by the post-Periclean Athenians, for example. And the anti-democratic leanings of Thucidydes himself. Alaso, I agree with the neocons on so many of their superficial statements and rationalizations, like the urgent mission of America right now... while perceiving them to be utterly mad at deeper levels. What they ignore is that Thucydides - despite himself - portrays just one man who could be called a real hero, as seen in modern eyes. Pericles. And Pericles was the diametric opposite of the neocons' beloved Plato, in every way, emphasizing truth and accountability and openness and calm... No the character they resemble is Alcibiades. All the arrogance. All the evasion. All the recklessness and ego. Read Thucydides, and shiver. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
