Saturday, July 17, 2010

Strauss and Reason vs. Revelation

There has been a lot of discussion about Leo Strauss lately in the comments section of this blog so I decided to do a post on a part of this University of Chicago Press excerpt of the book Reading Leo Strauss by Steven B. Smith.  The following jumped out to me because it focuses on the reason vs. revelation debate that is very famililar to this blog:
"The great theme of Strauss’s life work—what he himself referred to as “the theme of my investigations”—is the theologico-political problem, a term he drew from his early studies of Spinoza. At the center of the theologico-political problem is a choice or conflict between two comprehensive and apparently irreconcilable alternatives: revelation and reason, or as he refers to them metaphorically, Jerusalem and Athens. The difference between Jerusalem and Athens is not simply a philosophical or theological problem; it is at heart a political one. It is a matter of authority and who holds ultimate authority. Does final authority rest with the claims of revelation and all that it implies or with one’s autonomous human reason as the most fundamental guide to life?
Yet while Strauss sometimes presents Jerusalem and Athens as two incompatible alternatives between which one must choose, he elsewhere presents them as two limbs of the tree of knowledge that have mutually nourished and sustained one another. It is the dialectical tension between these two that has provided the “core” or “nerve” of the Western political tradition. Indeed, Strauss shows that the theologico-political problem is more than just a function of civilizations touched by the great monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It extends as far back as Socrates, the first political philosopher, who was sentenced to death by the city of Athens for corrupting the young and disbelieving the gods of the city. From the outset, the claims of philosophy have been at odds with the ancestral laws of the city and its interpreters. The conflict between Jerusalem and Athens was already something that took place, figuratively speaking, within the heart of historical Athens. It is a problem conceivably coeval with humanity itself.
The conflict between Jerusalem and Athens is, however, more than an extended metaphor for the conflicting claims of revelation and reason. Jerusalem meant for Strauss the spiritual and historical homeland of Judaism and the Jewish people. Strauss was a German Jew who grew up during the final years of Wilhelmine Germany and who came to adulthood during the Weimar Republic, before leaving Germany for good at the onset of the Hitler period. His earliest writings dealt almost exclusively with Jewish themes and Zionist theory. He described himself as having been “converted” to political Zionism at the age of seventeen, and he was later able to write that the establishment of the state of Israel procured “a blessing for all Jews everywhere” whether they realized it or not. The Zionism advocated by Strauss was not of the messianic or redemptivist kind. He strongly opposed the view that the establishment of the Jewish state could provide a solution to the Jewish Question. He once enigmatically referred to the Jewish people and their fate as “the living witness for the absence of redemption.” The establishment of the Jewish state was rather a political necessity forced on the Jews not only for the sake of their collective survival, but for the sake of Jewish self-respect.
The question for any student of Strauss’s work is where he stood on the theologico-political problem. Was he a citizen of Jerusalem or Athens? As the studies in this work indicate, there is no simple answer to this question. Strauss taught sacred texts as though they were philosophical works and philosophical works as if they were sacred texts. His careful readings have often been called “Talmudic,” generally by people who know little of Talmud, and sometimes “kabalistic” by those who know even less of Kabala. What is true is that he often saw things that more conventional readers ignored. In an essay on Thucydides he emphasized the role of piety and “the gods,” concluding with the question quid sit deus (what does God mean?). In an article on Genesis he could treat the opening chapters of the Bible as if they were a companion to Aristotle’s Physics.
Strauss taught his readers to listen carefully and to take seriously the claims of Jerusalem, especially at a time when the modern social sciences were treating religion as if it were some atavistic holdover from a dark antedeluvian past. The Enlightenment’s “Napoleonic” attack upon revelation, best expressed in Spinoza’s Theologico-Political Treatise, was beaten back by successive waves of counter-Enlightenment theology and the call for a return to orthodoxy. The rationalist’s attempt to overthrow faith is self-refuting, as it rests on a faith in reason that reason itself cannot justify. Nietzsche’s announcement of the “death of God” must be considered at best premature. But neither did Strauss’s critique of the Enlightenment lead to an endorsement of Jerusalem. “The victory of orthodoxy through the destruction of rational philosophy was not an unmitigated blessing,” he wrote. The challenge was not to declare a winner in the struggle, but to remain open to the claims of each and the challenge of each."

Interesting thoughts here for sure.

27 comments:

Tom Van Dyke said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tom Van Dyke said...

The thing is that Strauss, in insisting on a irreconcilable tension between Athens [reason] and Jerusalem [revelation], rejects natural law, basically saying of Aquinas, as Thomas West writes:

Strauss’s remarks are meant to drive a wedge between Thomistic natural law and classic natural right, to the advantage of the latter. He writes that “the ultimate consequence of the Thomistic view of natural law is that natural law is practically inseparable from natural theology—i.e., from a natural theology which is, in fact, based on belief in biblical revelation— but even from revealed theology.”

[re NRH, p. 164]

Now, this may be true, philosophically speaking, but that's not how the Founders saw it. One could access the natural law either by reason or revelation, as James Wilson put it:

"The law of nature and the law of revelation are both divine: they flow, though in different channels, from the same adorable source."

The "tension" Strauss speaks of was resolved by Aquinas, and in the Founders' minds. Reason and revelation both lead to the same place, "the good."

King of Ireland said...

"Now, this may be true, philosophically speaking, but that's not how the Founders saw it. One could access the natural law either by reason or revelation, as James Wilson put it:"


I agree and am in the process of doing a post that questions why so much emphasis is placed on this tension or more generally the whole reason vs. revelation idea at the expense of focusing on the fact that almost to a man they all believed in the fallen nature of man. Which if true kills much of the idea that the Enlightenment was the main influence on the founding.

I think it is certainly Christian to believe in both and most certainly an unfair attack from the anti natural law folks like Frazer against many of the founders that they were not Christian even if they did use reason to trump revelation. Though I believe he is wrong about it because his definition of revelation does not include natural law.

Either way it is too complicated a discussion to clear anything up.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Clarity is quite possible; the modern solution to the tension is simple---destroy Jerusalem.

King of Ireland said...

I am talking more about the whole reason trumps revelation thing as being unclear. I fully understand what modernity attempts to do. I have worked, and probably will once again soon, in the modern school of Dewey we call public schools. Dissent and you are gone. I wonder who has won the day? What to see what happens when modern philosophy wins out walk into a school.


You will be appalled. I promise.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Oh, I believe you.

All you have to do is look at the internet and how angry the products of modern schooling get when Christianity and the Founding are even used in the same sentence. Everybody knows that the Founders were deists, the Constitution is godless, and the Founding was the result of the Enlightenment's triumph over religion and superstition.

Not one in 100 can tell you what "natural law" is, even though that was the political theology of the Founding.

To return to Strauss, the problem is that even if we accept his analysis [which I think is true of modern Europe, just not of America], that Athens and Jerusalem are theologico-politically in tension, he still allows that it was a creative tension.

The modern solution, destroying Jerusalem, won't even admit that much. Not one person in 100 even knows Locke wrote something called "The Reasonableness of Christianity."

Tom Van Dyke said...

I am talking more about the whole reason trumps revelation thing as being unclear.

Well, I reject the phrase "reason trumps revelation" in the context of the American Founding, for reasons above, the Thomistic middle ground, "natural law."

However, I think a tight following of "the fallen nature of man" via Calvin is unprovable from the Founding literature as well, a bridge way too far and I'm fairly deaf to arguments in that vein.

One need only look at the Enlightenment side that doesn't value human reason as inerrant. There was plenty of suspicion against it, even from the probable atheist Hume, who held that reason was subject to the passions.

If revelation doesn't trump reason, at least our own human nature trumps it. That is enough to question modernity on its own terms, using Hume, not Calvin.

There was an "enthusiasm" that America represented human progress, even if that progress was directed by God/Providence. You can find it in James Wilson; you can also find it in Jonathan Edwards! [Historicism, if you will; I argue Christianity is quite "historicist," the biggest claim for historicism of all time.]

One thing we see in the Founding is that a belief in some level of man's not-total-depravity.

On the religious side, either "semi-Pelagianism" or Arminianism;

On the Scottish Common Sense Enlightenment's part, a belief in an innate "moral sense";

On "natural law's" third course, middle way, tertium quid, per Romans 2, that even the pagans and "right" reason can discern what is good and what isn't---
"general revelation"---

reason is valuable, not the enemy.

For whatever reasons, Arminianism, modernity, or natural law, the Founding was not a product of Calvinistic "total depravity of man," remedied only by God's grace. That cannot be located in the American Founding.

King of Ireland said...

Tom,

I am not sure that 1 person in a 100 knows who John Locke is. Most students I have had did not until I told them!

But yes I get your point and agree. Locke is present as an Enlightenment figure and it is heavily implied he was a Deist. Somehow people need to see the difference between the French and American revolutions.


I think the one undeniable thing is the Interposition angle and using lower magistrates. We cared what God thought and avoided anarchy they could have cared less and did not avoid it.

Like my next post is going to show they also thought man could be perfected on his own and we realized he needed redemption and perfection comes in the next life. Views like Federalist 51 saved us I think. It is the humble yet hopeful stance.

King of Ireland said...

"For whatever reasons, Arminianism, modernity, or natural law, the Founding was not a product of Calvinistic "total depravity of man," remedied only by God's grace. That cannot be located in the American Founding"

I agree and am looking for to your critique of my next post that brings this vital balance out.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Hey, I'm a Libra. Once people understand that about me, I'm not such a bad fellow.
_________________

I am not sure that 1 person in a 100 knows who John Locke is.

Heh.

Locke is present as an Enlightenment figure and it is heavily implied he was a Deist.

Heheh.

Somehow people need to see the difference between the French and American revolutions.

I think the one undeniable thing is the Interposition angle and using lower magistrates. We cared what God thought and avoided anarchy, they could have cared less and did not avoid it.


I don't think there's much question that the American Revolution followed the English model of 100 years before, parliament [the people, via their magistrates] vs. the King, permissible even under Calvin's view of Romans 13.

I think it's clear the Americans cared what God thought, and Paul the Apostle, and the Bible, as did the Calvinists of Britain [mostly Scottish, actually.]

Further, as Ben noted, the colonists at first simply demanded their rights as Englishmen. They did not seek to revolt, to destroy, only to reform. It was only after they were denied their rights as Englishmen that they had to become Americans, separating from the King. [They had already rejected England's parliament as their rightful rulers. Their state charters were with the King, not Parliament.]

Yes, the French, in destroying their regime, clearly didn't give a hoot about anarchy. American Founders like Hamilton and Goveurneur Morris [not to mention Edmund Burke] were appalled that the French had destroyed their society, to build it over from scratch, down to making up a new calendar.

No surprise that after 10 years of such madness, they chose Napoleonism.

If you want an illustration of "the total depravity of man," I offer France.

Heheheh.

King of Ireland said...

"If you want an illustration of "the total depravity of man," I offer France.'

Quote of the month. I almost pissed myself laughing. Check out my new post. It was a hard one to write and keep simple but yet flesh out the complicated concepts. I liken it to my first on interposition that was somewhat clumsy but ignited a six month discussion that I think brought clarity.

We shall see.

bpabbott said...

Regarding the total depravity of man in case anyone missed it the Boston Globe had an article, How Facts Backfire, on how factual information appears to drive many further from it.

While it was an article on current events, it used quotes by Jefferson and Kant for dramatic effect.

Personally, I find the article more cynical that the evidence merits, but it is interesting none the less.

King of Ireland said...

Ben,

I read a little of the article and stand by what I used to tell my students:

It is not getting information that is the key. It is getting the right information that is the key.

bpabbott said...

hmmm ... What qualifies as "right" information?

eli said...

I'm going to pick on you a bit for this:

There was an "enthusiasm" that America represented human progress, even if that progress was directed by God/Providence. You can find it in James Wilson; you can also find it in Jonathan Edwards! [Historicism, if you will; I argue Christianity is quite "historicist," the biggest claim for historicism of all time.]

It sounds almost like you are equating historicism with a general idea of progress. But this is nothing like Strauss's view. If his opinions are correct (I admit he is my only source) I see no relationship whatsover between historicism and Christianity. According to Strauss, historicism is the view that human thought cannot grasp anything eternal. Historicism sees "the depressing spectacle of a disgraceful variety of thoughts and beliefs, above all, of the passing away of every thought and belief ever held by men."

Furthermore, there are two varieties of historicism - the discredited variety that believes history itself proves this to us, and the more potentially tenable philosophical variety. Strauss says of the philosophical variety: "The basic stratum of that philosophical analysis is a 'critique of reason' [Strauss means a critique of man's ability to discover anything true] that allegedly proves the impossibility of theoretical metaphysics and of philosophical ethics..."

It goes without saying that divine codes hardly fit in with historicism either.

And in regard to the original post on reason and revelation, my most strong suspicion is that Strauss absolutely does not believe in revelation, but that he understands the severe limitations of reason. So of course he doesn't choose one over the other. The truth is disturbing and shouldn't be thrown out there for the masses. In fact myths [revelation] are necessary to social order. (Yes this is just the tip of the iceberg of what Shadia Drury thinks, but my own highly sensitive radar picked up on this before I ever heard of her. That is one reason I am predisposed to believe her.)

King of Ireland said...

Ben,

That gets us into the reason and revelation discussion. On the reason end I would say whatever leads to human flourishing. That of course can mean different things to different people and is where revelation can come into play for people of faith. Then we get into the whole which revelation discussion that is outside of the scope of this blog.

King of Ireland said...

Ben,

As far as my students that is up to them. My job is to give them relevant information and let them decide.

King of Ireland said...

"And in regard to the original post on reason and revelation, my most strong suspicion is that Strauss absolutely does not believe in revelation, but that he understands the severe limitations of reason"

Thus his problem with Aquinas I would presume?

Tom Van Dyke said...

Thx, Eli:

Historicism sees "the depressing spectacle of a disgraceful variety of thoughts and beliefs, above all, of the passing away of every thought and belief ever held by men."

The first thing would be that historicism believes history starts every day with the morning paper. Socrates, Plato, Jesus, Augustine, Aquinas, Calvinism---the Founding---out in the garbage. Irrelevant.

"the passing away of every thought and belief ever held by men."

Today's a new day.

Now, it's true I'm subtly using the corollary of historicism, "human progress," here. I just wanted to point out---and it's the first time I've brought it up on this blog---that Americans, whether secular-modern or even Jonathan Edwards' pre-millenialism, saw the New World, specifically America, as the beginning of some new human progress, some new chapter in the history of mankind. This is undeniable from the Founding-era literature.

"American Exceptionalism."

I'm willing to discuss Leo Strauss, since I've done a lot of exploration and discussion of him. But he was Jew who fled Weimar Germany and the failure of its "liberal democracy" to protect its Jews against the rise of Hitlerism. Further, "Christianity" to him meant the extreme Lutheranism of Karl Barth, who traveled in the same intellectual circles Strauss did and whose Lutherism was anti-Aquinas, and in its emphasis on faith trumping reason, offensive to any thinking non-Christian, Jew or otherwise.

According to Strauss, historicism is the view that human thought cannot grasp anything eternal.

Well, according to Strauss, Socrates and Plato could. Aristotle, he doesn't seem to give a hoot for.

But, Eli, thx for picking. That's why I haunt the comments section and not the mainpage. I'm here to learn, and to test. Selfish, I guess, but truly Socratic. What I write is only to share and clarify.

Strauss absolutely does not believe in revelation, but that he understands the severe limitations of reason

I happen to agree with that analysis, but you know what? It doesn't matter what Strauss the person believed or didn't, just like the Founders. Just like it doesn't matter what you or I personally believe. All we know is that we don't know, to quote Socrates---to shut down either faith or reason would be an injustice to the truth, because we don't know what the truth really is.

Strauss, Socrates, the Founders---even Jefferson---proceeded with that humility. Doubt everything, but discount nothing.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Ben Abbott writes:

hmmm ... What qualifies as "right" information?

Ben, how about this, just the info on "natural law," for 6th Graders?

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Pe0T0CqTRT8J:www.techtrain.org/tool/lessons/sec/Hooker,%2520Aquinas,%2520Jefferson%2520and%2520Natural%2520Law%2520-%2520Monroe.DOC+locke+hooker+%22natural+law%22&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

I think that's the right information on the Founding. In a New Jersey public school? I've never seen anything like it [including my own education in Catholic school], and I don't think you can understand the Founding without it.

Your call.

bpabbott said...

Tom,

I agree that syllabus looks good to me.

With respect to history I'm accustomed to having "right information" correspond to some flavor of ideological rhetoric that is designed toward some modern ends (activism) not toward the objective study of history.

Joe/King, my intention wasn't to confront or accuse, but to give you the opportunity to clarify and avoid any inference which you did not imply.

King of Ireland said...

"Joe/King, my intention wasn't to confront or accuse, but to give you the opportunity to clarify and avoid any inference which you did not imply."

I took it in the spirit that it was given. No worries Ben.

King of Ireland said...

The New Jersey thing is outstanding. I doubt it was in the cirriculum or the standards though. Good chance if an administrator came in the teacher would have been written up. So sad.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Ben, thx for your analysis. You're our resident non-Christianist and only slightly left-of center

;-)

more anti-right than leftist. Which is just fine.

With respect to history I'm accustomed to having "right information" correspond to some flavor of ideological rhetoric that is designed toward some modern ends (activism) not toward the objective study of history.

Hyuh. Welcome to the 21st century to us both. Let's all move ahead. Or back, as the case may be, in case we missed something.

eli said...

All we know is that we don't know, to quote Socrates---to shut down either faith or reason would be an injustice to the truth, because we don't know what the truth really is.

Strauss, Socrates, the Founders---even Jefferson---proceeded with that humility. Doubt everything, but discount nothing.


Amen. That's my own way. Unfortunately it is an isolating posture.

I get the feeling you maybe think I'm anti-Strauss. But we all disagree with each other about almost everything. I appreciate much about him as well, as I slowly come to understand him.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Strauss, Socrates, the Founders---even Jefferson---proceeded with that humility. Doubt everything, but discount nothing.

Amen. That's my own way. Unfortunately it is an isolating posture.


Oh well, Athens killed Socrates. It goes with the territory.

Hey, I wouldn't care if you were "anti-Strauss." I am too in some ways.

What I get from him is he'd think that's just fine, as long as you understood correctly and he made you think. That's the philosopher's real job, not convincing anybody of anything. And he'd say that philosophers, although loner types, have more in common with each other than with anyone else This is relevant, from OT.

Avi said...

Leo Strauss gave a talk on Genesis that is quite illuminating in this regard:
http://www.archive.org/details/LeoStraussOnGenesis