tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post7581534783896749267..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Robert P. Hunt on Leo StraussBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-83278616754010600392010-08-08T09:52:38.538-06:002010-08-08T09:52:38.538-06:00.
On keeping minds open, there is a post over at t....<br />On keeping minds open, there is a post over at <i>the one best way</i> blog site that begs the question of assisted suicide.<br />.<br />But, here, in this thread, the question of value regarding anything Mr. Heidegger might have had to say was--more or less--answered by the statement that he was a Nazi during the rise and fall of Adolph Hitler. We might not be able to consider that which Heidegger put on the table.<br />.<br />But, what would you be if you were a German citizen in 1933 and inundated in existential thinking? I say that you would almost have to be a Nazi. When life has lost all its meaning other than what you put into it as a being (das siende), what meaning do you put in to yours? Seems you would quickly come to the conclusion that Hitler was speaking to you in that Germany should be for the Germans.<br />.<br />Of course, in retrospect we can see that our culture has brought different values to the surface in our time. But, can we put our self in Heidegger's shoes?<br />.<br />So, are we, too, relativists after all?<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-24240069821680966452010-08-06T15:36:53.024-06:002010-08-06T15:36:53.024-06:00Whatever. I'm just trying to keep people'...Whatever. I'm just trying to keep people's minds open, but not empty.<br /><br />http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/EE13Aa01.htmlTom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-35562835454970728342010-08-06T06:03:33.764-06:002010-08-06T06:03:33.764-06:00.
Strauss credits Heidegger with being the greate....<br /><br />Strauss credits Heidegger with being the greatest thinker of the present time. He further claims that great thinkers are the important ingredient of scholarly interest. Logic, then, tells us we cannot take Heidegger off the shelf for his membership in the Nazi Party which seems to have been influenced by his professional career. <br />.<br />I don't know enough about Nazi political theory to make any claims. Anything I've read on it is too biased for any objectivity to be involved. I have heard it said that the winners write history; so, what does that mean as far as the Nazis are concerned? They lost. Who won--did democracy? Why was World War II fought? I remember the war time quite well. There seemed to have been a lot of public relations work going on. All our German neighbors were suspected of having short wave radios in their attics which they used to send secrets to their Nazi masters...<br />.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-41628091745749809662010-08-05T20:44:09.509-06:002010-08-05T20:44:09.509-06:00I'm here to share and to learn, not to argue, ...I'm here to share and to learn, not to argue, Phil. Pls do look it up for yourself if you're genuinely interested. I'm being kind to what presents itself as a curious and honest mind. Neither did Heidegger really apologize after the war, BTW, which rather reinforces the argument that his Nazism was tied to his philosophy and not some mere naive "mistake."Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-67899860427871986252010-08-05T19:07:30.485-06:002010-08-05T19:07:30.485-06:00.
I have read some of what Strauss has to say abou....<br />I have read some of what Strauss has to say about Heidegger and his Nazi relationships. Strauss seems very respectful of Heidegger as the greatest thinker of his time.<br />.<br />I guess I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water. Same thing, I read Drury and Smith along with Strauss at the same time. <br />.<br />But, maybe you have some special knowledge you could share?<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-79232563986081239602010-08-05T18:56:48.887-06:002010-08-05T18:56:48.887-06:00No, I mean Heidegger was a REAL Nazi, Phil. You c...No, I mean Heidegger was a REAL Nazi, Phil. You could look it up.<br /><br />It's a problem that disturbs many philosophy types, especially if his Nazism fits with the philosophy of the most brilliant mind of the century, and many argue it does. If true, where does that leave philosophical brilliance? Where does that leave reason?Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-30230120130104298182010-08-05T17:45:39.751-06:002010-08-05T17:45:39.751-06:00.
I'm in no position to argue Strauss one way ....<br />I'm in no position to argue Strauss one way or the other.<br />.<br />At this point, it seems he brought a great deal of good to academia and to the study of civilization as it is influenced by philosophy. I like reading Strauss.<br />.<br />As far as Heidegger having been a Nazi, <a href="http://great-philosophers.suite101.com/article.cfm/biography_of_martin_heidegger" rel="nofollow">So what?</a>? The majority of Germans probably supported National Socialism in the 1930s. And, Heidegger lived above it all anyway. He is credited as being one of the most important thinkers of the twentieth century. <br />.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-53953909762532374592010-08-05T17:11:00.156-06:002010-08-05T17:11:00.156-06:00This looks interesting---
Straussophobia: Defendi...This looks interesting---<br /><br /><i>Straussophobia: Defending Strauss and the Straussians from Shadia Drury and other accusers</i> by Peter Minowitz.<br /><br />Book preview, Chapter One:<br /><br /><a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=F20x7WfMVj0C&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=msnbc+%22leo+strauss%22&source=bl&ots=4l-2jw45_1&sig=jeHQkBnfrWoivdSPrSUZO6g3IVU&hl=en&ei=HUNbTKi_Fo2ksQOSpZDpDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBEQ6AEwADge#v=onepage&q=msnbc%20%22leo%20strauss%22&f=false" rel="nofollow">All Hate Leo Strauss</a>Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-80652957163975452032010-08-05T16:35:48.861-06:002010-08-05T16:35:48.861-06:00Heidegger was a Nazi. So much for "philosoph...Heidegger was a Nazi. So much for "philosophers." Clearly reason can be quite unreasonable.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-18315203154610622382010-08-05T06:41:05.990-06:002010-08-05T06:41:05.990-06:00.
For the record, that quotation was from Strauss&....<br />For the record, that quotation was from Strauss's essay, An Introduction to Heideggerian Existentialism.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-8555157585149387942010-08-05T06:12:23.031-06:002010-08-05T06:12:23.031-06:00.
Here's Strauss on thinkers and scholars. He ....<br />Here's Strauss on thinkers and scholars. He definitely draws a line of distinction between the two.<br />.<br />"Heidegger made a distinction between philosophers and those for whom philosophy is identical with the history of philosophy. He made a distinction, in other words, between the thinker and the scholar. <b>I know that I am only a scholar.</b> But, I know also that most people who call themselves philosophers are mostly, at best, scholars. The scholar is radically dependent on the work of great thinkers, of men who faced the problems without being overpowered by any authority. The scholar is cautious: methodic, not bold."(My emphasis)<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-56179957641833719512010-08-05T05:16:32.880-06:002010-08-05T05:16:32.880-06:00.
One of the things that seems to be coming out of....<br /><i>One of the things that seems to be coming out of it is that he is bringing late nineteenth century European thinking into middle twentieth century America.</i><br />.<br />To clarify.<br />.<br />My point here was that the intellectual movements involved in Europe during Strauss's early development were, more or less, being ignored at that same time in American studies, existentialism for example. When he began his teaching career in Chicago, he turned a focus on those things here in the states.<br />.<br />That's all I meant by that statement.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-14000223768599169672010-08-04T20:25:35.217-06:002010-08-04T20:25:35.217-06:00Lehrer wrote that in 1965. Are you feeling the ch...Lehrer wrote that in 1965. Are you feeling the change yet?<br /><br /><i>Oh, the white folks hate the black folks,<br />And the black folks hate the white folks.<br />To hate all but the right folks<br />Is an old established rule.<br /><br />But during National Brotherhood Week, <br />National Brotherhood Week,<br />Lena Horne and Sheriff Clarke are dancing cheek to cheek.<br />It's fun to eulogize<br />The people you despise,<br />As long as you don't let 'em in your school.<br /><br />Oh, the poor folks hate the rich folks,<br />And the rich folks hate the poor folks.<br />All of my folks hate all of your folks,<br />It's American as apple pie.<br /><br />But during National Brotherhood Week, <br />National Brotherhood Week,<br />New Yorkers love the Puerto Ricans 'cause it's very chic.<br />Step up and shake the hand<br />Of someone you can't stand.<br />You can tolerate him if you try.<br /><br />Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics,<br />And the Catholics hate the Protestants,<br />And the Hindus hate the Muslims,<br />And everybody hates the Jews.<br /><br />But during National Brotherhood Week, National Brotherhood Week,<br />It's National Everyone-smile-at-one-another-hood Week.<br />Be nice to people who<br />Are inferior to you.<br />It's only for a week, so have no fear.<br />Be grateful that it doesn't last all year!<br /><br /></i>Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-64310874968297864182010-08-04T20:21:38.802-06:002010-08-04T20:21:38.802-06:00One of the things that seems to be coming out of i...<i>One of the things that seems to be coming out of it is that he is bringing late nineteenth century European thinking into middle twentieth century America.<br />.<br />Things evolve.</i><br /><br />That's not Strauss. Man's permanent problems remain permanent, "perennial." There is no such thing as "human progress."<br /><br />That's "historicism" vs. "ahistoricism." Weimar illustrates to Strauss that no matter what "progress" is made, well, let's go to the philosopher Tom Lehrer here:<br /><br /><i><br />Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics,<br />And the Catholics hate the Protestants,<br />And the Hindus hate the Muslims,<br />And everybody hates the Jews.<br /><br />But during National Brotherhood Week, <br />National Brotherhood Week,<br />It's National Everyone-smile-at-one-another-hood Week.<br />Be nice to people who<br />Are inferior to you.<br />It's only for a week, so have no fear.<br />Be grateful that it doesn't last all year! </i>Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-77094682069233786262010-08-04T20:16:25.414-06:002010-08-04T20:16:25.414-06:00As I read [Strauss] I just don't get the sense...<i>As I read [Strauss] I just don't get the sense that he lets his readers know what he thinks about the things he studies. He is an explainer and claims not to be a thinker.</i><br /><br />And one day you'll get that about me, Pinky, and stop getting so mad at me all the time. Politics, according to Plato, I believe, is the realm of opinion. Opinion is not knowledge, and so the philosopher cannot be a politician, one who tells people what they want to hear; he's gotta call 'em as he sees 'em.<br /><br />That's why they gave Socrates the hemlock, and out of respect for the preservation of Athenian society, he drank it.<br /><br />Neither is it important what the philosopher believes personally. He may be wrong, and he knows it, per Socrates---"All I know is that I do not know."<br /><br />Well, the philosopher knows a few things---<i>scientia</i>---which is why Strauss could be friends with Kojeve and the rather religious Eric Voegelin. They all knew the same things, and spoke the same language.<br /><br />But I'll give you a hint about Strauss---in "Natural Right and History," even if he might agree more with Edmund Burke's politics, Strauss treats Rousseau with far more understanding and may we say affection. Burke is rather a plodding and unremarkable thinker, Rousseau is a bright albeit flawed light. Strauss admires the excellence of Rousseau first and foremost, as this is the classical view of teleology: not solidity but brilliance. Think Achilles.<br /><br />In the ancient world, heroes went to heaven, philosophers could go to hell.<br /><br />[True story.]Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-72928445218913646512010-08-04T19:35:00.888-06:002010-08-04T19:35:00.888-06:00.
This is my third time through Pangle's colle....<br />This is my third time through Pangle's collection of Strauss's lectures. I'll get it eventually.<br />.<br />I'm not a scholar; but, I do like to think about the things scholars study.<br />.<br />Strauss talks about that.<br />.<br />As I read him I just don't get the sense that he lets his readers know what he thinks about the things he studies. He is an explainer and claims not to be a thinker.<br />.<br />I get the sense he's above it all being as objective as he can.<br />.<br />One of the things that seems to be coming out of it is that he is bringing late nineteenth century European thinking into middle twentieth century America.<br />.<br />Things evolve.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-25038741562127808312010-08-04T19:17:25.597-06:002010-08-04T19:17:25.597-06:00Well, I just want clarity here about Kojeve, and b...Well, I just want clarity here about Kojeve, and by extension, Fukayama.<br /><br /><i>"But that requires a universalization of philosophy, not only resolving all philosophical questions but that every man becomes a philosopher as well, so that mankind is unanimous."</i><br /><br />That's just what Kojeve argues to Strauss in their correspondence in "On Tyranny." Strauss doesn't say this Universal Homogeneous State can never happen, but he thinks it's the end of genuine wisdom, the end of philosophy, since man can never know the whole of philosophical truth with any certainty. [<i>scientia</i> = knowledge, as opposed to opinion, knowledge of the whole being the unachievable goal that philosophy pursues.]<br /><br />Sorry for being dense and all, but trying to state this all plainly and compactly in a comments section is quite a bracing challenge. [But a good one, otherwise it all gets lost in the tall weeds.] I'm hoping Pinky is reading along in Drury and Smith and finding that I'm getting this mostly right. Then at last he will love me.<br /><br /><i><br />To make the founding something it was not and sell it as "liberal democracy" is a crime against the truth.</i><br /><br />That's my own purpose here, to learn to see the Founding through the Founders' eyes and not our 21st century ones. That's good history.<br /><br />If we decide to pitch the Founding vision for a modernist one, let's just be clear we know what we're doing.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-73635627955495020632010-08-04T17:43:30.360-06:002010-08-04T17:43:30.360-06:00"But that requires a universalization of phil..."But that requires a universalization of philosophy, not only resolving all philosophical questions but that every man becomes a philosopher as well, so that mankind is unanimous."<br /><br />This is a huge difference between being equal and the same. Perhaps a bigger one in equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes. <br /><br />To make the founding something it was not and sell it as "liberal democracy" is a crime against the truth.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-79148427861844898752010-08-04T17:35:26.302-06:002010-08-04T17:35:26.302-06:00That was Kojeve's pitch. But that requires a ...That was Kojeve's pitch. But that requires a universalization of philosophy, not only resolving all philosophical questions but that every man becomes a philosopher as well, so that mankind is unanimous.<br /><br />Hyuh.<br /><br />Oh, and theology will have to go, too. Double hyuh.<br /><br />Oh, and the flaws and limitations of human nature, which philosophy and everybody becoming philosophers will overcome. Three strikes?<br /><br />If you recall Locke in "The Reasonableness of Christianity," he said that philosophy could never fill that bill, or at least hadn't to that point.<br /><br />http://www.piney.com/Lockereasonableness.htmlTom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-57278450160564681682010-08-04T17:24:17.980-06:002010-08-04T17:24:17.980-06:00"Mostly they talk past each other except when..."Mostly they talk past each other except when discussing the Universal Homogeneous State"<br /><br />The Lion that will pounce on the unsuspecting lamb? <br /><br /><br />The European Union is very little different than the Congress of Vienna to me. With that said this fly in the ointment to this homogenous state at the time of the founding was America. <br /><br />That is why we have to get this story right as we move into a new era.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-14146906473372921072010-08-04T17:18:34.900-06:002010-08-04T17:18:34.900-06:00"[This opens up a number of areas King has be..."[This opens up a number of areas King has been touching on and I've been meaning to research. For instance, both a "reasonable" Christianity [millennialism or otherwise] and modernity can have some belief in human progress"<br /><br />That is the reason I keep hitting on this theme and is key to understanding the founding in my opinion. The book Puritian Hope I keep linking too is a good view of the Calvinist mind on progress. I think where I differ with them is that I do not feel that it takes just "Christians" by God's spirit to make the city on a hill.<br /><br />I think Muslims, Christians, Jews, Atheists... all using reason and conscience according to Romans 2 can create just government. I think most of the founders, orthodox and non, would have agreed with me. <br /><br />That is my take anyway.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-50209849095600866602010-08-04T17:18:24.398-06:002010-08-04T17:18:24.398-06:00"[This opens up a number of areas King has be..."[This opens up a number of areas King has been touching on and I've been meaning to research. For instance, both a "reasonable" Christianity [millennialism or otherwise] and modernity can have some belief in human progress"<br /><br />That is the reason I keep hitting on this theme and is key to understanding the founding in my opinion. The book Puritian Hope I keep linking too is a good view of the Calvinist mind on progress. I think where I differ with them is that I do not feel that it takes just "Christians" by God's spirit to make the city on a hill.<br /><br />I think Muslims, Christians, Jews, Atheists... all using reason and conscience according to Romans 2 can create just government. I think most of the founders, orthodox and non, would have agreed with me. <br /><br />That is my take anyway.King of Irelandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11793825722325763371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-17504905025220076382010-08-04T16:40:56.707-06:002010-08-04T16:40:56.707-06:00.
I think there is a definite tendency to confuse ....<br />I think there is a definite tendency to confuse what it means to be a Straussian with the scholarship of Strauss.<br />.<br />I am almost certain Leo Strauss would not go along with some who call themselves Straussians or who think they know what Strauss actually believed himself.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-37553688263374129882010-08-04T16:07:37.063-06:002010-08-04T16:07:37.063-06:00I was wondering how in the heck Fukuyama was promo...<i>I was wondering how in the heck Fukuyama was promoting liberal democracy if Strauss hated it and he was a Straussian. This clears some things up.<br /><br />Fukuyama's thesis has fascinated me for years but I think I am just starting to get it. That is in its full context.</i><br /><br /><br />Again for clarification, Strauss is "a friend" but was disappointed in the weakness inherent in liberal democracy when push comes to shove. The Weimar Republic permitted the rise of Hitler, and did nothing to defend the Jews even in the 1930s when they started losing their status as equal citizens. <br /><br />As for Fukayama, he started with Strauss [actually, Allan Bloom] but ended up with<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandre_Koj%C3%A8ve<br /><br />Alexandre Kojeve, who was the philosophical godfather of the European Union, a One-World type, a Hegelian and quite a "modern."<br /><br />Strauss and Kojeve were friends, and their correspondence fills the 2nd half of Strauss' "On Tyranny."<br /><br />Mostly they talk past each other except when discussing the Universal Homogeneous State, which Kojeve worked for and Strauss opposed as the establishment of mediocrity as the ideal and the end of human excellence---when everybody is special, nobody is special.<br /><br />So <i>au contraire mon frere</i>, Fukayama is no Straussian.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-48849961093248958792010-08-04T15:55:40.854-06:002010-08-04T15:55:40.854-06:00Thx for asking Eli. This discussion provided a cl...Thx for asking Eli. This discussion provided a clarity for this correspondent as well. <br /><br />To stay out of the tall scholarly/philosophical weeds for the moment and return to religion and the Founding, the argument is simple, and I think well-substantiated by the historical evidence, be it Locke, Hamilton or James Wilson and almost everybody else in the Founding era: the political theology of the Founding was NOT fideism, which consigns reason and faith to separate spheres.<br /><br />Strauss is fidestic; so is modern philosophy. Protestantism can be, swooping in from the other side, whether via fundamentalism or even a hyper-Lutheranism/Calvinism, like 20th centurians Karl Barth and Francis Schaeffer: faith alone saves, reason and "natural religion" can tell us nothing important. Man needs the Gospel.<br /><br />But the Protestantism of the Founding era didn't reject "natural religion" [and thereby natural law]; neither did the Scottish Enlightenment component, which unlike the modernity we've grown accustomed to these days, was theistic.<br /><br />[I argue that what they had in common was Thomism, "scholasticism," but let's leave that for now.]<br /><br />The Founding political theology was based on a providential God and the existence of a natural law that was a higher law than man's own law, "positive" law, legalism, even constitutionalism. I don't see how that's in dispute; the evidence is clear and plentiful.<br /><br />Is "natural law" a viable account of reality in the 21st century? That's where we get into the "tall weeds," especially the metaphysics of Aristotelian-Thomism, the idea of "teleology," which modernity rejects and without which natural law is likely not viable.<br /><br />For the purposes of this blog, I think we need to step back from those tall weeds or we'll never get out of them. The historical point would be that at the Founding, both the Protestant and Enlightenment components were comfortable with natural law and a certainty of Divine Providence, which stand in opposition to the fideism of Strauss, modernity, <i>and</i> the anti-intellectual strains of Christian thought. <br /><br />[This opens up a number of areas King has been touching on and I've been meaning to research. For instance, both a "reasonable" Christianity [millennialism or otherwise] and modernity can have some belief in human progress, unlike the fatalism of some of the classic philosophers and Strauss himself. Likewise in the former two's rather rosier view of man's nature and a fundamental equality in being able to recognize and be drawn by his nature toward "what is good," unlike classical philosophy's less egalitarian view of the "common" man.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.com