Leo Strauss: An Introduction (Because you asked for it)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 ก.ค. 2024
- A brief introduction into the ideas and impact of political philosopher Leo Strauss, including a discussion of his influence on neoconservatism and why any really meaningful connection with neoconservatism is dubious.
a great video to dispel some doubts and separate strauss from the neoconservatives - thank you!
Here after watching a Dinesh D’Souza lecture in which he cites Strauss as someone who influenced him. Thank you for the upload!
I agree with you that Leo Strauss had nothing to do with the policies of the neo-conservatives-- least of all the Iraq War. However, I do see how his philosophy can lead to cultural conservatism of the kind his student Allan Bloom expressed in Closing of the American Mind. Basically (and I must oversimplify here) his philosophy develops a grand story of the decline and fall of philosophy, politics and civilization from the Greeks to the scientistic and historicist moderns plagued, as they are, with problems of relativism and nihilism. His account is very nuanced, and often he leaves serious questions unanswered (e.g. is there a place for Revelation along with Reason or does Revelation foreclose the possibility of open-ended Socratic questioning by providing ultimate answers?). This subtlety and openness has not been present in *some* of the conservative polemicists who cite Strauss as an influence. But what they do take away from Strauss is his radical critique of modernity as unable to account for or legitimate its own normative authority because that authority derives only from positive law and custom (nomos) and not appeals to timeless truths of either Reason or Revelation. From Plato to Aquinas we have some such idea of the good and right independent of contingent historical factors. But by the time of Hobbes and Machiavelli this is lost (according to Strauss). By the time of Nietzsche, relativism is itself normatized and he links this to fascism on, I think, a dubious reading of Nietzsche in which the will to power becomes the will to *dominate others*. He writes, "Surely the nature of man [for Nietz.] is the will to power and this means on the primary level the will to overpower others...Where Rousseau's natural man is compassionate, Nietzsche's natural man is cruel." (Introduction to Political Philosophy pp.97-8)
At any rate, one can see in all of these concerns over nihilism and the purported loss of moral justification, how Straussian themes lend themselves to (usually) right wing cultural conservatism. I'm thinking of those engaged in our "culture wars" who seek to rid society of the supposed "menace" of cultural relativism, multiculturalism, identity politics, and other (in their view) manifestations of "nihilism." I can't expand on this here, but I do think there's enough in Strauss' writings that can at least be interpreted along these culturally conservative lines. Whether or not Strauss would have appreciated such a reading is another question. An interesting short essay entitled 'Athens & Chicago' on this topic appears in Mark Lilla's book, The Shipwrecked Mind: On Political Reaction. books.google.com/books/about/The_Shipwrecked_Mind.html?id=CPVnBgAAQBAJ There is also a short essay in that book on another figure you discuss in some videos, viz., Eric Voegelin.
Btw, I really enjoy your videos. Keep up the good work!
Thanks for your comments and for the book suggestion. I think you're right that Strauss's thought can support a sort of cultural conservatism and critique of "the relativists" of the left, but also with your suggestion that this might also be a less than nuanced view of what Strauss had to offer. Those on the right can and do engage in a type of moral relativism, maybe especially in their economics. I want to read this over and marinate on it more, and come back with more of a response. Really appreciate the food for thought--interaction like this (and above) is what the platform should be all about.
Thanks. I think you make a good point about moral relativism among some cultural conservatives on the right in relation to their economic views. Those who embrace a kind of free-market fundamentalism ( "free" mostly from regulations!) would do well to consider that economic rationality consists in nothing more than strategic attempts to "maximize utility" which reduces to merely subjective valuations or preferences. This is totally at odds with the idea that modern societies have lost their connection to "objective" and overarching values.
Most free-market thinking today on the right is anything but self-reflective about its moral foundations, typically appealing to the likes of Hayek or Milton Friedman for whom the human being is basically homo-economicus, and substantive reason is not explored at all (see Hayek's paper "The Subjective Character of Data in the Social Sciences" chicago.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.7208/chicago/9780226321127.001.0001/upso-9780226321097-chapter-5
Further, largely deregulated global capitalism breaches even the utilitarian "harm principle" by appealing to the corporate norms of "shareholder primacy" whereby damages done to others are written off as "externalities" (c.f. "colateral damage" in warfare-- similar idea). So you get some on the right who rail against "moral relativists on the left," while embracing free-market fundamentalism which incentivizes *exploitation* on the basis of obligations that the corporation as a legally defined "person-like" entity is said to have to its shareholders, viz., to maximize their profit margins.
I don't want to imply that all or even most cultural conservatives think in this way; but it is certainly not uncommon by any means. Certainly the GOP has embraced free-market fundamentalism uncritically, though many
(e.g. Mike Pence) decry the loss of values in society by appealing to Religion.
Finally, I would add that if the supposedly Judaeo-Christian values many of these conservatives espouse cannot be instantiated in the realm of the market which affects the lives of billions of people on the planet every day, then all talk of moral high-ground is empty conceit. Indeed, Social Justice has now become a pejorative term in right wing circles.
I agree with you. Free market fundamentalism, the idea that a pure free market will fix all problems, even those that others might perceive as in another sphere (of morality), is a type of thinking that doesn't logically go along with the view Strauss preferred. The Platonic/Aristotelian view of government was that it was the overarching power responsible for shaping the character of a people--everything else came after and under that priority. Since Strauss clearly articulated both his preference for the ancient position and his understanding of this position (that the best government was that which produced the best character or promoted true wisdom and virtue), it seems clear that he would not support free market fundamentalism. Friedman-style economic thought contradicts Strauss's reasoning and priorities. It's crude and simplistic and does not aim at the highest but some of the lowest aspects of the human character. That's not to say that Strauss would have supported socialism, perceived as capitalism's opposite, any more. Both systems are materialistic and tend to reduce the human character to aim at what most people can achieve easily rather than aiming at what is hard but noble. On the warning against moral relativism, I think Strauss thought Nietzschean relativism would logically lead to the legitimizing of the use of power instead of reason in politics (as if bullies needed any justification). When you think about it, there's a lot of irony here. Could it be argued that the right wing is more and more embracing the nihilistic quest for power they accused the left of promoting?
I think the right wing in this country has defined itself very largely in terms of free market fundamentalism since the Reagan years (with roots going back further to the 50s and 60s). There has always been considerable tension between the traditionalist component of cultural conservatism (e.g. Bill Bennett's books on morality and virtue ethics, etc.) and the inordinate faith in free markets and privatization to address a wide variety of social and political problems. So, I'm not sure it's new. It may be that these trends have been accentuated, but I thought the irony you speak of (or just hypocrisy?) was pretty visible during the "Reagan Revolution."
I agree with you that Strauss would not be supportive of any system that reduces the ethical to the economic, be it socialist or capitalist.
@boom1111111111111111 I don't think I assumed that cultural conservatism is wrong. Where did I do that? I was discussing different possible interpretations of Strauss and in just what ways his work is/isn't compatible with a) cultural conservatism/traditionalism and b) economic conservatism/ free market fundamentalism. I was saying that Strauss can be interpreted in support of a) but not, I think, in support of b). Whether or not a or b are commendable philosophical positions is a separate issue which I did not address here. I think you assumed that I hold the opinion that a) is "wrong" but I didn't say that. Cultural conservatism, I think, should not be dismissed as "wrong" or upheld as "right." That's too simplistic. There are aspects of traditionalism (e.g. the Burkean notion of cultural prejudices as sources of value) that have some appeal to me. I don't reject it out of hand. In contemporary ethics, the value of tradition is ably defended by, among others, Alasdair MacIntyre. On the other hand, I'm less receptive personally to other traditionalists/cultural conservatives like Bloom in his Closing of the American Mind, as I mentioned above. Maybe my passing references to Bennett and Bloom as examples of traditionalism that clash with free market fundamentalism led you to believe that I rule out *all* variants of cultural conservatism a priori. That isn't the case.
Excellent video. University of Chicago has a book series based on transcriptions of his classes that were recorded in the 1960s. For amateurs, like myself, they easier to get through than some of his books and they record questions from his students. The give and take between teacher and student is conversational in tone and Strauss really comes alive in a way that he doesn't in his published writings.
That is a great resource--it's a real treasure. Glad you're using it!
Do you have the ISBN for the book?
Thank you!
Very helpful indeed, many thanks
My exposure to the writings of Strauss started with a conversation I had with one of his students. We were discussing Beyond Good and Evil. The topic of nobility came up in the context of the ubermensch. Without faith in the opposition of values (which Nietzsche challenges hence “jenseits”), how does one distinguish high from low, base from noble, etc?
Well I think that Strauss was very much trying to answer Nietzsche and defend the ancient solution to this problem. So recall in The Republic that the regime that was about base/noble was the timocratic regime, basically a military-based regime like Sparta. That regime was treated as second from the best because at least it encouraged a type of human excellence, but it was not the best type. The best was the way of life that produced the most happiness/contentment for those who could follow it as well as those who could not quite do so. That way of life was the contemplative way--the life of the philosopher--who understands justice and cannot but live justly as a result. For those who could not be philosophers, the rule of philosophers, creating order and law-abiding justice for the many was the best possible regime for them. What is just, from this ideal perspective, is that which is guided by right reason and produces self-control, so that a person is free and not enslaved by their desires or by social pressure. A just person is a person who is in control of himself and therefore free. In Plato's view, such a person would not be capable of injustice but would give to everyone what they deserve in order to develop them as far as their nature allowed. All that being said, Plato then remarks that democracy is the best of the bad regimes, and perhaps the best practicable regime, because it gives individuals the relative freedom to choose their way of life--which means most of them will choose poorly but a few will choose the contemplative/philosophic life that leads to freedom and just action. The reason I touch on these themes from the Republic is that I think Strauss basically agreed with the Platonic line of argument. If so, he thought that, while the best regime was impossible in practice, that it WAS possible to formulate standards of justice using proper reason, and that those standards SHOULD guide those who lead. This way of thinking is the foundation of natural law, and natural law stands in stark contrast to Nietzsche's moral relativism and his notion that the strong should rule. I'll try to address this very important question more as I do a few more of these talks on Strauss, but I hope this makes some sense.
Political Philosophy thank you for this very insightful response.
Your analysis of Strauss and the Republic is it seems to me the heart of the issue. From natural law we can derive the good life. Not only is there a relative good to certain regimes or ways of life, but there is also an absolute goodness by nature, the philosopher king or the contemplative life versus the tyrant or the life controlled by desire or passion.
With Nietzsche, I believe he struggled with this by nature argument. It’s no more apparent than in the Gay Science where he among other things addresses friendship. Star friendship is the form of friendship that is the highest form of friendship. And yet Nietzsche fully recognizes I believe the problem with this higher form of friendship and the purely relativist position.
I think it would be just to create a Brain Trust nested in the Citizenry the governs their domain a contract officials to carryout their will through the State offices. This is a direct democracy order through reason that binds the office to the people and channels their will to the State. This same so counter to what we currently have which is a kind of haunting of historically Nietzchien laws that really subordinate the Citizens Natural Rights to their own self preservation. A legal example would be Corporate Solicitation of has to be directed a licensed investor with 500k in liquidity this obviously not necessary if their were some reasonable filter one would have to go through before soliciting an investment opportunity to anyone. It's classicist that's really the skinny of it and I know inventors who have been taken advantage of because of these laws.
Thank you, very nice introduction! another sugestion is Immanuel Wallerstein
Nice explanation of Strauss.
Thank you
thank you
Thanks for the nice introduction.
awesome!
Could you please elaborate more on "primitive origins" at 26:00? Is it implied that modern political philosophers tend to focus on the basic "primitive" needs/temptations of individuals? Is that what is being meant?
It's more that they imagine man "before civilization." They may imagine wrongly, but they are thinking about what human beings would be like in an anarchic setting and often refer to people they considered more "primitive" as examples. Locke did that actual anthropological move more than Hobbes. They imagine that man without civilization, especially government imposed order, will act in ways that increase conflict and misery.
Thanks for this very clear and insightful introduction. One thought I had all through this was the (imo) distorting influence of Greek and especially Platonic perfectionism and absolutism, which I think arises from a misunderstanding of what pure reason is. Also it occurs to me that perhaps the connection between Strauss' political philosophy and the foreign policy of neoconservatives lies in the differences between his public writings and teachings and his inner or esoteric teachings.
What does Platonic perfectionism and absolutism? Seems like nonsensical homebrew terminology.
@@basileus-pr6jh
That's it basil... presume anything you dont understand is silly... well done... lol
列奥·施特劳斯（Leo Strauss）：简介
简要介绍政治哲学家列奥·施特劳斯（Leo Strauss）的思想和影响，包括讨论他对新保守主义的影响，以及为什么与新保守主义的任何真正有意义的联系是可疑的。
Is there a part 2 have you seen" the power of nightmares" they speak of Leo Strauss and the neo conservative connection
I'll check that out. No, there's not a part 2. At some point I'll probably do some more on Strauss.
@@maurinacademy the power of nightmares is a BBC documentary,
Dr. Johnson,
I am not sure that Strauss and the "neocons" cannot be so neatly separated, as you and your fellow heirs of Strauss (among whom I number myself, too ) contend, at least in public. To begin with, Strauss himself stressed, as have his students, that a great thinker is responsible for those who misread him, and not merely for those who properly read him as "he understood himself" - to use a common Strauss shibboleth. For instance, this is precisely why Strauss and his students have mercilessly upbraided Nietzsche as the stepfather or step-grandfather of fascism. Likewise, they also know that there was some justice to the Athenian charge against Socrates of corrupting its youth, as the eventual conduct of Alcibiades and Critias hint. Second, perhaps more germane, there is some anecdotal evidence - and not just animadverted by critics such as Drury and her ilk - that Strauss in private sought to nourish the type of public-spirited defender of the regime that fits the neocon profile to some extent. Indeed, at times I feel that the Straussian defense of Strauss as an innocuous scholar is as naive or duplicitous as the defense of Nietzsche as a melodramatic aesthete that Straussians rightly pillory when advanced by Kaufmann and others. A proper judgment of Strauss, then, requires a consideration of Strauss, warts-and-all, in all his complexity.
I understand, of course, that the rhetorical context matters, and that one can only do so much in a brief TH-cam video geared toward the general public...
Great video
The difference between ancient and modern natural right is like the difference between morality as a science of well being and morality as something completely independent of materialism.
Respectively?
Would imbibing mushrooms be considered by the ancients as a good or a bad pastime?
If we're talking Plato and Aristotle, probably bad because unassisted reason was the best approach to the truth.
Hi Dr Laurie. I’m new to studying political philosophy and I have a question for you. The question is what do you think is the right method for answering the big questions in political philosophy? Does Strauss has anything to offer in answering this question?
Yes, he does.
The ideas of Aleksandr Dugin brought me here. Thank you.
Alexander Dumbin
Leo Strauss is a footnote. He will largely be remembered as a commentator on the history of political philosophy with occasional excursions to the contemporary scene.
Most of these jokers are just commentators without any true Philosophy.
.. neo conservative support for democracy though is kind of misleading tho right? like plato's..
Who is speaking?
Anonymity is a subversive act--or so I think at the moment.
Eyes are just eyes ...
Wearing 501s as I watch this!
damn it strauss!!!
"deep" and "surface" politics...
Isn't that about cabal, mafia - and the rest of the society?
That’s what I’m saying!!
I rather spend my time with Heidegger......
Ordinary people despise the uncompromising nature of philosophical living as it reveals their own paralysis. People are sheep, philosophers are wolves.
OK, then, to problematize your point that people are sheep and philosophers are wolves, does philosophy consist of killing/feeding on the common sense, common fears, and common unconsciousness about reality? Assuming you are also analogizing the apex-predatory naturalness of wolves' behavior in their environment as philosophers behaving as apex predators of thought in the social environment (kind of like how Socrates went about his business in ancient Athens).
@Faux Diplomacy : destroying such subjective public delusions is precisely what Socrates was about; that was his way of being politically involved ('politics' in the broad sense of concerning oneself with the issues of the 'polis').
I also agree with your suggestion of 'shepherd' as a better fit for the true philosopher, and to your pointing to power-seeking rhetorical gambits as the type of discourse that keeps the masses victimized.
My only quibble is with using terms such as "effeminate" (because 'the feminine' is not a weakness), or lumping in notions such as "Epicurean" (which is an orientation for simple pleasures as a proper pursuit of life) or "skeptic" (which is the aspect of 'science' that motivates continued research). I understand your use of these terms in ordinary parlance but ordinary usage is ignorant of their legitimate philosophical contribution to destroying subjective public delusions.
I'm Popeye the Sailor Man - toot -tooooot!
All you are saying is America gets to Rule the World. Whether the rest of the world wants it or not.
This has got nothing to do with being pro America or being for the US getting to rule the world--did you perhaps watch something else? It disputes that, if anything.
Bill Kristol is no conservative.
Candy coating it a bit
Leo Strauss may have been a very intelligent intellectual, but it would be a better World had he not existed...
why
FREE PALESTINE
🤡🤣
Palastine will be free anyway. An enterprise built on idea of implanting an artificial country by creating an arab-free island in a sea of arabs through deceit, cunning and war is not going to stand for long.
Another saladin will come and the walls won't be tall enough, fighter jets not fast enough and bombs not destructive enough and their builders will use them to raise white flags of surrender.
In fact, the creation of the illegitimate state itself led to the domino of shaking arab slumber from descending into irrelevance like all other historic religious traditions. If not for the formation of that state, middle east would have been no different than latin america or africa. Or in best case scenero it would had have become south korea or taiwan or japan, which is a total surrender of tradition for free market capitalism and free market culture.
You see, the south koreans spend money on plastic surgery, produce korean language equivalents of hollywood culture, dye their hair blond, basically, they aren't korean, they are just korean translated version of americans. It would have been all good, but the fact is that they can't become americans and they won't even remain koreans. The Korean soul with korean metaphysics, korean categories of thinking, korean values, korean virtues, korean aesthetics, korean world view and korean yearnings is extinct. It is full blown hedonism, implicit nihilism and en mass running towards an ever illusory mirage on the horizon.
In contrast, the formation of the illegitimate state shook the arab world to a rude reality. In contrast to their docileness to napoleon's conquest of Alexandria or british rule of aden, the conquest of the holy land oriented their compass back to the origin story and then finally after centuries of docileness an arab found the touch of faith alluring. But the current attitude of arabs is just like when someone wakes up from deep slumber. It is erratic, irrational and misdirected, but just after sometime the senses will come back into action.
Enslave Palestine
I’ll take it! Free shipping?
😴what a monoton talk.. where is the "passion"???
LOL--it's in my thinking, not in my inflection. Sorry!
Johnson is repetitive and uninformative; this is a waste of time.