tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post2876657951351483980..comments2024-03-15T19:54:18.063+00:00Comments on Darwinian Conservatism by Larry Arnhart: Smith and Strauss on Bourgeois Liberalism and the Philosophic LifeLarry Arnharthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-7652396514451323652016-10-08T06:09:21.503+01:002016-10-08T06:09:21.503+01:00Prof. Arnhart,
Thank you for that reference to Am...Prof. Arnhart,<br /><br />Thank you for that reference to Ambler's argument that Aristotle's zoon politikon argument may be merely an exoteric facade. I had heard someone else mention such an article a long time ago, and I assumed it was David Bolotin - who had made such an argument about Aristotle's physics - who presented it. I am now going to track it down and read it, but I find it prima facie less credible than Bolotin's argument, because - among other reasons - human beings by nature being political is a lot more plausible than the eternity of the universe.Won Joon Choehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09616918987942651496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-45720723404995379482016-10-08T06:01:20.137+01:002016-10-08T06:01:20.137+01:00
“What is the philosophic knowledge that harms the...<br />“What is the philosophic knowledge that harms the unphilosophic?<br /><br />In his writing on Lucretius, Strauss suggested that ‘the most terrible truth’ is the mortality of the ‘world’ – that the Earth and the solar system is not eternal within the cosmos. Is that it?<br /><br />Is there any evidence that learning this scientific truth really is harmful for people who are not philosophic? Harmful in what way?”<br /><br />Dear Prof. Arnhart,<br /><br />Indeed, the public dissemination of the possible truth of nihilism – that human beings are merely temporary denizens in a universe fundamentally devoid of meaning or order – appears to be what the great thinkers across different traditions sought to prevent. It seems that they feared at least two potentially catastrophic social consequences that could result from such a dissemination. First, men may become paralyzed with the fear of death and no longer think or pursue the higher things. I strongly believe that the Buddha preserved the Hindu belief in the transmigration of souls due to this particular concern, among other reasons that were not purely “philosophic”; Plato, too, propagates something similar in certain dialogues, e.g., the Republic; and while Confucius is deliberately silent regarding the spirits, he does not actively debunk their existence, and he certainly seems to acknowledge – via his painstaking elaboration on the rites - the social need for the maintenance of the existing structure of ancestor worship. Second, the absence of cosmic supports for human institutions – especially human laws – may mean that each man may appropriate himself a Gyges-like ethic that disdains all restraints or limits, inevitably leading to social chaos. In fact, Strauss’ criticism of Machiavelli’s teaching on tyranny seems to have been motivated by this very concern. He stresses that the “Machiavellian” perspective was taught covertly by the ancients, not overtly. Certainly, the philosopher’s overt teaching on the laws was everywhere something like what Plato’s Socrates teaches Crito: Publicly, unconditional obedience to the laws must be stressed.<br /><br />Now, I suppose it is possible for us, the children of the Enlightenment, to imagine that the ancient philosophers across the traditions have been proven wrong, because most men today still lead normal – if not particularly noble – lives, and the social order reasonably holds. Weber’s disenchantment does not lead to the dissolution of society. The worst fears of the ancient conservatives have then not materialized. <br /><br />But is this really because ancient esotericism was wrong – or was it because new factors were introduced to the mix that ancient esotericism did not, and could not, sufficiently anticipate?<br /><br />I would cautiously – and provisionally – argue that it is because of the latter. To put it in Allan Bloom’s simplistic, but perhaps not inaccurate terms, I conjecture that the alliance of Descartes’ doctor and Hobbes’ policeman may have at least temporarily tamed the void. Modern medicine, on the one hand, greatly mitigates the fear of death by holding out the possibility of infinite – or at least near-infinite prolongation of – life; modern surveillance state, on the other hand, reduces the proverbial possibility of getting away with murder. <br /><br />But again, I am not sure if our current happy state per se indicates that ancient esotericism was wrong: After all, one could argue that we have replaced old gods with the god of modern technology; and our current satisfaction is linked to our new god’s yet unproven promises about its puissance or capacity. Further, the drama is surely not over yet: The Cartesian faith in modern medicine seems to be waning; and technology seems increasingly a two-edged sword, capable of both restraining and enabling anti-social behavior.<br />Won Joon Choehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09616918987942651496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-49602171071048148692016-09-29T18:52:50.037+01:002016-09-29T18:52:50.037+01:00Joe Ruf,
I am rather puzzled by your comments. Y...Joe Ruf, <br /><br />I am rather puzzled by your comments. You seem to think it would be good if we had a warrior ethic like the Greeks. But the Greeks had a warrior ethic because they had a military in which all citizens served, and were almost continually at war with powerful enemies. But one problem with that today is that continual warfare would almost certainly lead, sooner or later, to nuclear war, a fact that you seem to be clearly aware of. <br /><br />So what exactly is it that you advocating for our society and world today? Perhaps you think things should basically stay the same, but that a tiny group of elite students of philosophy, not become warriors themselves, but still become far superior to ordinary people by realizing that the warrior ethic is good? <br /><br />--Les BrunswickAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-5595151239521441422016-09-29T11:12:47.541+01:002016-09-29T11:12:47.541+01:00From October of 2011 to January of 2012, I wrote a...From October of 2011 to January of 2012, I wrote a series of posts on Pinker that respond to your concerns here. Although I criticize some of Pinker's handling of statistics, I generally find his empirical evidence persuasive. I also comment on the need for the "ethical warrior" in the military service of liberalism.Larry Arnharthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-70661260632995302612016-09-29T09:48:14.326+01:002016-09-29T09:48:14.326+01:00I'm not sure it is true that "things have...I'm not sure it is true that "things have become more peaceful" given that that "peace" is in the shadow of two mushroom clouds. Likewise Pinker's book isn't all that rigorous when it comes to methodology in his use of statistics. I agree with much of what you write but disagree with your reading of Plato's cave (ironically my reading seems to support your libertarianish views). I'm also surprised given your citing of the virtues that you don't face head on the real "crisis of liberalism" (as exampled by Hobbes going awol to France) which is the tendency towards "self service" instead of sacrifice. One notices the character of the soldier missing from the minds of many liberals. Yet the soldier is necessary for it's maintenance.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11051484513580277979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-7790526624223492982016-09-28T01:20:00.924+01:002016-09-28T01:20:00.924+01:00"The Aristotelian interpretation of Strauss i..."The Aristotelian interpretation of Strauss is that he sees human beings as naturally political or social animals, and therefore in a liberal open society, social order can arise naturally or spontaneously." Does Aristotle explain why, in spite of his view of human nature, liberal societies are so rare? It seems to me that knowing what blocks liberalism would be helpful when we are trying to promote it in illiberal societies. <br /><br />I think there is a close connection between political philosophy and views on human nature. Each political philosophy, such as liberalism, fascism, or communism, has a distinctive view of human nature, and uses it to justify its view of the best society. <br /><br />Also, people can disagree so much in these views of human nature in part because human psychology is in many ways hidden and not obvious to inspection. However, in recent decades scientists in various fields such as anthropology, brain science, and child and infant psychology have learned a great deal about human psychology. And in particular they have determined that the liberal Aristotelean view is pretty much correct, and the other views are mistaken. <br /><br />I think the problem is that when Strauss was forming his views in the early 20th century, the relevant sciences were new, and many of their ideas on these matters were mistaken, and seemed to indicate a more Nietzschean view is right. But Strauss and his followers adopted the old scientific ideas in a dogmatic manner, and since then have refused to look at the new, more correct science.<br /><br />Which leads me to the question, do the Midwest Straussians pay attention to the new science, and make use of it in their arguments for their political philosophy? <br /><br />--Les BrunswickAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-6362321068881510452016-09-27T11:53:15.326+01:002016-09-27T11:53:15.326+01:00For many Straussians, it's the truth of nihili...For many Straussians, it's the truth of nihilism that is the philosophic knowledge that harms the unphilosophic.Larry Arnharthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-3861568574033988422016-09-27T11:49:11.940+01:002016-09-27T11:49:11.940+01:00Les,
This is an insightful comment about Strauss ...Les,<br /><br />This is an insightful comment about Strauss and the Straussians. The Aristotelian interpretation of Strauss is that he sees human beings as naturally political or social animals, and therefore in a liberal open society, social order can arise naturally or spontaneously. The Platonic interpretation of Strauss is that this is only the exoteric teaching, and that the esoteric teaching is that human beings are not naturally political; and therefore the philosopher must promote the artificial opinions of a closed society, without which social order would collapse. Plato's image of the cave can be interpreted as teaching that philosophers, legislators, and poets must artificially create the shadows cast on the walls of the cave.<br /><br />That Aristotle himself did not really believe that human beings were political animals by nature is the argument of Wayne Ambler in an article in THE REVIEW OF POLITICS (vol. 85, 1985, 163-185). Many Straussians assume that Strauss intimated this.<br /><br />This explains the attraction of the late Nietzsche for many Straussians--the philosopher's will to power is expressed in the mythic creation of a new poetic vision of a heroic way of life to counter the emptiness of the last man. This is Strauss's German nihilism.<br /><br />Larry Arnharthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-6265213589999753842016-09-26T22:51:27.340+01:002016-09-26T22:51:27.340+01:00I think Strauss's problems are at least in par...I think Strauss's problems are at least in part because he has two quite different views of human nature. One, from thinkers like Hobbes, Rousseau and Nietzsche, sees humans as basically asocial, and so a society needs a fixed, limited and quite illiberal set of values that it imposes on them. <br /><br />But Strauss also supports Aristotle's political philosophy, and it assumes that biologically inborn human nature includes moral, social, and political components. Human beings thus are naturally made for society, so society doesn't need to be so rigid, and this supports liberalism. <br /><br />I wonder if Strauss ever wrote about this contradiction in his philosophy. Likewise if any Straussians have. <br /><br />--Les BrunswickAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-89620844139319191062016-09-25T16:37:35.297+01:002016-09-25T16:37:35.297+01:00What is the philosophic knowledge that harms the u...What is the philosophic knowledge that harms the unphilosophic?<br /><br />In his writing on Lucretius, Strauss suggested that "the most terrible truth" is the mortality of the "world"--that the Earth and the solar system is not eternal within the cosmos. Is that it? <br /><br />Is there any evidence that learning this scientific truth really is harmful for people who are not philosophic? Harmful in what way? Larry Arnharthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-49496481378046950822016-09-24T19:19:42.552+01:002016-09-24T19:19:42.552+01:00Dear Prof. Arnhart,
The "open society" ...Dear Prof. Arnhart,<br /><br />The "open society" may have eliminated the need for the philosopher's need to resort to self-protective rhetoric, but what about the need to safeguard knowledge that may harm the unphilosophic?Won Joon Choehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09616918987942651496noreply@blogger.com