tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post1325089032994760663..comments2024-03-15T19:54:18.063+00:00Comments on Darwinian Conservatism by Larry Arnhart: Strauss, Drury, and the Tyranny of PhilosophersLarry Arnharthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-11782004452170085852015-01-09T00:41:58.884+00:002015-01-09T00:41:58.884+00:00I know this is an old post, but I wanted to point ...I know this is an old post, but I wanted to point out that Harry Neumann reviewed and responded to Shadia Drury's book. See Chapter 30 of his book Liberalism 1991 Carolina Academic Press Studies in Statesmanship<br /> Interestingly, he argues that Drury misunderstands Strauss because she is too political because she lives theologically while Strauss lived philosophically (seriously questioning the morlrity of his cave)p.268Lawrence Serewiczhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10951046729263663640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-42671725266513075832013-05-26T06:52:37.626+01:002013-05-26T06:52:37.626+01:00What about Minowitz's book? It devotes an enor...What about Minowitz's book? It devotes an enormous amount of attention to Drury. Pretty sure "Reading Leo Strauss" by Smith does as well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-1022697488670071412013-05-05T19:37:44.705+01:002013-05-05T19:37:44.705+01:00The passages you quote, one from NRH and the other...The passages you quote, one from NRH and the other from OT, are talking about natural justice divorced from prudence. Needless to say, they don't describe a political program of any kind that Strauss endorsed. This should be obvious. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-41940483056289834452012-04-05T18:30:18.256+01:002012-04-05T18:30:18.256+01:00His divisions sound very camel-lion-child. Nietzsc...His divisions sound very camel-lion-child. Nietzsche argued that one could go through all three. <br /><br />I wonder, too, how Strauss' ideas would map onto Gravesean psychology. <br /><br />http://zatavu.blogspot.com/2007/12/spiral-dynamics.html<br /><br />http://zatavu.blogspot.com/2005/06/spiral-dynamics.html<br /><br />http://zatavu.blogspot.com/2012/03/political-evolution-to-bleeding-heart.html<br /><br />http://zatavu.blogspot.com/2010/12/time-preference-and-emergent.html<br /><br />http://zatavu.blogspot.com/2012/04/egalitarian-psychology-and-society.htmlTroy Camplinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16515578686042143845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-24148033989644821412012-04-04T02:23:36.422+01:002012-04-04T02:23:36.422+01:00Here is a link to the Schaefer piece:
www.mmisi.o...Here is a link to the Schaefer piece:<br /><br />www.mmisi.org/pr/23_01/schaefer.pdf <br /><br />He addresses the "mutilated human being" passage on p. 107 by suggesting that she misrepresents it.<br /><br />I don't recall whether or not Orwin addressed that passage. He published two separate pieces on her book, both of which are referenced in the Schaefer piece.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-89563647068103582402012-04-04T01:35:21.146+01:002012-04-04T01:35:21.146+01:00There is a very interesting discussion of the &quo...There is a very interesting discussion of the "mutilated human being" claim and the tension between the "Platonic" and "Aristotelian" accounts of natural right in Natural Right and History in this article: <br /><br />GUERRA, MARC D. "The Ambivalence of Classic Natural Right: Leo Strauss on Philosophy, Morality, and Statesmanship." Perspectives on Political Science 28.2 (1999)Xenophonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09664620430604622777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-17163553918367773692012-04-04T01:08:04.970+01:002012-04-04T01:08:04.970+01:00What did they say about the "mutilated human ...What did they say about the "mutilated human being" passage?Larry Arnharthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-14997900123264783742012-04-04T00:56:45.115+01:002012-04-04T00:56:45.115+01:00There were essays on Drury's book by Clifford ...There were essays on Drury's book by Clifford Orwin and David Lewis Schaefer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-91006530836499305472012-04-03T23:16:57.296+01:002012-04-03T23:16:57.296+01:00Thank you for this thoughtful post. You say that, ...Thank you for this thoughtful post. You say that, "Most of the prominent Straussians have been remarkably silent about this book." Like you, I have often thought that Straussians have chosen to ignore Professor Shadia Drury's critique of Strauss instead of refuting it. However, I would draw your attention to a direct engagement that one Straussian had with Professor Drury in the pages of Political Theory. Professor Harry V. Jaffa addressed many of the themes that eventually appeared in Professor Drury's book. Now, you may not consider Professor Jaffa a prominent Straussian, which is an entirely separate discussion. But I draw it to your attention because he responds directly to the "mutilated human being" example that Drury uses, as well as the subordination and depreciation of morality to trans-moral ends. As I recall, Jaffa made excellent points based on textual exegesis to rebut Professor Drury, although he does so in a polemical style that can be somewhat abrasive to some readers. I have not read the article in years (many years), but I remember it being rather persuasive at the time I read it. In the same issue of Political Theory there is another response to Drury from Fred Dallmayr that offers additional, albeit milder, criticism of the Drury interpretation of Struass. See Political Theory, volume 15, number 3, August 1987.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-5218688422469708822012-04-03T13:26:12.256+01:002012-04-03T13:26:12.256+01:00If philosophy is a remedy of sorts for potential t...If philosophy is a remedy of sorts for potential tyrants (Aristotle, Politics 2.7:1261a1-a15), then rhetorically it seems necessary that for it to be used as a remedy an argument would need to be made that appeals to the potential or actual tyrant’s desire for honor and glory and thus the desire to be esteemed as the best. If it is a true remedy, then the thought must be that philosophy as a remedy could be employed to persuade tyrannical souls away from doing tyrannical deeds. As long as there is the belief that there is a tyranny of philosophers in speech but not in deed, there appears to be no political problem. Moreover, those who take themselves to be of the first rank would need to be pushed further, one might say, in order to be of the first rank, i.e., if there is such an order of rank among human ways of being. <br /><br />The order of rank comes up explicitly in Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics, 10.7-8. Here the contemplative life ranks the highest. The standards seem to be self-sufficiency and what is "most of all is a human being". The contemplative life is the most self-sufficient in its activity and the way of life that is most in "accord with the intellect". The "rest of virtue is happy in a secondary way". The philosophic way of life is thus of the first rank. But one should not leave out what Aristotle says later (10.8) about the need of the second order of virtue (moral virtue) in order to "live a human life."<br /><br />That said, Aristotle's audience appears to be gentlemen and perhaps potential philosophers. One could argue that what he has to say with regard to the rank of the contemplative life is merely to moderate potential tyrants in the crowd, and as a result, it is a curative teaching. But if Aristotle is also looking for potential philosophers, could we say that his argument also goes beyond philosophy as a remedy? In other words, to the thoughtful person who is concerned with how he should live, is Aristotle providing an argument for his own way of life?<br /><br />From a Darwinian point of view, is it impossible to arrive at Aristotle's argument for the contemplative life based on the standards that he uses? Given the central importance of the principle of self-sufficiency in Aristotle's political writings, would it be possible to affirm this standard with Darwinian theory? (Given your extensive knowledge of Aristotle, does this principle ever come up in HA, PA, or in other writings outside of his strictly speaking political writings?) Or is living well in the end for the sake of the ultimate end of living or, to use Darwinian language, survival and reproduction? (For what it is worth, the philosophic way of life, however, doesn’t appear to be the way of life that best serves that end!) If so, it appears Darwinian theory inverts Aristotle's political theory at some crucial points.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-59176199918214024472012-04-02T19:55:51.494+01:002012-04-02T19:55:51.494+01:00Troy,
This is what Drury argues against Strauss: ...Troy,<br /><br />This is what Drury argues against Strauss: all human beings have the three parts of the soul (reason, spirit, appetites), and the differences among human beings are only differences of degree in their ordering of these parts.<br /><br />By contrast, Strauss sees three human types--philosophers, gentlement, and the vulgar--who differ "not just in degree but in kind."<br /><br />Drury and other critics rightly reject this as psychologically implausible, because it fails to see how even the philosophers will be moved by honor and appetites.<br /><br />Even Strauss says that the philosopher writes esoteric books for "the young men who might become philosophers." "All books of that kind owe their existence to the love of the mature philosopher for the puppies of his race, by whom he wants to be loved in turn" (PAW, 36).<br /><br />We might wonder whether this need for puppy love is healthy.Larry Arnharthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-36557518516114084692012-04-02T19:30:18.662+01:002012-04-02T19:30:18.662+01:00If Plato's Republic is actually about how to d...If Plato's Republic is actually about how to develop a just soul (Socrates argues that the city he describes would be happy, but the individual members would not be; thus, consider his model one of the soul), then perhaps Strauss too is actually talking about individual development rather than external politics?Troy Camplinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16515578686042143845noreply@blogger.com