The Philosopher of Neoconservatives

The Boston Globe ^ | 5/11/2003 | Jeet Heer

[A. Pole]

The late Leo Strauss has emerged as the thinker of the moment in Washington, but his ideas remain mysterious. Was he an ardent opponent of tyranny, or an apologist for the abuse of power?

ODD AS THIS MAY SOUND, we live in a world increasingly shaped by Leo Strauss, a controversial philosopher who died in 1973. Although generally unknown to the wider population, Strauss has been one of the two or three most important intellectual influences on the conservative worldview now ascendant in George W. Bush's Washington. Eager to get the lowdown on White House thinking, editors at the New York Times and Le Monde have had journalists pore over Strauss's work and trace his disciples' affiliations. The New Yorker has even found a contingent of Straussians doing intelligence work for the Pentagon.

[Helms]

How about this on "Plato's Spell":

http://www.popper.routledge.com/popper/works/open_society.html

The Open Society and Its Enemies

'Some time ago a wise old man came to see me in Prague and I listened to him with admiration. Shortly afterwards I heard that this man had died. His name was Karl Popper.’ Václav Havel, from the Preface

‘One of the great books of the century’ The Times

‘a modern classic’ The Independent

‘a brilliant polemic…It remains the best intellectual defence of liberal democracy against know-it-all totalitarianism.’ The Economist

This special one volume edition marks the centenary of Popper’s birth. It includes a new preface by Václav Havel and a personal recollection by Karl Popper’s friend, E.H.Gombrich, on the story behind the book’s first publication.

Written in political exile in New Zealand during the Second World War and first published in two volumes in 1945, Karl Popper’s The Open Society and Its Enemies is one of the most famous and influential books of the twentieth century. Hailed by Bertrand Russell as a ‘vigorous and profound defence of democracy’, its now legendary attack on the philosophies of Plato, Hegel and Marx prophesied the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and exposed the fatal flaws of socially engineered political systems. Popper’s highly accessible style, his erudite and lucid explanations of the thought of great philosophers and the recent resurgence of totalitarian regimes around the world are just three the reasons for the enduring popularity of The Open Society and Its Enemies and why it demands to be read today and in years to come.

‘If in this book harsh words are spoken about some of the greatest among the intellectual leaders of mankind, my motive is not, I hope, the wish to belittle them. It springs rather from my conviction that, if our civilization is to survive, we must break with the habit of deference to great men’ Karl Popper, from the Preface to the First Edition

[MrLeRoy]

Why did you think this would be of particular interest to me?

[A. Pole]

Why did you think this would be of particular interest to me?

Why? Because you seem to be interested in the relationships between the government/elites and people or question of virtue etc ... The Strauss ideas have an impact on those matters.

For example you posted on the this thread: THE ROOTS OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY (Authentic American Political Philosophy)

[cornelis]

If our civilization is to survive, we must break with the habit of deference to great men

There's some truth to that, but one must remember, that all those boys Havel struggled against had broken with that deference and that breakage was the cause of the rift between the Czechs students and the Russians tankdrivers.

So the other opinion is that we stand on the shoulders of giants and so can see better (or at least ought to). The title to one of Bloom's collected essays is apropos: Giants and Dwarves.

If you want the uncut version of Voegelin's opinion about Popper's method go here.

Plato himself did a spoof on the influence of Socrates in the last chapters of the Symposium. He was aware of confusing the truth with the person who spoke the truth. Socrates reminds Alcibiades: "I may be nothing." And with that he tries to teach Alcibiades to see through him. But, more often than not, an interest in safe-keeping one's identity becomes a higher goal that truth. Witness FR. Yet how else can the punishment of Socrates have meaning beyond the mere legal procedure and stand out as signficant?.

I recommend the writings of Havel. He teaches one to sympathize with the freedom (liberal) motive of people, but it cannot be at the expense of history. We are historical beings and turning a blind eye to history is as much suicide for ourselves as much it ends in murder for others.

Not slaves, not a determinism of the past, but we cannot dispense with it. Breaking with our deference, if it means anything at all, must never mean a total break. That's the slogan of a revolutionary. Rather, it must become a freedom within bounds. There is no pure freedom, because when you have it, there is no longer any human being there to enjoy it.

[A. Pole]

If you want the uncut version of Voegelin's opinion about Popper's method go here .

This is great. Thank you.

[KC Burke]

Thanks for the bump.

[rmlew]

I am not a neoconservative.
America is not an idea. We are a nation. We were created in 1776, not 1901.

[x]

Here is another newspaper article on Strauss, this time from the Asian Times. Curiously, the author concludes that Strauss's most appealing feature is his "optimism" about politics.

[cornelis]

The article is satirical, dismissive, and . . . hardly asian, but american.

[x]

The paper is published in Hong Kong and Bangkok, but you're right: there isn't much to the article.

[x]

I wouldn't go so far as to say Strauss "abhorred" Locke. I think Strauss reserves his harshest treatment for the other contract theorists, particularly Hobbes (whom he called the progenitor of "political hedonism" and a "political atheist") and Rousseau. Locke gets short shrift by comparison.

Thanks for the correction. What led me astray was that his views on Locke have created so much more controversy than his readings fo the other thinkers you mention.

[Helms]

I am a big fan of Popper and this was enhanced by reading "Wittgensteins Poker". I consider Popper of of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century. Wittgenstein meets Popper at Cambridge
and they have a significant contribution. Both men were of Jewish decent but had far different life courses. A facinating
book.

[Helms]

CONFRONTATION not contribution

[philosofy123]

"we live in a world increasingly shaped by Leo Strauss"

You live in that world! Very few people know or care about who the hell is Leo Stauss. If a bunch of New York pincov Commies get together at a restaurant on 72St to bitch about things, that does not mean that they shaped our world.

[cornelis]

I'm beginning to become a fan of Nietzsche--he can surpass just ten commandments--although when Kauffman introduces his views he says "we often stand to gain if we ask ourselves why it should not be ours."

Or with entirely new words: nostalgia for Bach might even yield an apology for Van Halen.

[bourbon]

Thanks for the correction.

No problem. You're correct that his writings about Locke have been very controversial in American conservative circles. Strauss' ambivalence towards Locke's thought provokes appreciable concern inside this community because it can be seen as undermining the principles of the Founders--something rightly seen by US conservatives to be not very "conservative" at all.

I read Strauss' Natural Right and History earlier this year, and I was so shocked by his passages on Hobbes and Locke that I had to make an appointment with a professor friend of mine just to chat about it. I wanted to make sure that I was reading him correctly and that I wasn't drawing any untoward conclusions from his writings. I guess, I was surprised to encounter an American conservative who had bad things to say about these thinkers.

The founders themselves clearly believed in the documents they created, but I don't think the question of nihilism occupied them as much as it did twentieth century thinkers.

You know, this is a very good point. People should remember this. The problems the Founders faced were all essentially political. They probably had never even conceived of the problems presented by apolitical nihilism. In this sense, I suppose it is best to see the Constitution as a political and legal document and not any kind of cultural statement. One wonders how the Founders would respond to current pathologies in American society, which are largely cultural?

[Helms]

'I'm beginning to become a fan of Nietzsche"

What sealed it for me was Nietzsche by Rudiger Safranski. FN comes across as very sympathetic (probably homosexual but not practised) and rightly predicting the pathetic passive nihilism which is taking a toll in our postmodern world.

[Helms]

Geez, what we are talking about here is no idiots Guide To Philosophy. Philosophy has driven history despite your claim otherwise. A bunch of students at the University of Berlin circa 1830 shaped the early 20th century. This century is being shaped by the likes of Hegel, Fitche,Heidegger, Marcuse, Sartre and Focault, to mention just a few.

Sorry to have to break it to you as major philosophies often seep into our culure.

[cornelis]

the Constitution as a political and legal document political and legal document

I like to refer to it as procedural. Some way or other the terminology can help to circumvent collapsing the distinction between law and Law.

[bourbon]

By characterizing the Constitution as primarily a legal/political document, I did not mean to say that I think it is merely a political/legal document. I think that the Constitution is best seen as a covenant rather than a contract, and much like you I wish for a return to the older distinction between laws and Law.

As an aside, I would choose not to characterize the Constitution as "procedural" b/c of that term's specific legal meaning. In the law, constitutions are, almost by definition, not procedural. While they may contain procedural elements, almost all of their provisions are "substantive (i.e. they confer rights or specify duties). Perhaps the best example of substantive law is the Bill of Rights. Whereas, the best example of a procedural law would be something like a venue statute.