The Philosopher of Neoconservatives

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

[cornelis]

the best example of substantive law is the Bill of Rights

But they are the Amendments. They can be removed without annihilating the Constitution.

[bourbon]

The commerce clause would also be a good example of substantive law as would pretty much all of Article I.

I don't mean to quibble. I just wanted to point out that, while referring to the Constitution as "procedural" may make a measure of sense to those steeped in a certain brand of philosophy, it would be deeply confusing to students/practioners of the law. I just wanted you to know to expect some puzzled looks if you use this terminology before a crowd of lawyers/judges. LOL!

[cornelis]

No doubt the difference between philosophy and the practice of law is deeply also confusing to many students of law. I trust you won't count it as an error on my part to have gone to the heart of the matter.

[cornelis]

deeply also confusing.

I should add that the terminology is not mine. Have you read any Willmoore Kendall?

[Helms]

Cornelius:

Here is a great example of Law and Politics (he is also somewhat of a Nietzsche scholar)- kindly note these links:

http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/bleiter/

http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/

[Helms]

Correction: Law and Philosophy

[bourbon]

No doubt the difference between philosophy and the practice of law is deeply confusing to many students of law.

True enough. For all the attempts made during the 20th century to exile philosophy from the domain of jurisprudence, its centrality remains and always will remain. These two fields are inexorably linked, both logically and historically. Nevertheless, it is wise to keep an eye open for distinctions between the two. Judges who practice their own philosophies from the bench generally do so in derogation of the law. As well, many judges are led into error by their ignorance of philosophy.

I trust you won't count it as an error on my part to have gone to the heart of the matter.

No, I wouldn't do that. We're just discussing semantics. :-)

[bourbon]

Willmoore Kendall

No, I haven't, but I'd be delighted to learn who he is and what he wrote. Thanks.

[Reactionary]

Thanks for the reply. For all of the recent ink spilled about Strauss, no one has mentioned this important aspect of his teaching. No one has mentioned that Strauss encouraged everyone to read primary works and to try to understand them on their own terms.

[general_re]

I'll be back ;)

[cornelis]

Is that a famous line from the Iron Lady?

[general_re]

Something like that ;)

I've been pondering this article,deciding what to make of it. On the one hand, anyone who describes Brent Staples as "sensible" needs to have their head examined. And on the other hand, there is a great deal of truth that Strauss and his acolytes held dearly to the idea that some sorts of knowledge must be restricted only to initiates, and kept from the lumpensprache. At its worst, it leads to some very silly consequences, and my generally egalitarian nature rebels at the thought regardless - it smacks too much of the sort of vanguardism that the Marxists always seem to produce, and yet claim to despise, whenever they sit down and try to figure out what exactly it is that they want to do.

[Allan]

Strauss is greatly admired by many leftist 'Political Scientists'.
Go figure.

[ladyinred]

I wish they would get it right.
Once and for all leftys, Nazi's were/are Socialists.
Look it up in your dictionary or an old old history book.

[A. Pole]

Strauss is greatly admired by many leftist 'Political Scientists'. Go figure.

Many neo-cons were leftists before. I suspect that the forming experience for Strauss was the failure of Weimar Republic. He developed the deep distrust for the self-government and republican/democratic process. He decided that people are not fit to rule themselves and have to be guided/manipulated by the enlightened elite.

Such attitude can be disatrous in the viable strong republic and be appreciated by the leftists.

[cornelis]

whenever they sit down and try to figure out what exactly it is that they want to do.

You don't suppose Strauss should have been singing in a choir and walking his dog? That he should have played baseball with his boy and waxed his car on Saturday?

My answer is to you is to frame the issue with this question: upon reading Strauss, why do some consider that knowledge is restrictive and others that it must be restrictive?

[general_re]

...upon reading Strauss, why do some consider that knowledge is restrictive and others that it must be restrictive?

I'm not so sure that this is a proposition about the qualities of knowledge per se. Rather, the question is, what should be done with certain sorts of knowledge by those who hold it? And it seems pretty clear that, for Strauss, some sorts of knowledge should be kept from the masses - for their own good, of course. I'm not entirely sure how you can read it any other way, but I am always open to suggestions...

[cornelis]

what should be done with certain sorts of knowledge by those who hold it?

That certainly is a very appropriate for question Nietzsche.

Strauss himself seemd upset enough about the inattention paid to the distinction between theory and practice. It would be a difficult thing for anyone who has read him to insist that this distinction was for the sake of practice at the expense of theory.

First and foremost, if any doing was sought for, the thing to be done about the knowledge of those who hold it, was criticism. Not in the style of Descartes, but in the form of the ancient zetesis, in the style of Socrates. The best apologist for this was Allan Bloom. Incidentally, Nietzsche abhorred and admired Socrates. It might be of some interest here that Nietzsche too was embraced by low and highbrow dabblers.

But back to the other question. A knowledge that should be kept from the masses requires a standing army. Certainly I am not the first, but I'll happily be the first to say it, there is no secret code. He was not a gnostic. The thought of Strauss is as much available to me as it is to you. It is told that Allan Bloom with delight reminded his friends every day his book stayed on the top ten list. "See, I told you so!" Of course the joke was as you like it: Bloom was a snob. So are all real tennis players. So was Nietzsche. But for Bloom the joke was that they don't get it, not that they musn't.

Perhaps it is more of political concern whether those who don't get it should call the shots. I recall Bloom's single reference to Strauss in The Closing of the American Mind. It was a tip of the hat to the modern political structure inherited from the moderns and Locke: "They built on low but solid ground." Of course, we should probably look again at those passages where they are busy keeping the masses in the dark.