Straussians

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
1

To de-bunk a few ideas put forward about Straussians:

  1. Anti-democratic? How many philosophers gave anything but qualified support to democracy? Strauss has a lot of company here. Many agree that it is the best possible regime, but they also tend to be critical and to regard it as mob rule (the Bush regime is a good example of mob rule, which always requires string-pullers). The problem with Straussians, once allowed that they are a cabal, and that is hard to argue since they are actually as faction-ridden a group as any, is that they haven’t learned that philosophers always lose control of their political projects to practical-minded, vicious, and ignorant men. If the Straussians have been behind neo-conservatism, they will soon wish they had kept their noses out of it. The theocratic impulse can’t be controlled by detached philosophizing and strategizing.

  2. A cabal? Is it really surprising that students of a professor at the University of Chicago would show up, in some numbers, in high political posts. How many Oxford professors are heading up cabals I wonder? Harvard School of Government (okay, maybe that one…).

  3. Incomprehensible and detached from reality? It is hard to find to many schools of philosophy where some of the students don’t go off the deep end occasionally, but really! Having read some Straussian interpretations I have to say that they are better argued and closer to the original texts than the bone-heads who take, for example, the Republic and treat it as if it is intended as a practical guide to regime design (like reading Gulliver’s Travels literally, or Through the Looking Glass). The argument that the classic texts cannot be read literally is a strong one. For a quick study, try reading the prefaces of Hobbes, Bacon, Locke and others. Note the fawning tone they use with their patrons (who protect them and must not be offended; Berkeley’s prefaces are aparticular favorite of mine. They are absolutely sickening; not to mention Rousseau’s), note the assurances that nothing they say could possibly damage the credibility of the Church’s teachings… and then people want to read them as if it was all tidily presented and clear? Allan Bloom’s essay on the Republic is a good example of Straussian method: clear, based on the text, well-argued where extrapolations are required (such as when bringing dramatic structure into the interpretation).

That said, and having known some Straussians, the complaint levelled against them that they believe in “noble lies” is mostly true. Such an idea (a perfectly valid one too; life requires more than a few noble lies if one is to live peacefully with and benefit ignorant people) in the wrong hands can certainly go wrong… and has gone wrong. Poltical theorists who should have known better have provided intellectual respectability to the bizarre (not to say insane) and self-defeating (or at least: rest-of-us defeating) ambitions of such deluded groups as the New American Century folks, and others with even more dangerous agendas. Some Straussians (and many non-Straussians) have participated in this lunacy. They haven’t learned that a philosopher’s only public care is to ensure that reason is given its due place in public life. The last time intellectuals decided to pump the wells of “faith” and other forms of irrationality for the public good Europe was almost destroyed.

2

You should put a link to the column you’re referencing.

3

I’d forgotten about this column, so thanks for bringing it up. The bit that really sticks with me is this:

I used the term “gnosticism” as opposed to “empiricism” in some of my punditry in early November to explain the groundswell of support for the current regime. Actually, I was recalling a specific gnostic dogma that the created physical world is designed to trick the senses, and the “real” world is known intuitively. Straussians look for the “hidden” meaning in text, while Bush supporters believed (around 66%) that he wanted to get the USA in an the International Criminal Court (which he’d just come off of explicitly denying in each debate).

Either way, the people Know the answer they want (for voters, “Bush is the best choice” or for policy makers, “We need to invade Iraq”) and then look for the justification later, and any justification will do. Why is the current regime in power? Because Americans are overwhelmingly given to such gnosticism and explicit rejection of the Enlightenment.

4

<Manuel-the-waiter>¿Que?</Manuel-the-waiter>

5

Gr. should have read “in on”, if that’s what was throwing you.

If what’s throwing you is the sheer weirdness that is Bush supporters’ thoughts about the content of Bush policies… I really don’t know what to say other than that it seems apparent they start with the axiom “Bush=good” and then ascribe to him whatever policies they like, even if it’s completely at odds with empirical evidence.

The analogy is that Straussian readings are usually at odds with the surface readings of texts, and quite a few people tend to think that a Straussian reader starts reading the text with what they want to find in it already in mind.

6

That applies to more than his policies.

And that applies to more than Straussians.

7

Understood. My point was that Unca Cece chose the term “gnostic” to describe Straussians (though it applies to more), and I chose the same term to describe a kind of approach to the world. This kind includes both believing people hold certain opinions in direct opposition to their statements (Bush supporters think he wants in on the ICC), and constructing evidence to support a predetermined choice rather than making a choice on the best available evidence (yellowcake uranium, anyone?).

Really, the Straussian approach to a text falls into my more general concept. I’m mainly just noting that I independantly picked the same term as The Great Master.