Leo Strauss's philosophy..Heidegger, Kierkegard, Nietzche,
Posted on: April 6, 2006 - 12:49am
Offline
Leo Strauss's philosophy..Heidegger, Kierkegard, Nietzche,
I am very intrigued by Strauss' political philosophy, as you probably already know, his philosophies have spawned neoconservatism, which I find very detrimental to society, especially because it deals with religion being a big part of controlling the masses. What do you guys think about Leo Strauss's philosophy, in regards to perhaps some of the other philosophers whom he critiqued and also was influenced by. And what do you think of his relativization of classical philosophy and his rejection of positivism and science? And please, describe in a manner in which someone like moi, who's new at philosophy can understand.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.
- Login to post comments
A lot of the wrong people are "influenced" by Nietzsche, including the Nazis, he left a lot for interpretation.
"Character is higher than intellect... A great soul will be strong to live, as well as to think."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson
I've been seeing Nietzsche thrown all over the place..which spawned my interest.. But are you familiar with the philosophy of Leo strauss?
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.
explain Strauss's Philosophy. I havn't studied him.
From what I know...is this..and it is limited. He believes in the relativism of classical philosophy. He's a big plato and socrates kinda guy. He criticizes positivism and felt that positivism, and more generally, the attempt to distinguish facts and values, science and morality, etc, had been wrong and also harmful. (I take this from Wikipedia) He considered one of the most important moments in the history of philosophy to be the argument by Socrates and his students that philosophers or scientists could not study nature without considering their own human nature, which, in the famous phrase of Aristotle, is "political."
Strauss believed that philosophers offered both an 'exoteric' or salutary teaching, and an 'esoteric' or true teaching, which was concealed from the general reader. This thinking, adapted by his student's and his students' students came to be political in the sense that it's ok for government to give a salutary agenda. (wink wink) While true agendas are to be kept only within the circles of elites, or scholars.
His political philosophy has been studied by many neoconservatives, to name a few: William Kristol (a student of Strauss' student), Paul Wolfowitz (another student), Donald Rumsfeld, Lewis Libby, Karl Rove, Dick Chenney, Armitage etc... the Project for a New American Century was starded under Leo Strauss' students and philosophy (they were the biggest proponents for the Iraq war, well before Bush Jr. got in office, some say because of Leo Strauss' jewish descent, that it came directly from Tel Aviv, which is why the US is unabashadly pro-israel) Read my "Leo Strauss and the use of religion in the Ry's Anti-neocons section of the forum" There you will also find many links to his philosophy and his political views. He critiques the epistomology of Max Webber, and he says the Nietszche was the first person to truly understand relativism.
In a nutshell, Leo Strauss' political philosophy is being spread (under the media spotlight) all over the United State's political science curriculums. He is, who I call, the Karl Marx of neoconservatism ideology.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.
He sounds like a wonderful man
"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions
yeah, he's a philosopher..however, his philosphy is detrimental...to society..due to the fact that he fails in one respect, as far as I'm concerned, he's very self serving. At least his philosophy is..but again, I say this with truth, I know not much about philosophy..but..I gather..as far as political reality is concerned...he's got the USA down to a fucking nail.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Meh, most philosophers are full of shit anyway.
"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions
Hahaha...true..I agree...except it's people who take philosophy and try to apply it to real life where the danger comes in..ie...marx, strauss, etc..however, this is why philosophy to me is so.....intriguing yet, I hate it, but I want to learn it, but I wish it was abolished..hahaha...it's one of those things...lol.. Can't live with it, can't live without it.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Hey now, Marx was awsome. I am a bit of a marxist myself, but more of an anarchist. I liked his ideas, but his methods imply violence, which, I don't think is necessary.
"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions
My whole political/thinking/whatever you want to call it... ideas started with Marx. I agree...his philosophies..rock..indeed...however, it is how they are applied that fucked things up.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.
well, human beings are experts of fucking things up. If there is one thing the human race is good at, is to fuck things up.
"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions
Agreed there...amazing eh? with this kind of intelligence..wait..IT'S SATAN'S WORK!!!!!!
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.
I disagree. Philosophy can be extremely helpful when applied to life and society would reap the rewards if it is done properly. I can certainly refute Hitlers philosophy simply by drawing in what Buddhist philosophers have taught us - that morality leads to happiness. Just look around, who are the happiest people? In most cases, they are also the moral ones. On a more theoretical approach, evolution benefits from morality, for a species will not survive if it has a lot of internal fights. Teamwork is key, and in fact humanity couldn't have survived through an ice age without it. Theres also a news article on this site about altruism in other animals, so dig that up if you want more info on this.
From Alan
FTT Website Designer
Philosophy is life affirming, if nothing else.
I'm glad i've been studying it, it made me happy, it also padded my GPA
"Character is higher than intellect... A great soul will be strong to live, as well as to think."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson
LOL!
"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions
Well, I was being kinda specific with the likes of Strauss, and Stalin etc...but ok..yeah you're right...
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.
I am a Philosopher, but I am a Philosopher out of pure curiosity. Philosophy, frankly, has little use in society. Pure intellectual curiosity drives me. However, who cares? Alot of Mathematics has little use to society, but Mathematicians are curious about the mathematical universe.
Philosophy has kept me up many nights. I am pretty sure it is not good for you health...but I don't care
"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions
That makes sense, but without mathematics we wouldn't have the society we have today. Increasingly complex mathematics are essential to new sciences, which in turn are essential to have the technology we do in society.
Just a bad example, Philosophy doesn't, as you say, have a direct effect on society.
"Character is higher than intellect... A great soul will be strong to live, as well as to think."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson
But alot of Mathematics is useless. Granted, its interesting...but useless. One of the most interesting aspects of mathematics is that there is an infinite hierarchy of infinities.
My avatar is the symbol Aleph Null...otherwise known as, the first level of infinity. Does this have any applications to society? No. is it fucking interesting as hell? Yes.
"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions
Point taken
Yes that's fucking cool.
"Character is higher than intellect... A great soul will be strong to live, as well as to think."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson
sure buddy...looks like a satanic symbol to me ..hahah
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.
There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge.
Bertrand Russell
LOL!
"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions
Buddhist philosophy can make you a lot more happy, and philosophy of religion can get rid of Christainity and other such sources of immorality.
From Alan
FTT Website Designer
I think I already posted this somewhere on this forum: but read a book called Seeds of Peace, it's by a Buddhist Monk, Sulak Suvaraksa I think. It talks about the "religion of consumerism" and how progress is not gauaged based on human well-being but on material objects. It's a great read...read it in my global ethics and world religions class a few moons ago in college.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Philosophy contributes a lot to life. One should live philosophically, that said, there have been few true philosophers.
I'm a dipshit.
And what exactly is you conception of a "true philosopher"?
"In the high school halls, in the shopping malls, conform or be cast out" ~ Rush, from Subdivisions
Obviously not someone who only knows how to read. As for the question, it is simply too vague or broad to answer. I don't know.
I'm a dipshit.
Yet in your last post, you said this:
So you know how to number them, but not how to identify them? Do you see the contradiction?
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
I believe that a "true philospher" could easily be someone who reads. Just because one is influenced by anothers thoughts, it does not appear to me that they would be a 'mirror', or be unable to come to 'original' (untainted, though they probably are tainted ins a sense) conclusions. Unless by true philosopher, you mean...I don't know. What do you mean by true philsopher?
Dios ha Muerto. -??? (teehee)
----------------------
"Solipsism is crazy". ... haha.
As far as Nietzsche goes I really don't know a whole lot about his ideas. However I think it deals with the idea that nothing really matters. Once a girl, a seemingly smart one, said that he was basically the ground work for atheism. She went as far to say that he came up with the idea...
Now I know this isn't the case, but I could see an argument for his ideas being one side effect of it. Sadly at the time I knew little on history of the idea of no god and frankly didn't have the balls to challenge her on it.
Speaking of Nietzsche, I am anticipating reading "Beyond good and evil", "The Anti-Christ", and "The Portable" by himself. Can anyone tell me what the basic themes of each of these are and which ones you would reccomend I read first? I have just heard they were his best (In the sense that they have more content). The 'best' part is obviously debatable, because this is subjective.
Also, and I am not sure if this was Nietzsche, but I believe I heard that this point was made in "The Anti-Christ" (I am 'paraphrasing', one might say):
If...
1-God is all loving
2-God is all powerful
3-God is all knowing... how does humanity continue to suffer, or have suffered in the first place, being the God supposedly created us, and existed eternally before (and after) us. Being that we suffer, it is impossible that God is all these three, because if God were all powerful and all knowing, he simply would not love us. Also, if he was all loving and all knowing, he is simply weak, and can do nothing about our suffering. And last (but I certainly do not believe least), if God knows, and can stop out suffering, he simply doesn't love of care for us. I do not believe that the 'perfect' (ideal?) father would let one's children suffer. Christians attempt to negate this statement with the response that God gives us many chances, and it is out choice to decide, but when you ask what form these chances come in, Christians point out that these come in many forms, but none of them are direct. If God wanted you to be happy, we would directly allow you the option of ultimate salvation, without 'beating around the bush' so to speak. Even if there is a other-wordly being that created us, and in a form, it is superior, I would still prefer not to idolize a being that sends me to a pit of eternal suffering and damnation. God cannot be perfect, for we suffer, and he does nothing, or little compared to what he could, to stop it.
Is the original point that God cannot be all loving, knowing, and powerful Nietzsche's?
Dios ha Muerto. -??? (teehee)
----------------------
"Solipsism is crazy". ... haha.
There's a great article about Strauss and religious belief in the newest issue of "Free Inquiry" (the one with the cover story about post-Christian Europe and Islam).
I too find the philosophy of Leo Strauss fascinating for its insights into the machiavellian under-pinnings to post-kissinger real-politique.
Shadia Drudy is a world expert on his works, and has drawn much ire for her exposure of his ideas, including the platonic "noble lie"
Here is an audio interview with her that I found very illuminating.
The documentary The Power of Nightmares is also worth checking for its parallels between Qutb's philosophy and those of the neo-cons.
It's all available here, 3 hrs total.
Francis Fukuyama's 'end of history' is now derided as a post-cold war wet dream by over zealous empire; however, even with the flagrant abuses of power (always there but normally kept in 'th back pocket', to quote Madeline Albright) it remains to be seen how the neo-cons remaining vision pans out towards 2008.
It's been a policy of reheated Reaganism: even the 'war on terror' should be called part two. If you look at spacecoms strategy the widening gap between the rich and the poor is simply a given. Old doctrines are being torn up, the United Nations is a 'debating society' and new alliances are forming within the global south. 'Control' of space is shifting towards 'militarization'.
These policies will require even more subtle methods of control of the public mind, unless society forfeits its already partially culled freedoms, perhaps in the wake of another attack on Amercian soil.
Prediction is impossible, but one can be certain that the "noble lies" of Leo Strauss will continue to form the policy for years to come, at least while modern society holds dear to industrial feudalism, to quote John Dewey, and steadfastly refuses to democratize the real centrers of power: the economic ones.
I have only read the first, and that text is one of his fundamental philosophical writings. It explains his anthropology and how the differences in >Wille zur Macht< (wil to power) result in different types of morality. And eventually also explaining how man has to evolve in >der Uebermensch<. If you ever go and read Nietzsche's self proclaimed opus magnum "Also sprach Zarathustra" this work will make it a lot more understandable.
Is the original point that God cannot be all loving, knowing, and powerful Nietzsche's?
Nietzsche really isn't really concerned with proving or diproving god or it's content. He just finds man in a crisis in which god can no longer serve as the ultimate principle for morality.