Michael
May 21st 2009, 08:48 PM
Daktoria posted this link in another thread and it was such a good article on an interesting topic that it just had to have its own thread! :)
Considering that you're a fan of Grant and Nietzsche (despite being an opponent of Strauss), I feel that pages 21-24 of Gregory Butler's essay, Leo Strauss, George Grant, and Historicism (http://www.mmisi.org/ir/31_01/butler.pdf) represent an accurate description of what I'm describing (but the excerpt is far too long to be feasibly presented here).
That's excellent, thank you. That article really does clarify your position quite well, assuming that you are Grant-type Straussian. If not, please clarify. :)
Also, as I noted in the other thread, I very much am a fan of Grant and Nietzsche, despite being an opponent of Strauss. That is an excellent description of my own political philosophy.
* * *
In reply to the ideas of Strauss, Grant and Nietzsche raised in the linked article, it will probably be easiest for me to just list the key points where I diverge from Strauss or Grant, based on the ideas expressed in the article.
1. I share Strauss & Grant's concern about the lack of morality, ethics and the potential dangers of relativism and nihilism. That is my principle theoretical interest in political philosophy.
2. I disagree with Strauss that "knowledge of universal principles of right is indeed possible". I just can't accept this on epistemological grounds since I hold that human knowledge itself is always relative. On most epistemological issues, I'm usually in agreement with Karl Popper.
3. I disagree with Strauss (and Plato) on the utility of 'noble lies' - though, that's probably related to my position referenced in point number #2 above.
4. I disagree with Grant because I'm not much of an admirer of Hegel whom I like to call 'western philosophy's unofficial closet-Buddhist'. Lets just say that I have a hard time accepting wholistic descriptions of the universe's being becoming one with itself over time. Such wholistic interpretations always seem to me to boil down to attempts to force a synthesis of rational philosophy with ideas that are compatible with Judeo-Christian deism (or Buddhistic wholism). A case of putting the cart before the horse as it were, perhaps to salve their own religious consciences. If one is not a deist to begin with, all these 'wholistic' philosophies sound just like religious fables.
5. I disagree with both Strauss & Grant's passion for the "truth of the ancients". I admire the ancient Greeks and believe we can learn much from them, but I'm afraid that conception opens the door to the religious folks and the wisdom of their ancient holy books just as much. It has taken great efforts to clear the field of philosophic study from religious rulership, I see no reason to permit the opportunity of a return to it - which is what this potentially means in political reality, outside of pure theory.
6. I am very much with Grant in breaking from Strauss on Nietzsche. I firmly believe that no political philosophy can stand after Nietzsche, without addressing Nietzsche. That is imperative and I feel that is the fatal flaw in Strauss and Straussian thought for ignoring him completely. I of course disagree with both Grant and Nietzsche himself as the 'best' solution to the morality problem identified by Nietzsche (the problem of Nihilists vs Last Men - I reject that dichotomy and believe a third option exists).
So that's where I stand vis-a-vis Strauss (and Grant and Nietzsche).
I'm ready and willing to defend or explain any of my above points. I've tried to keep each one as brief as possible. :)
Considering that you're a fan of Grant and Nietzsche (despite being an opponent of Strauss), I feel that pages 21-24 of Gregory Butler's essay, Leo Strauss, George Grant, and Historicism (http://www.mmisi.org/ir/31_01/butler.pdf) represent an accurate description of what I'm describing (but the excerpt is far too long to be feasibly presented here).
That's excellent, thank you. That article really does clarify your position quite well, assuming that you are Grant-type Straussian. If not, please clarify. :)
Also, as I noted in the other thread, I very much am a fan of Grant and Nietzsche, despite being an opponent of Strauss. That is an excellent description of my own political philosophy.
* * *
In reply to the ideas of Strauss, Grant and Nietzsche raised in the linked article, it will probably be easiest for me to just list the key points where I diverge from Strauss or Grant, based on the ideas expressed in the article.
1. I share Strauss & Grant's concern about the lack of morality, ethics and the potential dangers of relativism and nihilism. That is my principle theoretical interest in political philosophy.
2. I disagree with Strauss that "knowledge of universal principles of right is indeed possible". I just can't accept this on epistemological grounds since I hold that human knowledge itself is always relative. On most epistemological issues, I'm usually in agreement with Karl Popper.
3. I disagree with Strauss (and Plato) on the utility of 'noble lies' - though, that's probably related to my position referenced in point number #2 above.
4. I disagree with Grant because I'm not much of an admirer of Hegel whom I like to call 'western philosophy's unofficial closet-Buddhist'. Lets just say that I have a hard time accepting wholistic descriptions of the universe's being becoming one with itself over time. Such wholistic interpretations always seem to me to boil down to attempts to force a synthesis of rational philosophy with ideas that are compatible with Judeo-Christian deism (or Buddhistic wholism). A case of putting the cart before the horse as it were, perhaps to salve their own religious consciences. If one is not a deist to begin with, all these 'wholistic' philosophies sound just like religious fables.
5. I disagree with both Strauss & Grant's passion for the "truth of the ancients". I admire the ancient Greeks and believe we can learn much from them, but I'm afraid that conception opens the door to the religious folks and the wisdom of their ancient holy books just as much. It has taken great efforts to clear the field of philosophic study from religious rulership, I see no reason to permit the opportunity of a return to it - which is what this potentially means in political reality, outside of pure theory.
6. I am very much with Grant in breaking from Strauss on Nietzsche. I firmly believe that no political philosophy can stand after Nietzsche, without addressing Nietzsche. That is imperative and I feel that is the fatal flaw in Strauss and Straussian thought for ignoring him completely. I of course disagree with both Grant and Nietzsche himself as the 'best' solution to the morality problem identified by Nietzsche (the problem of Nihilists vs Last Men - I reject that dichotomy and believe a third option exists).
So that's where I stand vis-a-vis Strauss (and Grant and Nietzsche).
I'm ready and willing to defend or explain any of my above points. I've tried to keep each one as brief as possible. :)