Thought-Factory.net Philosophical Conversations Public Opinion philosophy.com Junk for code
hegel
"When philosophy paints its grey in grey then has a shape of life grown old. By philosophy's grey in grey it cannot be rejuvenated but only understood. The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of dusk." -- G.W.F. Hegel, 'Preface', Philosophy of Right.
RECENT ENTRIES
SEARCH
ARCHIVES
Library
Links - weblogs
Links - Political Rationalities
Links - Resources: Philosophy
Public Discussion
Resources
Cafe Philosophy
Philosophy Centres
Links - Resources: Other
Links - Web Connections
Other
www.thought-factory.net
'Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainity and agitation distinquish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones ... All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned.' Marx

Leo Strauss in Australia « Previous | |Next »
June 14, 2005

The Australian 'Leo Strauss' is the one associated with the activities of his American disciples, many of whom are deeply involved with Republican and neoconservative politics. Hence we have the efforts to trace the Straussian influence in the corridors of power in the current Bush administration.

Such a reading is based on this kind of material. The duality interpretation appears to be the one adopted. On the one hand, Strauss created the hard core of the "esoterics," like the late Allan Bloom, Paul Wolfowitz, Werner Dannhauser, Thomas Pangle, and many others, who share Leo Strauss's secret Nietzschean doctrines, and secretly view themselves as Nietzschean "supermen," or "philosophers."

On the other hand, around this inner group, is the softer outer layer of the "exoterics," like William Bennett, Harry Jaffa, etc who are loyal to Strauss and his sect, but at the same time innocent of Strauss's actual views and committed to versions of traditional morality, patriotism and religion.

Most Australian academics have not read Strauss, nor are they ever likely to, as they have lost connection with the philosophical tradition that Strauss was at home in. Most of the lefty (ALP) academics work in the post-positivist social sciences (economics, sociology and history)and have little understanding of the political philosophical tradition. So they rely on secondary texts with their dubious interpretations, and have no way of evaluating the competing interpretations of Strauss's texts.

Tis guilt by association.

A quote from this review of Anne Norton, Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire, gives the flavour. The review argues that the US Straussians aim to create an American empire and to carry out a project of universal dominion. Norton notes that he [Leo Strauss] travelled in the orbit of Martin:

"Heidegger and Carl Schmitt, the twin philosophers of the Third Reich, and that their suspicions---about liberal democracy, the Enlightenment and rootless cosmopolitanism---run throughout his work. Thus it is hard to see the Straussians as anything less than emblematic figures of the American right, which shares far more affinities with the spirit of the European counter-revolution than we might think."

Maybe; in the sense that both were opposed to the modern Lockean doctrine of natural right that is based on possessive self-ownership.

However, unlike the European conservative counter revolution (Heidegger) Strauss grounded his philosophy on classical natural right that rests upon a (Aristotlean) teleological view of nature, i.e., one that states the nature of things is found in their perfections.

A critical review of Norton's text. What we get in Australia is a dismissal of Heidegger and Schmitt because of their politics. It is assumed that their philosophy is so deeply contaminated by their politics that it is fascist and to be attacked.

What we have in Australia is liberalism defending itself from criticisms by gatekeeping that keeps the borders closed and allows no foreign bodies in. Strauss is rejected because he is a conservative critical of liberalism. There is no need to examine the arguments that highlight the flaws of liberalism because it is conservatism that is the problem, not liberalism. So Strauss is rejected because of his politics.

| Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 10:46 PM | | Comments (3)
Comments

Comments

What a bunch of malarkey! Norton's remark, that is--I find your comment on it apt. Strauss' Natural Right and History is, in large part, a critique of Heidegger, and when Straussians talk about nihilists, they are addressing themselves to Heidegger's legacy. As far as Strauss' involvement with Schmitt goes, that was pretty much limited to a letter of reccomendation and his notes on Schmitt's Concept of the Political. As far as I can tell, neither Strauss nor Schmitt actually communicated word one with one another after the war.

What about Kojeve? It always gets my goat how folks try to impute some sinister Straussian plot and play up Strauss' connection to Schmitt, which was minor and ephemeral, and completely ignore his connection to Kojeve, which was a lifelong friendship. Strauss' friendship with Kojeve points to the fact that you don't have to be a fascist to harbor suspicions about liberal democracy.

Scott,
I introduced Norton to illustrate the poverty of thinking in academia even though it is a non- Australian text.

They do not care that they dump Strauss even though they have not read a single text; nor are they embarrased by not having provided arguments for their interpretation of Strauss's texts based on secondary literature.

What the secondary literature says is fine because it accords with their political prejudices.

I have not read the Strauss/Kojeve literature but I will do so. Is this the place to start? They must have clashed bitterly over 'historicism.'

Of course, I can guess the reaction. Mentioning Kojeve is just as bad because this guy is into the cult of purgative violence, tyranny and the terrors of revolution. Hence we have the Strauss-Kojève sect. There is no need to read further than Shadia Drury,'s Alexandre Kojeve: The Roots of Post-Modern Politics (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1994). Hell, the title says it all.

Scott,
I deleted your comments by mistake. Can you remember them? If so can you repost?