Strauss Under the Gun

By -
I have read almost no Strauss. But my friend Ken McIntyre has, and doesn't like what he has read anymore than does Paul Gottfried. Nice quote from the end of the review:

"Finally, regarding the phenomenon of Straussianism, the cult took hold here for the same reasons that cults generally succeed in the U.S.: ignorance, inexperience, and a desire to have a simple answer to complex problems."

Comments

  1. Gabe Ruth10:56 PM

    Thanks for the link. I wish Gottfried's bitterness didn't dominate his writing so much, because he's got alot of important things to say. I looked up the rest of that exchange between Strauss and Voegelin you posted a part of the other day. I think his part provides some relevant insight into his character.

    On a tangential note, is there more than one way in which the term historicism is meant? I've understood it to mean the idea that events and ideas must be seen in their full historical context to be properly understood and appreciated. Yet the article lists it as one of Strauss' betes noires. I can see how universalism would conflict with historicism, but for a person who seeks to understand the true intent of dead philosophers the context in which they wrote would seem to be important. I've been confused by how people use the word before.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more