About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Saturday, October 23, 2004 - 9:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I am trying to locate Objectivist critiques of the philosophical teachings of Leo Strauss, if any such works exist.  I tried Googling the subject, but did not find anything of any value or depth.  Can anyone help?

Post 1

Saturday, October 23, 2004 - 11:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Pete-

Oh dear... talk about synchronicity!  I just started today posting to a Straussian forum.  I wish I knew of ideal sources for the information you are seeking for.

I once read an interview online in which Douglas Den Uyl described Rand and Strauss jointly as the primary revivalists of philosophy in the XX century, but unfortunately I cannot now myself find it.

I also recommend the following piece by Gregory Johnson.  Johnson mentions Leo Strauss fully in passing, but the content of his commentary could easily serve as a presentation of Strauss to a Randian audience and uses concepts very similar to Strauss's:

http://www.dailyobjectivist.com/Extro/philosophywayoflife.asp

Simply because I myself have just begun discussing the subject, and not (in this aspect!) as an act of shameless self-promotion, you might find my recent comments on Rand and Strauss here  http://www2.bc.edu/~wilsonop/discus/messages/2/47.html?1098590231 to be of interest.  Please note the correction at the bottom of the thread.

I personally have learned an immense amount from Strauss, who taught me both the essentials of philosophy and who gave me a map of the social situation a philosopher as such confronts; unfortunately, I apparently gave my system such a shock following my own version of his advice that I tripped the one wire that could permanently exclude me from philosophy.  Much to my unlooked for joy, but this Pagan Cynic is truly a worse Straussian than a Randian.

my regards,

Pyrophora Cypriana 


Post 2

Sunday, October 24, 2004 - 3:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Pete,

I haven't found any Objectivist critiques of Strauss.  I've been reading his work and quite a bit about the neo-cons and will be doing a presentation on him at an Objectivist meeting in Arizona in late November.  George H. Smith gave a talk about him at the Freedom Summit in Phoenix in October, but I wasn't there. 

However, there is at least one person on SOLO who knows a lot about Strauss. At a break at the TOC Summer Seminar in Vancouver I mentioned that I was reading Strauss to Tibor Machan.  He talked to me for about 10 minutes about Strauss and it was very helpful.  Perhaps a Machan's Musing on the subject could be forthcoming.  It would be very helpful as a starting place.  However, Strauss is of so much importance today I'd recommend doing reading on your own. The best starting place is Natural Right and History.

Bill Perry 


Post 3

Sunday, October 24, 2004 - 9:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeanine & Bill,

Thank you very much for the info.  I am indeed shocked at the lack of Objectivist attention to Strauss given his apparent influence on important people in the U.S.  government.  From what I've read of Strauss thus far, it seems that his principles are largely at odds with Objectivism.  His ideas are intriguing nonetheless...


Post 4

Sunday, October 24, 2004 - 9:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
From Bill Egge:
---------------

Pete Wrote:
<<
I am indeed shocked at the lack of Objectivist attention to Strauss given his apparent influence on important people in the U.S.  government
>>

My main reason is that I do not know about Straus.


Post 5

Sunday, October 24, 2004 - 2:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
From what I understand, Strauss's main and most famous point is completely outside of Objectivism, within fields rand had little, if anything, to say about: namely his premise of esoteric and exoteric meanings. The idea that if you "read between the lines", that Plato and Aristotle and various other thinkers might be saying something different from what they sound like theyre saying only really effects those particular texts, and doesnt conflict terribly much with anything Rand said about anything other than Plato and Aristotle. Strauss's elitism about who is able to "read between the lines" may be discomforting to some Randians, but if you're that scared of the idea that some people are better than others, you never truly wouldve made it through Atlas Shrugged. Unfortunately, his idea of exoteric and esoteric meanings is the only thing at all I know about him, so I can't comment further.

Post 6

Sunday, October 24, 2004 - 4:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,

My understanding of Strauss is that he felt philosophy was intended to be only for a select few among the ruling elites of society because philosophy calls into question the conventional moral assumptions that civil society is based on (mainly belief in God).  By doing so, an alternative morality based on reason is made available to people of mediocre intellect, and this is problematic to Strauss because he believes that it's difficult if not impossible to form absolute moral standards which can be widely agreed upon. Therefore, lesser minds will thus be susceptible to the destructive notions of nihilism and relativism, and the foundations of civil order will erode.  Thus, the powered elites must pass on "noble lies" to the masses (such as religion) to save society (and philosophy) from itself.

Objectivists, on the other hand, generally say that morality and society can and should be based on reason, and that is one area in particular where I see some inherent conflict.     

(Edited by Pete on 10/24, 4:42pm)

(Edited by Pete on 10/25, 7:21am)


Post 7

Sunday, October 24, 2004 - 9:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeanine, regarding the link you provided with your Straussian forum post, I must say I enjoyed your comments and did indeed find them to be of interest. 

I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall during an imaginary meeting between Rand and Strauss where they waxed philosophically for a few hours.  I think they would be in substantial agreement with one another on many issues (but they would certainly have their disagreements).  

Rand and Strauss have a lot in common - both of them were immigrants who fled to America in the wake totalitarian ideologies in their homeland.  Both of them have an immense respect for reason and philosophy, but they differ (at least to me) in that Strauss had a very cynical (but perhaps more accurate) view of the political realities of existense, and Rand was more of an optimist and futurist.


Post 8

Monday, October 25, 2004 - 12:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Pete-

Thank you so much for your kind words!  And especially for this:
I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall during an imaginary meeting between Rand and Strauss where they waxed philosophically for a few hours.

Pete, Oh, this is the kind of thing I would die to live for.  Seriously, there is nothing I enjoy in life so much as being in such living breathing company.  One can do much of this through books, but it's not the same.  It's what I originally hoped for in Objectivism; the chance to talk to real life Danneskjolds and Hugh Akstons of the world.  What I've found out is that it is possible, but only if you get your own stature; the problem with this is that you can only acquire it by an independence that makes normal life shut the door on you before you have the stature to stand and deliver.  That is one thing Strauss did- he really spoke to this problem- and made me think about the conditions under which I would have a chance to use my mind, and how deal with society.  Because of Strauss I have a reasonable chance to exist in the moonlight of such pleasures.

It might seem strange, but Strauss had a lot to do with how I ended up choosing the Life.  Strauss talks of the ancient cultivation by philosophers of alliances with 'gentleman', by which he means aristocrats interested in honor, status, beauty, and pleasure, whom are less hostile to philosophy (and the fine arts) than a degraded and ignorant demos.  I'm not entirely sure if Strauss read ancient history correctly; the plebs were much wiser and smarter than their often given credit for (did you know ancient Athens saw organized antiwar protests?).  But Strauss did very well describe my experience with contemporary culture; bourgeois, mainstream society reacted to me in hatred and fear (partially my own fault, but not mainly), and I got nowhere slowly trying to find a perch within it, and realized I would never find the time to write in it.  What Strauss taught me is that those trying to make an 'American dream' tied to the myths of our culture are inherently suspicious of anything outside their culture... but that the erotic or aesthetic pursuit of pleasure, where such social identities have already been laid aside, will finally allow for appreciation of the faculties, where I'd actually be rewarded, not punished, for giving my best.  (and academia was closed to me, as I simply could not stomach their positivist methods)

In other words, the client-escort relation is one which reverts to precisely the same rules as ancient aristocratic patronage, which is something that I am perfectly comfortable with; it's certainly better than having a Protestant Ethic boss standing over your shoulder.  Many of the true philosophers were courtiers, and others chose strange jobs that would maximize independence; Thales was a merchant, Maimonides a physician, Descartes a mercenary, Spinoza a lens-grinder.

Courtesanship was the same route, the only route, open to intelligent women for most of history; my own models are Aspasia and Veronica Franco.  And long after this, intelligent females took lovers under the same considerations of economics and intellectual friendship; Mme. de Stael, Lou Salome, Harriet Taylor, and Simone de Beauviour all show a personality complex that would be very recognizable in the ancient world.

I looked at my situation as a transgender girl, which unfortunately places me outside much of modernity (which I think is far more of an incomplete project than Objectivists are willing to admit), and I read the books of ancient history, read Strauss' delineation of the philosopher's situation... and moved towards making an angry experiment in prostitution into a new life.

The magic still works.  Strauss proved to be a very practical guide to this world; of course, I'm not alone in the general conclusions... there are actually lots of artistic females who in a society would will judge their careers by all women collectively (and puts up severe barricades against any individualists without connections or resources, which females who rebel against social conventions seldom have), and make the same observations I found in Strauss and go the same route.  Life really hasn't changed all that much since patriarchal civilization, I'm afraid.  Not that I am personally complaining... quite a lot of sex workers discover, as I did, that this life is an art and a passion... the only problem it too much a passion for philosophy's comfort,

But it was precisely the 'cynical' Straussian conception of history that really set my head on straight in terms of recognizing the world; the result was I stopped agonizing over a miserable situation and years of rejection that had just not made sense under my Randian framework where I expected my value to be recognized.  Strauss taught me that.. duh!... society doesn't pay for people to question its values, and most people who are glued to society will react accordingly.  But erotic and aesthetic value, which intelligence can translate into, can be appreciated by a wide enough portion of humanity (Strauss's 'gentlemen') to make life sustainable, while giving the time and exposure to humanity necessary for an intellectual life.  What I never expected was that the Life is an intellectual life, and that 'escorts' have their own serious oral history of ideas, and that it would introduce me to passions that would seriousuly alter my ideas and self-concept.

Oh dear, I have gone on...apologies, but I much appreciate seeing someone who sees the same values I do, and my learning from Strauss has been utterly central to my new life...

.. so let me conclude with the observation that the late philosopher Leo Strauss is my effective agent!

curiously,

Jeanine Ring 

(Edited by Jeanine Ring on 10/26, 6:48pm)


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 6:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeanine,
I am about to commit a big blunder, but I am too curious - are you saying that you are a prostitute?  and a transgender one?


Post 10

Thursday, October 28, 2004 - 10:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Msr. Zhang,

                     one commits no blunder for asking an honest question of fact; I am a courtesan, thus a sex worker, and proudly so.  Originally, 'twas only an experiment with a fantasy and a form of going "on strike" against a world that had never valued any talent of my mind.  But I found out, to my great surprise, that I found in the Life both a true joy and an art of existing as a crafted personality that has become a passion, and as well a means to keep the time and independence for art and literary philosophy.  As such, I chose courtesanship as a career, and life has been exotic and strange ever since.

     I have always been fascinated by sex work, recently in the contemporary pro-sex feminism of an Annie Sprinkle or Carol Leigh; otherwise from an amateur historians interest in classical history, whose social record has been so greviously distorted by Christian and proto-Christian writers I am tempted to say that 'classical' period is a false concept(see my post on 'sacred sexuality').  When I became transgendered and suddenly found myself in a body that could be beautiful, I took the courage to live out what I had never had the courage to admit was my desire.

    I admit here that I realizes- after the choice- that I did not have many other options.  It was not about finances, it is simply that I had found my whole life that an experimental and flamboyant personality uneased and terrified most authority figures, I suspect because part of the price you pay in out society for being allowed a forum for 'success' is to suppress your color, your passion, your boldness, and learn to wear the same suit, tie, and 'sensible' interests as everyone else; when someone openly finds their enjoyment in expressions denied, doors are slammed by the 'respectable'.  Being transgendered, with a feminine style disturbing apparent to everyone but myself, did not help.  I had gone through years where universities, employers, landlords, etc. slammed evasive doors in my face, and I got very sick of the Horatio Alger, Republican demand I take their injustice as my guilt in not 'making it' in Big Brave Nation.

     So when an experiment in living struck, not gold essentially, but happiness, I decided to switch my view of life from an artist-philosopher's to a courtesan's.  And I suddenly found that being explicit and proud about what I wanted in life, the color and passion that I, working, may live, but most cannot afford, and the defense of this life's excellences, cost me little but the rejection of fear-choked bigots who had always thrown snide execration my way anyway... but that those of intellect and gracious spirit were willing to check their premises in the face of manifest quality.  The mainstream world, which always tied its judgements of competence to one's willingness to shoulder a Protestant Ethic of social duty, would not tolerate my talents.. unless I paid prices in authenticity I just could not pay and want to live.  This world, in which 'morality' is not pretended and people do not repress but enact real desires, is one where there is a real trader principle, because happiness never in itself springs from evil.  In the straight world, I was valued to the degree I could bootleg technical ability past a repression of selfish joy.  In this world, while it occurs to few to give any credit to me or my abilities, I am implicitly valued and explicitly rewarded to the degree of my passion and enthusiasm, not to the degree of repression.  As someone for whom the 'creative', not the technical, aspect of the virtue of productivity is primary, the ability to make my life in the creation of desirable personae has given me my passion back.

     That says, the Life does have its dangers, and not merely the instrumental dangers created by the malicious activities of state and an irrational, sexphobic society which believes one's eroticism should be hidden behind closed doors.  And I don't mean the overpublicized risks, which I once feared greatly but research has convinced me are outrageously exaggerated.  What I mean is that the Life is an intensified kin or subspecies of the performing arts, and it requires the ability to shift the soul to different angles of value without losing integrity.  This is not impossible, and is achieved by any successful sex worker.  But it is difficult and does require a polyvalent conception of personality antithetical to our civilization's Augustian/Cartesian heritage.  Such specialization enacts a Price in spirit; then again, so do all specializations.  But I am saddened that art is more appropriate to me now than philosophy, and that such artistic excellence as I can create will not be recognize as much beyond sensationalism.  But I can do my art, and it is mine, in a way that those who make the compromises of respectability will never truthfully say.

    And unfortunately, too much and certainly the most visible aspects of the Life are drenched in a mediocrity which is simply the crude sex wanted by a society that denounces sex as crude.  I am doing my best to seek venues insulated from this kind of thing; I do not respond, nor do people when they are free of social judgement so much respond, to our 'male values' four-letter-word notions of sexuality.  But that is not the entire industry; I myself have taken classes here in San Francisco on erotic massage, tantra*, oral sex, and read up on a literature I did not know existed, and it is truly shocking to realize just how vast the range of sexual pleasure is that is taboo in our society.   And I am still pretty new to the Life and consider myself at bare competence as a sex worker, and still in training as a courtesan and professional submissive; I look ahead and am a little overwhelmed by what I should really learn, from art history and classical history (your teacher did not tell you how the isharatru practiced, or the details of initiation to the Korai, I can be rather certain), to music, dance, to wine (my tardy thanks to a reader for help here)... actually, as a great deal of doing the Life well is, like comedy, a matter of timing, I seriously propose that mathematics and Newtonian physics might make good preparatory study for a courtesan... I say this because my vision of the life in a better world is one that restores an ancient art to its proper place as an art of persona, of which professional sex is only the foundation and simplest variety (though perfectly honorable).  Aspasia and Diotima, whom Socrates and Pericles treated as equals, need to be reborn in a world where social freedom is being recreated.  So too do I think it an idea whose time has nearly come for a subtradition of erotic philosophy to compete explicitly again in the free market of ideas.  Christianity all but destroyed the vocation of eroticism in the same movement as the closings of the libraries of philosophers and in the same edicts of prohibitions for actors and actresses.  As that is the legacy that founded Plymouth and the Progressive Era, I intend to live beside this culture's history.

That said, please understand that as I live in the state of California, I am an 'escort' not a 'prostitute', as an escort sells legally only social companionship and does not engage in 'sex for money'.  I am not a 'prostitute' because 'prostitution' is illegal and the title invites one to discover that jail is a sexually transmitted disease.  Besides, there is a more substantial difference in concepts; 'escort' has six letters, while 'prostitute' has ten.

I hope my position is clear given the Objectivist conception of the essentials of definition.

anyway, my regards,

and fear imprudence but not offense in asking for truth

Jeanine Ring  ))(*)((

* tantra works... and how!; the implications are empiricism's problems, not mine 


Post 11

Thursday, October 28, 2004 - 11:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeanine,
Thank you so much for your elaborated answer! You've made things perfectly clear for me and even answered my un-asked questions (re: Californian law :-) ). The world oldest profession certainly prevails. Anyway, this is a fascinating topic, but we probably don't want to get this forum or anybody in trouble... 

My regards,

Hong 

(BTW, it is Mme. Zhang, if it makes difference to you).

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 10/28, 1:25pm)

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 10/28, 1:29pm)


Post 12

Thursday, October 28, 2004 - 4:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Whoah...

That is hot.





-Michael


Post 13

Thursday, October 28, 2004 - 6:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael, look away. This is a NC-17 thread. :-)

Post 14

Friday, October 29, 2004 - 10:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Madame Hong

I thank you greatly for your kind words concerning my profession; yes, we are still going strong, albeit in more shadow in today's regime of erotic barbarism.  And not one I mind discussing abstractly as such; I am ashamed of nothing and do not condone 'discreet' hypocrisy; I do greatly appreciate your respect for my prudence.  And, seriously, it means something personal to hear a smile upon the life I lead.

If you wish, I did discuss the issue of an Objectivist defense of sex work on another forum here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/atlantis_II/message/11805.  Unfortunately, I must report the result of my experience in the involved debate which followed was to steel my own clarity in convictions but to lose my sense of belonging in Objectivism.

I am also more liberal in discussion with my own group, Salon Total Freedom at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Salon_Total_Freedom/.

And apologies for errors; and per your wondering, oh, no, doesn't matter at all.  Like many of my sisters I'm a firm believer in equal opportunity.  ;o

may you and your chosen friends flourish,

Jeanie Shiris Ring  ))()((



Post 15

Friday, October 29, 2004 - 10:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Pete-

I agree for the main part of your interpretation of Strauss, with one correction: Strauss did not think philosophy was for ruling elites, but for intellectual elites.  Strauss viewed the philosopher as existing in a precarious, difficult position vis a vis the established social order and while he said philosophers have (properly) made a large attempt to influence the court in a direction suitable for their security, a philosopher is not a ruler by nature and that a philosophy which attempts to mold society in essentials for its purposes (i.e., the Enlightenment) will end up being molded by society.  "He who lies down with dogs, will get up with fleas."  Strauss emphasized heavily, for instance, that Plato's Republic was not supposed to be a blueprint for an ideal society but rather a teaching that nothing will be right in human society because a ruling philosophy is an illusion.  I'm not sure Strauss is entirely right about the Republic, which I think is self-conflicted on the issue, but the point remains.  Indeed, Strauss viewed rulers as, at best, 'gentlemen', educated people of liesure who appreciated the philosopher as a useless trophy or court adornment; Struass thought they were the best useful idiots philosophers had to work on but did not essentially praise them.

my regards,

Jeanie Ring   ))()((


Post 16

Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 10:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeanine, you seem to be somewhat of a Strauss scholar. Regarding Strauss' thought, I have but a single question:

What was more important to him, Individualism (along with the periodic - but transient - chaos which Individualism entails); or Order (along with the permanent safety, security, and welfare which Order promises us)?

Ed

Post 17

Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 11:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed-

Strauss was ultimately interested in the Individualism of the philosopher, meaning a person exclusively dedicated to happiness via awareness of truth.  But Strauss believed that society should be grounded anciently and firmly in Order for the philosopher's sake, and that an Individualistic society was at the least a danger to be kept fully saddled and reigned.  He dedicated most of his public prose and exoteric teaching to reestablishing that Order.  His followers in power, who do Strauss' work without his spirit, are dedicated to that Order for its own sake.

And in honesty I'm unfortunately no Strauss scholar, and I do not think I can say I'm a student of philosophy; I am simply a gentlewoman, the only honest way one can be one.  I'm truly only moderately read in Strauss; what I know comes first orally from a beloved Straussian mentor of my former life.

As for my own importances, I am a dialectician, who would integrate the nuclei of the polarities of chaos and the law; I side partially with each side.   But I would hold, with Proudhon, "Order not the mother, but the daughter, of liberty."  As such I am firmly comitted against Strauss to beginning in deep water and individualism.

ciao,

Herakleita in Exile  ))()((



Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.