Strauss and the Foundations of "The Right"
#1
You may have heard that certain prominent names are influenced by a certain "Strauss", and that being influenced by this "Strauss" character carries certain implications, which we should all be concerned about. We have at least one user on the forum who considers this question worth serious thought, and I believe that all serious thoughts should be given a proper place. I have no strong thoughts of my own on this subject at present but will consider editing this OP later if asked. Casual Rapist's posts in the shoutbox on the 11th elaborate on the subject at some length if you're curious, but ideally we'll be able to discuss it further here, in a more structured manner.

[Image: https://i.ibb.co/gzMzdtL/image.png]

If you are at all interested in this man please post about him here.
#2
Leo Strauss is interesting because he's Nietzsche's greatest academic expositor. He's quoted as saying that from the age of 20 to 30 he was completely obsessed with Nietzsche, once you read and reflect on this it becomes clear I think how all of his subsequent work came from Nietzsche's insights. Of course, Strauss was very averse to rocking the boat politically so he tries to hide and cover up this stuff later on in his career, as did many of his students who were even more committed believers in liberal democracy. Lawrence Lampert is your best available resource on "esoteric Straussianism," i.e, Nietzscheanism. Lampert was studying theology when he became obsessed with Nietzsche, turned to Leo Strauss to better understand Nietzsche, and then discovered Strauss' own hidden Nietzscheanism. Because Lampert isn't part of any Straussian school he doesn't feel the need to engage in esotericism or suppress anything out of some sense of loyalty, he's an out-and-out Nietzschean and he wants to expose Strauss for being this as well. You can find Lampert's papers on JSTOR and his books online or on libgen. 

Strauss had an excellent impact on the academic study of philosophy in the United States. Academics trained in his "school" are notable for taking the thinkers they study very seriously and treating them with respect, "on their own terms," or "as they wanted to be understood," as opposed to from a condescending, smug modern liberal perspective. Straussian thinkers frequently find new and interesting ways to appreciate great thinkers. For example, Straussian scholars argued that Locke was significantly more influenced by Hobbes than he ever admitted, and recent letter discoveries vindicate this. 

I'll post more on Strauss when I get the chance. I find the subject very interesting.
#3
(12-17-2022, 11:42 AM)Francois Wrote: I'll post more on Strauss when I get the chance. I find the subject very interesting.

Excellent post. Thank you for the elaboration. I might look into Lampert.
#4
Leo Strauss is a Prince for Judaizers.
#5
(12-19-2022, 12:25 AM)casual rapist Wrote: Leo Strauss is a Prince for Judaizers.

You see this is the kind of thing you should say in the shitbox.
#6
I'll admit that I mainly got into Strauss because of BAP's mentioning of him. Now that BAP's old accounts are back up you can do searches to appreciate his particular perspective. At the risk of being presumptuous, I would say that BAP, like Lampert, is an exoteric Nietzschean who's appreciation of Nietzsche and of previous European philosophy perhaps owes a bit to Strauss. (Incidentally, I got Lampert's development wrong in my previous post. He went from Heidegger, to Strauss, to Nietzsche. It's funny that both BAP and Lampert hold Heidegger in very low regard.) 

One can appreciate Strauss without making any reference to BAP, though. As I said in my previous post, Strauss' students are basically the best scholars of philosophy in America. Simply put, Strauss is correct about philosophers engaging in esoteric writing and understanding this opens up vast new possibilities for appreciation of great thinkers. Arthur Melzer's book Philosophy Between the Lines is the most accessible and convincing argument for this. I would encourage you to use the Google books preview to just read the epigrams, one from Diderot and one from Rousseau, where philosophic esotericism is taken for granted. 

The effect of all this is to encourage taking a very humble and inquisitive posture when reading the great thinkers, but it also makes reading these thinkers a lot more fun, in my opinion. Strauss and Harvey Mansfield show how Machiavelli, for example, was not just a cunning Italian republican with cynical political tips, a "frustrated politician," but a lunatic aspiring cult-leader seeing himself as akin to Jesus with an ambition to completely tear down the European philosophical and political order. 

As to Strauss being a "judaizer," well, yes, he was Jewish, and he held many distinctly Jewish political opinions. I gather that the people who make these kinds of actions don't care about or understand the distinction between Hellenism and Talmudic Judaism, so I'll skip past all that. Strauss supported Zionism, he disparaged the Nazis in a letter to Karl Lowith, and he delivered a ludicrous and stupid panegyric to Winston Churchill at a talk during WWII. Being slightly ethnocentric and holding flawed but understandable political opinions does not preclude one from being correct about simple scholarly questions. Have faith in your own powers of discernment to be able to read about Hobbes and Machiavelli and not get subconsciously mind-poisoned by Judaism. You can find letters where Strauss worked himself into a joyful hysteria over the beauty and subtlety of Herodotus and various other Greek thinkers; it's clear to me that he didn't view himself as opposed to, or an enemy of, white Europeans and Western Civilization.

A good place to start for Laurence Lampert, by the way, is the chapter "Nietzsche and Plato" which he wrote for Nietzsche and Antiquity, available as a pdf on libgen.

On Strauss as corruptor: The valid Rightist criticism of Strauss is that he and his students take young men with the potential and energy to change society and convince them that being a real Nietzschean is all about belonging to an academic book club that secretly discusses inequality but outwardly maintains liberal democracy and egalitarianism. The effect is to completely reverse and undermine Nietzsche's intent, but Strauss was able to do this because no other academic took Nietzsche seriously. 

https://jaccusepaper.substack.com/p/the-...the-end-of
#7
You must be the most blue pilled forum member here, huh?

(12-19-2022, 04:02 PM)Francois Wrote: As I said in my previous post, Strauss' students are basically the best scholars of philosophy in America.

Yeah and it's a retarded statement. 

There is no epistemology in Strauss.  Consequently his students have no idea the concern even exists.  They speak from a perspective of naive realism.  A simple reality of material objects and metaphysical propositions alike, anything else is "Leftism"! (They really are retards.) 

This means they have a piss poor grasp of philosophy and, consequently, speak like posturing retards. 

Your boy Lampert offers what he himself calls "the most damning" criticism of Strauss, that he didn't sufficiently deal with Modernity.  It's a similar observation, concerns of epistemology are fundamental to modernity. 

Kind of a big deal since one of Strauss' principle themes is "Ancients vs Moderns".

Whenever someone schooled by the Straussian rabbinate uses the word "philosophy" (which they do all the time), as a listener you should swap it out for "platonism".  This the most generous adjustment we can make in their favor. 

Of course, it will then attract the attention of legit scholars of the Classics, and the Straussian will get schooled beyond their "boutique discoveries".  One thing you should note: Straussians are very selective in what they use from any thinker.  Similar to their treatment of American history, much is left on the cutting room floor.  Hopefully you won't notice and ask questions.

The valid criticism of Strauss that you offer up is misdirection.  The valid criticism is that he's a kike.
#8
Do you believe you have any serious political disagreements with Straussians which can be traced back to these problems you have with the philosophy?
#9
(12-22-2022, 10:43 PM)anthony Wrote: Do you believe you have any serious political disagreements with Straussians which can be traced back to these problems you have with the philosophy?

We should let Fran reply to the points above.  Necessity of epistemology to philosophy.  If no and in favor of naive realism, do you really have a philosophy?  And I'm sure he's familiar with their discourse, would swapping out "philosophy" for "platonism" make it more coherent?

If you want to jump ahead to application to politics, a mini example would be recent exchange between Z-man and Anton. 
Read Z-man first: https://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=28720
And then Anton: https://amgreatness.com/2022/12/17/natur...-reproach/
#10
CR's responses are totally fair. Yes, Strauss and his students tend to neglect epistemology. Their main focus is political philosophy, which they justify by pointing out that politics reveals the practical consequences of a philosopher's ideas. When Straussians say "philosophy" what they mean is "political philosophy," that's a better substitute than "Platonism" since Plato certainly didn't neglect epistemology. I enjoy this Straussian approach, to be frank I just find it more engaging. 

CR you mainly seem to be attacking the enthusiastic liberal democrat Straussians of the Claremont institute, all of whom are students of Harry Jaffa. Jaffa is Strauss' student who tried the hardest to turn his exoteric gestures of friendliness towards liberalism into a rigorous and sort of ridiculous doctrine of eternal natural rights from Aristotle to Abraham Lincoln. Jaffaites are a loud but small segment of the Straussian world. Seth Benardete is a good example of a widely respected Strauss student who didn't have anything to do with Jaffa or his politics. 

The conversation between Zman and Anton is centered on Jaffa and his concern for natural rights. I would have thought my pointing to Strauss' Nietzscheanism would have been enough to make it clear that I don't think the Claremont scholars need to be taken all that seriously. But my statement about Straussians being "the best scholars of philosophy" was a reckless overstatement, fair enough. 

Politically Strauss goes all over the place. I mentioned his Fascist letter to Karl Löwith, there's also a considerable exchange between Strauss and Carl Schmitt. Heinrich Meier is a Schmitt scholar who has written a lot on the topic.
#11
(12-22-2022, 10:43 PM)anthony Wrote: political disagreements with Straussians which can be traced back to these problems you have with the philosophy?


To all zoomers, the Straussians are at it again-

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2...untlet.php

You have 3 days to comment.  And castigate they ass.
#12
(12-31-2022, 12:19 AM)casual rapist Wrote:
(12-22-2022, 10:43 PM)anthony Wrote: political disagreements with Straussians which can be traced back to these problems you have with the philosophy?


To all zoomers, the Straussians are at it again-

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2...untlet.php

You have 3 days to comment.  And castigate they ass.

Haven't listened to this but I did get around to looking at the two pieces linked above. I have to say I still don't see the issue.


[-]
Quick Reply
Message
Type your reply to this message here.

Human Verification
Please tick the checkbox that you see below. This process is used to prevent automated spam bots.



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)