Journal Morosoph's Journal: Straussian Text 7
But I have to admit that I am fascinated by the concept of the Straussian text (para. six). Quoting the article:
"The key Straussian concept is the Straussian text, which is a piece of philosophical writing that is deliberately written so that the average reader will understand it as saying one ("exoteric") thing but the special few for whom it is intended will grasp its real ("esoteric") meaning. The reason for this is that philosophy is dangerous. Philosophy calls into question the conventional morality upon which civil order in society depends; it also reveals ugly truths that weaken men's attachment to their societies..."
To bring to mind two personal influences, I see the I Ching as a canonical example of this, and Nietzsche as the exact opposite. Or rather the same, but with a different end in mind.
First the I Ching: to many westerners, the I Ching is hocus-pocus. A book to consult as one would an astrological chart, or the tarot, and the source of many trendy concepts of harmony and resonance. But the I Ching is a Chinese text, and is a conservative work that appears to strongly endorce social norms and values. This is the exoteric meaning: harmony from conformity. But there is a deeper, more liberal strain within it: reading the text carefully, you see that this conformity is in fact how one gets ahead, and in positions of power, one is expected to be magnaminous and lenient. This is still a conservative order of society, though. As one traces things back to their sources, one finds that there is embedded a Nietzschian subtext: The Creative comes first, represented by the Dragon, a symbol of the power of genius. Throughout the texts are references to the forming of moral laws, and changing the laws and the standards... The sage is a creator of values; knowing how values regulate society, he actively designs them so as to regulate the masses, and that includes the Ruler's conduct...
Nietzsche superficially attacks the basis of morality within western society. He attacks Christianity using arguments that closely parallel libertarian attacks upon Socialism. He wishes to restore the individual, characterising a healthy society as one that can tolerate those superficially harmful to it, in fact developing a hardiness from such tolerance. He encourages self-expression, and the overturning of moral norms, that able minds should be creators of values, form and extend their own standards of good and evil. He does this because he believes that our values are in fact ones that are created by our rulers for their convenience. Christianity gets it in the neck for its encouragement of sheepish conformity. To Nietzsche, the genius should be regulated only by competition; monopoly power being the only excuse for tearing one down. The exoteric meaning of his text, then, is that of what, in popular parlence would be called "anarchy".
Esoterically, his philosophy goes far deeper, and converges with the I Ching. Nietzsche's "Overman" is a kind of sage; like the Taoist sage, he rises above arbitary value-systems, and even the desire to create particular systems. He reaches a point "beyond good and evil"; a kind of "objectivity". The Overman as an ideal induces creators of values as the second tier. Nietzsche writes for the teachers' teachers. He wants to restore the noble values that he feels that Christianity's collectivism has undermined, and indeed his work is well-read, and poorly understood. Perhaps this was the intention: Nietzsche is rejected by most as a rabble-rouser; a sign of teenage rebellion to be outgrown. Thus camouflaged, he coaches the next generation of intellectuals.
My own personal judgement is that Nietzsche failed: although he wrote forcefully and continuously against collectivism, his philosophy is written to induce a high, and appeals to (emotional) collectivists because of this. Dishonestly formed bastard children are the result of this: individualism is then suppressed as those not filled with revolutionary fervour are taken to be neo-capitalist spokesmen for received ideas. "If you disagree with me, you're not thinking for yourself". Nietzsche attempts to be beyond left and right. Sadly, to most, he only serves to deepen prejudice, since people convince themselves that their received views are their own, and it is their right as 'Nietzschians' to enforce them.
Maybe Leo Strauss has a point. You need to be careful of both the exoteric, and the esoteric content of what you write, and (presumably) say. I can certainly tell you that I wish I had, a few years ago!
interesting (Score:2)
there are a great many diagnoses that are a description, nothing more. They cannot define either the etiology or the boundaries of the process in question. And not all cases of things are equal. So in the end, definitions like Asperger's can frequently prove near-useless in describing one's experience, even the experience of a patient whose experience really NEEDS to be described.
run into this with my stuff all
Re:interesting (Score:2)
No surprise there.
I really need to read some philosophy. I tend to be lazy and stick with escapist fantasy and sci-fi. If I were well read, I could back it up with powerful quotes whenever I'm full of shit.
It really is an interesting article. I'm picturing Strauss as the great wyrm devouring its own tail, assuming he too wrote Straussian texts.
Strauss as the great wyrm (Score:2)
You beat me to it ;o)
The article has an answer, of a kind...
Re:interesting (Score:2)
This is all true, though sadly, I was in therapy before Asperger's became the trendy affliction that is is today (at least it
What I Now Need to Do (Score:2)
Having read the FrontPage article, I'm left with this nagging thought that liberal thought is not meant, intended or otherwise likely to create Nihilism, nor do I think most "liberal" thinkers are automatically mo
Misleading (Score:2)
I'm certainly interested in personal responsibility, but my real interest in the Straussian T
Re:Misleading (Score:2)
Devil's advocasy is a great tool. I usually see it with a preamble, like. "Say if there was ..." Devils advocate arguments typically belie the writer's real believes with, actually, moral infliciton. Such as the classic, "... though I could never bring myself to ..." Where it is done convincingly is, actually, what I would consider a we