STRAUSSIAN ANTI-PHILOSOPHY: THREE COUNTER ARGUMENTS AGAINST LEO STRAUSS' PHILOSOPHY OF NIHILISM, ESOTERICISM, AND SOCIAL PRAGMATISM.
By Antifascist
Leo Strauss (September 20, 1899 - October 18, 1973), served as a member of the faculty of the University of Chicago, chiefly as a professor of political philosophy. His primary influence in academia remains confined to political science departments. Notable Straussians include: Allan Bloom, Thomas Pangle, Leon Kass, Harry V. Jaffa, Martin Diamond, Ralph Lerner, and George Anastaplo. Leo Strauss saw himself as a conservative, and for the most part, "Straussians" have become closely associated with certain factions within the U.S. Republican Party.
Leo Strauss' fascist philosophical thought is composed of three essential elements:
1. Straussian Philosophy is a philosophy of Nihilism.
QUOTE
The philosopher/superman is that rare man who can face the truth: that there is no God; that the universe cares nothing for men or mankind; and that all of human history is nothing more than an insignificant speck in the cosmos, which no sooner began, than it will vanish forever without a trace. There is no morality, no good and evil, and of course any notion of an afterlife is an old wives' tale. Source: Secret Kingdom of Leo Strauss
Wikipedia defines ‘nihilism’ as the following:
QUOTE
Nihilism in its moral or ethical sense is a complete rejection of all systems of authority, morality, and social custom. Either through the rejection of previously accepted bases of belief or through extreme relativism or skepticism, the nihilist believes that none of these claims to power are valid, and often that they should be fought against.
On the subject of morality specifically, nihilism concludes that relativism renders the project of normative ethics, and the concepts of good and evil, meaningless - though not necessarily with the intent to follow this with any conclusions about society or authority, as there is no correct form for either social institutions or practical morality.Definition of Nihilism
Counter agument against Straussian Nilihilism: If nilihilism is true, then how can one agrue that Strauss’s philosophy is better than any other philosophy? Strauss is agruing that it is better to believe in his philosophy that not to believe in his philosophical thought. But if the universe is absent of any value, then how can one agrue Straussian beleifs are ‘better’ since ‘better’ is a value judgement? If Straussian nilihilism is true, then it is has to be false.
2. Straussian Philosophy is a philosophy of Deception.
Strauss believed the great philosophers like Plato understood the reality of nihilism and hid this truth in their writings--Plato of all thinkers! This is the "Straussian esortarianism" concept.
QUOTE
It is because the truth would destroy society and the philosophers alike if it became known, that Strauss said that Plato and the ancient philosophers, like Strauss himself, wrote in a kind of code, whose true meaning only disclosed itself to the wise. If the vulgar happened on their books, they would find only the familiar salutary myths about the rewards of virtue, the punishment of vice, and the like.
Strauss' hermeneutical (interpretation of writings) theory is called, "Straussian text" because this "hidden" message of nihilism is behind many philosophical classical texts. This hermeneutical approach is borrowed from Martin Heidegger--another fascist Nazi that greatly influences Strauss and all his students.
QUOTE
It is the supermen/philosophers who provide the herd with the religious, moral, and other beliefs they require, but which the supermen themselves know to be lies. Nietzsche said that his supermen were "atheistic priests," and Strauss pretends that their lies are "noble lies." But they do not do this out of benevolence, of course; charity and benevolence are mocked by Nietzsche and Strauss as unworthy of gods and godlike men. Rather, the "philosophers" use these falsehoods to shape society in the interest of these "philosophers" themselves.
Now, the philosophers require various sorts of people to serve them, including the "gentlemen," that word which had struck me earlier, when Bloom [student of Strauss] had used it in speaking of Socrates' trial. Rather than the "esoteric," or secret teachings, the future "gentlemen" are indoctrinated in the "exoteric," or public teachings. They are taught to believe in religion, morality, patriotism, and public service, and some go into government. Think of former Education Secretary William Bennett and his Book of Virtues. Of course, along with these traditional virtues, they also believe in the "philosophers" who have taught them all these good things.
Those "gentlemen" who become statesmen, will continue to take the advice of the philosophers. This rule of the philosophers through their front-men in government, is what Strauss calls the "secret kingdom" of the philosophers, a "secret kingdom" which is the life's objective of many of Strauss's esoteric students.
The methodology used in Martin Heidegger’s ‘Dasein’ analytic worked out in ‘Being And Time’ is called phenomenology. Mathematician Edmond Husserl developed phenomenology as an effort to create a ‘scientific philosophy’-- the holy grail of philosophy through history. This methodology is too complex to explain here. I believe this methodology has some strengths as Sartre has used it in his work ‘Being and Nothingness,’ but Herbert Marcuse, a former student of Heidegger, warned that phenomenology is fascistic epistemology. He never elaborated, or explained whether phenomenology was inherently fascistic, or was used fascistically.
Phenomenology is a methodology of ‘description’ and ‘suspends,’ or ‘Brackets’ (the technical term is ‘Epoche’) any belief in the existence of the object of description so that an ‘analysis’ of human being, for example, can be carried on without having to address metaphysical questions about the existence of human beings. In this sense, phenomenology is ‘positivistic’ because it only describes. Modern positivistic linguistic philosophy and phenomenology have collaborated in academia. I think this non-normative and descriptive methodology that ‘leaves everything as it is’ was what concerned Marcuse. This non-critical descriptive method can be found in modern philosophies of Hermeneutics today. Strauss’ academic work consisted of ‘descriptive’ research of others’ writings.
Counter argument against Straussian esotericism: Strauss accepts the concept of the ‘noble lie’ and that only the ‘gentlemen’ know these falsehoods from the truth of Straussian thought. But this dichotomy between public indoctrination and private Straussian esoteric truth make his philosophy impossible to analyze, or evaluate since Straussian esotericism could be itself a noble lie.
This is the same as saying ‘Everything I say is false.’ But if that is the case, the statement ‘Everything I say is false’ has to be false also. So here, if his statement ‘Everything I say is false’ is to be true, it then has to be false.
The Straussian may say ‘Oh, I didn’t say everything I state is false, just the public appeal to traditional values. The Straussian advice to the ‘gentlemen’ is the real truth.’ But what are the criteria for determining, or distinguishing true advice to the gentlemen and public indoctrination? The criteria of true advice could be a noble lie also! So Straussian epistemology has no methodology to determine truth and falsity except what Straussians declare as true. The problem with a crypto-epistemology is that any public presentation of a Straussian thesis, or any error discovered in a Straussian position can be abandoned as a pseudo-epistemology making verification of this school of thought impossible. This is called egoistic relativism and is the hallmark of fascist epistemology.
3. Straussian social pragmatism is better than societal disorder:
Straussian ethics holds that there are no ethics. We live in a nihilistic universe, but the weak "mass," or "herd" need ethics. The Enlightened pretend to believe in ethics publicly and rule over the unenlightened herd that need these fictions to live in an orderly society. This is a society of the "Superman," or in their code the "Gentlemen" that have a right to rule the world.
QUOTE
But the great majority of men and women, on the other hand, is so far from ever being able to face the truth, that it virtually belongs to another species. Nietzsche called it the "herd," and also the "slaves." They require the bogeymen of a threatening God and of punishment in the afterlife, and the fiction of moral right and wrong. Without these illusions, they would go mad and run riot, and the social order, any social order, would collapse. And since human nature never changes, according to Strauss, this will always be so.
Counter argument against Straussian social pragmatism: If the universe is truly nihilistic, then what is wrong with a society in disorder? A disorderly society is no better than an orderly society in a nihilistic universe devoid of value, and meaning. Straussians can argue that a disorderly society is a danger to human survival and is necessary for the human species to continue pragmatically. But, ‘survival’ is a value judgment itself. Also, "Pragmatism" is a philosophy itself, and could not be valid in a nihilistic universe. The Straussian might say, ‘But, I want to survival not because survival has any value, but I just want to survival’ it is a human desire that cannot be resisted, or controlled and Straussian philosophy allows me to survival as a philosopher whereas I would perish otherwise.’
The flaw of Straussian philosophy is the flaw shared by all philosophies of Relativism:in this case relativistic pragmatic ‘truth’, which enables me to survive.
Christian Theologian, Paul Tillich, writes the following of Relativism.
QUOTE
....there are people, and I am among them, who are unwilling to accept this description and to surrender to an absolute relativism, not because we are authoritarian or reactionary but for definite reasons both theoretical and pragmatic.
The logical position against any claim of relativism to absoluteness is that "absolute relativism" is a self-contradictory term, an impossible combination of words. If one avoids this impossible combination of words, relativism itself becomes relative; therefore an element of absoluteness is not only a possibility but even a necessity, otherwise no assertion at all can be made.
But absolute relativism is also impossible practically. If I am asked to surrender totally to relativism I can say, "But I live! I know what ‘true’ and ‘false’ mean, I do something I can describe as ‘better’ than something else, I venerate something which concerns me ultimately and which for me is holy." The question then is: How can one make such statements if relativism has the last word?
http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter...1628&C=1617Straussian philosophy is a contradiction on many levels, but this is not a detriment in a nihilistic universe. A contradiction is an ‘impossible combination of words’ and, therefore, contradiction renders Straussian fascist philosophy impossible.
