Fragmenta Philosophica

Huh? V

In the midst of a BBC profile of Condoleezza Rice, we read the following:

"Her uncompromising positions on missile defence, Russia and the environment won respect but helped build the European caricature of the new president as toxic troglodyte."

Ah yes, I'd wondered about the origins of that charming, alliterative epithet!

In case anyone's forgotten, here are various meanings of "troglodyte":

A.

1. A member of a fabulous or prehistoric race of people that lived in caves, dens, or holes.
2. A person considered to be reclusive, reactionary, out of date, or brutish.

B.

1. An anthropoid ape, such as a gorilla or chimpanzee.
2. An animal that lives underground, as an ant or a worm

I suppose A2 is the intended meaning - but is the benighted Dubya arguably a specimen of A1 or B2?! Perhaps the vaunted BBC - Queen's English and all - thinks so; and, yes, B1 insults other primates, right?

Strauss and Neoconservatism

Over the last months, I've thought quite a bit about "neoconservatism" and the works of Leo Strauss. The influence of the latter on the former is not at all evident to me.

I wonder if those keen to establish a close connection have read many - or any - of the works of Strauss. I have read a fair number - "The City and Man," "Natural Right and History," "What is Political Philosophy?," "Persecution and the Art of Writing," "A History of Political Philosophy" (to which Strauss contributed, and co-edited, with Joseph Cropsey), etc. As Strauss was nothing if not a counsellor of careful, charitable reading of primary texts, he would be amongst the first to point out that my having "read" these works doesn't imply that I've come to terms with them. True enough; but on my reading - however imperfect - the programmatic of Strauss seems only dimly related to that of neoconservatism.

The similitude I notice is that Strauss was keenly alive to the limitations of "Liberalism," or what we might call constitutional democracy. Having beheld the disintegration of Weimar first hand, and having the not implausible view that its weakness was to some extent one endemic to democracy itself, he was keen to see that American Liberalism be "shored up" so as to prevent a similar implosion. The substance of his "conservatism" was very much at-odds with the dominant strains in the Anglo-American variety which runs through much of American tradition and political thought - it hardly seems an exaggeration to say that his point of departure was the account that Socrates gives of the various "regimes" in Plato's Republic, an account none too enthusiastic about Democracy (by contrast note that Thomas Jefferson detested the Republic). At least rhetorically, the neocons express their idealism in a recognizably and unashamedly American idiom. A "noble lie"? Possible, but I think not likely - their "political philosophy" (creed) doesn't seem to be exceptionally attenuated by "political philosophy" (expedient, politically sensitive presentation).

If one wished for a shorthand slogan for neoconservatism, whatever its demerits, surely it would be something like "seeking to renew/revive American idealism, so as to strengthen the nation morally and materially to meet the (grave) perils at hand." It's that sense of seeking to revivify the foundations of American civic life - rekindling the fire of civic piety - which arguably shows a Straussian imprint. As to "regime change," "promoting Democracy" 'round the world, etc. ; those might not be inconsistent with Strauss' teaching, but they hardly are implied by his often (intentionally) esoteric writings on classical political philosophy. Perhaps the strongest connection one could make is that some of the neocons have cited Strauss as an influence, and their doctrine is reasonably stimulating and coherent, compared to the usual doctrinal welter that issues from prosaic political parties and politicians. (As to the neoconservative proclamation of American pre-eminence and even "destiny," it's not clear to me how much of that simply poetizes the obvious, and how much is a sincere kind of American Hegelianism - after all, the neocons are allegedly chastened Leftists).

Aside from reading the man himself, an interesting commentary and analysis of Strauss may be found in a recent volume, Revolt Against Modernity: Leo Strauss, Eric Voegelin, and the Search for a Postliberal Order, by Ted V. McAllister.

Divine Favors

Why the gods?

When things are going well, it's pleasant to have someone to thank.

Euthyphro and International Law

There's no dearth of talk lately about International Law. The latest discussion concerns the "legal" character of Israel's assassination of Sheikh Yassin of The Hamas.

Some, axiomatically, treat International Law as a kind of Holy Writ; to contravene its edicts merits the strongest censure.

I myself am skeptical about "International Law" - both that the expression signifies something unambiguous and unproblematic, and to the extent that it doesn't, that its ontological status (i.e., normative character) is at all clear.

If I had the chance, I would be glad to ask one of the enthusiasts for International Law - say, Richard Falk, who has written thoughtful pieces in The Nation - how International Law fares with the "Euthyphro Test." The latter expression comes from the English philosopher Antony Flew, who abstracted and put to general philosophical use a question from one of Plato's dialogues, the title and central character of which is Euthyphro.

If you've read the dialogue, you'll recall a pivotal question which Socrates puts to Euthyphro, who claims to be acting in accordance with the spirit of "piety" by pressing a charge of murder against his own father, the latter having (at least indirectly) contributed to the death of a hireling.

"Is what is holy holy because the gods approve of it, or do they approve of it because it is holy?" (10).

Similarly as regards International law, it would be good to know, "Is what International Law condemns bad (= to be avoided) because it condemns it, or does it condemn it because it is bad?"

Scattered thoughts on Globalization

The demerits of Globalization are evident enough culturally, if not economically; in Roger Scruton's apt phrase, all too often it seems that the world is "reduced to an ubiquitous nowhere."

In On the Uses and Disadvantages of History for Life and Beyond Good and Evil Nietzsche considered what spoke for and against the burgeoning "historical sense" of his day, a knowledge (and habit of mind) whose advent was surely symptomatic of a nascent globalization. One paradox, for Nietzsche, is that nobility becomes merely a curiousity, a specimen, an object of inquiry - through the study of past, nobility-exemplifying cultures. Partly owing to the scattershot quality of modern intellectual and cultural life, nobility ceases to be a live option as an ethos that can suffuse society. Hence it can only be realized for he who in some sense(s) withdraws from the hurly-burly of the nation-state; "solitude" becomes a cardinal virtue. Zarathustra left his home and the lake of his home ...

An interesting concomitant of current attitudes towards globalization is the extent to which certain members of the (Western) Intelligentsia take it upon themselves to protect other cultures from the depredations of globalization. The weapon some bring to the fight is a strangely blunted one: cultural relativism. Since our culture, so the argument goes, is no better intrinsically than any other, we have "no right" to "impose" our norms, customs, values, etc. on any other. But that argument collapses, either as itself asserting a trans-cultural right - an entitlement not to be infused with the alien - or entailing that every culture can actually do whatever it wants, because no trans-cultural standards exist to measure inter-cultural intercourse anyhow.

Another way to look at it (in a dual sense) is that globalization presents a dizzying boon for the syncretist - he who wants the richness of life and Truth, and recognizes that no culture - whatever overall estimation it merits in a global order of rank - has a monopoly on either. Hence cultures could be seen to complement and correct one another in various particulars, each serving up their own best. (In a Hegelian schema, truth is a polyhedron, and the one- or multi-sidedness of various cultures can function as counterparts vis a vis the whole).

A simple way I'm struck by this possibility is how, for example, the Western portrait of the sage can be "consummated" - helped to actuality - by the Eastern "internal arts" of following and disciplining the breath (which in a way recalls the scholar's controversy as to whether and the extent to which Plotinus was influenced by Indian Philosophy - a possibly prototypical cross-pollination). On a much more visceral level, think of how our dinner tables are so much the richer thanks to many arrivals and adaptations from foreign shores. This is a surprisingly recent development.

But perhaps the syncretistic ideal will only "work" for a few anyway, as they fashion, in relative solitude, a new kind of psychic cosmopolitanism; the overall tendency for the rest might be for the current levelling towards homogeneity to carry on. Nietzsche vindicated?

Classical Liberal's Slogan

... The state has become hell because men wanted to make it their heaven. The state is but the rough shell around the kernel of life and nothing more ...

Holderin, Hyperion

The Hundred Years' War

The battle rages on ... Roger Gathman and I continue our parley - which is nearly parlous - over matters related to - what else?! - the Iraq war. Roger continues ably to defend himself, and I continue to defend ... the truth! Kidding - follow the thread, which began over at Full Context, if you're so inclined.

The Human Costs of War

Yahoo reports that,

"Ahmed Abdel Razzaq went to Iraq to fight the Americans and die a martyr. He ended up in a U.S. prison camp after the Iraqis he went to defend captured and sold him for $100."

Because I could

Forgive a particularly banal observation, but I find it so F%!ckin' cool that I was in the heart of Soho last night, travelling on the London Underground this morning, and by this afternoon - praise be to the gods - gently touched down at SFO.

I'll try to recall this the next time I start to lament "modernity" ....

Because I can

This message issues from an internet cafe near Paddington Station, London, England - my first " remote post." Man, these English keyboards are strange ...