Talk:Leo Strauss
|
|
| Contents |
Edits
Removed some of the part about the "noble lie", which really isn't unique to straussianism and isn't even used by all straussians. This whole thing about strauss saying that the noble lie "should be used to decieve the common man" really comes from the many anti-straussian, anti-strauss, anti-straussian-in-the-bush-administeration articles out there.
- This claim that Strauss did not advocate the "noble lie" is just another "noble lie" being advanced by a Straussian.
Added bibliography. added quote on straussian esotericism. Should add something about how Strauss disliked the straussian movement. should add something on how strauss was influenced by his reading of the talmud and maimonides.
Shadia Drury is hardly a Strauss scholar.
What, was this article originally written by a LaRouche supporter? They constantly relie on guilt by association and their own interpretations. The fact is, is that Strauss was "non-political but not a-political".
Strauss was definitely not raised in a Jewish Orthodox household, but in an assimilated Jewish one; he was enrolled only at the University of Hamburg, where he took his PhD. Clossius 06:27, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Leo Strauss and LaRouche
- This is the section which User:AndyL wishes to suppress:
- Strauss has been criticised for his influence on the modern neo-conservative movement, particularly for his justification of Machiavellian concepts such as the inability of the general public to understand the truth and thus the necessity to lie for reasons of expediency. "Straussians" include Wolfowitz, William Kristol, Abram Shulsky, Gary Schmitt (executive director of the Project for the New American Century), and others. The first widely-distributed exposé of Straussianism that was critical of its influence on the Bush White House was published in April of 2003 by Lyndon LaRouche's Presidential campaign, [1] (http://larouchein2004.net/pages/other/2003/030409cos.htm) followed one month later by articles by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker,[2] (http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/030512fa_fact) and James Atlas in the New York Times. Shortly thereafter a response was issued by Robert Bartley, who studied with Strauss, in the Wall Street Journal.[3] (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/rbartley/?id=110003602)
Re Leo Strauss see [4] (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1233) which predates LaRouche's "expose" by a year and the book Leo Strauss and the American Right (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312126891/102-9090427-9396101) which came out in 1997 and was republished in 2001 once the Bush Administration was installed. I've accordingly removed your claims from the Leo Strauss article. It is interesting how various of your claims melt away upon further investigation. AndyL 04:02, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
See also this article in the Observer (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,651674,00.html) from February 2002.
- American conservatism, following the teaching of the influential conservative American political philosopher Leo Strauss, unites patriotism, unilateralism, the celebration of inequality and the right of a moral élite to rule into a single unifying ideology. As Professor Shadia Drury describes in Leo Strauss and the American Right (St Martin's Press), Strauss's core idea that just states must be run by moral, religious, patriotic individuals and that income redistribution, multilateralism and any restraint on individual liberty are mortal enemies of the development of such just élites is the most influential of our times.
- Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of state for defence pushing for an early invasion of Iraq, is a Straussian. So is John Ashcroft, the attorney-general, who has legislated for military tribunals both to try and execute suspected terrorists beyond the rule of law. Straussians build up the military capacity of the nation while invoking the Bible and the flag. This is not prejudice; this is a coherent ideological position.
It's clear the news about Strauss and his influence over the Bush Administration was already in the zeitgeist prior to LaRouche's April 2002 article. It also seems more likely that Hersch was influenced either by the new edition of Drury's book or by reviews and references to it in various media than by LaRouche's article. The fact that LaRouche's article appeared a few weeks prior to the New Yorker is a matter of coincidence rather than influence particularly since LaRouche was simply repeating what he'd read in Drury's book (or in the reviews of same). Given that LaRouche reference's Drury's book and that Drury's book was being discussed prior to LaRouche's article your claim that LaRouche either said anything original or influenced the New Yorker and NY Times articles is dubious. It's far more likely that Hersch either read the book or the article in the Observer than it is that he was twigged by LaRouche AndyL 04:26, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I have just reverted an edit by User:AndyL, who is obsessively trying to re-write history to create a world with no Lyndon LaRouche. It is true that an article exists about Leo Strauss that predates the ones by LaRouche and his associates, but it doesn't belong in "Criticism," because it is written by a follower of Strauss and is supportive of his ideas ([5] (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1233)). The "Straussians", as followers of Strauss term themselves, have been discussing his ideas in a more or less public fashion for quite some time (see http://www.straussian.net/) -- so it is not surprising that Andy googles up obscure articles that are sympathetic to Strauss. The other article Andy cites is simply in error; the publication date on [6] (http://www.logosjournal.com/mason.htm) is March, 2004, just about a year after the LaRouche pieces. And, as the Wall Street Journal's Bartley correctly, if angrily, notes, it was the LaRouche material that started the controversy, and inspired the New Yorker and New York Times pieces -- so Andy's edits are also irrelevant, in addition to being incorrect. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:46, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- The book predates LaRouche's article as well and is, in fact, LaRouche's source. AndyL 14:56, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Hersh, the WSJ was trying to discredit the New Yorker article by fatuously connecting it to LaRouche when it was, in fact, influenced by Drury. That you take this guilt by association smear as a compliment just shows you are so desperate for compliments that you'll take an insult. The fact remains the Observer article (quoted again below) and, of course, the Drury book both predate LaRouche. AndyL 15:07, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Since Hersh seems to have missed this, the following was published in the widely read and respected newspaper The Observer two months prior to LaRouche's article:
this article in the Observer (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,651674,00.html) is from February 2002.
- American conservatism, following the teaching of the influential conservative American political philosopher Leo Strauss, unites patriotism, unilateralism, the celebration of inequality and the right of a moral élite to rule into a single unifying ideology. As Professor Shadia Drury describes in Leo Strauss and the American Right (St Martin's Press), Strauss's core idea that just states must be run by moral, religious, patriotic individuals and that income redistribution, multilateralism and any restraint on individual liberty are mortal enemies of the development of such just élites is the most influential of our times.
- Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of state for defence pushing for an early invasion of Iraq, is a Straussian. So is John Ashcroft, the attorney-general, who has legislated for military tribunals both to try and execute suspected terrorists beyond the rule of law. Straussians build up the military capacity of the nation while invoking the Bible and the flag. This is not prejudice; this is a coherent ideological position.
AndyL 15:15, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC) The above quote can hardly be considered "criticism" of Strauss. Supporters of Strauss were publishing favorable commentaries for years, without the public taking much notice. When the LaRouche movement distributed 1 Million pamphlets on the subject, it became the subject of national debate. --Herschelkrustofsky 19:28, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- You don't think Shadia Drury's book had something to do with that? How uncharitable of you. Do you honestly think Seymour Hersh was influenced by the LaRouche article rather than by the Drury book? AndyL 20:00, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The Drury book is fine work, and is cited throughout the LaRouche mass circulation pamphlet. However, there never would have been a political controversy on Main Street without the LaRouche mobilization, and Sy Hersh is interested in political controversy, rather than obscure academic debates. --Herschelkrustofsky 06:30, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You are speculating. Given the time it takes to write an article (ie research, interviews etc) and the time between the LaRouche article and the Hersh article it is highly doubtful that the former had any impact on the latter, particularly as the Drury book was already out and was being cited in mass circulation newspapers such as the Observer. The fact remains that the 2001 edition of the 1999 book by Drury is the source of revelations re Straussians and the Bush admin, not some pamphlet written by the LaRouche movement. AndyL 14:35, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Inaccurate quotation
The quote attributed to Seth Benardete is misattributed. This is a quotation from Norman F. Maclean's A River Runs Through It. Benardete uses it as the epigraph to his book Socrates' Second Sailing: On Plato's Republic. It's certainly off the mark to consider this a remark on esotericism! I suggest that it be removed. --Clayt 21:06, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
External Links
I removed the list of external links because they seem to totally violate the NPOV aim of Wikipedia. Many are not even close to being objective, yet even worse, they really are not about Leo Strauss, rather about his quote/unquote followers. I think its a shame such an odd collection of links try to argue a point that doesn't really belong in this article. Guilt by association is beneath the purpose and best practises of Wikipedia. That's just my two cents, and I have no doubt others may sincerely belief they have the right to include the links, but from someone fresh to this article, it strikes me as a very petty, odd debate that says much more about the current American ideological war, than the life and thought of Leo Strauss. More effort should be placed on articulating Strauss' own thought, instead of bending over backwards to smear him with the actions of Wolfowitz et al.--Mikerussell 04:53, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Revert Justification
I see no reason why the last revert by Rexrexilius was made. I'm not challenging the revert per se, as I know very little about Strauss, and maybe such minor quibbling is actually relevant. But it looks as though the revert had no real justification, and information put in by 65.5.234.26 was lost because of it. Again, let me say that I might be wrong, and the revert was justified, but I'd like to see justification on the talk page whenever a revert is done which erases actual content. Eric Herboso 21:16, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thank you Mr. Herboso. That addition of content actually deleted prior content that was crucial to the debate surrounding Strauss. A key theme in "Straussian" studies is the impact that Nietzsche had upon Strauss's thought. It would seem un-encyclopaedic not to touch upon that debate in a paragraph that purports to extrapolate on Strauss's philosophy. So, I did not have a problem with the additional discussion of Heidegger per se, but rather, with the deletion of the mention of Nietzsche, and was reverting to that. If the person who added the part on Heidegger wants to re-add that after the reference to Nietzsche, I don't see a problem. --Rexrexilius 03:52, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The quip on Nietzsche was not very explicit IMO. More information was needed, IMO. In any event, by reverting to the previous edit you deleted the part about Edmund Burke. Good going. If you believed the Nietzsche material was appropriate as it stood it would have been better to just add it back, instead of reverting to a previous edit. My intention was to, a bit at a time, go into an overview of Natural Right and History. But if sloppy editing without proper explanation is going to manifest then I'll leave it to others. mp _______________________________________________________
I'll try one more time to help out. I expanded the discussion of FN, which was pretty thin to begin with.
To any future would be editors: unless you find something factually wrong, or want to take the time to explain something better than what already exists, please be selective in wholesale reverting back to previous edits. What was the point of deleting the Burke reference, the discussion of Locke, and a bibliographic reference? And if you make edits, how about a note on what you were thinking? Who knows, we may agree with you. mp
What you have done now seems acceptable to me, MP (if that IS your REAL name-- I noticed you don't have a userpage link). --Rexrexilius 21:34, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
More content removal
OMG. More content has been removed from this article. Maybe it is justified, maybe it isn't. I don't know enough about Strauss to say for sure. But I would point out that from what I've read and been taught, the content removed about Strauss' interpretation of Plato is legit. However, I stress again that I am not well versed enough to say anything for sure.
For the record, the following was removed from this article by 68.77.108.147 as his only edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=68.77.108.147).
"[Strauss was greatly influential on] the American neo-conservative movement. Several of his former students, such as Paul Wolfowitz, now hold high positions in the Bush administration." was changed to "Strauss was greatly influential in America". And the following was completely erased:
Strauss believed that in Plato's Republic, the representative of Plato's true thinking on politics and society was not Socrates, as is generally thought, but Thrasymachus. Strauss believed that Plato used Socrates (who argued that justice was the implementation of goals that led to the greatest harmony, and thus to happiness) to display skill in making the weaker argument appear better, whereas Thrasymachus' argument that justice was the exercise of power was the argument that Plato actually believed to be the stronger one.
It is this second erasure of content that bothers me the most, as I have always heard that this was in fact Strauss' actual viewpoint. But again, I do not know much about Strauss. I am reintroducing the content in a way that hopefully will not be further contested, and placing a copy of the original content on this talk page for future reference, in case it, too, gets deleted.
Eric Herboso 16:06, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you for addressing this anon edit. I added that part in the intro about Wolfowitz and the neocons. If indeed Wolfie was not one of his students, I stand corrected, but it seems to me to tremendous lacuna not to mention his influence on the US neocons. As for the Plato text, by all means return it; a citation might contribute to its permanence. -- Viajero 17:11, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)