Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
LAMPERT
38
LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG
ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED
IN THE
MIDDLE or second section of the essay Strauss presents The Classical sohtion, cites two common objections to it and
then attempts to answer these objections.
These are the two objections:
(1) classical political philosophy is antidemocratic and hence bad; (2) classical
political philosophy is based on classical
natural philosophy or on classical
cosmology, and this basis has been
proven to be untrue by the success of
modern natural science. (p. 36)
..
Modern Age
39
LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG
ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED
obvious that a technology that makes possible universal education must abandon
moral and political control. Also, there
would seem to be moral and political objections (to slavery, e.g.) that might arise
from contexts other than a dependence on
technology thus making Strauss conclusion
invalid because it includes all moral and
political objections. At best Strauss argument against moral and political objections
to classical political philosophy begs the
question. It assumes that such objections
can arise only from the standpoint of a particular technology, and it assumes that they
arise there only self-contradictorily on the
grounds that that technology is emancipated from moral and political control.
Strauss answer to the second objection
is even briefer and more puzzling than his
answer to the first. The objection is that
classical political philosophy is fatally tied
to an outmoded cosmoIogy. The gist of
Strauss answer is that Socrates, the founder of classical political philosophy, was
committed to no cosmology whatever;
Strauss asserts, rather than argues, that
knowledge of political things is possible
apart from any cosmological commitment.
The second paragraph of the answer consists of a series of Socratic claims about
philosophy as a searoh for knowledge of the
whole. Philosophy is said to be a search
that aims at a complete combination of
political knowledge and cosmological h o w l edge. And this combination is not at our
disposal. (p. 39)
But these counter assertions completely
miss the point and spirit of the objection
-namely, that classical political philosophy
cannot be reconciled with modern natural
science whose success has proven classical
cosmology untrue. Even if we grant
Strauss claim that classical political philosophy is logically separable from ancient
cosmology he still has not shown that it is
compatible with modem cosmology. An
additional claim is made in this regard:
Whatever the significance of modern natural science may be, it cannot affect our understanding of what is human in man. To
Winter I978
40
LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG
ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED
I1
WHY DOES Strauss answer so unpersuasively two objections which seem so necessary
and so telling? One is forced to go back
over the arguments many times to discover
their rationale and significance. Only
gradually does Strauss strategy come to
light. Before stating the objections themselves Strauss characterizes them in a direct
and disparaging way. To raise these objections requires neither originality nor intelligence, nor even erudition. (p. 36)
One gathers that these are not the most serious objections that can be raised even
though they are the only ones raised by
Strauss and the only ones answered (or
not answered). There would seem to be objections that do require originality, intelligence and erudition. What are they? w h y
are they not mentioned? Can they be more
important than the ones that are mentioned? Why are they not answered?
The context of the objections indirectly
supplies answers to these questions. Immediately preceding the two objections is
Strauss account of The Classical Solution. Presumably this part presents the
view to which the objections object. But
this presumption is mistaken. There is nothing in the classical solution as Strauss presents it that would raise the objections
cited. Furthermore, immediately following
the objections is Strauss account of The
Modem Solutions, which indirectly shows
that there are objections which are original,
intelligent and erudite, and which do object
to the classical solution as presented by
Strauss. Yet Strauss never characterizes
these solutions as objections and never directly answers them. We have then the following puzzling situation: the cited objections do not object to what is presented as
the classical solution; these objections are
answered in a clearly unsatisfactory manner; the original, intelligent and erudite
objections do object to what is presented
as the classical solution but they are not
characterized as objections to it nor are
they answered. In face of these puzzles one
turns back to The Classical Solution itself-what
is it and just how is it defended?
The title of the middle section, The
Classical Solution, seems to promise a
statement of what that solution is. For the
most part this section is a discussion of the
Laws. It is said that the character of
classical political philosophy appears with
the greatest clarity from Platos Laws, (p.
29) and that seems to promise a statement
of what that character is. But the material
discussed is surprising in the light of these
expectations for at first there appears to be
no direct statement of either the solution
or the character of classical political philosophy. The matters emphasized seem at first
to be peripheral, even trivial. But the seemingly peripheral gradually comes to light
as the most central matter.
Plato, Socrates and Aristotle are all dis-
Modern Age
41
LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG
ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED
42
Winter 1978
LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG
ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED
-~
cause not a partisan of it? That is, the serious objections do recognize the distinction
between the love of ones own and love of
the good but they reject it as unrealistic.
These objections, unlike the earlier ones,
do object to what is set forth as the classical
solution. The modem solutions attempt a
true solution by taking their bearings not
from the good but from ones own (p. 41)
and by seeking to actualize a new social
order. They obliterate the distinction between love of ones own and love of the
good. (p. 42) The appeal is precisely to
those who choose their own over the good.
(pp. 45 f.) The solution is a revolution in
the human estate effected by man and his
determination to master chance.*
Strauss account of this most serious objection silently expIains and grounds the
first two abjections. It shows in an indirect
way that there is a necessary connection between the first two disparaged objections
and the one serious objection.
The cosmological issue (the second objection) is the more evident. Cosmology appears directly as an unresolved problem in
Machiavelli. Machiavellis program is based
on a cosmology that assumes the untenable
character of teleological natural science
(p. 47) but that assumption itself remained baseless until it was grounded by
modem science. The anti-teleological principle is retained by Hobbes and Locke and
(< the turn from mans end to mans beginning is completed by Rousseau who understands the state of nature as not pointing
beyond itself. (p. 52) The final step in
anti-teleological cosmology is taken By
Nietzsche for whom Nature has ceased to
appear as lawful and merciful. The fundamental experience of existence is therefore
the experience, not of bliss, but of suffering, of emptiness, of an abyss. (p. 54;
see p. 53) In all these cases a specific antiteleological cosmology is shown to be basic
to the political philosophy that is developed.
We must read this account in the light of
the second objection and its answer because
it is there that the matter of cosmology is
first raised and left questionable. The ac-
Modern Age
43
LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG
ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED
count shows-as
the answer intimatedthat the objection itself is based on a particular cosmology that rules out natural ends
and thereby rules out classical political
philosophy. Classical political philosophy
on the other hand is said to have been inaugurated in the light of the mysterious
oharacter of the whole (p. 39) and to have
viewed political things as knowable in
themselves apart from a cosmology. (pp.
39 f.; see pp. 27 f.) Thus, while it may be
said that classical political philosophy is impossible for a cosmological view that rules
out natural ends, it is only modem political
philosophy that depends directly on a particular cosmology.
In the answer to the first objection, the
issue of democracy led directly if questionably to the problem of technology. In the
third section of the essay the word technology is never used, but technology itself
appears regularly as the modern effort to
conquer chance. Conquering chance is
there seen as an essential part of the program of modern pnlifird philosophy, 8s
inseparable from its determination to actualize the desired new social order. (pp. 41,
46f., 51, 53f., 55) Conquering chance leads
not only to the mastery of nature But also
to the manipulation and training of men,
now taken as almost infinitely malleable.
(p. 42) To use the terms of the answer
to the first objection: Modem teohnology is
displayed as emancipated from moral and
political control because it is an essential
offspring of a political philosophy that takes
its bearings from the lower rather than the
higher-and not only its bearings but its
means as well for Strauss emphasizes the
fact that modem political philosophy depends upon the freeing of blind selfish
passion (p. 54) for the actualization of the
desired new order. It depends upon the
discovery or invention of the need for an
immoral or amoral substitute for morality.
(p. 49; see pp. 43, 48, 49, 54) We must
read this account of the conquering of
chance in the light of the answer to the first
objeotion because it is there that the matter of the emancipation of technology from
44
LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG
ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED
swered? Strauss essay ends without seeming to conclude; it ends with an account
of radical historicism (Heidegger) which
Strauss clearly deplores but it ends without
argument against it. Why does Strauss give
no direct answer to the objection that is
original, intelligent and erudite? To answer
this question two points must be considered: (1) the nature of Strauss essay; (2)
the consequent strictures on any possible
defense of classical political philosophy.
(1) If we recognize from the middle
section of the essay that it is the character
of classical political philosophy to distinguish in a cautious and tactful way between love of ones own and love of the
good, and if we recognize from our assent
to the two objections that the modem is our
own, then the whole essay discloses itself
as an exercise in the spirit of classical
political philosophy. The middle section
shows the nature of classical political philosophy but it shows as well the nature of
Strauss essay. It too is a subtle and reticent
attempt to call attention to the distinction
between love of ones own and love of the
good. It recognizes the value and depth of
the attachment to ones own but it also
recognizes that that attachment can impair
love of the good for ones own does not
embody the good. The essay recognizes, to
put the issue in the standard Socratic way,
that there are truths that need to be learned
that cannot be taught in the usual way. The
essay takes classical political philosophy
most seriously by abiding by its most
important and dangerous distinction. The
evidence of this commitment to classical
political philosophy is clearly seen in the
following point.
(2) The reticence imposed by taking
classical political philosophy seriously is
not silence, and, within the strictures of
what classical political philosophy permits,
there can he found in Strauss essay a
defense of the classical solution and an
answer to the modern solution. Naturally
this defense must be mainly a challenge
and an invitation to inquiry. In the third
section of the essay, radical historicism is
Modern Age
LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG
ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED
the counter-charges contained in the answers to the first objections, Strauss indicates the lines along which further inquiry
fied sons, from the political life to the philosophic lifE Strauss, What is Political Philosophy?,
pp. 93-94. Republic, 493e-494a. Clearly the meaning of solution has changed in the movement
from classical to modem although Strauss makes
no direct note of it. What does the classical solution solve? It solves the problem What is political philosophy? and it solves it by reoognizing the politics of philosophy. What do the
modem solutions solve? They solve the problem
What is political philosophy? and they solve it
by solving-or setting out to solve-the problem
of the human condition. Modem political philose
phers aim to become the legislators and prophets
of a new social order. They seek to abolish
chance and to actualize the right or desirable
social order. (pp. 46 f.) Because classical political philosophers are not the legislators and
propheb of a regime what they soive mu= be
different. Because they aim at the good and at
the best political order, the actualization of the
order depends upon chance. (p. 34) Strauss
account of the modem solutions shows that they
represent a consistent unfolding of what is actually a single objective to classical political pbilosophy, albeit an original, intelligent and erudite
objection.
...
Winter 1978
46
LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG
ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED