Open Thread #128

mkaplan,

Strauss?!

Why bring him into your internet flame wars?

Given that you probably know nothing about Strauss but what the mass media has slanderously written about him, I will leave an excerpt from Herodotus to mull over:

“Slander is the most terrible thing. In it there are two that do the wrong and one that suffers it: the man who slanders does the wrong he does against someone who is not there; the other does the wrong he does by being persuaded before he truly understands the issue.”

Mr. Kaplan,

These days I generally tend to refrain from responding to what seems to be typical “driveby” troll comments on Blogs. But out of curiosity and out of filial piety (yes, I did study with a student of Strauss and know a great number of his other students), let me play your game, at least temporarily:

1. Whatever you mean by “derivative followers like Bloom and Mansfield,” I do not see how invoking something else other than Strauss’ writings themselves tells me you have read Strauss.

To begin with a general point: Many students (or “derivative followers”) deviate greatly from their teachers. Are students facsimiles of their teachers? Surely, one cannot pin the tyrannical ambitions of Alcibiades or Critias on Socrates, no?

To be more specific, Strauss’ students are not a monolithic breed, and the two men you mention in particular have had their “Straussian” credentials vigorously challenged by insiders. Just to refer to some obvious factual issues: Bloom has had a not-so-secret personal break with Strauss that estranged the two men during most of Strauss’ last years, and Mansfield never even studied with Strauss directly. So if you were trying to get to Strauss via his students, you’ve likely chosen the inappropriate or unrepresentative vehicles. But then, such an enterprise itself is perhaps flawed, because–to paraphrase Nietzsche–any student worth his salt does not remain a mere student.

So don’t try to fake your having read Strauss and actually tell us what have you read that Strauss actually wrote.

2. Relatedly, do not settle with a generalization like “he’s been a toxic, poisonous influence that has distorted the West and by extension much of the world,” but make actual, specific arguments that refer back to Strauss’ texts.

What of his many controversial scholarly conclusions do you think have “distorted the West and by extension much of the world”? That is a grave and outlandish accusation against a man who spent his lifetime shunning the public limelight and taught obscure texts of Plato, Alfarabi, Spinoza, et al.

abcdefg,

I hate to play “he started it” game, but it’s Mr. Kaplan who gratuitously “name-dropped” (and libeled) Strauss in his flame war with Mr. Davy.

But I don’t take your deprecatory comments personally either. After all, it isn’t libel if it’s true, and I certainly am a “dinosaur”–in fact, in more ways and to a greater degree than you think!

Heck, I plan on insisting my future wife call me “서방님” (I prefer “나리,” but even a bona fide dinosaur like me has to make SOME concessions to the times)!

Mr. Kaplan,

I am sorry, but your vague, beat-around-the-bushes responses only persuades me further that you have not read Strauss and are merely regurgitating what the mass media says about him.

1. “I’m not faking having read Strauss.”

Then why not tell us what you have read by him instead of asserting it generally or invoking your reading of his less orthodox (for a lack of better term) students/followers?

2. “The way some of you treat reading Strauss, as if it were some sort of initiation and life changing experience, is indicative of the quasi-cultish attitude many of you have.”

A typical straw-man argument. For the record, there have been books that were “life changing” for me, but none of them were written by Strauss. Moreover, having spent some years in a Zen monastery where the master was indeed quasi-infallible, I know a “quasi-cult” when I see one, and I’d hardly describe Straussian scholars as propagating founder worship.

3. “My approach towards “Straussianism” is completely orthogonal to yours. When I speak of ‘Straussianism’ and its impact and influence, I’m departing from the text (to a good Straussian, horror of horrors!) and approaching it from a variety of perspectives – sociological, cultural, and even from evolutionary biology. That is, to Straussians I’m committing the cardinal sins of ‘historicism,’ ‘reductionism,’ etc.”

I asked a simple question: What specific substantive ideas of Strauss you think have had such a disastrous influence on the Western world? And this mumbo-jumbo is what you come up with?

But in plain language, you seem to basically concede that the sins you are attributing to Strauss has not to do with what Strauss wrote, but what has come to be known as “Straussianism” and “its impact and influence.” So you’ve given away the argument. “Straussianism” has very little to do with Strauss, just as “Platonism” has very little to do with what Plato wrote.

4. “And the attitude you evince in your comments above I think reflects some of the characteristic, problematic features (which are in a way very ‘non-Western’) of ‘Straussianism’ and other intellectual movements like it, namely that dogmatism and charismatic personalities dominate the discourse.”

This really–emphatically–clinches it: You know nothing about Strauss or his students. Far from being dogmatic, Strauss’ students have been some of the most open-minded teachers I have encountered. For instance, among the various academics I’ve encountered teaching Western political/legal philosophy, Straussians were the only ones willing to even entertain the idea that a Confucius or a Han Fei-Tzu would be a thinker equal to an Aristotle or a Machiavelli (which is of course not what you get from reading Bloom’s “West is best” act). And domination by “charismitic” [sic] teachers? LOL. Strauss implored his students to never neglect the possibility that there is a “silent” student in the room who is superior to the teacher.

Hardly cultish stuff.

5. “Much, much worse was regularly said about Strauss in the mainstream media during the Bush years. And you know that.”

I know that, but what’s your point? Your libelous claims are more excusable because they are not as bad as what the mainstream media says?

abcdefg says,

“If your wife should be a good old sport, she will call you ‘nari’ and she and you can name-drop all night…on the armchair, if you know what I mean. That’s what I call philosophy.”

I am not exactly sure what your objection to “philosophy” is (though I suspect it is a product of a lack of genuine familiarity with it), so I can’t really address it.

But let me take a tentative stab: Is your objection a version of what Aristophanes first lampooned about Socrates? That is, in studying the stars to the exclusion of all things on the ground, while aloft on his fantastic contraption, Socrates and philosophers like him literally and figuratively never makes contact with the solid earth?

Or in non-Aristophanic terms, is that philosophy is wholly irrelevant to human life, because it propounds “systems” that are wholly abstract or disconnected to the “real world”?

P.S. WTH?

The Korean dredges up a reference that is even more obscure than the esoteric stuff I trot out (and in a foreign language no less!), but nobody gives him a hard time.

Maybe I should write more about sex and girls?

Ok, here’s my ideal woman (and there is a see-through bra there, too!):

[edit: It was a link to a photo of 전인화]

“Kimcheerleaders”?

I don’t know who I’d be, but I’d certainly love to meet The Marmot’s version of Diao Chan!

Lady Sonagi,

As I’ve said, I am a Luddite. It took me more than a decade to learn how to do a rudimentary level of VCR programming, and then VCRs became obsolete. Still working on using this computer stuff.

Is it any wonder that I listen to nothing later than 남인수 as far as Korean music is concerned?

bumkorea,

You don’t think the chance to possess a sublime, once in a millennium-type of beauty is worth throwing everything else away?

Last try:

timeless Korean beauty

pawikiroggi,

Depends on your definition of “very old.” I am in my mid-30s. But I have very old-fashioned tastes, and I’ve had them as long as I can remember (e.g. I liked “trot” songs even in my teens, and I only watched 사극 as far as TV is concerned [though I made an exception for "Iris" for now]).

JW,

I have a difficult time picking this one, because neither have really fought fighters in the other’s mold. I have also consistently under-rated both Mayweather and Pacquiao; and, as a result, I have tended to be wrong in many of their recent fights. So I am not a reliable judge/prognosticator for this fight.

But if someone were to put a gun to my head, I’d say Pacquiao wins a close, controversial decision. The most likely scenario I see is that Pacquiao’s activity level and speed negates Mayweather’s defensive brilliance and speed. (Mayweather also seems to have trouble initially with speedy southpaws). But Pacquiao may have deluded himself into thinking he’s a technical genius because he out-boxed slower guys like de la Hoya and Cotto and elect to try to out-box Mayweather. If that were to occur, I’d obviously go with Mayweather.

I actually think Mosley would beat both of them for stylistic reasons, but I think both Pacquiao and Mayweather (esp. the latter) won’t fight Sugar Shane until Mosley is in a nursing home.

pawikiroggi,

You have a nice day, too; and please remember that your Korean nationalism will get a better hearing if you tone it down a wee bit!

Oops. A “discipline,” not “disciple.”