Leo Strauss DESTROYS facts and logic with values and norms | "What is Political Philosophy?" (1957)

Рет қаралды 4,924

Күн бұрын

"All political action has then in itself a directedness towards knowledge of the good: of the good life, or of the good society", writes Leo Strauss in his well-known essay 'What is Political Philosophy?', published in 1957. For Strauss, political philosophy is essentially normative. We do not understand political things unless we take them as phenomena which cry out to be evaluated as good or bad, just or unjust.
Today's episode is a brief recapitulation of Strauss' essay, which includes his thoughts on the nature of political philosophy and the difference between classical and modern approaches to the discipline. This episode forms a nice contrast to our episode on Raymond Geuss and his approach of political realism.
Do you agree with Strauss that political philosophy is always normative? Or do value-judgements also fall prey to criticism by positivists and historicists? As always, we would love to hear what you think.
Reach out on Twitter or Instagram @ideasmatterpod
Please like, comment and share the podcast so that more people can learn about ideas that matter!
Purchase "What is Political Philosophy?" By Leo Strauss: amzn.to/424WAjT
(As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases)

Пікірлер: 36

@Lampredi4 Жыл бұрын

Ahh, love the video title. You’ve destroyed the search algorithm with nous and optimisation

@timothybaumgartner1627 Күн бұрын

Clear, concise, and insightful. Thank you!

@matt12.8 3 ай бұрын

Love it, thanks for posting. Strauss, Kojève are back as soon as a retvrn to proper optimism is needed, when stupid optimism à la Frankfurt school is over

@najoo7osam Ай бұрын

I love your explanation and I’m surprised I understood the context easily. I have become interested in philosophy lately and I’m so glad that there are video like these.

@clemfarley7257 8 ай бұрын

Great video. Thank you. I read this essay years ago, and you did a wonderful job of analyzing it.

@ideasmatterpod 7 ай бұрын

Thank you for watching and taking the time comment. It is much appreciated

@clemfarley7257 5 ай бұрын

I watched it again, and absorbed more, and appreciated your work even more.

@trylateral 5 ай бұрын

Leo Strauss and the Straussians are proof that one should never judge a creator by the fandom.

@analogia_entis 5 ай бұрын

Or ESPECIALLY vice versa !! For Thomas G West, Harry Jaffa, Robert Reilly, Glenn Ellmers etc are MUCH MUCH clearer

@raymond7427 2 ай бұрын

A very lucid presentation of a commonsense view of what political philosophy is and what we should strive towards.

@NoReprensentationWithoutTax 6 ай бұрын

Nice wrap up, you got the leo well

@ideasmatterpod 6 ай бұрын

Thank you! Glad you enjoyed it

@calvin_the_hee4554 Ай бұрын

You get a thumbs up for the title alone

@133839297 6 ай бұрын

Great content. Subscribed.

@ideasmatterpod 6 ай бұрын

Thank you sir.

@Lampredi4 Жыл бұрын

I have left two other comments on this video which KZfaq keeps deleting. Is there any other platform I can leave a longish comment on the video on?

@ideasmatterpod Жыл бұрын

How odd! If you have either twitter or instagram, I'm on those platforms @ideasmatterpod

@Lampredi4 Жыл бұрын

@@ideasmatterpod ahh thanks. Instagram DMs then

@NoReprensentationWithoutTax 6 ай бұрын

Why is youtube deleting comments?

@Mai-Gninwod 4 ай бұрын

Yo what's the music at the start

@FMDad-dm5qo 8 ай бұрын

Witty video title and an interesting subject.

@ideasmatterpod 8 ай бұрын

Thanks for the support!

@bilalahmadmir9686 8 ай бұрын

Sir may I contact you?

@smallscreentv1204 Жыл бұрын

Great video, thanks! I’m incredibly surprised that we’re still in a battle between the sophists (relativism) and the philosophers (objective truths) Plato’s Republic is a bible Even your point about technology is an example of something that a philosopher, someone who knows the difference e tween good and evil, or someone who re river a proper education could tell you that no thing in itself is good or evil, like money for example, it is the usage of that thing that produces the good or evil.

@ideasmatterpod Жыл бұрын

Thanks so much! Personally, I haven't made up my mind whether or not things like money and technology are morally neutral or not. I think there's a strong argument that certain technologies have their own logic which does somewhat determine their effect on society. But then again, the argument that the bad effects of AI will be due to capitalism, not AI per se, is a compelling counter response. So, I am agnostic at present!

@smallscreentv1204 Жыл бұрын

@@ideasmatterpod I agree with your point about some creations (not only technical creations) have a logic and once created play out their inevitable role to a conclusion. Almost like fate. I wonder if you’ve read Sir John Glubb’s essay the fate of empires? He points out a lifecycle in that essay, kind of like a human lifecycle, that appears to be inescapable. I’d be keen to hear your thoughts on this cyclic idea? BTW, Ray Dalio points it out in his new book also called ‘the changing world order’. Also, Mike Maloney as well in his economics series on KZfaq called hidden secrets of money.

@analogia_entis 5 ай бұрын

@@ideasmatterpod But to me, who knows AI, you seem like Biden talking about OMNIcron virus. It is the bad scientific training that dictates most opinions

@NoReprensentationWithoutTax 6 ай бұрын

This men has saved me from the nihilism that is the necessary follow up of historicism, not to talk about the apory of modern positivism. By the way, the chinese have translated and studied all strauss works in order to understand the madness of the west.

@matt12.8 3 ай бұрын

Good point. The Chinese study Whitehead for the same reason. Both authors solved the theodicy, and therefore do not need to condemn the West like the dominant ideology needs to, for lack of positive values

@NoReprensentationWithoutTax 3 ай бұрын

@@matt12.8 could elaborate further on this. I didnt get you.

@matt12.8 3 ай бұрын

@@NoReprensentationWithoutTax Strauss, via Kojève and Hegel, and Whitehead are essentially religious thinkers, comfortable with integrating the existence of evil and suffering in their conception of good. Thus, they can love and cherish the West, despite of the suffering and evil. Makes sense that the Chinese are more interested in philosophers capable of loving the West, than hateful, anti-West thinking. The Chinese already have so much of that

@christofeles63 Ай бұрын

This suggests Strauss, in effect, was preoccupied with refuting elements of Nietzsche's thought. Though you make the "Enlightenment project" sound like a form of value relativism. Not sure how Kant would fit into that framing. Surely Rawls has as much a claim to representing that project as anyone, and he would have rejected the concept of radical individualism. Individuals are unthinkable apart from institutions, as Hegel showed and the Ancients presupposed. To say that modern thought wants to "ground our values in reason itself" is just another way of saying it wants to ground (= give an account/justification of) values. There is no alternative to this endeavor, i.e., an account in irrational terms. Even an account of values in terms of revelation is rational. Reason by its nature seeks the universal among the particular, the formula in the manifold. Nietzsche's view of reason must be allocated to a series of false conceptions of the rational, that is, of what would constitute the true 'irrational.' Ultimately, only reason contravenes the boundaries of the rational by claiming more order/predictability etc., than is warranted. Why do so many post-Hegelian thinkers attack reason as if it were the root of self-deception rather than accepting it for what it is - - the correlate of the order of the universe/cosmos? Why do so few British thinkers view reason skeptically? One could argue, Hume's idea that reason just cleans up after the passions is the template of all restrictions of reason's authority. In fact, it is another formula for a false irrational. Nothing about the passions contravenes the order of the universe which is the correlate and inspiration for the human, discursive-systematic ordering (account giving) of phenomena. Strauss's defense of revelation against Spinoza does not proceed against reason, but against Spinoza's rationalist prejudices. They are not the same thing. It's best to put the notion to bed that there is an alternative to reason, from the human perspective. Do black holes contradict the order of the cosmos? Obviously not. And if they constitute a dimension of the structure of galaxies, it's hard to see that any of the candidates for the ostensible irrational we have come up with (matter, the passions, the God of Abraham, etc.) fits the bill.