I’m starting to understand why Leo Strauss thought the way he did. Look around at society and ask yourself if all it cares about is wealth, sex, and entertainment. The vast majority of people (at least in the US) will not drag themselves out of their world of wealth, sex, and entertainment until they face death.
Fear of dying (or at least the fear of no longer being able to live in that world) is the only thing that will draw people into politics. It is no wonder that the neoconservatives want to instill some kind of virtue into people. And it is no wonder why they are willing to lie to people. People are stupid. That is why they can be lied to. Ironically, it is also why people lie; the vulgar masses that is.
this is why Plato said that people are not really suited for liberty. it is only the Nietzsche’s, the Plato’s, and the Goethe’s that are deserving of liberty. All liberty means to the vulgar is wealth, sex, and entertainment. Now, there is definitely a nuance in Plato’s conception of the noble lie and the Straussian noble lie, but nevertheless it is a nuance that the vulgar won’t catch.
Why do we bother with liberty for everyone? Why do we care about what the vulgar want? If saving your life meant giving up anyone of the three tenets of vulgar life do you think that you’d be saved? Do you think that liberal democracy cares?
All liberty means to the vulgar is wealth, sex, and entertainment
And? It seems like all we care about is rambling on internet forums. Perhaps you’ll want to claim that we’re interested in fine art, or something, but I’m not really sure that there is some radical difference between this and what you criticize.
Idk too much about Strauss but I did hear that he thought Plato’s political ideas were satire. If that’s true, then what should we think of the “noble lie”? Is that a statement of how things are, should be, or both?
But even taking your interpretation of Strauss ( which for all I know, is the right one) for granted, I think there is a subtle sense in which the noble lie implies that people are smarter than a straussian philosopher-king would credit. The idea of the philosopher king needing to lie in order to get his ideas accepted by the people, is like saying “I’m king of my castle, and my wife is the mere peasant. Now, if only I could find a way to sneak my bowling shoes out before my wife comes home.” ; If the people were really so dumb, then why would you need to lie to them in order to advance your position? Isn’t the mind that can process an elaborate lie, also process a truth?
you are damn right I am an elitist, auto. I’ll gladly say that I matter more than the people who live and breath sports statistics. Permenance is what is important in philosophy. Sport Stats don’t matter immediately after they are finished collecting them every season.
Wheylous, the problem is that people not caring about anything but themselves is that the world becomes base.
Because they are not worthy of the unadaulterated truth. They don’t appreciate it. And when everyone knows (we’re all familiar with economics here) it’s value is diminished. let them fumble over their Gods that scare them into their behavior patterns.
This misses the point. the Platonic noble lie conceals a truth (esoteric vs exoteric) at its core. It is not about politics, but philosophy (the truth of reality). Strauss and his ilk aren’t really concerned with truth in the same capacity as Plato. They exploit people’s fear of God in order to goad them into somekind of democratic political action. but democracy is base. The masses don’t know anything about geopolitics or macroeconomics. So, why must they be the ones that get to deal with those problems? the Straussians believe that the truth of politics is that the natural order is not of egalitarian freedom, but of subjection. the masses minds aren’t meant for freedom. Instead, they are meant for subjection. In the interview posted above it is compared to the greek Gods playing tricks on mortals for their own enjoyment. Simliar to Nietzche’s aesthetic justifcation for the world.
Also, Plato’s politics is not satire. he is simply, according to Strauss, not speaking through Socrates (in bk I).
Auto, you won’t be able to look past the elitsit thing to even comprehend what I am saying here. That is why the vulgar shouldn’t be allowed to “rule” in politics. The diminishment of the human mind is not what I want them to do, but something I don’t want them to do. now I’m going to go riot over a basketball game that my team won.
I appreciate your honesty (really). Now please prove that you matter more than the people who live and breathe sports statistics - or else admit that that’s really just your own opinion that no one else is obligated to share.
Even if we accept everything that you say about the current state of human society as true:
What should people be striving for?
Why should we give some the right to control others when those who are in control are equally likely to be just as, if not more vulgar? Indeed a look at the history of most aristocracy would indeed show that what they really care most about include: war, sex, entertainment, wealth, power, and sometimes god. This doesn’t seem like that much of an improvement.
Since you admit that there are those who do deserve liberty, then why should tyranny be the proposed alternative when this would infringe upon the liberty of those who do deserve liberty?
I have a similarly negative view of the common man, even though I think that I have a slightly different idea of his values and how he spends his time.
Edit
Also, I love Nietzsche as a philosopher, but I find it exceedingly odd that you count him among the sort of person who deserved liberty, because in his personal life he really wasn’t. He chased after a girl that ended up breaking his heart for several years, started self-medicating after taking a basic first aid course, and ended up going insane after a mental breakdown while trying to protect a horse. Other than that he lived as a professor, but in his personal life he seems less than deserving, and certainly less than someone who had achieved true happiness.
Because that is the natural order of things. And yes, who is truly at the top is a question simply for those who think about it. I am not necessarily advocating a political elite, but a human elite.
Again, Nietzsche answers this. those that are deserving of it should not be bound by the morals that society constructs (he refers, as do I) to artists not politicians. We are all works of art. Some are simply better than others. thoughts are what matter.
I’m not sure what you’re asking here, sorry. Could you please clarify?
Some punctuation would help: What’s wrong with being an elitist that both, one has to mask it and others seem to need to take off that mask, if it is being worn?
Why? Also, I agree with Nietzsche that truth is by no means the highest value. Indeed, why not rather untruth?
“Because that is the natural order of things. And yes, who is truly at the top is a question simply for those who think about it. I am not necessarily advocating a political elite, but a human elite.”
But merely because it is natural does not mean that it is good. Indeed in the modern society some sort of democracy may indeed be seen as the natural order. How exactly would this “human elite” come about? What do you mean by the first sentence? Are you saying that the people who really benefit the system might not be at the top of the pyramid?
“Again, Nietzsche answers this. those that are deserving of it should not be bound by the morals that society constructs (he refers, as do I) to artists not politicians. We are all works of art. Some are simply better than others. thoughts are what matter.”
Although I think that you phrased this awkwardly, I’m actually of a similar turn of mind in principle, but how would you ever enforce such a rule? Indeed Nietzsche’s problem is that he never does answer this. Those who follow the child’s ethic, the free spirits, those who are truly most valuable because they are sources of value all deserve to be free, yet in the free society they are and they can perfectly well break away from conventional morality. It is in the society with tyranny and political rule that the big headed bunch who hold political power can force their will on the true societal elites. How do you design a system where only the people who should get liberty are the ones that do get liberty?
Aristophanes, I’m still waiting for you to prove to me that you matter more than the people who live and breathe sports statistics, but in the meantime, I’ll note that this notion presumes that value is objective, which conflicts with the notion of subjective value.
Which is why i referred you to Nietzsche; you simply would not understand. You get too hung up on the embracing of ‘unequal’ as the natural state of humans. I don’t need to justify it because it cannot be justified. [But somehow I am held to the ethic of the crowd, which also cannot be justified. 0_o Justify that.]