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
It’s so good to hear and discussion of these important topics. It helps stimulate one’s intellect. I was wondering if you could perhaps discuss Albert Camus’ The Rebel. I would love to hear your ruminations on those ideas which I feel a lot of meaning for our current society. As the battle between radiology and a conservative one, continue in America and Europe today.
17:00 Social media is not to blame for our loss of attention span, our lack of thought, our lack of reading? One book in the last two years is the average reader today.
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.
; A good contrast. Another way to approach this topic would be to contrast Strauss’ What is Political Philosophy with George Sabine’s A History of Political Theory.
As someone who is familiar with Strauss, which of these books do you recommend for a beginner to Strauss's thought, "What is Political Philosophy?" (1959) or "An Introduction to Political Philosophy: Ten Essays" (ed. Gildin, 1989)? I am thinking of purchasing the latter combined with "Natural Rights and History" (1999).
Not that it has anything to do with this discussion, but before I forget. The error of Straussian thought seems bare before beginning. It is common in the Study of Truth, as a whole. Truth, unlike other sciences, has a fixed locus and terminus. Innovation often learns beyond Truth. Certainly beyond the ethics of truth in areas of sociological impact. I have no knowledge of him, or, the field so I only speak from the anecdotal point of observable results since I began to engage modern thought. I will listen now and learn more to see if my theory from observation has any validity.
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.
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.
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!
@@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 RUclips called hidden secrets of money.
@@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
Nietzsche was an Aristocratic Radical not a Liberal. He thought that the Ubermensch ideal would necessarily lead to an ever more crushing aristocratic elite. So Strauss is wrong in his take here - at least as you describe it.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Ahh, love the video title. You’ve destroyed the search algorithm with nous and optimisation
Leo Strauss and the Straussians are proof that one should never judge a creator by the fandom.
Or ESPECIALLY vice versa !! For Thomas G West, Harry Jaffa, Robert Reilly, Glenn Ellmers etc are MUCH MUCH clearer
@tristanreynolds5748 Sir, I will have you know that this armchair is cozy af.
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
This was effectively and coherently laid out. Thank you for this work.
It’s so good to hear and discussion of these important topics. It helps stimulate one’s intellect. I was wondering if you could perhaps discuss Albert Camus’ The Rebel. I would love to hear your ruminations on those ideas which I feel a lot of meaning for our current society. As the battle between radiology and a conservative one, continue in America and Europe today.
Clear, concise, and insightful. Thank you!
Great video. Thank you. I read this essay years ago, and you did a wonderful job of analyzing it.
Thank you for watching and taking the time comment. It is much appreciated
I watched it again, and absorbed more, and appreciated your work even more.
Thank you for the clear and concise video. Very interesting.
17:00 Social media is not to blame for our loss of attention span, our lack of thought, our lack of reading? One book in the last two years is the average reader today.
Try Marshal McLuhan for a more sophisticated conception of technology and its effects
@@rumination2399 excellent recommendation 👌
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.
Thank you!
;
A good contrast.
Another way to approach this topic would be to contrast Strauss’ What is Political Philosophy with George Sabine’s A History of Political Theory.
Interesting. I have Sabine's history but I have not read it yet.
Good stuff!
Thank you
Great content. Subscribed.
Thank you sir.
As someone who is familiar with Strauss, which of these books do you recommend for a beginner to Strauss's thought, "What is Political Philosophy?" (1959) or "An Introduction to Political Philosophy: Ten Essays" (ed. Gildin, 1989)? I am thinking of purchasing the latter combined with "Natural Rights and History" (1999).
I have left two other comments on this video which RUclips keeps deleting. Is there any other platform I can leave a longish comment on the video on?
How odd! If you have either twitter or instagram, I'm on those platforms @ideasmatterpod
@@ideasmatterpod ahh thanks. Instagram DMs then
Why is youtube deleting comments?
You get a thumbs up for the title alone
There is no "technology" prior to the modern world--no "conquest of nature," if not in tales that reject the hypothetical project as absurd.
Yo what's the music at the start
Witty video title and an interesting subject.
Thanks for the support!
Imagine here for the title.
Not that it has anything to do with this discussion, but before I forget. The error of Straussian thought seems bare before beginning. It is common in the Study of Truth, as a whole. Truth, unlike other sciences, has a fixed locus and terminus. Innovation often learns beyond Truth. Certainly beyond the ethics of truth in areas of sociological impact. I have no knowledge of him, or, the field so I only speak from the anecdotal point of observable results since I began to engage modern thought. I will listen now and learn more to see if my theory from observation has any validity.
I figured someone would call me on saying that the other sciences do not have a fixed locus and terminus.
Sir may I contact you?
Thanku
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.
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.
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!
@@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 RUclips called hidden secrets of money.
@@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
Nietzsche was an Aristocratic Radical not a Liberal. He thought that the Ubermensch ideal would necessarily lead to an ever more crushing aristocratic elite. So Strauss is wrong in his take here - at least as you describe it.
Strauss is structure in a contingent world - contingent when it's convenient.
Strauss can't see past his own biases
Great video