How peculiar and out of touch I must be to have not heard of this Destiny character. Strangely, I feel no loss over this gap. 🤷 And as for Strauss, he's not Wagner, but still I like his music. 🙄
But even so O'Brien it was an interesting and illuminating read, please keep it up while I go turn the record of Symphony No 2 over. 😁
I'm with you Francis - I too was in the dark in regards to Destiny - but O'Brien is a generation younger and obviously in the know about such 'influencers'.
The term “Straussian” has always been so confusing to me. I have read some of Strauss and it did not seem to have one coherent and consistent ideal or even method throughout. Seemed strange to define any political ideology or group by it, in any case. To be generous, the implied meaning seems to be “classical liberal”, materialist, meritocratic and perhaps a “truth and justice” telos. But frankly, most people just use it to mean old academic intellectual aesthetic.
If it actually means anything more specific than that then please enlighten me. Otherwise, I don’t see what any of the people mentioned have in common apart from their academic experiences and opposition to the breakdown of old academia.
The influence Leo Strauss has had on American politics is bewilderingly complex, with commentators from every corner seeing Strauss's influence through their own lens and re-presenting him in whatever bias they might hold. So... it's difficult to define what anyone means by "Straussian", but by the context of their argument, and thus the biased strands they tease out of whatever social situation they are commentating on. Strauss's "natural right", the holding onto historical morality, has been a cornerstone of conservative thought, and then there's the more skeptical Socratic side of him that urges him to be liberated from any dogmatic position. No wonder Strauss has been confusing to you.
I'll have to find out from O'Brien why he's specifically used "Straussian" here, rather than making my own assumptions.
Please do find out what is really meant here. I am really curious now, since I have never had the opportunity to actually confront anyone that used the term before. I don’t really know who this “Destiny” character is but from the description they seem quite vapid and out of touch with anything meaningful. I really fail to see the common thread or connection between all the people mentioned and Strauss’s work.
To be clear though, Strauss’s own writing isn’t confusing to me at all. I just got the impression that it can’t be boiled down or simplified into any particular ideological position. So the confusion is definitely there in the way he is referenced in popular discourse.
I guess so. And thanks John for the kind words. It's more O'Brien who's had time to write, but I need to get back into it myself, so hopefully hear something more significant from me in the near future.
You are absolutely spot on. It’s Straussianism all the way down. Your noticing is proof that you’re paying attention and thinking critically. Very impressive. Well done.
I think teasing out the differences between Straussian perspectives and Neocons is difficult because you'd have to define both to even start, and that's difficult, and then (because there's been much Neocon thought born out of Straussian philosophy - or "non-philosophy" - depending on which version of Strauss you are referencing) you'd have to define, from which camps of the Neoconservatives, what other influences, and therefore differences, have come into the Neocon worldview that are not Strauss (and that's broad to say the least).
I'm not trying to be difficult, (maybe I'm being avoidant), but these terms are so broad and adopted by so many camps, in my mind it really is a PhD level study to answer this question in a way that would be truly meaningful.
i.e. someone way smarter and informed than me would have to answer that question.
Maybe someone can point us to another substack who's got it worked out?
How peculiar and out of touch I must be to have not heard of this Destiny character. Strangely, I feel no loss over this gap. 🤷 And as for Strauss, he's not Wagner, but still I like his music. 🙄
But even so O'Brien it was an interesting and illuminating read, please keep it up while I go turn the record of Symphony No 2 over. 😁
Someone who names themself Destiny....a little on the self-important side perhaps?
I'm with you Francis - I too was in the dark in regards to Destiny - but O'Brien is a generation younger and obviously in the know about such 'influencers'.
The term “Straussian” has always been so confusing to me. I have read some of Strauss and it did not seem to have one coherent and consistent ideal or even method throughout. Seemed strange to define any political ideology or group by it, in any case. To be generous, the implied meaning seems to be “classical liberal”, materialist, meritocratic and perhaps a “truth and justice” telos. But frankly, most people just use it to mean old academic intellectual aesthetic.
If it actually means anything more specific than that then please enlighten me. Otherwise, I don’t see what any of the people mentioned have in common apart from their academic experiences and opposition to the breakdown of old academia.
The influence Leo Strauss has had on American politics is bewilderingly complex, with commentators from every corner seeing Strauss's influence through their own lens and re-presenting him in whatever bias they might hold. So... it's difficult to define what anyone means by "Straussian", but by the context of their argument, and thus the biased strands they tease out of whatever social situation they are commentating on. Strauss's "natural right", the holding onto historical morality, has been a cornerstone of conservative thought, and then there's the more skeptical Socratic side of him that urges him to be liberated from any dogmatic position. No wonder Strauss has been confusing to you.
I'll have to find out from O'Brien why he's specifically used "Straussian" here, rather than making my own assumptions.
Please do find out what is really meant here. I am really curious now, since I have never had the opportunity to actually confront anyone that used the term before. I don’t really know who this “Destiny” character is but from the description they seem quite vapid and out of touch with anything meaningful. I really fail to see the common thread or connection between all the people mentioned and Strauss’s work.
To be clear though, Strauss’s own writing isn’t confusing to me at all. I just got the impression that it can’t be boiled down or simplified into any particular ideological position. So the confusion is definitely there in the way he is referenced in popular discourse.
Here's the dot-point summary when I asked O'Brien about his definition of Straussian Conservitism:
- de-emphasise role of Christianity in building the west
- believe the American idea is to uphold and promote progressive liberalism
and an 'open society' (like Karl Popper)
- believe society should have no christian foundation, instead
multiculturalism and religious pluralism, atheistic state structure
- beleives a deregulated free market (Milton Friedman/Austrian school) is the ideal,
yet fail to note that the idealised free market (Adam Smith wealth of nations)
requires a society unified around common morals, principles and culture
- free markets in multicultural non religious societies sell all sorts
of degeneracy, even slaves
- beleive in Ayn Rand style individualism, again ignoring that in a
multicultural multi-religious society, individuals become lost and isolated
without some connection to 'their group'
- many other things to be discussed
In other words, a sophist bloviating so that others will fluff his ego.
(PS: good to see more from you and "O'Brien" again.)
I guess so. And thanks John for the kind words. It's more O'Brien who's had time to write, but I need to get back into it myself, so hopefully hear something more significant from me in the near future.
You are absolutely spot on. It’s Straussianism all the way down. Your noticing is proof that you’re paying attention and thinking critically. Very impressive. Well done.
What difference, if any, is there between Straussianism and Neoconservatism?
I think teasing out the differences between Straussian perspectives and Neocons is difficult because you'd have to define both to even start, and that's difficult, and then (because there's been much Neocon thought born out of Straussian philosophy - or "non-philosophy" - depending on which version of Strauss you are referencing) you'd have to define, from which camps of the Neoconservatives, what other influences, and therefore differences, have come into the Neocon worldview that are not Strauss (and that's broad to say the least).
I'm not trying to be difficult, (maybe I'm being avoidant), but these terms are so broad and adopted by so many camps, in my mind it really is a PhD level study to answer this question in a way that would be truly meaningful.
i.e. someone way smarter and informed than me would have to answer that question.
Maybe someone can point us to another substack who's got it worked out?