The history of the state, and the philosophy of the state that is modernity, is simply fascinating.
One problem I always have with the very “European” style of the likes of Strauss, but also even Oakeshott, is an excess of interpretation. In other words, a bit too much philology. One of the reasons I tend towards analytic philosophy and American thought, despite being trained in neither, is a reaction to the very historistic reading of things prevalent among us Europeans.
That said, I find it crystal clear, but important to ascertain, that Hobbes, one way or another, is the origin of modern political science, which is not the same as classical or traditional political philosophy. I find Thomas Hobbes to be levels more important than Machiavelli (despite his importance) and I would even say that Hobbes is more important to understanding modernity than Descartes, only surpassed in importance by Kant.
I don’t think this issue, the importance of Thomas Hobbes, can be underplayed in any way. Hence, in different ways, Schmitt, Strauss and Oakeshott are here important. In a way I think the new science, the new method and the return of certain older political trends are all simultaneously important, the synthetic philosophy or science of Hobbes.
I don't know if I've been scathed so deeply that I don't see it anymore, but Strauss, and especially Oakeshott, don't strike me very historical at all. I even think that this is part of the reason Strauss was so very well received in the U.S., and Oakeshott is thought of (usually) more as a political philosopher than a scholar. I was "trained" in a very analytical department, but I can't imagine someone who would willingly prefer reading Rawls or Nozick for instance over these figures (even though, to be fare, Nozick writes amazingly). But perhaps it can be attributed to different aesthetic preference when reading philosophy.
As for your point - I concur completely. Historically speaking, Machiavelli or even Spinoza did not initiate a "tradition". With Hobbes, for one reason or another, we have a true beginning of a tradition that does not align easily with any of the older traditions of political philosophy, and is modern to the bone (or the reverse, as Strauss would insist - Modernity is Hobbesian).
Thank you very much for the in-depth reading and for sharing your thoughts!
You are right, Anglo-Saxons are in my opinion not the strongest moral or political philosophers (I agree with Nietzsche on that, even if I love Herbert Spencer). The thing I can appreciate is that American Intellectuals specially seem to have some “unwritten” rules that are a fresh air to me.
I should have said Anglo-Saxon rather than analytic because I meant in a more cultural sense. I honestly find analytical philosophers horrendous when it comes to politics and ethics. But I was also thinking of figures such as the great Edward Feser, Alastair Mcyintire or Henry B. Veatch. They show why the Anglo-Saxon style can help people from a more Scholastic background (it is the philosophy I am trained in, so I use those examples).
For example, XX century Thomistic philosophers from Canada or the USA tend to be a lot less pedantic, they prefer actually doing philosophy instead of constantly interpreting what Saint Thomas originally meant. The great merit of English writing style, at least among philosophers it seems, is to not take yourself too seriously and I think it is very beneficient. I find the general attitude of Guilson for example to be misguided, or a guide to how not to do Thomism.
The problem I have with Leo Strauss is that, while he doesn’t go to the same extent as other Germanics, he reaaaaally likes to delve upon the tradition of natural law, and I sometimes miss a blunt application of the whole idea. Maybe I am a bit impatient though.
Aside for your remarks about style that I tend to agree with - I gained a new name to look into that I wasn’t familiar with before. So doubly thanks. What would you recommend as a representative work of Henry Babcock Veatch? (I’m glad I’m not the only one to read Macintyre here, I have a few posts about him scheduled but I was worried it’s too… idiocyncratic)
I have not read much from him. But “Rational Man” is said to be by some to be equal if not better than “After Virtue”.
He also has writings comparing modern modal logic and classical Aristotelian logic. He is actually quite known among libertarians, given that some of his students (who are very Thomistic but not religious) are libertarian.
I'm going to have to let it settle in my brain before asking a couple of questions, just to try to illuminate a few corners further.
I used Carl Schmitt briefly when writing about Walter Benjamin and Frantz Fanon during my own MA about 15 years ago, but am quite unfamiliar with Leo Strauss and rusty in my philosophy. I'll let the back of my brain work on this a little.
The history of the state, and the philosophy of the state that is modernity, is simply fascinating.
One problem I always have with the very “European” style of the likes of Strauss, but also even Oakeshott, is an excess of interpretation. In other words, a bit too much philology. One of the reasons I tend towards analytic philosophy and American thought, despite being trained in neither, is a reaction to the very historistic reading of things prevalent among us Europeans.
That said, I find it crystal clear, but important to ascertain, that Hobbes, one way or another, is the origin of modern political science, which is not the same as classical or traditional political philosophy. I find Thomas Hobbes to be levels more important than Machiavelli (despite his importance) and I would even say that Hobbes is more important to understanding modernity than Descartes, only surpassed in importance by Kant.
I don’t think this issue, the importance of Thomas Hobbes, can be underplayed in any way. Hence, in different ways, Schmitt, Strauss and Oakeshott are here important. In a way I think the new science, the new method and the return of certain older political trends are all simultaneously important, the synthetic philosophy or science of Hobbes.
Great read.
I don't know if I've been scathed so deeply that I don't see it anymore, but Strauss, and especially Oakeshott, don't strike me very historical at all. I even think that this is part of the reason Strauss was so very well received in the U.S., and Oakeshott is thought of (usually) more as a political philosopher than a scholar. I was "trained" in a very analytical department, but I can't imagine someone who would willingly prefer reading Rawls or Nozick for instance over these figures (even though, to be fare, Nozick writes amazingly). But perhaps it can be attributed to different aesthetic preference when reading philosophy.
As for your point - I concur completely. Historically speaking, Machiavelli or even Spinoza did not initiate a "tradition". With Hobbes, for one reason or another, we have a true beginning of a tradition that does not align easily with any of the older traditions of political philosophy, and is modern to the bone (or the reverse, as Strauss would insist - Modernity is Hobbesian).
Thank you very much for the in-depth reading and for sharing your thoughts!
You are right, Anglo-Saxons are in my opinion not the strongest moral or political philosophers (I agree with Nietzsche on that, even if I love Herbert Spencer). The thing I can appreciate is that American Intellectuals specially seem to have some “unwritten” rules that are a fresh air to me.
I should have said Anglo-Saxon rather than analytic because I meant in a more cultural sense. I honestly find analytical philosophers horrendous when it comes to politics and ethics. But I was also thinking of figures such as the great Edward Feser, Alastair Mcyintire or Henry B. Veatch. They show why the Anglo-Saxon style can help people from a more Scholastic background (it is the philosophy I am trained in, so I use those examples).
For example, XX century Thomistic philosophers from Canada or the USA tend to be a lot less pedantic, they prefer actually doing philosophy instead of constantly interpreting what Saint Thomas originally meant. The great merit of English writing style, at least among philosophers it seems, is to not take yourself too seriously and I think it is very beneficient. I find the general attitude of Guilson for example to be misguided, or a guide to how not to do Thomism.
The problem I have with Leo Strauss is that, while he doesn’t go to the same extent as other Germanics, he reaaaaally likes to delve upon the tradition of natural law, and I sometimes miss a blunt application of the whole idea. Maybe I am a bit impatient though.
Lastly, yeah, as you said, modernity is Hobbesian
Aside for your remarks about style that I tend to agree with - I gained a new name to look into that I wasn’t familiar with before. So doubly thanks. What would you recommend as a representative work of Henry Babcock Veatch? (I’m glad I’m not the only one to read Macintyre here, I have a few posts about him scheduled but I was worried it’s too… idiocyncratic)
I have not read much from him. But “Rational Man” is said to be by some to be equal if not better than “After Virtue”.
He also has writings comparing modern modal logic and classical Aristotelian logic. He is actually quite known among libertarians, given that some of his students (who are very Thomistic but not religious) are libertarian.
I'll to look into that, not least because I wrote a whole article about epistemic logic in Aristotle and I haven't heard of him. I smell major flaw.
Oh, just forgot, a very interesting one is “For an ontology of morals: A Critique of Contemporary Ethical Theory”.
His work on logic is published by Editiones Scholasticae: “Two Logics: The Conflict Between Classical and Neo-Analytic Philosophy”.
Very interesting.
I'm going to have to let it settle in my brain before asking a couple of questions, just to try to illuminate a few corners further.
I used Carl Schmitt briefly when writing about Walter Benjamin and Frantz Fanon during my own MA about 15 years ago, but am quite unfamiliar with Leo Strauss and rusty in my philosophy. I'll let the back of my brain work on this a little.
I mean. I am somewhat biased here. But appreciate the effort! Take care.