yammeng的博客

Transcript from the last day of seminar, "The Politics of Atheism: Nietzsche's Zarathustra."

http://www2.bc.edu/~wilsonop/discus/messages/3/57.html?1100014097

Instructor: Harry Neumann

Claremont, CA

December 2002

Apropos of Neumann's lecture, it would be helpful (though what perhaps seems at first extraneous) to dilate on page 242-3 of Strauss's "Preface to Spinoza's Critique of Religion" in _Liberalism Ancient and Modern_

?The celebration of Spinoza had become equally necessary on purely Jewish grounds. As we have seen, the emphasis had shifted from the Torah to the Jewish nation, and the Jewish nation could not be considered the source of the Torah if it did not understand as an organism with a soul of its own; that soul had expressed itself originally and classically in the Bible, although not in all parts of the Bible equally. From the days of the Bible on, there was always the conflict between prophet and priest, between the inspired and the uninspired, between profound subterraneous Judaism and official Judaism. Official Judaism was legalistic and hence rationalistic. Its rationalism had received most powerful support from the philosophic rationalism of alien origin [Plato?s Timaeus dialogue] which had found its perfect expression in the Platonic conception of God as an artificer who makes the universe by looking up to the unchangeable, lifeless ideas. In accordance with this, official Judaism asserted that God has created the world and governs it sub ratione boni. Precisely because he believed in the profoundly understood divinity of the Bible, Spinoza revolted against this official assertion in the name of the absolutely free or sovereign God of the Bible ? of the god who will be what He will be, who will be gracious to whom He will be gracious and will show mercy to whom He will show mercy. Moved by the same spirit, he embraced with enthusiasm Pauls?s doctrine of predestination. The biblical God has created man in his image: male and female did he create them. The male and the female, form and matter, cogitation and extension are then equally attributes of God; Spinoza rejects both Greek idealism and Christian spiritualism. The biblical God forms light and creates darkness, makes peace and creates evil; Spinoza?s God is simply beyond good and evil. God?s might is his right; Spinoza lifts Machiavellianism to theological heights. Good and evil differ only from a merely human point of view; theologically the distinction is meaningless. The evil passions are evil only with a view toward human utility; in themselves they show forth the might and the right of God no less than other things which we admire and by the contemplation of which we are delighted. In the state of nature, that is, independently of human convention [just and unjust are conventional], there is nothing just and unjust, no duty and no guilt, and the state of nature does not simply vanish when civil society is established: pangs of conscience are nothing but feelings of displeasure which arise when a plan has gone wrong. Hence there are no vestiges of divine justice to be found except where just men reign. All human acts are modes of the one God who possesses infinitely many attributes each of which is infinite and only two of which are known to us, who is therefore a mysterious God, whose mysterious love reveals itself in eternally and necessarily bringing forth love and hatred, nobility and baseness, saintliness and depravity, and who is infinitely lovable not in spite of but because of His infinite power beyond good and evil.?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------

[RKL?s note: It's also illuminating to consider Marc Blitz's discussion of Book 10 of Plato's Republic. This certainly picks up on the themes of the above Strauss quote:

?Consider poetry from the standpoint of KNOWLEDGE; from that standpoint poetry is lower; but piece by piece Socrates raises poetry; poetry is low because the poets merely imitate; the painter imitates a bed; a carpenter makes a bed and therefore knows more about it. Well, where does the idea of the bed come from? Plato?s answer is that it comes from the gods.

But if the gods make the ideas, what then are the gods looking at??? What dominates is this pre-existing structure ? AND IF YOU DON?T HAVE THIS PRE-EXISTING STRUCTURE, THEN WHAT YOU ULTIMATELY HAVE IS TOTAL CHAOS ? as we?ll see later in the semester NIETZSCHE will make much of this.

Plato very subtly wants to indicate the problem with ANY view of religion or philosophy that places CREATING beyond REASON and beyond what can be reasonably or rationally understood.

The whole notion that there are actually ideas (eidos) of physical things like beds, that is NOT Plato?s true view. As you can see from the heart of The Republic (that the idea that the permanent truths are not MADE but DISOCOVERED), so you can see that there are not ideas of _physical things_."

RKL
 Posted on Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 12:29 am:    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Neumann:]

Jaffa is the only one around today really asking the question: Why is America worth preserving? And he answers it: Self-evident truths, natural rights, Declaration of Independence, etc., etc. ? [contrast that with Seth Benardete who essentially] says that the highest thing we can do, is have seminars like this. I mean, give credit to Benardete. After all, we're not Socrates. The ideal state is Socrates?s dialogues: Discussion --- that's the ideal state. Adeimantus and Glaucon didn?t realize that. They thought Socrates was talking about ?best regime rule? etc. NO! It was right there, right in front of them, with their discussion with Socrates, with their limitations shown, etc. And that?s very persuasive to people ? it certainly persuaded Velkley who wrote that article on Benardete [the article from The Claremont Review of Books]. And it probably would have persuaded Husserl. Husserl, with the rise of the Nazis and putting him under house arrest (he was a convert, you know, from Judaism to Christianity) --- Strauss had great difficulty in seeing the respective merits and demerits of Heidegger?s siding with the Nazis and with Husserl turning to Christianity: And as George Anastaplo said, ?well, no sensible person today would see any great problem with that? ? or rather [paraphrasing it] ?no non-Jew would see a problem with that!? Essentially, that?s Benardete. Of course, Benardete puts it beautifully. That?s it. That?s the highest thing human beings can do is have seminars like this. That?s a problem, of course. That means that pious political [rationalism] . . . where Jaffa comes closest to philosophy is his political insistence that the highest thing that we do here [in seminar] must be subordinated to those principles, Declaration principles. And that makes him, I don?t know how to put it today ? it seems to me, the most philosophic, the closest thing to a philosopher today. Oddly enough, because he?s so political.

When I was at St. John?s ? you spend a whole semester on a great book, say, Kant?s Critique of Pure Reason, Montesquieu?s Spirit of the Laws, maybe two semesters on a great book?maybe even two years on a single great book. I still believe that.

But what Jaffa taught me is that UNLESS that search is subordinated to making sure that the principles of the Declaration of Independence are seen as self-evident truths by the student and the teacher, IT?S WORTHLESS. And I think he?s
right about that.

Now, I would put it this way, not a way Jaffa would like. This Jaffa approach is not thoughtful. But precisely for that reason it is both political and philosophic. If you?re going to be thoughtful, you?re going to have to face Stavrogin?s suicide and Heidegger?s abyss. That?s where thoughtfulness ends up.

[I put the question to Neumann: ?what do you mean by thoughtful here??]

Reasonably seeing reality for what it is, which is neither political nor philosophic, and in that sense not human.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------

And one of the great virtues of Nietzsche against the Englightenment people who thought there was a great progress ? which starts with those people who thought Socrates had made a progress over the Athenians who condemned him to death ? but by the time of the Enlightenment that really became the pervasive idea ?the whole human race is progressing? and so on and so on. Nietzsche shows what the whole race is actually progressing towards [i.e. an era of LAST MEN -- and, perhaps, on to the Superman; but, alas, there's nothing certain about the emergence of the Superman; all of humanity must sacrifice itself as expendable material for the sake of one or two Supermen. This little unpleasant fact is lost on post-modern imitators of Nietzsche.] Nietzsche puts it in a most amusing and beautiful way in Twilight of the Idols, his criticism of the magician/the artist.

Nietzsche sees what Jaffa sees. People who haven?t been educated and cultivated have a better chance of seeing these things, which Nietzsche thought were wrong, Jaffa thinks are right. Section 363 of Twilight of the Idols. Wagner is that magician ? he?s like a rock & roll singer. What human life is like without religion, that emptiness. It?s also a description of modern marriage, with the marriage march from Lohengrin. See also page 367 of The Portable Nietzsche (and sections 361 & 356 of The Gay Science) -- he discusses how the modern world is full of actors. Why? Because if you think everything is a matter of opinion then everything becomes an act. It?s no longer that you know that this is the right way to be. You?re just acting a role. ?Stop it you actor! You counterfeiter, you liar to the bottom! The ascetic of the spirit [Nietzsche wants artists to realize that their creation is based on nothing but their creativity ? stop going to the people to get that confidence]. I played him. I acted him. The poet magician who at last turns his mind against himself . . . . you know that?s all a lie.? See also 543, ?The Critique of Modernity? in Twilight of the Idols ? and compare with 493-4. [The reading of the morning newspaper replaces the reading of the morning prayer . . . ]. The inculcation of instinct, that?s what education ought to be.?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------

. . . . [Stanley] Rosen comes very close to being Nietzchean ? Rosen so much as says it in Hermeneutics as Politics. Rosen however only sees Nietzsche?s aestheticism -- his own ?platonic Platonism? [one of Neumann's favorite terms; often labels "Eastern Straussians" as un-platonic Platonists] -- as philosophic . . . [i.e. he wrongly sees Nietzsche?s own Platonic platonism as philosophic]. Page 120 of [Mask of Enlightenment ?] ? ?philosophic eros is directed toward the creation of vast schemes to re-create the human race.?

?In my opinion, N., like all great philosophers engages in a divine prerogative of willing a world into being and hence of creating a way of life, not of submitting thought to this [or any] way of life? ? page 126. Hermeneutics As Politics

?The task of the philosopher, by common agreement of ancients and moderns, is to create the present by an act of will.? P. 181 Herm. As Politics

Now, the Athenians would not agree with that, Jaffa would not agree with that, and no philosopher would agree with that, I would argue. But this is Rosen?s take on philosophy.

[student asks]: Then why doesn?t he blame N [Nietzsche] for the fixed form of the philosophy ?

[H.N. {Harry Neumann}]: well that?s in his Nietzsche book.

[Student]: is he confused?

[H.N.]: no he?s not confused, he wants somehow to present himself as someone trying to save philosophy from that Nietzschean abyss. If you go back to his ? it?s not there, even the Nietzsche book . . . . philosophy is still, as he puts it, what I read to you from the Hermeneutics as Politics, page 181: the task of philosophy is ?by common consent to create the present by an act of will.? I mean he agrees with N, he just thinks N should have been more prudent! Now, however wonderful ?prudence? is, if you look at Thomas West?s article on the Mansfield-Jaffa debate [?Does America Have a Declaration of Independence or a Constitutional Soul??], he shows that Mansfield is simply wrong.
 
 

RKL
 Posted on Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 12:43 am:    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He [West] says very prudently, at the end, that the debate between Mansfield and Jaffa is a ?magnificent debate.? Now, for philosophy, as distinct from Rosen?s type of philosophy, there?s nothing magnificent in Mansfield?s position, i.e. Mansfield says that this [the Declaration] is a half-truth, a part lie, an ?opinion that may be wrong? . . . that kind of thinking is EVIL for Jaffa!! West is prudent, his lecture the other night at CMC was prudent. He?s a good man, he?s one of Jaffa?s best students. It?s in a way related to Benardete?s point -- of course Benardete says it in a much more poetic way -- Benardete has a wonderful way of expressing himself, I?d never equal that, and few people would as a matter of fact. That?s what I call that ?Meno interpretation? -- getting the truth out of one?s self as it were. There?s nothing magnificent about Mansfield?s part of the debate. And West makes that perfectly clear in the article. But he says he ?respects? Mansfield and all that.

But back to the central point.

Philosophy in that sense, I think is devastation . . . . philosophy for the ancient pious type, IT IS responsible. Philosophy [from the perspective of pious political rationalism] should never have arisen. Which is what Jaffa says about the South. When people say "the South will rise again," he says it should never have arisen! Men desperately want what Moses, and the Athenian, and, today Jaffa?s ?Declaration Piety? provide: self-evident, rational insight into the nature of God. In its absence everything is up for grabs. Mankind is reduced to guinea pigs for divine or human "creativity," Spinoza?s science [consider Strauss quote from the beginning, from "Preface to Spinoza's Critique of Religion"]; this fate is, however, responsible for Nietzsche?s desperate hope for a superman, Heidegger?s for a future dispensation of Being to bring about the gods or new gods.

[Student puts the question]: That seems right, that people want these things; if so why has Jaffa not been more successful? You?ve mentioned many times how Jaffa has been such a failure. What is it that gets in his way?

[H.N.] What gets in the way of Jaffa being successful, as Jaffa will tell you, is Heidegger.

Heidegger runs the American universities today. I mean, they put a democratic slant on what Heidegger put a Nazi slant on. I mean, when you have ?deconstruction,? ?hermeneutics,? ?respect for diversity.? That?s all Heidegger. But he had a Nazi slant on it. Heidegger . . . . when Churchill gave the orders to gut the French fleet of Iran in 1940 ? after the surrender of the French he didn?t want the French fleet to fall into German hands, that would be disastrous ? Goebbels of course came out with all kinds of Nazi propaganda about how evil those British are, they?re bombarding their best friends. In his Nietzsche lectures, Heidegger says (and this now is ?diversity?): Each country is out to enforce its own will. What the English do (enforce their will), we can?t accept that, we have to destroy it. But that?s what the English have to do. Not what Goebbels says, ?ah, they?re evil people? or something like that. That doesn?t exist.

That?s it, you see! Goebbels is talking like a political man, in a way. You try to paint your enemies as evil as you can. Heidegger didn?t do that to the English. He just said ?that?s their will to power and our will to power; and we?re going to win our will to power.? And there it is.

And Jaffa can?t get around that.

Now, why is that? I think it?s because today everybody believes either all important moral matters, let alone religious matters, are matters of opinion if you happen not to be religious and matters of faith if they happen to be religious. And that means that they cannot accept . . . Jaffa has to in a way, his Socratic Kalam (his ?Contemporary Academic Philosophic Dogmatists?) which he tries to defend Orthodox Judaism and Christianity against. Because Orthodox Judaism and Christianity -- although ultimately a matter of creativity -- and that?s a problem for Jaffa, he knows that -- still, he tries to show that human will is not supreme, there?s something higher. What?s higher then is divine will and that?s just as bad in a way. And that?s what Nietzsche tries to show. But [then again] it?s not. I mean politically, Jaffa can?t do any better than that. How can he do any better? It?s just a matter of opinion!! I mean, when students are writing comments on my evaluations and they try to complement me because they got ?a new idea? in my class. [Spoken with Neumann's vintage sarcasm:] And that was wonderful, to get ?a new idea.? I mean, just opened their minds to a new idea [laughter] -- and that?s just wonderful. That?s what Jaffa?s fighting against. For him, the Declaration is not a new idea. Remember this, Nietzsche addresses ?the last men? ? who are despicable sorts, for whom everything is rosy, they know everything, and they despise the whole past of those people in Northern Ireland who are fighting each other and those people in Jerusalem, etc. They shouldn?t do that. War is just stupid!! Why is that [their belief]? Because it?s all just a matter of opinion or faith. Why don?t they just change their opinions? You shouldn?t die over an opinion, or faith!! You?re crazy if you do. That?s what Jaffa?s fighting against. Because for him the Declaration is not an opinion or faith. It?s a self-evident truth like 1 and 1 is 2 !!
 
 

RKL
 Posted on Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 12:54 am:    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See page 392: N. is introducing the higher men ? and 414, the "leach-brain expert" ? what man fears most of all is that ?beast within:

?Fear is the original and basic feeling of man, from fear everything, original sin to original virtue --- and it is called science. Zarathustra calls it the inner beast. Such higher fear, finally intellectualized, seems this is called science. This provides security from the wild beast."

The problem is this: In one way, ancient pious political rationalism and modern politics, screwed up by Christianity and ?unplatonic Platonism? -- making itself an article of faith and not a self-evident truth -- in one way all politics ancient and modern are the same. What they agree on is this: They can provide security; they can eliminate the inner beast. Everybody has that. Plato presents that comically, poetically in the case of Leontius the son of Aglion - we all have desires in us we think we shouldn?t have ? all human beings have this. All human beings have all the human desires, that?s why Mother Teresa can understand Hitler and why Hitler can understand Mother Teresa. But they have them in different hierarchies, or different standards of political piety or political correctness.

So there are always those passions you want to get rid of. Now, what politics wants -- what every little tribe, every Sparta, every Athens, every Zulu and Aztec, every American, every Russian -- what they would all like is to get rid of every actual and potential enemies. In other words, conquer the world. To bring their notion of political correctness to all people. In other words they want security from that inner beast ? the inner beast of their community and of themselves. Philosophy is the only way of life [according to Neumann] that makes that impossible. THAT?S THE BASIC OPPOSITION BETWEEN PHILOSOPHY AND POLITICS.

And that?s why I disagree with Strauss?s understanding -- which is the usual understanding -- on page 156 of NRH [Natural Right and History]: ?Plato never discusses any subject without keeping in mind what is the best way of life.?

So far so good.

?And the best way of life proves to be philosophic life for Plato.?

There I disagree with Strauss. That is THE question for philosophy. That would give eternal security to philosophy. But I don?t think philosophy has or can ever have that. If it has, it becomes politics ? whether it is Aristotelian metaphysics as politics or Nietzsche?s atheism as politics ? they share that; they share that political un-philosophic view. That?s my view of philosophy. And in a way the whole interpretation of Nietzsche would be informed or bogged down by that view. That?s why philosophy, if it is understood, is hated by human beings. By all of us. Because we all, like that leach-brain expert, want that security from the inner beast. Philosophy?s inner beast is the pious political rationalism which says it is the most irrational, despicable, criminal activity imaginable ? that?s the charge against Socrates in Athens. Now Benardete, says of that charge ?what can you expect of those numskulls in the cave ?? -- of course he doesn?t quite put it that way -? they might be right -- this common root, it may be philosophy which destroys that common root in a way.

Nietzsche?s solution in that sense is really important ? the only proper name in Thus Spoke Zarathustra -- the book which N considered the most important book of any ever written -- Dante, etc. are nothing compared to it -- the only proper name in this book besides Zarathustra of course is Jesus (the chapter on suicide, on free death). Jesus wanted to die. He could have come around to Zarathustra?s view had he lived longer. But Jesus couldn?t see past this piety [rational piety] of Moses that they were pounding on him ? the Jews couldn?t be happy with themselves because they had something above them [again, consider the quotes at the beginning: "sub ratione boni"]; they couldn?t be simply their own law-giver.

Does that explain to you why this book [Zarathustra] was written? You can?t really see it in translation because you can?t translate it poetically. You can?t do so unless you?re on the same level as the poet; otherwise it comes out prosaic. Nietzsche had to sing, he couldn?t speak.

[student:]: is the security manifested in the certainty of self-evident truths? Or in the belief in a creative god who is going to ensure . . . {tape indecipherable}
 
 

RKL
 Posted on Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 12:57 am:    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[H.N.] It?s the first one. As Jaffa likes to say, the ability to accept the self-evident truths of the Declaration are inversely related to how much higher education you?ve sustained. And ?sustained? meaning wounded. Higher education, according to Jaffa, though he can?t say this for prudential reasons ? his kalam can?t emphasize that for prudential reasons ? it?s effort is sustaining that ultimate emphasis of creativity. The one, incidentally, who got in trouble precisely on that with the Catholic Church and was burned at the stake in 1600 on Christmas day was Giordano Bruno. I haven?t mentioned him before. He?s one of my favorites [spoken with Neumann?s signature sarcasm]. He said this -- his book is called On the Infinite World -- he said if God is infinite -- no limits -- that means there are no limits !! And therefore science can do anything. And they burned him at the stake for that of course. You understand? He?s right about that!! He?s sort of a super Euthyphro. No limits. You see, that?s what?s Jaffa is fighting. And Jaffa is fighting with one hand tied around his back because what he has, the Declaration, (in spite of the question of whether this [the ?truth? of the natural rights in the Declaration, etc.] puts an end to philosophy) it?s the closest thing to being philosophic today, strange as it may seem, because it?s the closest thing to being political. If philosophy is right, then political people shouldn?t kill philosophers because they [philosophers] don?t have the security which they [political people] think they [philosophers] have. But they?re not going to give up that security. Just as the very reason this scientist comes to Zarathustra, this crazy poet Zarathustra, is that he thinks he?ll get security there. It happens you know. It?s nice to have someone like the leach-brain expert. Nietzsche says in the Zarathustra that he likes this sort of thing because it means they are not bothered by political, moral concerns. That?s why the leach brain expert is one of the ?higher men.?

Think of one of the other higher men. ?The Murderer of God? (?The Ugliest Man? section of Zarathustra).

You see, he?s ugly. There?s nothing beautiful about atheism. Nietzsche saw that.

The ugliest man at first gurgles ? [i.e.] he?s half-insane. "Pity seizes Zarathustra ? this man is the murderer of God." Also there?s nothing about this man worth looking at. There?s no good and there?s no bad about him ? N also puts this charmingly at page 682 [The Portable Nietzsche]: our new ?taste? doesn?t want to know everything:

?Today we consider it a matter of decency not to wish to see everything naked, or to be present at everything, or to understand and ?know? everything. Tout comprendre ? c?est tout mepriser [?to understand all is to despise all.? This is a change from Leibniz who said ?to know everything is to understand it,? to accept it]. ?Is it true that God is present everywhere?? a little girl asked her mother; ?I don?t think that?s decent? ? a hint for philosophers !

It?s like the old Mad Magazine, whenever they had Superman he was always equipped with X Ray vision -- in front of lady?s toilets ! That?s indecent ! That?s the ugliest man --- he saw everything ! Hence Zarathustra says to him ?You could not bare him who saw you ? who always saw you through and through, you ugliest man!? He had to kill him. It doesn?t make sense; well, it makes poetic sense of course:

?But it is their pity ? it is their pity that I flee, fleeing to you. O Zarathustra, protect me, you my last refuge, the one who has solved my riddle: you guessed how he who killed him feels. Stay! . . . . With difficulty I escaped the throng of the pitying, to find the only one today who teaches, ?Pity is obtrusive? ? you O Zarathustra. Whether it be a god?s pity or man?s ? pity offends the sense of shame. . . . But today that is called virtue itself among all the little people?

Hitler thought this ["little people"] referred to the Jews and anyone who wasn?t a fanatical German like himself. Nietzsche is referring to the cultivated, i.e. the poets, the intellectuals ? the last men.

?They [the little people] have no respect for great misfortune, for great ugliness, for great failure.?

Science prior to modernity has to be subordinate to the highest good, the divine will ? remember, if there are no limitations on god, that means there are no limitations, PERIOD! Just forget about the word god -- there are no limitations. What the ancient sciences always implied is that there always was that limitation ? think of the Epicureans, their ultimate good was peace of mind, freedom from pain ? that they knew, they knew indubitably was the case ? freedom from pain, especially intellectual pain. They thought the highest life, the freedom from pain, was the philosophic life -- sitting around having philosophic discussions; so that means the Epicurean way of life served that purpose ? but A.E. Taylor [famous Oxford philosopher, from the earlier part of 20th Centurty] says, ?well, that?s not science!! That?s not objective, that?s prejudice! You just want to support your own view.?

That?s it! Modern science came out that way.

That was the opposition of the Inquisition to Galileo, to Bruno being burned at the stake, Spinoza being excommunicated by the Rabbis, and even in the 19th Century Darwin being under attack -- though they couldn?t do anything about it by that time -- by Bishop Wilburforce.
 
 

RKL
 Posted on Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 12:58 am:    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[H.N.] It?s the first one. As Jaffa likes to say, the ability to accept the self-evident truths of the Declaration are inversely related to how much higher education you?ve sustained. And ?sustained? meaning wounded. Higher education, according to Jaffa, though he can?t say this for prudential reasons ? his kalam can?t emphasize that for prudential reasons ? it?s effort is sustaining that ultimate emphasis of creativity. The one, incidentally, who got in trouble precisely on that with the Catholic Church and was burned at the stake in 1600 on Christmas day was Giordano Bruno. I haven?t mentioned him before. He?s one of my favorites [spoken with Neumann?s signature sarcasm]. He said this -- his book is called On the Infinite World -- he said if God is infinite -- no limits -- that means there are no limits !! And therefore science can do anything. And they burned him at the stake for that of course. You understand? He?s right about that!! He?s sort of a super Euthyphro. No limits. You see, that?s what?s Jaffa is fighting. And Jaffa is fighting with one hand tied around his back because what he has, the Declaration, (in spite of the question of whether this [the ?truth? of the natural rights in the Declaration, etc.] puts an end to philosophy) it?s the closest thing to being philosophic today, strange as it may seem, because it?s the closest thing to being political. If philosophy is right, then political people shouldn?t kill philosophers because they [philosophers] don?t have the security which they [political people] think they [philosophers] have. But they?re not going to give up that security. Just as the very reason this scientist comes to Zarathustra, this crazy poet Zarathustra, is that he thinks he?ll get security there. It happens you know. It?s nice to have someone like the leach-brain expert. Nietzsche says in the Zarathustra that he likes this sort of thing because it means they are not bothered by political, moral concerns. That?s why the leach brain expert is one of the ?higher men.?

Think of one of the other higher men. ?The Murderer of God? (?The Ugliest Man? section of Zarathustra).

You see, he?s ugly. There?s nothing beautiful about atheism. Nietzsche saw that.

The ugliest man at first gurgles ? [i.e.] he?s half-insane. "Pity seizes Zarathustra ? this man is the murderer of God." Also there?s nothing about this man worth looking at. There?s no good and there?s no bad about him ? N also puts this charmingly at page 682 [The Portable Nietzsche]: our new ?taste? doesn?t want to know everything:

?Today we consider it a matter of decency not to wish to see everything naked, or to be present at everything, or to understand and ?know? everything. Tout comprendre ? c?est tout mepriser [?to understand all is to despise all.? This is a change from Leibniz who said ?to know everything is to understand it,? to accept it]. ?Is it true that God is present everywhere?? a little girl asked her mother; ?I don?t think that?s decent? ? a hint for philosophers !

It?s like the old Mad Magazine, whenever they had Superman he was always equipped with X Ray vision -- in front of lady?s toilets ! That?s indecent ! That?s the ugliest man --- he saw everything ! Hence Zarathustra says to him ?You could not bare him who saw you ? who always saw you through and through, you ugliest man!? He had to kill him. It doesn?t make sense; well, it makes poetic sense of course:

?But it is their pity ? it is their pity that I flee, fleeing to you. O Zarathustra, protect me, you my last refuge, the one who has solved my riddle: you guessed how he who killed him feels. Stay! . . . . With difficulty I escaped the throng of the pitying, to find the only one today who teaches, ?Pity is obtrusive? ? you O Zarathustra. Whether it be a god?s pity or man?s ? pity offends the sense of shame. . . . But today that is called virtue itself among all the little people?

Hitler thought this ["little people"] referred to the Jews and anyone who wasn?t a fanatical German like himself. Nietzsche is referring to the cultivated, i.e. the poets, the intellectuals ? the last men.

?They [the little people] have no respect for great misfortune, for great ugliness, for great failure.?

Science prior to modernity has to be subordinate to the highest good, the divine will ? remember, if there are no limitations on god, that means there are no limitations, PERIOD! Just forget about the word god -- there are no limitations. What the ancient sciences always implied is that there always was that limitation ? think of the Epicureans, their ultimate good was peace of mind, freedom from pain ? that they knew, they knew indubitably was the case ? freedom from pain, especially intellectual pain. They thought the highest life, the freedom from pain, was the philosophic life -- sitting around having philosophic discussions; so that means the Epicurean way of life served that purpose ? but A.E. Taylor [famous Oxford philosopher, from the earlier part of 20th Centurty] says, ?well, that?s not science!! That?s not objective, that?s prejudice! You just want to support your own view.?

RKL
 Posted on Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 01:02 am:    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That?s it! Modern science came out that way.

That was the opposition of the Inquisition to Galileo, to Bruno being burned at the stake, Spinoza being excommunicated by the Rabbis, and even in the 19th Century Darwin being under attack -- though they couldn?t do anything about it by that time -- by Bishop Wilburforce.
What all these people saw - - - you know, Bruno, the reason they burned him at the stake is he said, ?you know, all you Christians are just like us. You don?t believe in an ultimate limits, so God can do whatever He wants, so why can?t men do whatever they want ?!? Bruno really did point out in his book The Infinity of Worlds, the whole problem of Christianity and science. As Jaffa?s Socratic Kalam (?Contemporary Philosophic Academic Fundamentalism?) still wanted to get (according to Jaffa unclearly) how the Christians wanted to show that there was something higher than anything human that was absolutely certain. What Bruno shows is that it?s NOT UNCHANGEABLE if you?re a Christian [or for that matter a Jew ? since Jews have been thoroughly Christianized]. If you?re a Christian, God can change it!! [This is getting at, really, the basis of Neumann's nihilism -- why he sees nihilism as the only alternative to Jaffa's Declaration Piety. As Neumann told me explicitly, what he learned from studying under Strauss, Lowith, Gadamer, etc., are NOTHING compared to what he has learned from Jaffa]. But this points to the need for Jaffa?s Socratic kalam, to try to get the Christian Right, for example, as close as possible to that old pious political rationalism of Moses, where the Law became the important thing: God created the world not for man but for the sake of the Law [again, think of Blitz's comments]. It may appear that way and needs to be interpreted that way ? but for the sake of the law. That?s what Nietzsche means in the chapter on suicide, where he says Jesus committed suicide. Had he lived longer he could have come up with Zarathustra?s kind of creativeness. The Jewish political piety came down on his craziness, which made him very sad so he courted suicide ? that?s Nietzsche?s take on suicide; but what that shows is that Nietzsche had some awareness, which is clear in The Antichrist. This of course very much depends on what type of universe we?re talking about ? is it a universe subject ultimately to impersonal universal truth about morality (Plato?s ?idea of the Good?, Divine Law whatever you want to call it). Or is it a universe in which a personal creator creates that law ? and if that?s the case then Bruno?s interpretation comes right out and I don?t see how that can be denied.

Are there any limits on God according to the Rabbis? NO. [But] According to Leo Strauss, the Rabbinic interpretation [the Rabbinic interpretation of Maimonides] they believed they got support for their views from Plato?s Timaeus.

[Here Neumann reads from page 242-3 of Strauss's "Preface to Spinoza's Critique of Religion" Liberalism Ancient and Modern.]

The main problem is this: If you go with the main Platonic understanding [what Neumann calls the ?philosophic understanding?] then there is no salvation for the world or any individual. Those inner beasts cannot be scotched by God or man. For philosophy is the only activity which makes that impossible. Its inner beast is its case against it; that it may be the most irrational, criminal thing in the world, for which Socrates was condemned to death --- they may be right!! Philosophy is the only activity with no hope of salvation. For the individual. That?s why very few people are ever philosophic. It seems an almost impossible enterprise. But maybe Socrates was a philosopher; if so he went to his death not knowing whether that was the right thing or not; that?s why according to Heidegger he was the purest philosopher who ever lived ? he wrote nothing, he didn?t write anything to justify himself to posterity or to create little Socrateses; the Athenian Stranger does that though ? he tries to corrupt that Spartan Megilus ? that?s the problem. Any world, any god . . . is that god subordinated, as Strauss says, to the idea of the good, which is impersonal, or not? That?s the problem. If it?s personal, then he can, personally, help you get rid of what all politics wants to get rid of [i.e. nihilism], inner and outer beasts/enemies. He does what only a Superman can do, as Nietzsche says ? he provides that security from the inner beast. That?s why the leach brain expert, the expert scientist who thinks the greatest thing you can do, the greatest thing in the world ? that?s why he goes to Zarathustra, to get that security. He can?t get it from the science;
 
 

RKL
 Posted on Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 01:04 am:    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
look at page 363: ?how long I have been pursuing this one thing . . . . . here is my realm, for its sake I have thrown away everything else [reminds one a little bit of Max Weber, Nuemann says]; for its sake everything else has become indifferent to me and close to my knowledge lies my black ignorance.? That?s a problem. He sees a bind. For modern science, everything is hypothetical ? there?s nothing established including the speed of light or evolution as an eternal truth; every scientific finding is open to revision or even rejection in the light of new findings. This was not true of Epicurus, or Plato, or Aristotle, or the Stoics, or for any of them ? they had found, for once and for all the most important thing. That?s why the most important activity today is science ? that characterizes the modern world. It?s not "the sciences and the humanities"; the humanities are simply what the leach brain expert would call pussy-footing scientists. They don?t see, they don?t feel that very need that the real scientist feels for knowing something, whether its only knowledge of the brain of the leach; what they have is mickey mouse knowledge about values and all that. Nietzsche looks at this scientist as one of the higher men. Further on page 363: ?You Zarathustra, once said [in the chapter on Wise Men and why he can?t talk to the people] mind [spirit] is the life itself that cuts into life [reason is the life that cuts into life] That introduced and seduced me to your doctrine. Invariably with my own blood I increased my knowledge [as blood poors down his own arm!] . . . oh you stranger how much I learned what is apparent here, namely from you. And perhaps better not pore out all of it into your strict ears.? In other words he says the same thing to him when he comes down the mountain and meets the pious fellow at the wood, that it?s better that I not tell him that God is dead; you see this scientist hadn?t seen yet what it means ?God is dead.? He still thinks his science gives him air-tight knowledge. If only of the brain of the leach. Still believes that and wants that. Nietzsche admires that. Look at the Joyful Science 366 (?Faced with a Scolarly Book).

The fact that N is so popular today is troubling -- because what it shows is that the people who think that the best they have in life are their opinions, if they think seriously about that then they have to go to something like Nietzsche, like the Superman; and he would, as Laurence Lampert puts it ?let each thing be exactly what it is? ? but ?what it is? in a universe in which everything is creativity, or creation!! --- Lampert is wrong about that if Aristotle, Lucretius, etc., thought of themselves in that way. They did NOT think of themselves that way!! They thought of themselves in terms of ?Divine Law?, ?the idea of the good?, etc.

The main problem again is the one of philosophy ? the philosophic enterprise is in that sense the most unpolitical thing imaginable ? it make war inevitable. [WHY?] And what politics does is it tries to elimate war. By conquering everybody. But, that you can?t do. In otherwords, war and philosophy go together. Like Mars and Venus ? Venus was married, legally, to the god of technology, Ophestus/Vulcan but she didn?t love him. She loved the god of destruction and war, Mars. That?s in some sense very philosophic. That has a quite philosophic edge to it, that myth. That?s it. Philosophy is the only activity in which there is no possiblity of eliminating war, especially the war in ones own soul.

[student asks: ?Wouldn?t that imply that one-half of politics is atheistic?]

Yes, you could put it this way. If philosophers are right, and Socrates is right where he?s bragging his head off - ?the unexamined life is not worth living? etc. - if that?s right then there?s something atheistic about the Athenians who put him to death. In that sense politics is driven by a combination of Euthyphro and his family. You need that personal enforcer; philosophy doesn?t particularly need that. That?s why the conflict between reason and revelation, contrary to what many people say, is no big deal for philosophy. The big deal for philosophy is the question whether that pious political rationalism is rationally correct. Not whether it?s faith has any [validity]. You have to talk about ?faith? today because all the religions are religions of faith today!! I mean, what can you do?? What else can Jaffa?s Socratic kalam do? But I take what Paul Johnson said in his book on American history: According to Mrs. Lincoln, Lincoln had no faith and no hope in the usual religious understanding of a personal god, but she says he was [nonetheless] a religious man. The Lincoln?s colleague, Hernden, said of Lincoln that Lincoln thought that no personal god existed. Lincoln didn?t say that out loud. The poor man needed all the help he could get. Not only from the border states but from everybody. If he were an atheist, boy what the South would have made of that one, not believing in a personal god. That?s true. But I think that?s true of Lincoln, I think that?s true of Jaffa, and I think that?s true of the pious political rationalism. However, that pious political rationalism wants to conquer everything and therefore it needs that personal [enforcer?] just like Lincoln needed all those soldiers to conquer the South. It needs that. And that?s a problem. So philosophy is always an unwelcome guest.
 
 

RKL
 Posted on Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 01:08 am:    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, if Strauss is right about Plato, and Plato knew that everything has to be . . . he puts it rather nicely on page 156 of Natural Right and History, which by the way could just as easily have been called Natural Right and Aestheticism, or Natural Right and Individuality. I do not think if Plato was philosophic, that that was the case [i.e. that Plato knew that the ?simply best way of life proves to be the philosophic life? p. 156]. Strauss?s view is certainly the majority view on that. For once Strauss is on everybody else?s side. And if the Declaration of Independence is true, and it really gives a guide to how you should live your life - of what?s right and wrong - then yeah, philosophy is finished. In a way that?s right. That?s what I say. There?s nothing wrong with that. Why shouldn?t philosophy be finished?

[Neumann mentions Alexandre Kojeve and Catherine Zuckert?s discussion of this ? **see note in Postmodern Platos, p. 304, note 54**? whether there is an enduring, intelligibly eternal order which as such limits human action; or whether everything is subject to change (which is atheism). Since Strauss considered this the insoluble problem Strauss could not deny the future atheist reality that Kojeve foresaw was possible . . . ]

There I think that?s neither philosophic nor political what Zuckert is ascribing to Strauss; but Strauss does say something in that book that allows her to say that. Because he?s talking to Kojeve. And for one reason or another he wanted his books to be given as much hearing as possible because Kojeve was in a way the main French intellectual. But I don?t think Strauss ultimately believed that.

The usual interpretation, which Strauss does embrace there, is that Plato and Socrates - and in Aristotle it?s clear - they all thought that the philosophic life is the best life and the unexamined life is not worth living, etc. Insofar as they were philosophic, I don?t think they thought that. Now, whether Strauss agrees with that ultimately, I?m not sure. Philosophy--Heidegger isn?t far wrong about that. There is something dreadful about philosophy. You know the question that he, or one of his students, hits Ernst Cassirer with in that Davos debate, ?shouldn?t philosophy have as its main goal to make life appear dreadful to everybody?? He asked poor little Cassirer that. See the 5th edition of Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics. If you read the debate, you?d think it was just two intellectuals debating about Kant. But the debate wasn?t really about Kant. The debate was about philosophy. Strauss pointed that out to me. I didn?t see that the first time I read it. Cassirer was being shown up by Heidegger ? what Cassirer?s aestheticism leads to is an _abyss_. And that hit Heidegger hard. That overwhelmed him. Cassirer, nothing could overwhelm. Cassirer is what Nietzsche means by the last man, those wonderful sophisticates that Dannhauser talks about, that can?t accept the self-evident truths of the Declaration but still go along, life is just wonderful, etc.

The other thing that Strauss does not point out for obvious prudential reasons: Cassirer had become that year, 1929, the first Rector of a German University. That was the Weimar Republic. Before that Jews had trouble becoming college professors, much less college Rectors. Rector in Germany is a kind of combination of what in an American university would be both Dean AND President. Complete control of the university. Cassirer had become that. It was known also that Cassirer attained that because he was one of the foremost defenders of German democracy, the Weimar Republic.

It was also known, to put it mildly that Heidegger was opposed to the democracy and was on the side of the Nazis. And I think it is of some importance to see on which side Strauss came down on. And the reason for that is Kant?s defense of democracy, especially in Eternal Peace, is based on the autonomy of the human will. Heidegger points out: If you base things on the autonomy of the human will, you could just as well support Communism, or Nazism, or what the hell you wanted, rather than democracy. Cassirer doesn?t see that. And he?s the great defender of democracy. Of course, for Heidegger and for the Nazis, a Jew and the Jews defending democracy ?- as soon as they gain power in the elections, which happens the next year after the debate, the first thing they?re going to get rid of are the Jews. He did take off in ?33. Strauss took off in ?32, with a recommendation from Carl Schmitt.

But that debate, if you look at that debate and the whole book on Kant and Metaphysics is about that problem. And Heidegger?s work is about that. Those people who defend democracy by talking about the dignity of every human being, and don?t talk about the laws of nature and nature?s god --- but of the dignity of every human being ? they just as well might be talking about the dignity of the Aryan race !! With the same lack of any background. And Heidegger points that out. It?s a matter of will.
 
 

RKL
 Posted on Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 01:09 am:    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And Strauss came down on the side of Heidegger. Just as incidentally, in the book of early writings -- the one on Freud is the one we?ll talk about next term, where?s he?s much friendlier to Freud than he is later on in that article on Freud and Moses, where he calls Freud one of the last men. But here he?s much kinder to Freud. And also he comes down hard on the side of Jabotinsky against Nordau. Nordau was a kind of Cassirer. He wanted to show the world that the Jews were idealistic and so on, even if they didn?t get Palestine. Well for Strauss, Jabotinsky was the important thing. That they would by hook or by crook or any devious scheme get that state of Israel. That?s Jabotinsky.

As I pointed out earlier, Jabotinsky had told the Jews in Poland and Russia in 1920, to get the hell out and go to Palestine. At that time it was completely open, there were no restrictions in immigration. That came later with the British and the Arabs getting angry and so on. The real pogroms were not in Germany at that time; the killing of Jews was going on mostly in Russia and Poland. But the other Zionists said, ?what?s the hurry?? and so and so on. Well, there would be a few million Jews left who would have survived the Holocaust if they had listened to Jabotinsky. Well, Strauss was on the side of Jabotinsky against these idealists. And in a way, Strauss is more political and more philosophic in his early work ? just like Jaffa is, than people like Nordau and Cassirer. I mean, Cassirer defends the dignity of every human being!! But what kind of defense is that, to say every human being has dignity ?? Well the one who tried to that of course was Hegel. Hegel tried to base his philosophy on the dignity of every human being. That?s why he thought the real gods were the gods who got crucified and died like human beings. There?s a nice chapter in his Philosophy of Religion, where he speaks of those beautiful gods of the ancient world, Aphrodite, Apollo ? lives where they had no trouble at all. He said, they?re not really gods. A real God would get crucified. Because the highest thing in the world is the dignity of every human being. But that?s what Heidegger saw in that, that?s what Nietzsche saw in that: That?s atheism!! That?s nihilism!! But that?s what most people today see. And if they have religion, it?s based on a god who creates. And that?s a problem.

Now, Nietzsche sees those problems as clear as day. The Fourth Book of the Zarathustra points that out. See page 308, section 2:

?When I came to men I found them sitting on an old conceit, the conceit that they long have known what is good and evil.? ?I disturbed this sleepiness when I taught what?s good and evil no one knows yet.?

Incidentally, that much of that sentence Dannhauser uses in his book to show that there is a relation between Socrates and Nietzsche.

However, he doesn?t quote the second part of it: ?**_Unless it be he who creates!_**? THAT?S NOT SOCRATIC!! Dannhauser of course knew that, he?s just in that passage I?m talking about . . . see the last chapter of Dannhauser?s book Nietzsche?s View of Socrates, it?s a very good analysis of Zarathustra; it?s not Kaufmann?s silly rendition of Nietzsche being the ?Socrates of the 19th Century? and such non-sense. That?s important. Only a creative god, or a creative Superman ? and from the point of view of rational political piety and philosophic rationalism there?s really no essential difference between an ultimate Superman creating and an ultimate God creating. The only difference is this: People find it much easier to believe, for obvious reasons, in a God, a personal God, who does that than a superman, because they look around and they see other human beings. The same thing that Nietzsche talks about on prudence, in the second part of the Zarathustra: he lets everybody deceive him. If he weren?t deceived about men, he would never strive for the superman. Looking at men as they are, why? How could you believe something like that? Well, for that reason, people are willing to be deceived about a god who creates [nihilism]. As I think Giordano Bruno showed, he paid a real price for showing it, there?s really not any distinction. Bruno did not engage in Jaffa?s Socratic kalam. As a result he got burned at the stake. Well, he got a statue of himself, not everyone gets that! In Rome in the very place he was burned at the stake. I think that was put up in the 19th Century when they had those liberation wars, Bruno was one of their heroes.
 
 

RKL
 Posted on Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 01:11 am:    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidentally, the Catholic Church wasn?t the only one burning Brunos. Servitus was burned at the stake by John Calvin in Geneva. Because Servitus ? what he said was that ultimately medicine may be able to cure men. And what he implied was you don?t need gods to cure, to get rid of those inner beasts. Medical technology can do it. Again, look at the 6th section of Descartes? Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason to find Truth in the Sciences ? that?s the complete title [hint, hint!]. In other parts of this, in order to pull the wool over the eyes of religious authorities, he say?s human reason, the human soul, is completely separated from the body and so on and so on. Which sounds very religious. You know, ?I think, therefore I am just because I think? and so on. Well in the 6th part of that same discourse where he?s giving the purpose of what he?s doing he says: ?The mind is so dependent on the body that if there?s anyway to make people more intelligent it?s through medical science.? That?s the REAL Descartes. The other one that all the philosophy textbooks talk about -- that?s not Descartes, that?s cosmetics. He didn?t want to face the same problems that Bruno faced.

Despite the ugly wars between the Protestants and Catholics, what the Protestants, Catholics, and Jews all agree on is ?no Servitus, no Spinoza?. On that they agree. I mean it?s a funny thing that they could agree on anything. But they agreed on that. Now I think most thoughtful Jews, I think Maimonides, would see ? after all, Maimonides? notion of a Messiah is a general who conquers Palestine, retakes Jerusalem and bring sacrifices in again. That?s what he says in his "Letter on Astrology." And what he means by astrology is worthless studies. And by worthless studies he means what led to the Jewish demise. And then to lose their Kingdom. And what was that? They didn?t put the emphasis on military preparedness. That?s what, according to Maimonides, led NOT toward disobedience to god. The disobedience to god was the lack of military preparedness. Tom West likes to use that in his underpinning of Locke as a theologian, Maimonides as a theologian. And I think that?s perfectly in order. They point to that. That?s why Strauss preferred Jabotinsky to Nordau or Cassirer. That?s the Messiah. The Christian Messiah is going to save the whole world and all that stuff ? that?s Nordau?s messiah. And that?s the Messiah many Jews believe in too.

There was a silly program on the other night my wife and I were listening to. And Jews and Christians, they just FELL OVER EACH OTHER, to try to show that one of them was more humanitarian than the other, than the next; that they were all concerned about humanity and all that. It was just wonderful! Nordau would have loved it.

When Struass met Jabotinsky, whom Strauss said he always admired his whole life ? he met him when he was just 20 years old, a young Zionist. And Jabotinsky asks him, ?well what are you people doing?? And Strauss says, ?well, we?re studying Hebrew, and we?re reading the Bible, and commentaries on the Bible, and we keep abreast of local developments and all that.? And Jabotinsky says, ?WHAT ABOUT RIFLE PRACTICE?!!? [Neumann snickers!]. That?s it. The lack of ?rifle practice? is what led, according to Maimonides, to the Jewish downfall. Some people would accuse Strauss of being an atheist in that early work ? probably Jabotinsky was close to that atheism. I think even Ben Gurion was. Ben Gurion wanted to, but was prevented from rehabilitating Spinoza ? he wanted to make Spinoza into a Jewish saint. I mean, given the TV program with those Jews and Christians, yeah he was a Jewish saint. That?s like that joke I heard once: the difference between Unitarians and liberal, Reform Jews is that Unitarians don?t have Christmas trees. But Strauss was very aware of that. What Strauss said is that what you need to begin with is to establish a Jewish state. Whether by hook or by crook. And then he objected to people who said ?and then that?s all there is? and so on. Yes, of course there?s the whole problem of the nature of God and theology and so on. But first establish a state. What he saw was that philosophy could only get off the ground in something like the Athens of Socrates. Where you have a piety which is shaky. Not Sparta. Socrates would have been exposed as an infant in Sparta.

The question is this: is behind this establishment of politics some divine law, impersonal idea of the Good? Or is it simply Cassirer?s notion of the dignity of every human being, or of a creating God who can do whatever he wants [which is akin to, basically the same thing as Cassirer's notion of defending the dignity of every human being, because it is based on the autonomy of the individual will]. That?s the real question.
 
 

RKL
 Posted on Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 01:13 am:    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having great enemies doesn?t work in the long run (Herzl?s statement of what made the Jews a people: ?Their enemies?). As a kid growing up during the Second World War, they used to play the Star Spangled Banner before the start of movies at the theater. If anyone had refused to stand up or had walked out, there would have been NO objection whatsoever if the crowd had decided to rip that person to shreds. That?s war. Those people were thinking about their friends, family, brothers, who were being killed in war. Yes, the self-evident truths of the Declaration were pretty shaky even then. But there was a real enemy. A tin-pot dictator like Saddam Hussein isn?t going to do it. The same people who picket for the squirrels are going to picket for Saddam Hussein. But enemies seem to do the trick, according to Herzl. But in the long run enemies don?t do the trick. That?s why Jaffa is so important today. Because Jaffa raises this question: Why is the United States worth defending? And he answers it. ?Declaration.? ?Self-evident truths.?

If you don?t have that, and all you have is opinion, or belief, or faith, then in a way Mansfield is right. You have to put ?conscience over reason? [as Mansfield writes in that essay "Those Hell Hounds Called Terrorists" from the CRB {Claremont Review of Books}]. You?ve got to do that because reason itself is not working. Burkean conscience is what all the other conservatives espouse. Unfortunately, quite of few of those types were on the Southern side in the Civil War. And the Southern side didn?t believe in universal principles [natural rights of the Declaration]. Just as Rhenquist doesn?t. Even though he?s a self-described Christian. But he?s a nihilist, according to Jaffa. Why is he a Christian nihilist according to Jaffa? Well, because he doesn?t see the self-evident truth. Rehnquist would say, ?well I believe in God? and so on and so forth. And Scalia spent some time in Rome recently lecturing the Vatican people. He's a nihilist, according to Jaffa.

I think he?s right about that. And Nietzsche shows that. Nietzsche does in a way what Jaffa does but in the other direction, toward nihilism.

[Students comments: in contrast to the American Revolution then the French Revolution was a totally modern event, right?]

If you look at the 3rd Article of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, it says all political authority comes from the State. No individual and no group has any rights apart from the State. That?s a take-off of Rousseau?s notion of the general will. The State embodies the general will. (And that led obviously to Napolean). This is pointed out well in the book edited by Ralph Hancock on the French Revolution. The French Revolution was really a human revolution. And there?s no difference between that and Herzl saying our enemies make us a people. And that's underlying the debate between Cassirer and Heidegger and the reason that Strauss took Heidegger?s side. Because at least Heidegger saw that.
 
 

RKL
 Posted on Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 05:39 pm:    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clarification

In the third from last post, my transcription reads "Well, for that reason, people are willing to be deceived about a god who creates [nihilism]."

This shouldn't be read to mean that "God creates nihilism." Putting "nihilism" in brackets simply highlights what Neumann is getting at -- i.e. that Christianity, not that it only leads to and ends up in nihilism, but, as Neumann stated on another occasion, simply IS nihilism.

That's brought out by his discussion of Bruno and the Catholic Church, etc.

金耀基自选集/金耀基著 —上海：上海教育出版社，2002.6

（学人文丛）

ISBN 7-5320-7881-7

目录

自序 ..........................................................1

中国的现代化

中国的现代化 ................................................1

现代化与中国历史 ..........................................38

      ——提供一个理解中国百年来现代式的概念架构

五四与中国的现代化 .......................................68

论中国的“现代化”与“现代性”.........................76

      ——中国现代的文明秩序的建构

个人与社会

关系和网络的建构 ..........................................93

      ——一个社会学的诠释

“面”、“耻”与中国人的行为之分析 ................117

中国人的“公”、“私”观念 ...........................141

      ——兼论中国人对私隐权的理解

个人与社会 ................................................157

      ——儒家伦理典范的特性及其在现代社会中的问题

社会学与中国

典范与社会学的发展  .....................................175

社会学的中国化：一个社会学知识论的问题  ...........202

现代性论辩与中国社会学之定位  ........................224

韦伯、海德堡、社会学  ..................................244

儒家伦理、社会学与政治秩序  ...........................261

      ——序张德胜著《儒家伦理与秩序情结》

大学的理念

学术自由，学术独立与学术伦理  ........................271

大学的世界精神  ..........................................284

      ——为“新亚书院龚雪因先生访问学人计划”之成立而写

蔡元培先生象征的学术世界  .............................289

      ——蔡元培先生新墓碑落成有感

全球化与大学教育的国际维度   ..........................296

      ——贺逢甲大学创校四十周年校庆

在世纪之交谈大学之理念与角色   .......................300

附录

世纪回眸：从香港文化看中西文化的冲突与融合 ......317

      ——侯军对金耀基教授访谈录

主要著作目录 .............................................356

金耀基自选集/金耀基著 —上海：上海教育出版社，2002.6

（学人文丛）

ISBN 7-5320-7881-7

目录

自序 ..........................................................1

中国的现代化

中国的现代化 ................................................1

现代化与中国历史 ..........................................38

      ——提供一个理解中国百年来现代式的概念架构

五四与中国的现代化 .......................................68

论中国的“现代化”与“现代性”.........................76

      ——中国现代的文明秩序的建构

个人与社会

关系和网络的建构 ..........................................93

      ——一个社会学的诠释

“面”、“耻”与中国人的行为之分析 ................117

中国人的“公”、“私”观念 ...........................141

      ——兼论中国人对私隐权的理解

个人与社会 ................................................157

      ——儒家伦理典范的特性及其在现代社会中的问题

社会学与中国

典范与社会学的发展  .....................................175

社会学的中国化：一个社会学知识论的问题  ...........202

现代性论辩与中国社会学之定位  ........................224

韦伯、海德堡、社会学  ..................................244

儒家伦理、社会学与政治秩序  ...........................261

      ——序张德胜著《儒家伦理与秩序情结》

大学的理念

学术自由，学术独立与学术伦理  ........................271

大学的世界精神  ..........................................284

      ——为“新亚书院龚雪因先生访问学人计划”之成立而写

蔡元培先生象征的学术世界  .............................289

      ——蔡元培先生新墓碑落成有感

全球化与大学教育的国际维度   ..........................296

      ——贺逢甲大学创校四十周年校庆

在世纪之交谈大学之理念与角色   .......................300

附录

世纪回眸：从香港文化看中西文化的冲突与融合 ......317

      ——侯军对金耀基教授访谈录

主要著作目录 .............................................356

这样的一种能够研究其实是有问题的，因为将复杂的中国人这样的群体简化成了类似于一个单独的“人”，这样的一种研究方法，虽则尤其简便的优点，但无论如何有着“化约论”的弊端与风险：群体中的复杂性格特征被几个变量简化为一幅“漫画”了。

几位著名学者的研究与成果：

1、早前的“现代化理论”派学者的研究。“现代化理论”产生于二战之后受帕森斯结构化理论影响的美国，认为人类社会会从所谓的“传统社会”转变为“现代社会”，美国是“现代化社会”的模板。对于“社会转型中的人的转型”这一课题，英克尔斯是最早的研究者之一。

    从1962 年起，在哈佛国际事务研究中心的支持下，美国哈佛大学社会心理学家社会学家英克尔斯A.Inkeles 和他的同事实施了较大规模的题为“经济发展的文化因素研究”的计划，对于个人现代性尤其是处在由传统社会向现代社会转型的发展中国家的个人变化——从传统人向现代人的转变——进行了开拓性研究。1966，年他们在六个发展中国家完成了实证研究并在八年之后出版了从传统人到现代人六个发展中国家中的个人变化1974 一书引起了国际学术界的广泛关注和激烈争论。

    英克尔斯的研究目的是探讨现代化历程对个人所造成的影响，而通过对大量研究资料的分析后发现，尽管生活在不同的国家中，现代性强的人在生活态度价值观念和社会行为方式等方面都具有十分相似的特征。这些特征主要表现在以下12 个方面：(1)乐于接受新的生活经验新的思想观念和行为方式；(2)准备迎接社会的变革；(3)思路广阔头脑开放尊重并愿意考虑不同的意见和看法；(4)注重现在与未来守时惜时；(5)有强烈的个人效能感对个人和社会的能力充满信心办事讲效率；(6)重视生活和工作的有计划性；(7)尊重事实和知识；(8)对人及社会具有可信赖性；(9)重视专门技术有愿意根据技术水平高低来领取不同报酬的心理基础；(10)对教育的内容和传统智慧敢于挑战乐于让自己和其后代选择离开传统所尊敬的职业；(11)相互了解尊重和自尊主张非权势和平等相处追求自由和民主；(12)了解生产及过程英克尔斯提出的这些特征常常被用来评定人是否现代化的标准（周晓虹，1998）。

2、华人学者的研究

    华人学者，特别是台湾学者对“民族性”（或曰“国民性”）、“中国人的性格”这样的问题特别的感兴趣，在国际上此类研究热潮不在的时候，依然念兹在兹。重要的学者有：杨国枢、许烺光、何友晖、黄光国、金耀基等。

  1）、杨国枢

    杨国枢自1965年即开始研究中国“国民性”，成果斐然。他的研究有“早期”与“后期”之别。其早期的研究大致到1984年迄，深受“现代化理论”的影响，认为传统社会虽有不同，但现代社会只有一个，现代化的结果是殊路同归。根据这一“社会聚敛假说”（杨国枢，1988a ）他提出了相应的“心理聚敛假说”（psychological convergence hypothesis），认为现代化导致的“心理聚敛”可以形成一种“世界性人”，即具有一套共同的现代心理与行为特征的人。杨国枢等人的研究综合得出了22 项现代人核心特征，并且认为这些特征将取代传统的心理与行为特征（杨国枢，1993）。

    1985年前后，杨国枢对自己的理论立场和研究策略进行了反省，认为应该在四个方面进行改变。

    （1）从“对立”到“分离”，即传统性和现代性可能不是一个连续体的两极而可能是各自独立的变量；（2）从“一元”到“多元”，即“传统性”和“现代性”可能不是单维变量而可能是多维变量；（3）从“单范畴”到“多范畴”，即现代性和传统性可能在不同生活范围中是不同的，应在不同生活范围中加以测量；（4）从“普同性”到“本土性”，即现代性和传统性研究的重心可能应是本土性的而不是普适性的、跨文化性的。
    他看到中国的“传统人到现代人的变化”可能不是“传统人到世界人的变化”，中国的现代人是从自己的“传统人”演变而来的，是适应自己的社会变迁的，而这一社会变迁或许与发达国家的社会文化变迁的趋向相一致，或许会有所不同。他认为发展趋势上的一致不能抹煞不同文化社会历史造成的不一致。为此杨国枢鼓吹心理学的本土化运动，试图建立中国的人格与社会心理学（杨国枢，1993a，1997a，1997b）。他主张采用跨文化本土心理学的立场建立中国人个人现代性发展的模型，探讨个人现代性发展的心理机制，最终为人类心理学做出贡献（Yang, K.S.，1997，2000）。

今天感冒了。

没有什么精神。

但还是在网上读到了两个好帖子。

人活着其实和上学是一样的，一年一年的升级，总有毕业的时候。

知道要离开是很重要的，它会让我们珍惜光阴，

利用好每一滴一点的时间去欣赏生活中的美。

但最重要的还不是知道要离开，而是珍惜这个过程。

在这个学校里，我们要学的不是语文算术英语，

而是怎么做人。

曾经不太理解父亲，

我们这一代人父子之间的代沟尤其得深。

现在逐渐得明白他，读懂他了。

多年父子成兄弟，父亲也可以算是“人生”这个学校的学长，

为我们做出了表率，

然而也一天一天离我们渐行渐远了，

想起这些，

有时候不免有要哭的冲动。

谢谢你对我的关注。

刚刚到这里来，功能还不熟悉，不怎么会用。

你说的“连”是什么意思呢？怎么弄呢？想给你的留言回复，也不会，真得很笨，赫赫。

上周五晚上和几位朋友一起去了一趟燕郊御景花园的一个私人孤儿院。孤儿院有三个房子，其中两个是对门，另外一个远一点，都在一楼。我们周五晚上到了后，先和管理人员聊天，以便了解孤儿院的基本情况。该孤儿院收养的都是残疾儿，而且都是弃儿，为正式孤儿院所惧之门外的孩子们，平均才两岁。资金来源主要是社会捐款。有一些专业的护理员与管理员、采购员等等，周六是他们可以休息一下的日子，因为有我们这样的志愿者来作义工。

在那里过了一夜后第二天起来，早饭是由另一位志愿者做的，他每个周末都过来帮忙。吃过早饭后去看孩子。就在对门，那里有十二个孩子，还有两个住在了地下室里。我们先帮孩子们吃饭，然后陪他们玩，之后，我们几位男士去菜园扎篱笆，另外一位女士去了另一个房子看另外的孩子。

早饭是鸡蛋疙瘩粥、蛋糕。个别孩子可以自己吃食，大部分都需要别人帮助喂食。部分孩子可以坐直，少数因为脖子无力支撑头部重量、腰腹无力，只能半躺坐坐在特制的椅子上，腹部、裆下系着安全带。因为这些孩子不能自理，服侍重病号吃饭、穿衣、洗脸、吃药等等日常护理就已经占据了护理员一天的时间，非常耗费人力，又因为资金有限，不可能雇很多人，工资又低，所以阿姨很少，平时根本不能做到一人一个孩子这样照顾。因此，那些半躺半坐在特制椅子上的孩子们，常常是那样一个姿势坐过一整天，一周六天，天天如此，直到周末，有志愿者来，才有人能陪他们说话、玩耍。长时间这样坐着不动，腿部肌肉已经不同程度的萎缩了，要不是每天的按摩，恐怕情况会更糟。因为护理人员不足，按摩想必也不会非常的充分。孩子们因为脑瘫，肢体外在也有很多问题。有些人眼睛看不见，有些斜视；有些人手不残疾，手腕弯回导致手掌无法伸直，也就不能抓握玩具；还有些腿瘸，无法行走；更普遍的是语言有问题，无法发出清楚的声音，但并不是说就听不懂护理者的话，他们自己还很想跟我们交流，尽管很吃力，但是也能用含糊的话语再加手势表达出要“吃蛋糕”、要玩球、甚至说要“看看”我们给他照的相片。孩子们所然不能像其他“正常”儿童那么活跃，但依然非常可爱。

照了一些照片，以后陆续贴上来，不是为了通过暴露他们的残疾，来显现生命对他们来说是多么残酷，而是为了显现生命的顽强，人生的宝贵。