Leo Strauss and Nietzsche review ¼ PDF DOC TXT or eBook

Read & Download Ë PDF, DOC, TXT or eBook Ü Laurence Lampert

Leo Strauss and NietzscheAlues In fact this apparent denunciation has become so closely associated with Strauss that it is often seen as the very core of his thoughtIn Leo Strauss and Nietzsche the eminent Nietzsche scholar Laurence Lampert offers a controversial new assessment of the Strauss Nietzsche connection Lampert undertakes a searching examination of the key Straussian essay Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil He shows that this essay written toward the end o. Every Nietzsche reader interested in his contemporary political relevance and presence must read this Lampert writes with combination of clarity persuasiveness and a passionate spirit of inuiry on this subject that is rarely seen today

Laurence Lampert Ü 4 Free download

The influential political philosopher Leo Strauss has been credited by conservatives with the recovery of the great tradition of political philosophy stretching back to Plato Among Strauss's most enduring legacies is a strongly negative assessment of Nietzsche as the modern philosopher most at odds with that tradition and most responsible for the sins of twentieth century culture relativism godlessness nihilism and Leo Strauss PDFEPUBthe breakdown of family v. ReviewJanuary 2009Nietzsche Strauss and PhilosophyTo begin with I will start by noting that this book contains a commentary by Lampert on the essay 'Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil' written by Leo Strauss It also contains the original essay by Strauss This is a wonderful place to begin to learn of the 'political' esotericism of the philosophers Lampert is probably the most insistent and easily the most informed voice among admirers of Strauss maintaining that there are deep similarities between the thought of Nietzsche and Strauss Today the defenders of Leo Strauss prefer to see him as a Platonist But as Stanley Rosen perhaps the greatest student of Strauss has gently pointed out the unwillingness of Strauss to even mention much less discuss the Platonic Ideas makes Strauss an extremely peculiar Platonist to say the very least Perhaps a digression on our author is in order First Lampert's books are as follows Nietzsche's Teaching An Interpretation of Thus Spoke Zarathustra New Haven Yale University Press 1986 Nietzsche and Modern Times A Study of Bacon Descartes and Nietzsche New Haven Yale University Press 1993 Leo Strauss and Nietzsche Chicago University of Chicago Press 1996 Nietzsche's Task An Interpretation of Beyond Good and Evil New Haven Yale University Press 2001 Francis Bacon's Advertisement Touching a Holy War edited with an introduction notes and interpretive essay by Laurence Lampert Prospect Heights IL Waveland 2000 I believe he is currently working on a book on Nietzsche and Plato tentatively entitled 'Nietzsche and Ancient Times' It will continue Lampert's task of reinterpreting the history of philosophy in a Nietzschean manner All the published books are excellent But keep in mind the strategic nature of all philosophically esoteric works They reveal as much as they hide Digression ends Lampert is however in this superb book at pains to explain why Leo Strauss was not in fact a Nietzschean either Indeed since Lampert who is unlike Rosen a 'Nietzschean' maintains that Strauss has given us in his brief essay on Nietzsche Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's 'Beyond Good and Evil' the best reading of Nietzsche available Lampert must show the deep reasons behind the refusal by Strauss of Nietzsche It is certainly not that Strauss did not learn from Nietzsche or that he somehow failed to see the profundity of his thought But first I would like to highlight the uniue form of this book This book by Lampert is what medieval philosophers would've called a 'supercommentary'; that is it is a commentary upon a commentary Leo Strauss in his essay writes a commentary upon Nietzsche's 'Beyond Good and Evil' BGE and now Lampert writes a commentary upon that commentary All three authors are esoteric or if you prefer 'esoterically aware' writers This means we must read very carefully referring back and forth from text to text to text It is a bit like playing Tri Dimensional Chess So why isn't Strauss a Nietzschean Well before we get to that we must understand that there are than a few Nietzsche interpretations out there; of which Lampert's is among the most acute Briefly and perhaps most importantly Lampert argues that far from being 'the village atheist' Nietzsche understands the importance of Religion it is the Poetry of Everyday Life However according to Nietzsche and Lampert the monotheisms we live under betrayed today for tomorrow and hated this world in the name of the next It is these religions of 'tomorrow and elsewhere' that Nietzsche entirely rejects Before we get back to Strauss perhaps a bit about Nietzsche as interpreted by Lampert is in order Now Lampert maintains uite emphatically that Nietzsche is no enemy of modern Science Although this is strictly speaking correct we must keep in mind that the Nietzschean Aufklärung when compared to modern 'popular' enlightenment is peculiar in that it is only genuine philosophers who are actually enlightened One could argue that not even scientists in the new Nietzschean dispensation are philosophically speaking 'enlightened' The real interests of the scientist and scholar according to Nietzsche lie usually somewhere else in his family say or in making money or in politics; indeed it is almost a matter of total indifference whether his little machine is placed at this or that spot in science and whether the promising young worker turns himself into a good philologist or an expert on fungi or a chemist it does not characterize him that he becomes this or that In the philosopher conversely there is nothing whatever that is impersonal; and above all his morality bears decided and decisive witness to who he is that is in what order of rank the innermost drives of his nature stand in relation to each other BGE section 6 The real interests of the scholar and scientist lie elsewhere; they are not in any necessary way at all with the 'enlightened' activities of say chemistry and philology But the truly enlightened activity ie philosophy of the genuine philosopher is all he is consumed with In this way Nietzsche reminds us that while philosophy cannot actually 'enlighten' anyone non philosophers can still participate in enlightened activities But why doesn't Nietzsche just come out and say this Nietzsche believes the world must be changed and so he sets out to do so This process of changing that Nietzsche begins causes many problems for both philosophy and world Not the least being the fact that in exposing the esoteric maneuvers that philosophers used to make what he was pleased to call 'Platonism' Nietzsche runs the risk of people searching for his maneuvers Nietzsche needs to say in effect 'we are all done with that esotericism It belongs to the bad old days' This is the story that Nietzsche and Lampert must be heard telling in order not to be decapitated by the guillotine he builds for prior philosophers Lampert of course does not see it exactly this way He speaks often of Nietzsche's 'probity' For instance he says that For Nietzsche the Platonic lies are both false and base And both judgments claim a scientific foundation; intellectual probity employing the tools of rational investigation of natural phenomena shows them to be false and base p 170 Hmmm One wonders exactly which rational 'scientific' tool discovered Dionysus and which one has proven 'Eternal Return' Or is it that Science has not or cannot disprove them But all this really is uite besides the point Science despite what its popularizers and idolators say is according to Nietzsche only a method not a repository of 'Truth' It is not the victory of Science that distinguishes our nineteenth century but the victory of scientific method over science 'Will to Power' 466 Now no mere method can ever bring peace to the City So Nietzsche creates a non base note that we do not dare say non false esotericism In 'Ecce Homo' Nietzsche in the brief chapter on BGE speaks of the Yes Saying and No Saying parts of his work He indicates that Zarathustra is the former and the several books that followed Zarathustra BGE included are the latter We can perhaps infer from this that while Yes Saying this great expenditure of goodness might have been difficult for him no saying would prove to be be most difficult for his readers In any case it seems to me that one can make a better case for a Nietzschean Aufklärung Science of Wisdom from the post Zarathustran books than from Zarathustra itself Zarathustra is purposefully beyond any science The No Saying post Zarathustra books are merely intended to destroy the various 'false and base' Platonisms whether religious or secular and to prepare the way for the noble Zarathustrian world As we saw Lampert correctly reminds us of the Nietzschean distinction between noble and base But the distinction noblebase reminds us of the psychoanalytic distinction between sublimationneurosis Just as the latter ultimately refers to 'socially acceptable' and 'socially unacceptable' actions so too the former distinction refers to 'life affirming' and 'life denying' actions Now orthodox Freudians objected to this understanding of sublimation and neurosis because it made sublimation and neurosis euivalent Indeed what was sublimation in one culture could be neurosis in another In other words I am maintaining that both pairs of distinctions noblebase sublimationnuerosis refer to circumstances and nothing but circumstances One suspects I almost typed 'fears' that everything that philosophy makes the 'noble' must eventually be destroyed because in later changed circumstances this 'noble' activity or speech will in actual fact be 'base' Thus Nietzsche overturns Plato and eventually some Philosopher eventually appears and overturns Nietzsche This process could only stop if circumstances could be entirely understood Unfortunately there is no Science of circumstances And therefore everything philosophy makes either turns into monsters andor crumbles into dust Thus today we have crumbling Platonisms whether secular or religious destroying our world To this problem Political Philosophy is supposedly the answer You see Philosophy Itself Socratic uestioning is a danger to the political health of all cities and all regimes First it makes you doubt the political 'health' of your city; then it makes you doubt the possibility of cure and finally and most dangerously you come to doubt the possibility of disease And so we fall from 'philosophical' criticism to despair and lastly to decadence This decadence leads to either nihilism or rebirth; that is for Nietzsche to either a dark age or a new 'religion' We now understand how philosophers of the stature of Plato and Nietzsche could be so 'tolerant' of Religion While it is true that philosophy is the greatest summit that the individual can reach; Myth is the health of the City that is Civilization For the City Myth is at one and the same time the antidote to Nihilism and to Philosophy But fortunately and unfortunately myth is not a cure Every Myth eventually falls So Myth and Philosophy can never be one Philosophy destroys ones faith in the City I mean any City; Myth saves the City Nietzsche famously remarked that perhaps 'the gods too philosophize' BGE section 294 and he elsewhere said that philosophers 'do not believe that there are any men of Knowledge' Gay Science Book 5 section 351 As Nietzsche indicates Philosophy ie the love of Wisdom is itself an admission that one is not entirely Wise It was the Sophists who were deluded enough to think that they simply knew Some people read that the 'gods too philosophize' and purr Oh you see The gods are just like us lovers of Wisdom Of course this is not exactly what Nietzsche is indicating The 'gods too philosophize' means that there are no Knowers weep here anywhere; that even a genuine 'Revelation' I mean by that even one that actually was coming from a 'god' would merely be another opinion In the end genuinely philosophical enlightenment is accepting responsibility for what one cannot possibly know But this genuinely philosophical 'enlightenment' does not help any City The genuine philosophers whether gods or men can only help it by concocting myths made of pre existing materials that bring some order peace and joy to the City So one can perhaps say that philosophical myth is in part the penance philosophy as Critiue pays for corrupting the youth of the City PlatonicNietzschean esotericism is the penalty philosophy forever pays for Socrates corrupting the youth of Athens But what of Leo Strauss What of his esotericism Does he toe the NietzscheanPlatonic line and accept the necessity of philosophico mythical world making Well of course the answer is no In order to have done so he would've had to practice 'metaphysically' speculative mythology as Plato Timaeus eg and Nietzsche in Zarathustra certainly did Strauss famously does nothing of the sort Now what can esoteric philosophy without the speculative metaphysical component be Could it be Nihilism Two uotes might be in order here First Rosen will go so far as to say while alluding to the Medieval legend of the Golden Apple in intricate settings of Silver Golden Apple Philosophy that Strauss's ambiguity consisted in directing our glances through the small holes in the silver filigree but in such a way as to give the distinct impression that there was no golden apple within Inside the silver as it were was silver perhaps of a purer alloy than the exterior but in no sense the promised gold Stanley Rosen The Golden Apple in Metaphysics in Ordinary Language p 65 Lampert asks Does the public good always depend upon public identification of one's own with one's people or nation When a public Science has discredited the grounds of such localism and provided a new basis for appreciating the unity of our species across space and time and within the whole staggering array of species and when history continues to testify to the dangers of such local loves and hates can it serve the interests of philosophy to make it seem that philosophy itself is tied to such beliefs p 173 If one reads the history of philosophy in the manner Spinoza advised us to read the Bible searching for what the authorities always agree upon discarding all else one is left with two points only First the struggle towards ever greater universality and secondly the war against nihilism Without the 'yes saying' component of Nietzsche's philosophy ie Zarathustra Straussian esotericism is yet another form of genealogical unmasking; the 'no saying' that the post Zarathustrian books called forth Who does Leo Strauss most remind us of The great philosophical esotericists Plato Maimonides Nietzsche and their Cosmogonies and Mythographies No the works of Strauss contains nothing of the sort One fears that in the end Strauss is along with Deleuze Derrida and Foucault one of the Nietzschean 'no sayers' who merely unmask words power and alas philosophy itself But they can neither make nor save anything The Straussians will object pointing to their masters 'patriotism' and thus denying his nihilism However siding with an old universalism American liberal capitalism that cannot possibly win is to side actually and in effect with but another particularism or localism As Nietzsche said In rare and isolated instances it may really be the case that such a will to truth some extravagant and adventurous courage a metaphysician's ambition to hold a hopeless position may participate and ultimately prefer even a handful of certainty to a whole cartload of beautiful possibilities; there may actually be puritanical fanatics of conscience who prefer even a certain nothing to an uncertain something to lie down on and die But this is nihilism and the sign of a despairing mortally weary soul however courageous the gestures of such a virtue may look BGE section 10 Thus as Nietzsche indicated long ago the inability to believe a philosophical myth a noble lie is itself also nihilism A note to all our Straussian realists Philosophy the struggle towards an ever greater Universalism and the struggle against Nihilism demanded so much of a thinker of the stature of Strauss Sigh By incorporating the cosmological and mythological into his philosophical esotericism Nietzsche has revealed himself to be an ancient by refusing to do the same Strauss is revealed to be a postmodern

Read Leo Strauss and Nietzsche

Leo Strauss and Nietzsche review ¼ PDF, DOC, TXT or eBook Á ❮PDF❯ ✑ Leo Strauss and Nietzsche Author Laurence Lampert – Dogsalonbristol.co.uk The influential political philosopher Leo Strauss has been credited by conservatives with the recovery of the great tradition of political philosophy stretcF Strauss's life and placed at the center of his final work reveals an affinity for and debt to Nietzsche greater than Strauss's followers allow Lampert argues that the essay comprises the most important interpretation of Nietzsche ever published one that clarifies Nietzsche's conception of nature and of human spiritual history and demonstrates the logical relationship between the essential themes in Nietzsche's thought the will to power and the eternal retur. This book regrounds the political perspective of Nietzsche through an analysis of moral codes in Strauss interpretation of Nietzsche Still reading