Comments on: A philosophical casserole

By: Mark Bahnisch

Mark Bahnisch — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

The thing with Strauss is that he himself argued that philosophers had to dissimulate because their true “teachings” (his word) would upset the polis, so it’s more than possible to read him in all sorts of ways. Hence he argued that most texts contained multiple meanings, one of which was the exoteric one which would often be only transparent to the initiated (into Straussianism). Not quite the same thing – but there’s a space for your Derrida reference, Ken.

There is no doubt that he’s one of the Right postmodernists (or premodernists) and is certainly influenced by Nietzsche and Heidegger.

But the game that is played where people make inferences about politics on the basis of some philosopher’s having read Heidegger is pointless – for anyone working in continental philosophy, Heidegger is an inescapable reference point. There’s a massive debate as to whether Heidegger’s philosophy implies his politics – I’d argue not, but there are good arguments on both sides. But Strauss’ extremely reactionary politics stand on their own two feet.

Let’s not forget also that Strauss was a Jew who had to flee Germany.

By: Ken Parish

Ken Parish — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

I suspect that Mark wrote his comment before reading the additions I just made to the post.

By: Mark Bahnisch

Mark Bahnisch — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

“The Marxism of Sartre and the Naziism of Heidegger are sufficient to prove that Existentialism, which already denies any reality to moral principles, can randomly be associated with any sort of politics.”

It’s hard to see why these two things are seemingly equated. Heidegger emphatically denied that Sartre had read him correctly and distanced himself from Sartrean thought in his “Letter on Humanism”.

By: Mark Bahnisch

Mark Bahnisch — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Apologies, Ken, yes I’m just catching up with you.

By: Ken Parish

Ken Parish — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Mark

But that may just be the exoteric interpretation.

By: Mark Bahnisch

Mark Bahnisch — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Indeed, Ken.

When I was at Uni, I was taught a class in philosophy of economics by a Straussian. Having received only a conceded pass for an essay on Lockean property right because I didn’t cite Strauss at all, I managed to pass the subject by writing exam essays that said repeatedly – “as the Great strauss so truly and brilliantly wrote” etc. The exoteric interpretation here was quite near the surface.

By: Mark Bahnisch

Mark Bahnisch — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

But Miranda Devine never writes about lefty students being marked down by right wing politically correct lecturers in Economics departments :(

By: Rafe

Rafe — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

If it is correct that Struss represents a re-run of Plato’s ideas on maintaining the collective security of the State and the unchallenged control of the ruling class, then Popper’s critique of Plato in vol 1 of The Open Society and its Enemies should become essential reading. What a shame that Chris Sheil has The Poverty of Historicism on his bookshelf but not The Open Society and its Enemies. But cheer up, a seminar on vol 1 of OSE is running on Catallaxy, until some suicide bomber finds out where I live and puts an end to it.
No modern philosophical casserole is complete without Popper, the leading modern philosopher of science, and I need to find out why Derrida never seemed to engage with the philosophy of science (which would have meant engaging with Popper). Too hard? Too easy? Not relevant to the world that Derrida lived in?

By: Mark Bahnisch

Mark Bahnisch — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

If you want a French author interested in the philosophy of science, Rafe, try Bruno Latour:

http://www.ensmp.fr/~latour/

By: Rafe

Rafe — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Thanks Mark, I made a close study of his anthropology of science, a path followed by Charlesworth and three coworkers who studied the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute in Melbourne. Interesting to a point but not a contribution to the philosophy of science and not helpful to working scientists. The Double Helix is better in some ways but needs a commentary to indicate how it illuminates and indeed exemplifies the Popperian approach.
For my review of Charlesworth et al.
http://www.the-rathouse.com/revlifesci.html
For a review of an excellent collection of interviews with major scientists.
http://www.the-rathouse.com/revwolpert.html

By: Mark Bahnisch

Mark Bahnisch — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Well, yes, Rafe, perhaps it’s more a sociology of science. A lot of work was done in philosophy in France in the first half of the twentieth century on epistemology and science (eg Calguinem) but I suspect that’s also not what you refer to as “philosophy of science” strictly speaking.

By: Rafe

Rafe — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Bachelard did some good work, then went off on a tangent. Koyre is good on the metaphysics of modern science and he became a sponsor of one of your men by a strange accident. And before them was Duhem of the Duhem-Quine problem, which was the topic of my MSci thesis.