The Three Whisky Happy Hour: Tubthumping Edition

Thank heavens for the common sense the two of you espouse. Flight suits for pregnant women? Give me a break. The world has gone mad.

Well, I finally have to disagree with you two on something:

Lucretia:

I don't understand why people have something against it, unless they just don't wanna do the work.

In my experience, it's Straussians who don't wanna do the work. They work only the tiniest bit harder than the analytics. The analytics will read some book in philosophy and splash around in the shallowest surface-level interpretation possible. When they come to some puzzle, they say "Aha! Page 43 says something different from page 102! Plato/Augustine/Descartes/Locke/Berkeley is obviously contradicting himself! He made a mistake!"

When the Straussians come to the same puzzle, they say "Aha! Plato/Augustine/Descartes/Locke/Berkeley is obviously lying! He must be hiding what he really thinks!"

And thus they dip their heads under the surface of the text--a full 12 inches below the surface.

What we ought to be doing is finding some way of interpreting the text relying on some philosophical principle presented in the text somewhat directly, look for the distinction that must be made, and take the whole puzzle as a training exercise in learning to think deeper. The philosopher is almost certainly not lying on either page 43 or on page 102. He is teaching us how to think. Both pages are partially correct perspectives on the truth, one perspective is probably better informed than the other, neither perspective is the complete truth--and both perspectives along with the distinction between them are stages in the ascent to wisdom.

And--of course--the great philosophers don't lay all their cards out on the table on the first page. But to jump from that to the conclusion that Descartes, Locke, and Berkeley are all filthy liars concealing some secret atheism or whatever--is no more than an amateurish error in reasoning.

Straightforward presentation of all truths, all truths made simple and easy--that is the naivete of the analytics.

Simple lies concealing a secret truth--that is naivete combined with distrust, plus giving oneself airs. And that, in my experience, is the way of the Straussians.

Philosophical ascent towards wisdom--that is the way of the philosophers.

Saint Augustine (View Comment):

Well, I finally have to disagree with you two on something:

Lucretia:

I don’t understand why people have something against it, unless they just don’t wanna do the work.

In my experience, it’s Straussians who don’t wanna do the work. They work only the tiniest bit harder than the analytics. The analytics will read some book in philosophy and splash around in the shallowest surface-level interpretation possible. When they come to some puzzle, they say “Aha! Page 43 says something different from page 102! Plato/Augustine/Descartes/Locke/Berkeley is obviously contradicting himself! He made a mistake!“

When the Straussians come to the same puzzle, they say “Aha! Plato/Augustine/Descartes/Locke/Berkeley is obviously lying! He must be hiding what he really thinks!”

And thus they dip their heads under the surface of the text–a full 12 inches below the surface.

What we ought to be doing is finding some way of interpreting the text relying on some philosophical principle presented in the text somewhat directly, look for the distinction that must be made, and take the whole puzzle as a training exercise in learning to think deeper. The philosopher is almost certainly not lying on either page 43 or on page 102. He is teaching us how to think. Both pages are partially correct perspectives on the truth, one perspective is probably better informed than the other, neither perspective is the complete truth–and both perspectives along with the distinction between them are stages in the ascent to wisdom.

And–of course–the great philosophers don’t lay all their cards out on the table on the first page. But to jump from that to the conclusion that Descartes, Locke, and Berkeley are all filthy liars concealing some secret atheism or whatever–is no more than an amateurish error in reasoning.

Straightforward presentation of all truths, all truths made simple and easy–that is the naivete of the analytics.

Simple lies concealing a secret truth–that is naivete combined with distrust, plus giving oneself airs. And that, in my experience, is the way of the Straussians.

Philosophical ascent towards wisdom–that is the way of the philosophers.

Game on! (You're just trying to get on the agenda for next week's show, aren't you?)

Saint Augustine (View Comment):

Well, I finally have to disagree with you two on something:

Lucretia:

I don’t understand why people have something against it, unless they just don’t wanna do the work.

In my experience, it’s Straussians who don’t wanna do the work. They work only the tiniest bit harder than the analytics. The analytics will read some book in philosophy and splash around in the shallowest surface-level interpretation possible. When they come to some puzzle, they say “Aha! Page 43 says something different from page 102! Plato/Augustine/Descartes/Locke/Berkeley is obviously contradicting himself! He made a mistake!“

When the Straussians come to the same puzzle, they say “Aha! Plato/Augustine/Descartes/Locke/Berkeley is obviously lying! He must be hiding what he really thinks!”

And thus they dip their heads under the surface of the text–a full 12 inches below the surface.

What we ought to be doing is finding some way of interpreting the text relying on some philosophical principle presented in the text somewhat directly, look for the distinction that must be made, and take the whole puzzle as a training exercise in learning to think deeper. The philosopher is almost certainly not lying on either page 43 or on page 102. He is teaching us how to think. Both pages are partially correct perspectives on the truth, one perspective is probably better informed than the other, neither perspective is the complete truth–and both perspectives along with the distinction between them are stages in the ascent to wisdom.

And–of course–the great philosophers don’t lay all their cards out on the table on the first page. But to jump from that to the conclusion that Descartes, Locke, and Berkeley are all filthy liars concealing some secret atheism or whatever–is no more than an amateurish error in reasoning.

Straightforward presentation of all truths, all truths made simple and easy–that is the naivete of the analytics.

Simple lies concealing a secret truth–that is naivete combined with distrust, plus giving oneself airs. And that, in my experience, is the way of the Straussians.

Philosophical ascent towards wisdom–that is the way of the philosophers.

Steven Hayward (View Comment):

Game on! (You’re just trying to get on the agenda for next week’s show, aren’t you?)

Not necessarily. I just got a reply from Steve Hayward. So life already feels kind of complete.

But you should take a look at my work on election fraud if you haven't yet.

Saint Augustine (View Comment):

When the Straussians come to the same puzzle, they say “Aha! Plato/Augustine/Descartes/Locke/Berkeley is obviously lying! He must be hiding what he really thinks!”

And thus they dip their heads under the surface of the text–a full 12 inches below the surface.

What we ought to be doing is finding some way of interpreting the text relying on some philosophical principle presented in the text somewhat directly, look for the distinction that must be made, and take the whole puzzle as a training exercise in learning to think deeper. The philosopher is almost certainly not lying on either page 43 or on page 102. He is teaching us how to think. Both pages are partially correct perspectives on the truth, one perspective is probably better informed than the other, neither perspective is the complete truth–and both perspectives along with the distinction between them are stages in the ascent to wisdom.

And–of course–the great philosophers don’t lay all their cards out on the table on the first page. But to jump from that to the conclusion that Descartes, Locke, and Berkeley are all filthy liars concealing some secret atheism or whatever–is no more than an amateurish error in reasoning.

Straightforward presentation of all truths, all truths made simple and easy–that is the naivete of the analytics.

Simple lies concealing a secret truth–that is naivete combined with distrust, plus giving oneself airs. And that, in my experience, is the way of the Straussians.

Philosophical ascent towards wisdom–that is the way of the philosophers.

Well, to be fair, I should apply my own approach to Strauss and the Straussians. Perhaps I myself misunderstood what the Straussians I've met were getting at. (Blame them, blame me, or whatever.) Or maybe they themselves did a lousy job interpreting Strauss. It's possible.

Lucretia sounds more like my way of reading, actually--there's a surface meaning, and there's something else. Long as we don't leap to labeling the authors liars, why should I object?