I have been spending my online moments getting through the 3 hour documentary Sam pointed to in this post. All I can say is holy crap! I ended up having an interesting chat about Leo Strauss in my Grace class (at break) after the first hour of this. Not sure I have the tools to sort through it properly, the thesis is pretty darn scary and makes me very glad Rumsfield is gone! Kenny, would love to hear you weigh in on this.
I've been progressively stuffier over the last four days, today I have a sinus headache. Yuch. Two papers to try and finish today (one is just little on the Eastern Churches Pneumatology)All the Easter papers should be "God Said it so we believe it and say it twenty times each liturgy." But they usually end up in me working out my frustrations over the horrid texts. This week we did Kalistos Ware and it is like a breath of fresh air. Sure I don't agree 100%, but Ware doesn't make me feel like a knob for having a different opinion.
6 comments:
Frank, haven't watch the video, but will. My impression of the heated Strauss debate: it's bound up with the culture wars, and is often distorted out of all proportion. I think the characterization of Strauss as a moderate, committed to rational inquiry, and generally apolitical in terms of pragmatic politics, is a fair one. There are, after all, several offshoots of Strauss's teachings, some of which have ended up in the halls of power, and hence the mud-slining. I will post more when I have a moment to go through it all! (And, there are a number of books out this year addressing Strauss, just look it up on Amazon!)
I got the impression from my prof. that Strauss was helpful for a number of groups, including Catholic ethicists. But the video paints him with a much more sinister brush, or at least gives the impression that his ideas sparked something much darker than he had envisioned. It was the first time I had run into Strauss, man every year I study I realize just how much I don't know!
Frank,
I just watched the first video segment - Yikes!! I am turned inside out, and not sure how to take this all in. I have always been interested in politics and political action, especially in relation to the Cold War Era - since I was raised in that era.
I am uncertain about the Strauss influence and the rise of the neoconservative movement that the film portrays, but this is interesting to say the least. There were some facts about the cold war, especially in relation to the "Red Scare" which helped this country to fuel such a war, that the film detailed which I think are perhaps questionable. Nonetheless, I look forward to watching the other three segments.
TB, would love your assessment on the rest of it. I suspect that the story is told with an agenda. But that being said, there is bound to be some degree of truth in there. I just don't have the tools to tease that out.
Frank, another note. Are we to hold the Nietzsche responsible for the Nazi's since his sister carefully edited his works for fascists readers? Because Strauss may be praised by neo-cons means little to me. What he wrote, said, and did, do not lead to a 'dangerous' conclusion. There are many books on the subject, several of them not partisan.
I hope I didn't give the impression that I felt Strauss was the culprit. I think the movie leans towards that a bit, but I was more struck by how the neo-cons applied Straussian thought. Like I said this is the first encounter with Strauss for me, I don't have the tools to navigate it and that movie was a lot like watching Bowling for Columbine, you know there is a lot of truth but also an obvious agenda. I also got from my prof. that the movie simplifies Straussian thought to make a point. Did you get to see the films yet?
Post a Comment