Maybe
It's necessary if you are trying to be THE BEST human being

Gil




________________________________
From: David Crabbe <ponocrates2004@...>
To: leo-strauss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2009 5:05:32 PM
Subject: [leo-strauss] Re: City and Man





--- In leo-strauss@ yahoogroups. com, Gil Scott <merlin2d@.. .> wrote:
>
> Being the highest does not make it necessary. unless one means by necessary in
regard to being the best possible human being. The degree to which we can
approach being such is a matter of degree, no one totally lacks reflection just
as no one has total wisdom.
>

It's necessary if you are trying to be a human being, i.e., performing well the
work proper to a human being. People may not be able to do this for natural
reasons or for conventional reasons. The latter happens to people in a city
where they are indoctrinated (or dehumanized) to varying degrees and transformed
into waspish defenders of the city. They've closed themselves, so to speak,
from the whole.

Best regards,

David

> Gil
>
>
>
>
> ____________ _________ _________ __
> From: David Crabbe <ponocrates2004@ ...>
> To: leo-strauss@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2009 4:48:30 PM
> Subject: [leo-strauss] Re: City and Man
>
>
>
>
>
> If it was only a matter of degree, but I think it's more like a necessary part
is missing - the highest part.
>
> Best regards,
>
> David
>
> --- In leo-strauss@ yahoogroups. com, Gil Scott <merlin2d@ .> wrote:
> >
> > You state that "A human being who limits himself to the lower natural ends
is failing to be a human being" but perhaps it is more accurate to say A human
being who limits himself to the lower natural ends is failing to be as complete
a human being as he might be.
> >
> > Gil
> >
> >
> > ____________ _________ _________ __
> > From: David Crabbe <ponocrates2004@ ...>
> > To: leo-strauss@ yahoogroups. com
> > Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2009 2:46:09 PM
> > Subject: [leo-strauss] Re: City and Man
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Gil,
> >
> > I also disagree with those who argue that *all* political associations are
conventional. However, I think there should be some pause when someone says
*all* political associations (polis, nation-state, or whatever) are natural.
As I asked, what is natural about Lycurgus' Sparta or Lenin's Soviet Union?
The founder and the foundation of those political associations were flawed and
do not seem to harmonize with what is naturally good for a human being - both
the high and the low. What determines a natural political association is the
best regime, which does harmonize with the natural needs - high and low - and
doesn't interfere with its citizens who are properly fulfilling them.
> >
> > The best regime, however, is not likely to happen for many reasons, but it
is a way to understand the deficiency of the regimes and cities that do exist.
It puts the political things into perspective.
> >
> > > You argue that with such a rule of wisdom that "then this is a natural
political association" . Even if this might be the absolute best rule the argue
that thereby all other forms are "unnatural" doesn't follow. As you note not all
men contemplate but if they do not, does that make their other activities
unnatural?
> >
> > People may still eat and reproduce and so forth, which remain natural
activities, but what constitutes a human being is more than just eating and
copulating. A human being who limits himself to the lower natural ends is
failing to be a human being. Likewise, a city which only is concerned with or
aware of the lower natural ends (I suppose the view of some moderns), undermines
the happiness particular to human beings. I cannot call that political
community "natural," which so neglects the nature of the human being.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > David
> >
> > --- In leo-strauss@ yahoogroups. com, Gil Scott <merlin2d@ .> wrote:
> > >
> > > Well I agree both about mediocre public education and the value of debate.
Now I don't think I said that the polis=political things. The point is that
Aristotle says man is by nature political and hence the city is by nature. Now
Aristotle's immediate reference is to the polis but I don't think he was
referring only to the polis, which I think is the point of Mr Bates list of
equivalents.
> > >
> > > As to the issue of regime note what Strauss says on pg. 45 CM that
Aristotle in book one wants to establish the dignity pf the city by arguing that
the city is by nature against those who would deny it. Certainly, the Politics
deals with the form of the city (eg the regime) but Aristotle wants to establish
the naturalness of the city before he discussed the various regimes.
> > >
> > > So as to modern nation states I think he would say they share this natural
origin.
> > >
> > > As to your argument that "he best person in the natural sense rules with
no hindrance of laws" here we have a problem in that while the "best person" can
claim to rule only if he not only loves wisdom but has wisdom. The best person
must not only be the "best" relative to the others in the city but the best as
such.
> > >
> > > Strauss points out that the requirement of wisdom must be moderated by the
need for consent.
> > >
> > > You argue that with such a rule of wisdom that "then this is a natural
political association" . Even if this might be the absolute best rule the argue
that thereby all other forms are "unnatural" doesn't follow. As you note not all
men contemplate but if they do not, does that make their other activities
unnatural?
> > >
> > > Gil
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ____________ _________ _________ __
> > > From: David Crabbe <ponocrates2004@ ...>
> > > To: leo-strauss@ yahoogroups. com
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2009 1:40:07 PM
> > > Subject: [leo-strauss] Re: City and Man
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Gil, I also was in high school debate, which was probably the best part of
my generally mediocre public education. I recognize the "defining the terms"
stage. However, I don't think it's sufficient to say the polis means the
political things. It's like saying the human is the human things. It's a bit
tautological. It still doesn't tell us what the city is. What is a
"country." If country = polis as Mr. Bates says was Aristotle's position,
doesn't the country require a regime that is authoritative? So the people who
live in Appalcahian hills do not make a country even though they share many of
the same customs. Is the United States, which has a regime, a "country" =
"polis"? Would Aristotle consider a nation-state like the United States a
polis? I suppose this would include France, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and
etc. I have a hard time imagining that any of those nations are by nature,
especially North Korea and Saudi Arabia.
> > >
> > > About "nature," I think we agree that there are different natural ends,
and for human beings, the highest natural end is contemplation. That's true
even for someone who doesn't contemplate; he is just failing to do the proper
work for a human being. Other natural ends, which are lower, are eating,
finding shelter, protection, just dealings with others, and so on. Now let's
say we have a founder who ignores the highest natural end of man (perhaps he is
even hostile to it) and he wants to focus on the lower natural ends, and
perhaps, he creates false images of the world and what a human being should be,
which are conventional ends, not natural. Can we say that the Spartan warrior
and his ethos were natural? If you think it's natural, then why was all the
brainwashing and coercion necessary to maintain the Spartan norm? Why was all
the policing (notice the derivative from polis) and spying of each other
necessary if their way of life was
> > natural?
> > > Let's look at some founders: Lycurgus, Romulus, Lenin, or Chairman Mao.
Do we really suppose that Strauss thought these men, by founding the cities they
did, were following their natural inclinations in the complete sense, if they
ignored or were hostile to the needs of the highest natural inclination for
happiness - i.e., the life of contemplation?
> > >
> > > I don't think contemplating = perfection. Contemplating is what everyone
should attempt to do to some degree to become better. Among people who
contemplate, there will be those who do it better than others, and then there
will be those who come close to perfection. In some way, your golf analogy is
apt except we are talking about human beings, not cities.
> > >
> > > I think if you have a political association composed of human beings who
are motivated to satisfy all their natural needs, including the highest, and the
best person in the natural sense rules with no hindrance of laws, or at least,
he is given the authority of the final interpretation of the laws, then this is
a natural political association. Conventional notions of justice and the human
being would not interfere with their satisfaction of their natural needs. The
only limit would be the natural limits of each individual.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > David
> > >
> > > --- In leo-strauss@ yahoogroups. com, "merlin2d" <merlin2d@ .> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yesterday I was off attempting to earn a living, which in Michigan is a
bit of a task. When I was on the high school debate team, with the late Tom
Silver (one of the founders of the Claremont Institute-which will probably
provoke at certain poster) we were taught to define out terms.
> > > >
> > > > Here we have two terms that seem to be is dispute-
> > > >
> > > > CITY-which can have various meanings, indeed when Mr. Pehme insists on
the name of a city by nature I have been tempted to say Dorr, Michigan which
would just confuse things further.
> > > >
> > > > I think Mr. Bates city=polis=politica l community=ta politika=res
publica (and generally equivalent of country in English)!!
> > > >
> > > > If Mr. Pehme wishes to give us another definition he is welcome but then
sophist-like he tends not to like definition.
> > > >
> > > > NATURE-Now here the issue is interesting. Strauss says that in founding
cities man is following his natural inclinations which in the highest sense is
the desire for happiness and also that the city satisfies mans needs according
to their natural rank. So nature here includes what man is and what he can be.
> > > >
> > > > If the highest need in man is wisdom then it has the highest rank, but
some here seem to want to argue that nature must result in the man who loves
wisdom (the philosopher) of necessity or the city isn't natural. The best city
to them is the only natural city for them and anything that falls short is
"unnatural" but this confuses the idea of nature with the idea of perfection.
When I play golf the fact that I am not Tiger Woods doesn't mean that I am not
playing golf
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Gil Scott
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]