Re: Is The Superman Supra-historical?
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Trevor Williams
>I think this question must be seen in the context of your earlier
> Have you read The Concept of the Political by Carl Schmitt?
question re. Strauss: considering the following:
"Strauss considered his Schmitt interpretation indicative of *the*
decisive turn in his career, signaling his condemnation of
liberalism's "self-destruction of reason." According to Strauss,
Schmitt unsuccessfully attempted to recapture the centrality of
politics against its liberal devaluation. Both Schmitt and Strauss
despised this denigration of politics as creating "a world of fun, a
world devoid of seriousness." A ground for their contempt is cited by
Chaninah Maschler: "The astonishingly vivid rhetoric of the essay on
Schmitt gives even an innocent American an *experience* of the appel
of nazi ideology for someone who is made to feel that life is
contemptible without whole-souled dedication, but who can no longer
take religion seriously.""
[Harry Neumann, Liberalism, Introduction.]
"Neumann is the only one of Leo Strauss's students who, like Strauss,
marked the turning point in his career from his reading of Carl
Schmitt's *Concept of the Political*. Although Neumann turned one way,
and Strauss another, there are resemblances that transcend this
difference in direction. Both are characterized by the greatest moral
earnestness. The Jewish contempt for "Epicureanism," of which Strauss
speaks in his autobiographical preface -- and which is crucial for
understanding Strauss and his entire enterprise -- is also at the root
of Neumann's contempt for modern liberalism. Like Strauss, Neumann
sees modern Epicureanism as Epicureanism come out of the closet,
demanding that all politics be in the service of its demands.
Epicureanism in the ancient world was unpolitical and anti-political.
In the modern world it is the most virulent form of sectarian and
[ibid., Foreword by Harry Jaffa.]
The difference in direction between Neumann and Strauss is the
following. Strauss despised liberalism for its liberalisation from
politics, reverting to orthodox Judaism as a serious religion.
Neumann, on the other hand, saw liberalism and politics much as
Nietzsche saw Reason and Christianity, respectively: as mutually
laming each other. Neumann despised modern "liberalism" for its
inconsistency (and despised politics less and less as it became more
consistent -- even though he saw consistent politics as a more radical
flight from the truth than inconsistent politics!). The reason he
despised modern so-called "liberalism" more than illiberal politics is
that to him the mendaciousness of "liberal" politics was so much more
obvious! For "political liberalism" is a contradictio in adjecto. To
politicise liberalism is to illiberalise it! Political "liberalism"
essentially makes it its serious task to create "a world of fun, a
world devoid of seriousness"...
"Nietzsche might have left it at this "joyful science" for which
nothing is worth taking seriously. In that case, he would have
accepted Schopenhauer's atheism while rejecting those elements
responsible for Schopenhauer's universal compassion in favor of
universal ridicule of men ensnared by common sense's illusions.
Nietzsche's strong moral-political needs, his aristocratic conscience,
prevented acceptance of this joyful (nihilist) science."
[ibid., "Nietzsche", Part I.]
If the Übermensch is such a "joyful scientist", then to incite others
to become and/or create such joyful scientists is to illiberalise
joyful science and thereby make it serious.
- The point is that science is not as objective, neutral and 'value-
free' as it would like to think.
The same claims were made by historicism in Nietzsche's day - hence
the importance of Use and Abuse which goes beyond his critique of
history to a critique of knowledge in general.
The mysticism of the past was the science of its day.
And today's science will be the mysticism of the future.
Marxism makes the mistake of debunking other theories while
forgetting that it too is just another theory.
To quote Nietzsche - 'life is in love with the lie'.
--- In email@example.com, "ubermensch1975"
> I was thinking the contrary- that it is mysticism that (with itsand
> origins in platonic systems) assumed that reason existed a priori,
> that it could be interpreted as if it were cryptic and accessibleonly
> to those "elected" by God to know it. Science, on the other hand, isfor
> posterior to experience- it is deductive, inductive, but makes no
> inference based solely on assumption.
> If you are interested I can give you a link to a site owned by an
> extraordinary thinker, mathematician, and Marxist "philosopher"
> (although she abhors that title). The work she has been developing
> the last ten years is an immense critique of Hegel's "Dialecticalof
> materialism". That aside, she also provides a wonderful archeology
> "ruling class ideas", as she calls them, explaining how mysticism,thought....so
> metaphysics, and theology was invented by the ruling classes with no
> other intention than subordinating the working classes.
> They lied to us, guys.
> I would post the link but I know Sauwelios hates Marxist
> I won't litter at his site.the
> Make no mistake....I have nothing against mythology, metaphor, and
> esoteric in general....if it is proper and in the right company.
> BTW, Sauwelios, this yahoo format sucks balls. Can't you get a real
> site, man?
> Let's all pitch in to pay for it. You people are good...but with my
> help you could be the best. Allow us one year and we will own the