The Art of War

[Michael F]

Mark,


"Thus Friedrich Nietzsche attacked Plato's moral and political theories, .....
Karl Popper argued in The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945) that Plato's
alleged proposal for a government system in the Republic was prototypically
totalitarian. Leo Strauss is considered by some as the prime thinker involved in
the recovery of Platonic thought in its more political form."

Stanley Rosen stopped Popper dead in his tracks back in the late
50's(but Popper is "fun" to so many, so Rosen's reason gets tossed out
the window or all out ignored).  Rosen was not only one of Strauss's
finest pupils, he's the only true reader alive who sees Struass's
thought for what he is, it is a staunch roadblock for Communism, which
historically has shown itself to hold the seeds of Totalitarianism:
Mao, Stalin, Pot to name a few that come to mind.  Stanley Rosen has
published the only 2 critiques of Strauss that have been published(I
have one that I'd be glad to send anyone who is interested).  Not just
Rosen, but Paul Stern out of a small college in Ursinus has done a
spectacular job showing that a solid government as laid out in Plato's
Republic is the only way.  But the problems: 1)  Many don't read The
Republic or are too fogged out with Modern ideology to approach it and
2) Us Moderns value want each individual "wants" rather than what's
best for the nation, and this myopia is what really kills any Modern
understanding of The Republic.

Alice,

I wouldn't place any blame on America.  Montaigne and, as I wrote
earlier in the day, Hobbes saw the direct effects of Modern reforms.
So, I'd say the blame is to be placed on England, Germany, and then
France.  This is why I understand the insurgence in Afghanistan in
Iraq, they don't want our Modernized ways.  But hell, Pre-Modern or
Modern violence and war are present.

I don't have time to read the whole of M&D over the next 2 or 3
months, but I'd really enjoy reading sections for discussion.

Mike

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 2:47 PM, alice wellintown
<alicewellintown at gmail.com> wrote:
> After America,  war, there is a poem that ee cummings wrote about this
> sort of thing, a satire that begins:
>
> "next to of course god america i / love you land of the pilgrims' and
> so forth oh"
>
> but after America, war became a huge problem for nation states. Not
> that it wasn't a bit of problem for monarchs in Europe and other forms
> of government elsewhere but things did change after America. After
> America,  Governments, as Richie Havens sings, lie to their people /
> nations are driven to war / by men who stand in the shadows / telling
> us who are enemies are. Not that they didn't before America, but it
> was before America. America has, whatever we may say about American
> exceptional ism, changed the way we see governments. I don't know if
> Plato may be called a fascist, it matters not at all, but nation
> states are held to a standard now that we did not have before America.
> Do the policies of the government represent the idea or attitudes of
> the people governed and are these policies a reflection of the
> elections of people who hold these ideas and policies out to the
> governed for review and correction, even reversal when necessary? Are
> there rules? Laws? Are all the people (of a certain age) given a vote,
> a voice? China is no America. Right? Not to get all jimgoistic or
> nothing, but there is something about this America that is different
> from what was before it. The wars America is engaged in challenge this
> idea of America. America is not a nation that respects the rule of
> law. America is a fascist state. An AmeriKa. But you've got to allow
> that next to America or after America is something, if only a missed
> opportunity. Maybe we should read M&D next?
>