--- In strauss-reading@egroups.com, "Kalev Pehme" <pehme@w...>  wrote:
>
> Is that article that topical? I don't think that Strauss intended
the article to be solely
> a comment on his times, but it is an article for all times. It is
meant to explain the
> problem of the radical division between the philosopher or wise man
and whatever regime he
> may be a part of.


Well, I am sure that you are correct to say that Strauss did not just
intend to write an article with a contemporary interest only, but we
are just discussing this paragraph, and Strauss is more topical than
you seem to think. Remember that he says in the preface that "In the
article 'Persecution and the Art of Writing,' I have tried to
elucidate the problem by starting from certain well-known political
phenomena of our century." We must make an effort, I should think, to
determine with a degree of certainty which well-known political
phenomena Strauss is writing about.


>
> The problem with the US in particular is that the underlying
assumption of the First
> Amendment is that a man will not be persecuted for his thought--
there is a harmony between
> thought and the American regime. However, this very freedom is not
necessarily conducive
> to the realization of the highest thought, nor does it necessitate
that men will think
> against the prevailing authority of the American regime.
Egalitarianism is against nature,
> particularly that part of nature whose hiearchy culminates in the
greatest thought.

I agree.

>
> As for the weaknesses of liberal democracy as you brought up, there
is no question that
> there are weaknesses in it; yet, it is liberal democracy that has
triumphed and conquered
> the world. In On Tyranny, where this issue is bared the most,
Strauss does not deny
> Kojčve's assertion of the coming of the greatest of all liberal
democracies, the universal
> homogenous state. He only denies that it is final or desirable.
>
> The weakness of liberal democracy is seen when, as in Weimar, the
government does not have
> the strength to stand up for itself and uses freedom as an excuse
not to exercise the
> powers it has to stop something like Nazism. If, however, Mr.
Visser is correct that
> Strauss regards liberal democracy as inherently weak, then
historically Strauss would be
> wrong so far.


I meant to say that Strauss might have meant that liberal democracies
are either weak, either internally (Weimar) or externally (France
etc.) or in times of crisis not particularly liberal (UK, US). I
don't think
this is refuted by the current advent of liberal democracy. In the
first place: how "liberal" or "free" are these so-called liberal
democracies anyway? And do we know how the behave in times of crisis?
The Cold War is not that far behind us.

Best,
Michiel
>
> Best regards,
>
> Kalev Pehme

Mr. Pehme wrote:

> Is that article that topical? I don't think that Strauss intended the
> article to be solely
> a comment on his times, but it is an article for all times. It is meant
> to explain the
> problem of the radical division between the philosopher or wise man and
> whatever regime he
> may be a part of.

I agree. Why refer to an old French philosopher, the founder of English
Common Law and to the founder of "modernity", i.e. the Italian
Machiavelli?

Notice that Machiavelli takes centre stage of the three. His is the
longest to read. Around the centre of the part called, "Of Conspiracy",
is a story about a death "list", (left under a pillow) made up by
Commodus, having been hidden where a favourite young boy (student?)
plays.  Naturally, the boy finds the list and gives it to a woman,
Marcia. Commodus is foiled and dies instead.

Is Strauss forming some sort of conspiracy on the life of a prince?
fatherland?
Does Strauss want to escape Commodus's fate?

Cheers,

Brett Dutton

Michael Visser writes:

> --- In strauss-reading@egroups.com, "Kalev Pehme" <pehme@w...>  wrote:
> .
> >
> > The obvious complusion is that one has to uphold the egalitarianism
> of liberal democracy.
> > Strauss omits the obvious tyrannies of the time, i.e., the Soviet
> Union and other ones
> > that were in force in the world in various places such as Asia and
> Africa.
>
>
> Is that so? Compulsion to uphold the egalitarianism of liberal
> democracy? Where do you base that on? Given that the article was
> published in 1941, doesn't Strauss mean simply that the war demanded
> a certain restriction of freedom of expression?

Is that article that topical? I don't think that Strauss intended the article to
be solely
a comment on his times, but it is an article for all times. It is meant to
explain the
problem of the radical division between the philosopher or wise man and whatever
regime he
may be a part of.

The problem with the US in particular is that the underlying assumption of the
First
Amendment is that a man will not be persecuted for his thought--there is a
harmony between
thought and the American regime. However, this very freedom is not necessarily
conducive
to the realization of the highest thought, nor does it necessitate that men will
think
against the prevailing authority of the American regime. Egalitarianism is
against nature,
particularly that part of nature whose hiearchy culminates in the greatest
thought.

As for the weaknesses of liberal democracy as you brought up, there is no
question that
there are weaknesses in it; yet, it is liberal democracy that has triumphed and
conquered
the world. In On Tyranny, where this issue is bared the most, Strauss does not
deny
Kojčve's assertion of the coming of the greatest of all liberal democracies, the
universal
homogenous state. He only denies that it is final or desirable.

The weakness of liberal democracy is seen when, as in Weimar, the government
does not have
the strength to stand up for itself and uses freedom as an excuse not to
exercise the
powers it has to stop something like Nazism. If, however, Mr. Visser is correct
that
Strauss regards liberal democracy as inherently weak, then historically Strauss
would be
wrong so far.

Best regards,

Kalev Pehme

PAW: Section I, Paragraph 2.

Text:
============
A large section of the people, probably the great majority of the
younger generation, (Footnote 2: "Socrates: do you know by what means
they might be persuaded to accept this story? Glauco: By no means, as
far as they themselves are concerned, but I know how it could be done as
regards their sons and their descendents and the people of a later age
generally speaking. Socrates: ...I understand, more or less, what you
mean.") accepts the government-sponsored views as true, if not at once
at least after a time.  How have they been convinced?  And where does
the time factor enter?  They have not been convinced by compulsion, for
compulsion does not produce conviction. It merely paves the way for
conviction by silencing contradiction.  What is called freedom of
thought in a large number of cases amounts to -- and even for all
practical purposes consists of -- the ability to choose between two or
more different views presented by the small minority of people who are
public speakers and writers. (Footnote 3: "Reason is but choosing" is
the central thesis of Milton's Areopagitica.) If this choice is
prevented, the only kind of intellectual independence of which many
people are capable is destroyed, and that is the only freedom of thought
which is of political importance.  Persecution is therefore the
indispensable condition for the highest efficiency of what may be called
_logica equina_.  According to the horse-drawn Parmenides, or to
Gulliver's Houyhnhnms, one cannot say, or one cannot reasonably say "the
thing which is not": that is, lies are inconceivable.  This logic is not
peculiar to horses or horse-drawn philosophers, but determines, if in a
somewhat modified manner, the thought of many ordinary human beings as
well.  They would admit, as a matter of course, that man can lie and
does lie.  But they would add that lies are short-lived and cannot stand
the test of repetition -- let alone of constant repetition -- and that
therefore a statement made by a responsible and respected man, and
therefore particularly by a man in a highly responsible or exalted
position, is morally certain.  These two enthymemes lead to the
conclusion that the truth of a statement which is constantly repeated by
the head of the government and never contradicted is absolutely certain.
===========

Since this is a long paragraph, I will reserve questions and comments
for another message.

Lancelot Fletcher, President
The Free Lance Academy Foundation
http://freelance-academy.org
lance@...

We have not begun at the beginning, i.e. with the motto:

"That vice has often proved an emancipator of the mind, is one of the
most humiliating, but, at the same time, one of the most
unquestionable, facts in history." -W.E.H. Lecky

1. Does anyone know the source and context of this quote?

2. It reminded me of a passage in WIPP, p. 86 #18, i.e. the first of
the two central paragraphs.

"that 'just' and 'useful' are not simply identical; that virtue may
lead to ruin."

Virtue may lead to ruin, vice may emanicpate the mind.


3. Kalev Pehme correctly pointed us to the Epigraph of On Tyranny:

"The habit of writing against the government had, of itself, an
unfavorable effect on the character. For whoever was in the habit of
writing against the government was in the habit of breaking the law;
and the habit of breaking even an unreasonable law tends to make men
altogether lawless....From the day on which the emancipation of our
literature was accomplished, the purification of our literature
began....During a hundred and sixty years the liberty of our press
has been constantly becoming more and more entire; and during those
hundred and sixty years the restraint imposed on writers by the
general feeling of readers has been constantly becoming more and more
strict....At this day foreigners, who dare not print a word
reflecting on the government under which they live, are at a loss to
understand how it happens that the freests press in Europe is the
most prudish." Macaulay.

The kind of tyranny Strauss has in mind in OT is of course foremost
the tyranny over the free mind.

We have not begun at the beginning, i.e. with the motto:

"That vice has often proved an emancipator of the mind, is one of the
most humiliating, but, at the same time, one of the most
unquestionable, facts in history." -W.E.H. Lecky

1. Does anyone know the source and context of this quote?

2. It reminded me of a passage in WIPP, p. 86 #18, i.e. the first of
the two central paragraphs.

"that 'just' and 'useful' are not simply identical; that virtue may
lead to ruin."

Virtue may lead to ruin, vice may emanicpate the mind.


3. Kalev Pehme correctly pointed us to the Epigraph of On Tyranny:

"The habit of writing against the government had, of itself, an
unfavorable effect on the character. For whoever was in the habit of
writing against the government was in the habit of breaking the law;
and the habit of breaking even an unreasonable law tends to make men
altogether lawless....From the day on which the emancipation of our
literature was accomplished, the purification of our literature
began....During a hundred and sixty years the liberty of our press
has been constantly becoming more and more entire; and during those
hundred and sixty years the restraint imposed on writers by the
general feeling of readers has been constantly becoming more and more
strict....At this day foreigners, who dare not print a word
reflecting on the government under which they live, are at a loss to
understand how it happens that the freests press in Europe is the
most prudish." Macaulay.

The kind of tyranny Strauss has in mind in OT is of course foremost
the tyranny over the free mind.

As I was mulling over the last couple of posts I began to wonder more
and more which countries Strauss actually had in mind.

If Kalev is right and we must speak of the US, the UK, France,
Holland and the Scandinavian countries, is tn then at all relevant
that in France, Holland, Denmark and Norway there was no longer
freedom of speech because they were occupied by Nazi Germany?

Is Strauss thus pointing to a weakness in Liberal Democracies? It was
the non-liberal democracy Germany which was
occupying more or less former liberal democracies in 1941. And the
remaining free liberal democracies, the UK and the US both had to
restrict the principle of freedom of speech in wartime, i.e. restrict
the liberal principles on which they were supposedly based, for the
sake of expediency.

Apparently liberal democracies did not produce the kind of political
condition which leads to freedom of thought.

Best,
Michiel Visser

--- In strauss-reading@egroups.com, "Kalev Pehme" <pehme@w...>  wrote:
.
>
> The obvious complusion is that one has to uphold the egalitarianism
of liberal democracy.
> Strauss omits the obvious tyrannies of the time, i.e., the Soviet
Union and other ones
> that were in force in the world in various places such as Asia and
Africa.


Is that so? Compulsion to uphold the egalitarianism of liberal
democracy? Where do you base that on? Given that the article was
published in 1941, doesn't Strauss mean simply that the war demanded
a certain restriction of freedom of expression?

>

Lance Fletcher writes:

> Kalev Pehme writes:
>
> > > 1.  At the risk of appearing to query the obvious, what
> > > countries is Strauss
> > > referring to here, and what was the nature of the compulsion?
> >
> > The United States, foremost, as it has the longest history of
> > writing freedom. I would point out that while there have been
> > periods of press and other writing freedoms in Europe, they have
> > been interrupted by various forms of censorship and governmental
> > interference. However, of the European nations, obviously France,
> > England, the Netherlands, and the Scandanavian countries.
> >
> > The obvious complusion is that one has to uphold the
> > egalitarianism of liberal democracy. Strauss omits the obvious
> > tyrannies of the time, i.e., the Soviet Union and other ones that
> > were in force in the world in various places such as Asia and
> > Africa.
>
> I don't see how you can say that Strauss "omits" certain
> countries when
> he has not listed any.  What are they omitted from?  More generally,
> what evidence can you offer that this is what Strauss meant
> at the time
> he wrote this essay -- presumably no later than 1941?  Is it your
> contention that Strauss could not have been referring to
> Germany because
> even before Hitler there was no significant history of
> freedom of public
> discussion?

Well, let's see now. What countries have had freedom of writing in the past
hundred years
from 1941? Did Germany? No. Russia, no. Italy, no. What countries, Mr. Fletcher?
Let's
face it: Very few countries in 1941 had any kind of freedom of writing, save the
USA and
the other countries I listed. It is a very few countries. The omitted countries
are those
which obviously never had any freedom: Russia, Germany, et al. Let's get real
here: Today,
not even the UK has a true freedom of the press. There is no Constitution in the
UK that
guarantees freedom of the press. In France, you are not allowed to say anything
truly
nasty about the President. You are not allowed to say that the President of
France has a
mistress. You would not have a Clinton thing in France.

So, what country has any genuine freedom of writing, well, it is the US, first
and
foremost.

> >
> > > 2.  What is the significance of the seemingly historically
> > > contingent point
> > > of beginning?  Another way of putting the question is to ask
> > > what, besides
> > > the relative pronoun, connects the second sentence with the
> > > first? Suppose
> > > we take out the word "that" from the second sentence, suppose
> > > there had not
> > > been a resurgence of compulsion and persecution, would it
> > > still be worth our
> > > while to consider the effect of compulsion or persecution on
> > > thoughts and
> > > actions?
> >
> >  Strauss has to write this article in historical terms, because he
> > has to demonstrate that that complusion exists not only in other
> > times and places, but in the very time when we believe there is
> > the greatest abundance of freedom to writing and to thought.
>
> But does Strauss in fact demonstrate any such thing -- in this essay
> especially?  It seems to me, Kalev, that your response addresses a
> different question from the one I posed.  My question involved a
> hypothetical -- Suppose, I said, contrary to what Strauss
> asserts, that
> there had not been a resurgence of compulsion and persecution.  Given
> that hypothesis, I asked, would it still be worth our while
> to consider
> the effect of compulsion or persecution on thought and
> actions?  In your
> response it appears you implicitly deny the possibility of my
> hypothesis.  Is that correct?  In other words, is it your view that,
> according to Strauss, compulsion and persecution are never absent?

But where is the hypothetical in Strauss? Strauss does not pose any
hypoethicals. He is
speaking of what is going on in the world as it is. While I may not answer the
question
you posed, the question you posed has little, if anything, to do with Strauss's
test.

The problem in Strauss is obvious: In a tyranny where freedom of writing, hence
of
thought, is not allowed we expect exceptional problems. But in a world where
there is
freedom of the press, of writing, of thought, we find that there is a rather
amazing
acceptance of authority.

Freedom of thought is generally directed against social authority. It is not
accepting of
it. Need I mention, for example, the epigraph to _On Tyranny_? Again, there is
something
rather odd that the country or countries that allow the greatest freedom of the
press are
also the most prudish and most toting of authority.

[What can we say in the world where freedom of the press is in the hands of a
Rupert
Murdoch, for example? Is that freedom? Clearly not. While Murdoch may not be as
bad as
Stalin, it is not because Murdoch doesn't want to be a Stalin.]

> I can understand this as a possible view that somebody might hold --
> after all, didn't Marcuse speak of "repressive tolerance"? -- but if
> Strauss held this view in 1941, why would he choose to contrast the
> present, in which, in certain countries, freedom of public
> discussion is
> now suppressed, with a preceding century in which, in those same
> unspecified countries, there was "practically complete
> freedom of public
> discussion"? If Strauss's view, as you seem to suggest, was that
> compulsion existed even in those times and places where there appeared
> to be almost complete freedom of public discussion, then it
> seems that,
> for him, there would be no significant difference between the two
> different epochs.  But that does not seem to be what Strauss
> is saying,
> does it?

Strauss's point of view is that there is no regime, not even the most
Machiavellian regime
like the US of total tolerance and freedom of thought that is not going to
persecute
thought. We know, of course, that Stalin or Hitler is not going to allow
anything.
However, that Stalin or Hitler control thought is expected. The issue is whether
the US,
the egalitarian countries, in effect, control thought as well.

It is here where the acid test is. Is American freedom of thought as purportedly
embodied
in the Constitution provide for true freedom of thought? If so, then the issue
is settled.
A republic as Machiavelli envisioned it, as a place where men can think and say
whatever
they want without persecution, is possible. Is Liberal Democracy, the
alternative in the
modern world to the tyrannies of Stalin and Hitler et al., the social condition
for
freedom of thought? The problem of modernity is not Stalin or Hitler, it is the
US, the
freedom of the US, and whether such a freedom provides for freedom of thought,
i.e., a
harmony of philosophy with the social structure. If Liberal Democracy does so,
then
Liberal Democracy is in fact the best regime, something that some members of
this list
actually believe.

> Thanks for the interesting report on the footnote.

I neglected to note that Descartes lived almost his entire life during the
supreme
intolerance of the religious wars in Europe. He was notably acutely aware that
one cannot
just say certain things.

Best regards,

Kalev Pehme

Steve,

Thanks very much for that comprehensive report on the footnote.  I found
it extraordinariliy helpful.  I hope your example will inspire others to
similar treatments of the other footnotes.

Lancelot Fletcher, President
The Free Lance Academy Foundation
http://freelance-academy.org
lance@...

Kalev Pehme writes:

> > 1.  At the risk of appearing to query the obvious, what
> > countries is Strauss
> > referring to here, and what was the nature of the compulsion?
>
> The United States, foremost, as it has the longest history of
> writing freedom. I would point out that while there have been
> periods of press and other writing freedoms in Europe, they have
> been interrupted by various forms of censorship and governmental
> interference. However, of the European nations, obviously France,
> England, the Netherlands, and the Scandanavian countries.
>
> The obvious complusion is that one has to uphold the
> egalitarianism of liberal democracy. Strauss omits the obvious
> tyrannies of the time, i.e., the Soviet Union and other ones that
> were in force in the world in various places such as Asia and
> Africa.

I don't see how you can say that Strauss "omits" certain countries when
he has not listed any.  What are they omitted from?  More generally,
what evidence can you offer that this is what Strauss meant at the time
he wrote this essay -- presumably no later than 1941?  Is it your
contention that Strauss could not have been referring to Germany because
even before Hitler there was no significant history of freedom of public
discussion?

>
> > 2.  What is the significance of the seemingly historically
> > contingent point
> > of beginning?  Another way of putting the question is to ask
> > what, besides
> > the relative pronoun, connects the second sentence with the
> > first? Suppose
> > we take out the word "that" from the second sentence, suppose
> > there had not
> > been a resurgence of compulsion and persecution, would it
> > still be worth our
> > while to consider the effect of compulsion or persecution on
> > thoughts and
> > actions?
>
>  Strauss has to write this article in historical terms, because he
> has to demonstrate that that complusion exists not only in other
> times and places, but in the very time when we believe there is
> the greatest abundance of freedom to writing and to thought.

But does Strauss in fact demonstrate any such thing -- in this essay
especially?  It seems to me, Kalev, that your response addresses a
different question from the one I posed.  My question involved a
hypothetical -- Suppose, I said, contrary to what Strauss asserts, that
there had not been a resurgence of compulsion and persecution.  Given
that hypothesis, I asked, would it still be worth our while to consider
the effect of compulsion or persecution on thought and actions?  In your
response it appears you implicitly deny the possibility of my
hypothesis.  Is that correct?  In other words, is it your view that,
according to Strauss, compulsion and persecution are never absent?

I can understand this as a possible view that somebody might hold --
after all, didn't Marcuse speak of "repressive tolerance"? -- but if
Strauss held this view in 1941, why would he choose to contrast the
present, in which, in certain countries, freedom of public discussion is
now suppressed, with a preceding century in which, in those same
unspecified countries, there was "practically complete freedom of public
discussion"? If Strauss's view, as you seem to suggest, was that
compulsion existed even in those times and places where there appeared
to be almost complete freedom of public discussion, then it seems that,
for him, there would be no significant difference between the two
different epochs.  But that does not seem to be what Strauss is saying,
does it?

Thanks for the interesting report on the footnote.

Lancelot Fletcher, President
The Free Lance Academy Foundation
http://freelance-academy.org
lance@...

Scribere est agere.  See Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries, Book IV, chap. 6.

Compare Machiavelli, Discorsi, III, 6 (I Classici del Giglio, pp. 424-26) and Descartes, Discours de la methode, VI, beginning.

Lance Fletcher writes:

> "In a considerable number of countries which, for about a
> hundred years,
> have enjoyed a practically complete freedom of public discussion, that
> freedom is now suppressed and replaced by a compulsion to
> coordinate speech
> with such views as the government believes to be expedient,
> or holds in all
> seriousness.  It may be worth our while to consider briefly
> the effect of
> that compulsion, or persecution, on thoughts as well as actions."
>
> Some questions:
>
> 1.  At the risk of appearing to query the obvious, what
> countries is Strauss
> referring to here, and what was the nature of the compulsion?

The United States, foremost, as it has the longest history of writing freedom. I
would
point out that while there have been periods of press and other writing freedoms
in
Europe, they have been interrupted by various forms of censorship and
governmental
interference. However, of the European nations, obviously France, England, the
Netherlands, and the Scandanavian countries.

The obvious complusion is that one has to uphold the egalitarianism of liberal
democracy.
Strauss omits the obvious tyrannies of the time, i.e., the Soviet Union and
other ones
that were in force in the world in various places such as Asia and Africa.

> 2.  What is the significance of the seemingly historically
> contingent point
> of beginning?  Another way of putting the question is to ask
> what, besides
> the relative pronoun, connects the second sentence with the
> first? Suppose
> we take out the word "that" from the second sentence, suppose
> there had not
> been a resurgence of compulsion and persecution, would it
> still be worth our
> while to consider the effect of compulsion or persecution on
> thoughts and
> actions?

Strauss has to write this article in historical terms, because he has to
demonstrate that
that complusion exists not only in other times and places, but in the very time
when we
believe there is the greatest abundance of freedom to writing and to thought.

  > 3.  Would somebody be willing to report on the passages cited in the
> footnote?

I would just note that in addition to the notion that to write is to act (hence,
writing
can be brought under governmental behavioral control, as certain members of this
list
actually believe), the Machiavelli chapter cited is the famous one On
Conspiracies. The
very nature of the chapter which teaches why conspiracies fail is itself
conspiratorial
insofar as it enlists the reader into a conspiracy regarding politics and
philosophy. The
best people to bring into a conspiracy are those who don't know they are a part
of one.
What better way than to disguise one's writing to overcome the lack of prudence
and faith,
i.e., trust, of others? Also, it is a very good way to avoid "accidents" that
interfere
with one's conspiracy. There are, of course, the students of Plato who all have
failed
miserably in their attempts to overthrow tyrants. We must assume that
Machiavelli and
Strauss have a different tact. Considering that the Machiavellian Republic, the
greatest
example of which is the US, is meant to mirror the greatness of Imperial Rome
when anyone
could think and say what they wanted, Strauss's independence shows here both
from those
who actually believe in some kind of government control over writing as well as
those who
believe that it is truly possible to create a republic where there is no
persecution of
thought.

Best regards,

Kalev Pehme

I am nowhere near my copy.  could you scan in or otherwise indicate what
passages are quoted?

On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 03:55:13 -0400, Lancelot R. Fletcher wrote:

>3.  Would somebody be willing to report on the passages cited in the
>footnote?


Your friend,

Scott Alexander

"In a considerable number of countries which, for about a hundred years,
have enjoyed a practically complete freedom of public discussion, that
freedom is now suppressed and replaced by a compulsion to coordinate speech
with such views as the government believes to be expedient, or holds in all
seriousness.  It may be worth our while to consider briefly the effect of
that compulsion, or persecution, on thoughts as well as actions."

Some questions:

1.  At the risk of appearing to query the obvious, what countries is Strauss
referring to here, and what was the nature of the compulsion?

2.  What is the significance of the seemingly historically contingent point
of beginning?  Another way of putting the question is to ask what, besides
the relative pronoun, connects the second sentence with the first? Suppose
we take out the word "that" from the second sentence, suppose there had not
been a resurgence of compulsion and persecution, would it still be worth our
while to consider the effect of compulsion or persecution on thoughts and
actions?

3.  Would somebody be willing to report on the passages cited in the
footnote?

Lancelot Fletcher, President
The Free Lance Academy Foundation
http://freelance-academy.org
lance@...

I thought it might make sense to read the Introduction first because the
book is called Persecution and the Art of Writing not Persecution and the
Art of Writing And Other Essays. The introduction to PAW is therefore the
introduction to the title essay as much as it is the introduction to the
entire collection of essays. That this is so is re-inforced, I would think,
by Strauss's remark in the Preface: "These essays are here collected into
one volume primarily with a view to the fact that they all deal with one
problem: the problem of the relation between philosophy and politics. In the
Introduction, I have tried to state this problem from the side of
philosophy. In the article "Persecution and the Art of Writing," I have
tried to eleucidate the problem by starting from certain well-known
political phenomena of our century ... The last three essays deal with the
problem as it appears from the writings of the two most famous Jewish
medieval thinkers" etc. Strauss himself, in other words, distinguishes
between two groups: the Introduction and the Title Essay, which are two
sides of the same coin, and the three essays that follow it.

The Introduction itself is a very interesting text, and certainly one in
which Strauss is quite bold. Of course, his reference to his own and very
interesting article Farabi's Plato of which he made "free use" is
interesting in itself.

I think therefore that it is not necessary to read the whole book, but that
there are sufficient reasons to regard the Introduction and the Title Essay
as organically related. I think we should begin by the Introduction. It is,
moreover, only 14 pages, so that is not too bad.

MV
--
Michiel Visser
Magdalen College, Oxford OX1 4AU
+44-07968-725 845
+44-01865-280026 ex. 25672

"Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD and depart from evil."
Proverbs 3:7
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise
wisdom and instruction."
Proverbs 1:7
----- Original Message -----
From: <strauss-reading@egroups.com>
To: <strauss-reading@egroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2000 1:08 PM
Subject: [strauss-reading] Digest Number 7


> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Special Offer-Earn 300 Points from MyPoints.com for trying @Backup
> Get automatic protection and access to your important computer files.
> Install today:
> http://click.egroups.com/1/2344/7/_/_/_/955282082/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> strauss-reading-unsubscribe@onelist.com
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> There is 1 message in this issue.
>
> Topics in this digest:
>
>       1. RE: To begin
>            From: seltzer@...
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 1
>    Date: Sat, 8 Apr 1972 08:51:32 -0500
>    From: seltzer@...
> Subject: RE: To begin
>
>
> [Please disregard the date of this message, which is set to 1972 by the
> folks who run the domain CapAccess.org to avoid possible Y2K problems,
> as the year 1972 has the same calendar as 2000.  Recipients of my e-mail
> may want to edit my dates manually until CapAccess.org resolves this
> issue.  Thanks.]
>
> Discussing the relative merits of beginning with the introduction to
> PAW, as opposed to the preface, Lance Fletcher writes, in part, as
> follows:
>
> >If you have an argument for this point, I would be willing to listen to
> >it. Absent that, however, my answer would be, no, I do not think it
> >makes more sense to begin with the Introduction.  As the preface makes
> >clear, the book is a collection of essays that were published
> >separately.  The title essay was published in Social Research in
> >November, 1941. The introductory essay is based on Strauss's article
> >"Farabi's Plato" which was published in 1945. As a separately published
> >essay, written and published earlier than the other essays in the
> >volume, I think Persecution and the Art of Writing was meant to be
> >intelligible on its own.
> >
> >While its ideas undoubtedly inform many of Strauss's other writings, I
> >cannot think of any other place where they are stated as boldly or
> >directly -- nor can I think of any earlier writing by Strauss in which
> >these ideas are clearly expressed.  Does this essay represent a new
> >departure, a change from Strauss's previous way of approaching texts?
> >
> >Strauss himself does not say so.  Strauss says only that, "In the
> >article "Persecution and the Art of Writing," I have tried to elucidate
> >the problem [of the relation between philosophy and politics] by
> >starting from certain well-known political phenomena of our century,"
> >while, in contrast, he says that, "In the Introduction, I have tried to
> >state this problem from the side of philosophy." Strauss typically
> >criticized as excessive and misleading the attention which other
> >scholars give to questions of an author's intellectual development,
> >and, in print at least, he was laconic about his own development.
> >
> >For that very reason, the last paragraph of his 1962 Preface to the
> >English translation of his 1930 Spinoza book is of exceptional
> >significance.
>
> On the surface it might appear that we should draw the opposite
> conclusion.  If an author is known for having criticized the attention
> paid to questions of intellectual development, one might want to find
> another principle, apart from the chronological principle, for reading
> his work.  That is, in the case of Strauss in particular, generally
> speaking, one would not want to argue that we ought to read the 1941
> essay before the 1945 essay merely because the 1941 essay was published
> first.
>
> But this is not really Lance's argument, and in this case, I am more
> inclined to agree that Strauss's own clear statement at the end of the
> 1962 Preface about his own intellectual development is one of the most
> important statements Strauss made about how to understand his thought,
> and that the bold and direct statements in the title essay of PAW
> comprise one of the most important substantive elaborations of why
> Strauss undertook his own second sailing.  Therefore, I have no
> objection to beginning with the title essay.
>
> I do want to observe, however, that Strauss's criticism of the attention
> paid to questions of intellectual development, without more, can also be
> an argument for reading the entire book in the order that he arranged
> when he submitted it for publication, beginning at the beginning and
> continuing until the end.
>
> The obvious comparison is with what Cropsey tells us about Studies in
> Platonic Political Philosophy, which also is a collection of separately
> published essays, written and published at different times.  Strauss
> left instructions as to the order in which these essays should be
> republished in the book, and this was done, apart from the omission of
> the essay that had not yet been written.
>
> This gives us a clue to the fact that there must be an intended order to
> all of Strauss's previously published writings that were later
> republished in books, an order that is not chronological.  In each case,
> the question should arise, "Why this order?"  But although the reader
> should at some point raise this question, I can find no objection to
> reading a single essay before considering why it appears in a particular
> place in a larger collection.
>
> --
> Alan L. Seltzer
> P.O. Box 3127, Silver Spring, MD  20918  USA
> (301) 595-9279
> seltzer@...  ** or **  wbs@...
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>

[Please disregard the date of this message, which is set to 1972 by the
folks who run the domain CapAccess.org to avoid possible Y2K problems,
as the year 1972 has the same calendar as 2000.  Recipients of my e-mail
may want to edit my dates manually until CapAccess.org resolves this
issue.  Thanks.]

Discussing the relative merits of beginning with the introduction to
PAW, as opposed to the preface, Lance Fletcher writes, in part, as
follows:

>If you have an argument for this point, I would be willing to listen to
>it. Absent that, however, my answer would be, no, I do not think it
>makes more sense to begin with the Introduction.  As the preface makes
>clear, the book is a collection of essays that were published
>separately.  The title essay was published in Social Research in
>November, 1941. The introductory essay is based on Strauss's article
>"Farabi's Plato" which was published in 1945. As a separately published
>essay, written and published earlier than the other essays in the
>volume, I think Persecution and the Art of Writing was meant to be
>intelligible on its own.
>
>While its ideas undoubtedly inform many of Strauss's other writings, I
>cannot think of any other place where they are stated as boldly or
>directly -- nor can I think of any earlier writing by Strauss in which
>these ideas are clearly expressed.  Does this essay represent a new
>departure, a change from Strauss's previous way of approaching texts?
>
>Strauss himself does not say so.  Strauss says only that, "In the
>article "Persecution and the Art of Writing," I have tried to elucidate
>the problem [of the relation between philosophy and politics] by
>starting from certain well-known political phenomena of our century,"
>while, in contrast, he says that, "In the Introduction, I have tried to
>state this problem from the side of philosophy." Strauss typically
>criticized as excessive and misleading the attention which other
>scholars give to questions of an author's intellectual development,
>and, in print at least, he was laconic about his own development.
>
>For that very reason, the last paragraph of his 1962 Preface to the
>English translation of his 1930 Spinoza book is of exceptional
>significance.

On the surface it might appear that we should draw the opposite
conclusion.  If an author is known for having criticized the attention
paid to questions of intellectual development, one might want to find
another principle, apart from the chronological principle, for reading
his work.  That is, in the case of Strauss in particular, generally
speaking, one would not want to argue that we ought to read the 1941
essay before the 1945 essay merely because the 1941 essay was published
first.

But this is not really Lance's argument, and in this case, I am more
inclined to agree that Strauss's own clear statement at the end of the
1962 Preface about his own intellectual development is one of the most
important statements Strauss made about how to understand his thought,
and that the bold and direct statements in the title essay of PAW
comprise one of the most important substantive elaborations of why
Strauss undertook his own second sailing.  Therefore, I have no
objection to beginning with the title essay.

I do want to observe, however, that Strauss's criticism of the attention
paid to questions of intellectual development, without more, can also be
an argument for reading the entire book in the order that he arranged
when he submitted it for publication, beginning at the beginning and
continuing until the end.

The obvious comparison is with what Cropsey tells us about Studies in
Platonic Political Philosophy, which also is a collection of separately
published essays, written and published at different times.  Strauss
left instructions as to the order in which these essays should be
republished in the book, and this was done, apart from the omission of
the essay that had not yet been written.

This gives us a clue to the fact that there must be an intended order to
all of Strauss's previously published writings that were later
republished in books, an order that is not chronological.  In each case,
the question should arise, "Why this order?"  But although the reader
should at some point raise this question, I can find no objection to
reading a single essay before considering why it appears in a particular
place in a larger collection.

--
Alan L. Seltzer
P.O. Box 3127, Silver Spring, MD  20918  USA
(301) 595-9279
seltzer@...  ** or **  wbs@...

Michiel Visser writes:

> Does it not, however, make
> more sense to begin with the introduction?

If you have an argument for this point, I would be willing to listen to it.
Absent that, however, my answer would be, no, I do not think it makes more
sense to begin with the Introduction.  As the preface makes clear, the book
is a collection of essays that were published separately.  The title essay
was published in Social Research in November, 1941. The introductory essay
is based on Strauss's article "Farabi's Plato" which was published in 1945.
As a separately published essay, written and published earlier than the
other essays in the volume, I think Persecution and the Art of Writing was
meant to be intelligible on its own.

While its ideas undoubtedly inform many of Strauss's other writings, I
cannot think of any other place where they are stated as boldly or
directly -- nor can I think of any earlier writing by Strauss in which these
ideas are clearly expressed.  Does this essay represent a new departure, a
change from Strauss's previous way of approaching texts?

Strauss himself does not say so.  Strauss says only that, "In the article
"Persecution and the Art of Writing," I have tried to elucidate the problem
[of the relation between philosophy and politics] by starting from certain
well-known political phenomena of our century," while, in contrast, he says
that, "In the Introduction, I have tried to state this problem from the side
of philosophy."  Strauss typically criticized as excessive and misleading
the attention which other scholars give to questions of an author's
intellectual development, and, in print at least, he was laconic about his
own development.

For that very reason, the last paragraph of his 1962 Preface to the English
translation of his 1930 Spinoza book is of exceptional significance.  In
that paragraph Strauss writes (I apologize for lifting it somewhat awkwardly
out of context):

"The victory of orthodoxy through the self-destruction of rational
philosophy was not an unmitigated blessing, for it was a victory not of
Jewish orthodoxy but of any orthodoxy, and Jewish orthodoxy based its claim
to superiority to other religiouns from the beginning on its superior
rationality (Deut. 4:6).  Apart from this, the hierarchy of moralities and
wills to wwhich the final atheism referred could not but be claimed to be
intrinsically true, theoretically true: "the will to power" of the strong or
of the weak may be the ground of every other doctrine; it is not the ground
of the will to power: the will to power was said to be a fact. Other
observations and experiences confirmed the suspicion that it would be unwise
to say farewell to reason.  I began therefore to wonder whether the
self-destruction of reason was not the inevitable outcome of modern
rationalism as distinguished from pre-modern rationalism, especially
Jewish-medieval rationalism and its classical (Aristotelian and Platonic)
foundation.  The present study (i.e. the 1930 Spinoza book) was based on the
premise, sanctioned by powerful prejudice, that a return to pre-modern
philosophy is impossible.  The change of orientation which found its first
expression, not entirely by accident, in the article published at the end of
this volume [the article about Carl Schmitt's treatise], compelled me to
engage in a number of studies in the course of which I became ever more
attentive to the manner in which heterodox thinkers of earlier ages wrote
their books.  As a consequence of this, I now read the Theologico-political
Treatise differently than I read it when I was young.  I understood Spinoza
too literally because I did not read him literally enough."

What is Strauss telling us in this paragraph?  That there was indeed a shift
in his way of reading certain important texts, a shift that occurred
subsequent to his earliest publications.  That much may be obvious.  But
what brought this shift about?  Not, it seems, just careful study of those
texts, although that was involved.  It appears that he approached the texts
with a particular interest, a particular set of questions.  He had first
concluded that rationalism inevitably entails the self-destruction of
reason.  But "other observations and experiences confirmed the suspicion
that it would be unwise to say farewell to reason."  What to do? He begins
to entertain the possibility of a salutary distinction:  Perhaps the
self-destruction of reason is not the inevitable consequence of rationalism
simpliciter.  Perhaps there are different kinds of rationalism.  Perhaps the
self-destruction of reason is an inevitable consequence only of one kind of
rationalism, namely modern rationalism, allowing for the possibility of a
pre-modern rationalism which would not entail this inevitable consequence.

At the time he wrote his Spinoza book, Strauss tells us, this possibility
was obscured or denied by what he calls "a powerful prejudice," the
prejudice, namely, "that a return to pre-modern philosophy is impossible."
Why is that impossible?  Because pre-modern philosophy, it is generally
thought, has been decisively invalidated.   Its authors have been understood
and their ideas refuted.  In addition, the change in understanding of
fundamental things that came with modernity means that the basic ideas of
pre-modern thinkers cannot possibly be relevant to the modern situation.

If there is a pre-modern rationalism which does not entail the inevitable
self-destruction of reason, and if it is to be seen as offering a live
option for modern people, then it must be the case that the way in which we
have understood pre-modern thinkers was seriously incorrect.  But how could
that come about?  With something like that question, Strauss tells us, he
engaged in studies during the course of which he became "ever more attentive
to the manner in which heterodox thinkers of earlier ages wrote their
books."

The essay in which Strauss announces his conclusions on this matter most
directly and comprehensively is Persecution and the Art of Writing.

Lancelot Fletcher, President
The Free Lance Academy Foundation
http://freelance-academy.org
lance@...

I agree and switch my vote to PAW as well. Does it not, however, make
more sense to begin with the introduction?

Dear Mr. Fletcher,

I am quite happy to go ahead and read Strauss's "Persecution and the Art
of Writing", now that it is clear to me that our voting result was an
act of divine providence, or fate.

I look forward to meeting the enemy.

Cheers,

Brett Dutton



Lancelot R. Fletcher wrote:
>
> From: "Lancelot R. Fletcher" <lance@...>
>
> The polls are now closed, so the spin can begin.
>
> Out of 17 votes cast, the leading candidate (Persecution and the Art of
> Writing) had 4 votes. Does this remind you of French elections in the 1950s?
> Are we facing the need for a coalition government? Since voter participation
> was less than 20% of the electorate, can anyone argue that there is a silent
> majority out there for one candidate or another?
>
> The runner-up was The City and Man, and there were either 2 or 3 email votes
> for On Tyranny.
>
> Although a plurality of one is very far from being decisive, I am going to
> argue in favor of starting with a reading of Persecution and the Art of
> Writing -- by which I mean only the essay, not the whole collection which
> contains that essay and bears that title.
>
> My argument is twofold:
>
> 1. The essay is very short -- only about 15 pages.
>
> 2. It is critical for understanding the nature of Strauss as a teacher.
>
> I did not have the benefit of studying with Strauss directly, so perhaps
> those of you who did will think I am being a bit presumptuous here.
> Therefore, let me explain what I mean: Persecution and the Art of Writing
> was not the first work by Strauss that I encountered -- that was the
> Machiavelli book, which fell into my hands when I was about 18.  I found it
> quite impenetrable and quickly put it aside.  A little later I discovered,
> and actually read, What is Political Philosophy.  I could tell that there
> was something impressive about it, but I still couldn't get it.  In
> retrospect I would say that I was still too much in the grip of the
> modernist prejudice which views past thinkers either as a set of errors to
> be avoided or as utterly irrelevant to the modern situation because they
> were then and this is now.  Then I read Persecution and the Art of Writing.
> Admittedly, this was in the same semester that I was studying with Allan
> Bloom and Roger Masters, so other things were at work on my mind.  But with
> Persecution and the Art of Writing I felt I had at last found a doorway into
> what Strauss was trying to say in his other works.  To put it differently,
> it was with this essay that I began to learn how to read.  And ever since
> then Strauss's teaching, for me, has been, not so much a set of political
> views or opinions, but a certain art of reading.
>
> Anyway, that is my somewhat personal reason for thinking we would do well to
> start with Persecution and the Art of Writing.
>
> Lancelot Fletcher, President
> The Free Lance Academy Foundation
> http://freelance-academy.org
> lance@...
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> strauss-reading-unsubscribe@onelist.com

Even though I initially voted for CAM, I find Lance's
arguments persuasive -- especially the one about
starting with a 15-page work.
So I'll join the winning side, and switch my vote to PAW.
Kent Guida

[Please disregard the date of this message, which is set to 1972 by the
folks who run the domain CapAccess.org to avoid possible Y2K problems,
as the year 1972 has the same calendar as 2000.  Recipients of my e-mail
may want to edit my dates manually until CapAccess.org resolves this
issue (which may be never unless they get grant money).  Thanks.]

>From: "Lancelot R. Fletcher" <lance@...>
>
>Although a plurality of one is very far from being decisive, I am going to
>argue in favor of starting with a reading of Persecution and the Art of
>Writing -- by which I mean only the essay, not the whole collection which
>contains that essay and bears that title.
>
>My argument is twofold:
>
>1. The essay is very short -- only about 15 pages.
>
>2. It is critical for understanding the nature of Strauss as a teacher.

I personally think it's an excellent choice, although at the time of my
last reading I decided that it would be worthwhile to reread the entire
book.  Even so, I have never been able to benefit fully from the book as
a whole because I have not studied the writings treated there, such as
the Kuzari and the Theologico-Political Treatise.  Still, according to
Strauss's method, there are places where thoughts that he wants to convey
to the careful reader "flash up" in the context of the works he is
analyzing but with much more general import.  The key thought that
"flashed up" to me in the book concerned historicism.

I'd also like to commend those who are discussing Schmitt and Strauss's
essay on Schmitt on the leo-strauss list, as Mr. Zentner is surely
correct to argue that the latter is another important key to Strauss's
thought, followed I suppose by _Philosophy and Law_, another work from
which one is not able to benefit fully unless one study's the source,
or I should more accurately say (for most of us) even if one studies the
source.

--
Alan L. Seltzer
P.O. Box 3127, Silver Spring, MD  20918  USA
(301) 595-9279
seltzer@...  ** or **  wbs@...

The polls are now closed, so the spin can begin.

Out of 17 votes cast, the leading candidate (Persecution and the Art of
Writing) had 4 votes. Does this remind you of French elections in the 1950s?
Are we facing the need for a coalition government? Since voter participation
was less than 20% of the electorate, can anyone argue that there is a silent
majority out there for one candidate or another?

The runner-up was The City and Man, and there were either 2 or 3 email votes
for On Tyranny.

Although a plurality of one is very far from being decisive, I am going to
argue in favor of starting with a reading of Persecution and the Art of
Writing -- by which I mean only the essay, not the whole collection which
contains that essay and bears that title.

My argument is twofold:

1. The essay is very short -- only about 15 pages.

2. It is critical for understanding the nature of Strauss as a teacher.

I did not have the benefit of studying with Strauss directly, so perhaps
those of you who did will think I am being a bit presumptuous here.
Therefore, let me explain what I mean: Persecution and the Art of Writing
was not the first work by Strauss that I encountered -- that was the
Machiavelli book, which fell into my hands when I was about 18.  I found it
quite impenetrable and quickly put it aside.  A little later I discovered,
and actually read, What is Political Philosophy.  I could tell that there
was something impressive about it, but I still couldn't get it.  In
retrospect I would say that I was still too much in the grip of the
modernist prejudice which views past thinkers either as a set of errors to
be avoided or as utterly irrelevant to the modern situation because they
were then and this is now.  Then I read Persecution and the Art of Writing.
Admittedly, this was in the same semester that I was studying with Allan
Bloom and Roger Masters, so other things were at work on my mind.  But with
Persecution and the Art of Writing I felt I had at last found a doorway into
what Strauss was trying to say in his other works.  To put it differently,
it was with this essay that I began to learn how to read.  And ever since
then Strauss's teaching, for me, has been, not so much a set of political
views or opinions, but a certain art of reading.

Anyway, that is my somewhat personal reason for thinking we would do well to
start with Persecution and the Art of Writing.

Lancelot Fletcher, President
The Free Lance Academy Foundation
http://freelance-academy.org
lance@...

The following strauss-reading poll is now closed.  Here are the
final results:


POLL QUESTION: Which text by Leo Strauss would you most like to read and discuss
on the Strauss-reading list? (I have set up this poll so that you can only vote
for one.  If you have a second choice, or would like to propose a text not
listed, you may construct your own poll or post your ideas to the list.)

CHOICES AND RESULTS
- Thoughts on Machiavelli, 1 votes, 5.88%
- What is Political Philosophy, 1 votes, 5.88%
- The City and Man, 3 votes, 17.65%
- Natural Right and History, 2 votes, 11.76%
- Jerusalem and Athens, 0 votes, 0.00%
- Persecution and the Art of Writing, 4 votes, 23.53%
- The Problem of Socrates, 2 votes, 11.76%
- How to Begin to Study Medieval Philosophy, 0 votes, 0.00%
- Progress or Return, 1 votes, 5.88%
- other (I will specify in a message to the list), 3 votes, 17.65%

INDIVIDUAL VOTES
- Thoughts on Machiavelli
      - jkeyser@...
- What is Political Philosophy
      - texcsa@...
- The City and Man
      - aahowe@...
      - brettd@...
      - kent.guida@...
- Natural Right and History
      - michiel.visser@...
      - mills@...
- Jerusalem and Athens
- Persecution and the Art of Writing
      - lance@...
      - gkramer@...
      - hanny@...
      - jorge301@...
- The Problem of Socrates
      - boates1@...
      - yaakov@...
- How to Begin to Study Medieval Philosophy
- Progress or Return
      - d_ollivant@...
- other (I will specify in a message to the list)
      - kosta.simopoulos@...
      - chucks@...
      - ecamurri@...


For more information about this group, please visit
http://www.onelist.com/group/strauss-reading

For help with ONElist, please visit
http://www.onelist.com/help

Dear list,
My vote was first for Persecution And The Art Of Writing. But I agree with Mr.
Simopoulos for On Tyranny and Strauss-Kojčve debate.

kosta.simopoulos@... ha scritto:

> From: <kosta.simopoulos@...>
>
> Hello Mr.Fletcher,
>
> Why dont you add On Tyranny to the list, with the Strauss-Kojeve exchange?
>
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 strauss-reading@onelist.com wrote:
>
> > From: strauss-reading@onelist.com
> >
> > Enter your vote today!  Check out the new poll for the strauss-reading
> > group:
> >
> >
> > Which text by Leo Strauss would you most like to read and discuss on the
Strauss-reading list? (I have set up this poll so that you can only vote for
one.  If you have a second choice, or would like to propose a text not listed,
you may construct your own poll or post your ideas to the list.)
> >
> >   o Thoughts on Machiavelli
> >   o What is Political Philosophy
> >   o The City and Man
> >   o Natural Right and History
> >   o Jerusalem and Athens
> >   o Persecution and the Art of Writing
> >   o The Problem of Socrates
> >   o How to Begin to Study Medieval Philosophy
> >   o Progress or Return
> >   o other (I will specify in a message to the list)
> >
> >
> > To vote, please visit the following web page:
> >
> > http://www.onelist.com/polls/strauss-reading
> >
> > Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
> > not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the ONElist
> > web site listed above.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > @Backup- Protect and Access your data any time, any where on the net.
> > Try @Backup FREE and recieve 300 points from mypoints.com Install now:
> > http://click.egroups.com/1/2345/5/_/_/_/953232640/
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > strauss-reading-unsubscribe@onelist.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> @Backup- Protect and Access your data any time, any where on the net.
> Try @Backup FREE and recieve 300 points from mypoints.com Install now:
> http://click.egroups.com/1/2345/7/_/_/_/953584825/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> strauss-reading-unsubscribe@onelist.com

Hello Mr.Fletcher,

Why dont you add On Tyranny to the list, with the Strauss-Kojeve exchange?

On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 strauss-reading@onelist.com wrote:

> From: strauss-reading@onelist.com
>
> Enter your vote today!  Check out the new poll for the strauss-reading
> group:
>
>
> Which text by Leo Strauss would you most like to read and discuss on the
Strauss-reading list? (I have set up this poll so that you can only vote for
one.  If you have a second choice, or would like to propose a text not listed,
you may construct your own poll or post your ideas to the list.)
>
>   o Thoughts on Machiavelli
>   o What is Political Philosophy
>   o The City and Man
>   o Natural Right and History
>   o Jerusalem and Athens
>   o Persecution and the Art of Writing
>   o The Problem of Socrates
>   o How to Begin to Study Medieval Philosophy
>   o Progress or Return
>   o other (I will specify in a message to the list)
>
>
> To vote, please visit the following web page:
>
> http://www.onelist.com/polls/strauss-reading
>
> Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
> not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the ONElist
> web site listed above.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> @Backup- Protect and Access your data any time, any where on the net.
> Try @Backup FREE and recieve 300 points from mypoints.com Install now:
> http://click.egroups.com/1/2345/5/_/_/_/953232640/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> strauss-reading-unsubscribe@onelist.com
>
>
>
>

As I voting for other, I have to do by e-mail (I have also registered on
the site).
I am interested to have Strauss' essay on Scmitt read by the group.

Best Regards
Andrew Lancaster

Enter your vote today!  Check out the new poll for the strauss-reading
group:


Which text by Leo Strauss would you most like to read and discuss on the
Strauss-reading list? (I have set up this poll so that you can only vote for
one.  If you have a second choice, or would like to propose a text not listed,
you may construct your own poll or post your ideas to the list.)

   o Thoughts on Machiavelli
   o What is Political Philosophy
   o The City and Man
   o Natural Right and History
   o Jerusalem and Athens
   o Persecution and the Art of Writing
   o The Problem of Socrates
   o How to Begin to Study Medieval Philosophy
   o Progress or Return
   o other (I will specify in a message to the list)


To vote, please visit the following web page:

http://www.onelist.com/polls/strauss-reading

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the ONElist
web site listed above.

Thanks!

The strauss-reading list is now up and running.  Almost all of the addresses on
the leo-strauss
list have been copied over to this one, except for about 15 which exceeded the
Onelist limit
for mass transfers.  For those approval by the Onelist management is required,
and will
probably be received within a few hours.

Just as a precaution, I have placed the new list on moderated status for now,
but that
restriction will be removed as soon as I am sure that everything is running
correctly.

Meanwhile, I invite speculation about what to read and volunteers for leading
the discussion.'

Lance Fletcher
List Owner


Lancelot R. Fletcher, President
The Free Lance Academy Foundation
lrf@...
http://freelance-academy.org