Welcome back to the new thing for you. My name is David Barr with me as always is my good friend Alex pre you how are you Alex doing? Well, how are you David? I'm well, and who's our other co-host Gregory McBryer?
How are you? Oh, well, Greg is he's an outdoorsman animal lover But also likes to cook out say he called me a few weeks ago And he said data I'm so excited today We're doing a a show on Max Weber and apparently he was some industrialist he Engineer of great note and he invented you know the modern American grill and I said, you know, it's a baby No, no, no, no, you don't understand and there's this man not sir Benigari's an engineering department at Boston College Very very well known and so, you know, Greg. It turns out was wrong. He's in the Alex.
Yeah, absolutely Greg looks at everything through the lens of his southern rural upbringing and unfortunately he lacks the worldly perspective to understand You know Max Weber did visit the America one so who knows maybe he started the We just hear from Alex who's our guest we're all excited yesterday is Associate Professor of Political Science at Boston College, Nasser Benigari who did his graduate work at the Committee on Social Thought at the University of Chicago and while he was there you study with Nathan Tarkov I believe and other leaders former guests in Nathan Tarkov and he's also the author of a fantastic book called Leostross Max of Abraham and the Scientific Study of Politics which includes from which press there Mr. Preel from University of Chicago Press and which includes in its central part a discussion of Chapter 2 of Natural Right in History which is the next chapter we have to discuss in our series on the book chapter by chapter series and you know when we were doing the series we thought we should get a Few guests in the mix and for this chapter was obvious. There's one person to talk to and that's our guest today So welcome to the show and as it's a pleasure to be here. Yeah, and you know We were talking before the show about online people are excited in particular for the show And it's probably for who nasterez is the scholar and we get people don't really know about Weber and in its weird I told the story on the show before an answer that I was reading Weber some years ago overseas in some consulting firm internship and Austrian comes over to me because I'm not vapor.
We had to read him in business school Tell me who is vapor and I don't know if he's fallen for Weber if he studied or if he's only studied in admin courses or business courses Or you know who is he in general and what's our interest with him in the history political thought? Yeah, okay, well that's a great question It's really hard to over estimate the influence that Weber had in social science I would say in the first half of 20th century up to the 1960s You know throughout this describes vapor as the greatest social scientists of our century This is I would say one of the very few statements in his criticism of vapor that practically every other social scientist at that time would agree to quit it's He is I think he fell out of favor mostly because of the reaction the rise of the new left in the 60s He was known of course for insisting that social science it should be ethically neutral It's a and and the general crisis in the 60s Create a such an urgency for scholars to become politically involved and and as a result of this he has You know, he has you know, yeah Falling off the landscape and he's obviously still a well-known name, but but but I don't think he is studied as as seriously So that so I think that's that's the main thing it's some and and perhaps another part of it is the effect of stress criticism this is on a much smaller circle of people not not that Stress is criticism is really devastating, you know, it's it's You know there are for instance his thesis that Viber did not realize that he's he's basically positioned least on nihilism his criticism of the possibility of social science on the base of Labor's thesis, you know that part I think it's full of sarcastic comments, you know, it's it's really quite Devastating but what is hidden is the fact that Strauss had a very high opinion of him So it's a very strange mixture. It's a In a in another lecture that he gave he mentioned that prior to meeting Heidegger as a young man He was particularly impressed with Max Weber. It's it's there's a in fact I have it in front of me.
Let me see this is an introduction to Pythagorean existentialism That he was impressed by his intrinsic devotion to intellectual honesty By his passionate devotion to the idea of science a devotion that was combined with the profound uneasiness regarding the meaning of science So so what what's ras says in the beginning of his criticism that he is the greatest social scientist of the 20th century And I think he means it and and I have to say in terms of my own experience of working on On stratus criticism The more I worked on it. I I appreciated how impressive that criticism was No, it's just really illuminating at the same time. I kept on being even more more impressed with Max Weber it's a It's a funny thing because it's not it's not that the criticism is not valid But I would just struck by the by the seriousness of the human being that Max Weber was that Strauss understood and And and and he articulated the difficulties that he had so in a way You know Strauss taking him so seriously kind of shows that Weber's a serious thinker in his own right But one of the questions I have with the puzzle I haven't you've already done a good job laying this out So maybe this isn't adding anything, but you know hogs lock Russo Burke Heidegger looms in the background Socrates is sort of in the foreground of the classical natural right It's I mean if I were to push back I'd say how does Weber fit in amongst the illuminaries? I mean he gets a whole chapter devoted to him whereas loves loves Hobbs and Locke Sher chapter and Russo and Berkshire chapter So maybe you can tell the folks at home who aren't know the favor What are some of his major books or works or major contributions?
And why it is that Strauss thought that vapor rises to the level of being treated in the same breath with Hobbs and Locke and He's yeah, no, that's a great question That it's as you said it's it's the only chapter in the book that is devoted to one person and and it's Max Weber I would say that Max Weber is not a thinker of the same rank as those other luminaries and I don't think Strauss thought that this was the case it's Yeah And but in some ways it makes his chapter on on Weber even more impressive to me You know, there are some some of Strauss's interpretations of Plato of Rousseau of Locke They are all very very impressive but when you're dealing with Authors of the absolute highest rank you're dealing with someone a writer who is in complete command of his thought and the materials and There's a real difficulty in understanding them because it just so difficult to understand people who are so much smarter than you are And who understand the world is that that difficulty remains but when you're dealing with Thinkers like Weber or another example of a nation's called Schmidt, right? They are very serious people. They are dealing with serious issues. They have Contact with those issues but their thoughts Like a kind of coherence, you know, you know, they haven't They haven't found their way to a clear position and and the thing that's really just impressive me about Strauss And when he's writing about these these writers is his capacity to work through Things that is in their thoughts, but they hadn't thought through and and and and and this is like so So it's a is especially helpful.
So when you read the Weber chapter to look up the footnotes I spend a year or two So on that point, that's one of the things that your book drew out. It was helpful for me You know Strauss for those of us who read a lot of Strauss always insist upon understanding the author as the author understood himself and trying not to Understand the author better than he understood himself But what you make a really compelling case That with Weber Strauss is showing you how to understand someone better than he understands himself. Yeah, yeah, absolutely And that's that I thought was an amazing exercise So that Weber didn't understand the consequences of his thought or he didn't understand his own presuppositions that he was bringing into the inquiry And just the piggyback off that Did Strauss I know I don't want to jump into much but did Strauss see Weber or a Weberism? I don't know if that's even fair to phrase it as such as something that had to be dealt with intellectually because of where it was trending I can I read I can no longer remember the author was interpretations of his Burke section.
That's like he burks kind of used as a stocking horse to a critique of some Strauss's contemporaries and exception that Heidegger summer in the back of the whole book, but Is he doing the same thing with Weber that he thought that unchecked so was Weber's popularity at its? Still strong when Strauss was writing absolutely. Yeah, he saw it was a serious thing to confront it I think so. I think at the time that he was writing Weber was Considered the greatest social scientist and in particular his thesis about the fact and values that thesis sort of dominated social science in the 50s and It's only really after the 60s that it's a it's not what you could say that this is still is is operative now But you know there is Not the kind of philosophical or methodology will try to examine it But at that time it was it was certainly the basis of modern social science and and I think Strauss was probably interested in challenging it's I wouldn't say that the main reason for For including such an extensive treatment is an attempt to demolish a bad influence in social science But I think the main reason is to It has to do with the theme of the book that the theme of the book is natural right in history and One of the powerful reasons that natural right was rejected was that the distinction in fact and values.
Yes Yes, I mean you get the sense in this chapter that one of the reasons You know if you read like an epilogue which is the third part of your book is about it's way more Pilemic and about contemporary social science as a whole but here you get a sense that he sees Weber as an interesting figure And maybe a kind of kindred soul in a way because like Strauss he really wants to try to give you know Science it's due and see whether it can have some kind of social science which ultimately for Strauss You know devolves into or develops into political philosophy But it was was you know There's all these marks of Nietzsche on him and all of the 19th century historicism and yet he does not bite the bullet He really tries to push for science, but he struggles precisely because he's trying to model it on the empirical natural sciences to a certain degree while also trying to save you know, I Mean he's got the fact value to such and he's also trying on some level to create some kind of standards for for it's not for evaluation At least for for being able to discuss, you know values in a value neutral ways at extent that it's possible And yet he he's unable on Strauss's analysis to see beyond a certain horizon But in a way he doing analysis of his work He shows that the attempt to fight historicism leads you to something like the need to articulate the common sense or natural ordinary understanding of the world Which according to him is found in you know the classics with some sort of mixture of the elements of the Bible biblical teaching or something Yeah, well just that makes sense to me. One small correction We're actually did not want to model social science after natural sciences You know, in fact, that's many of many of his adherents but to do that. But Weber himself was Very much interested in resisting that But but but your your suggestion that the Weber is a kind of sympathetic spirit, I think that that is that is true that is trusted speaks of about his intellectual honesty You know, it's that he's he's devotion to science and and also, you know He's struggling with a bit bit bit bit bit bit bit bit science and by the end of the chapter and this is actually one of the Epiculiarity of reading this chapter you have these What seems to be polemical sections that I don't think it's polemical. I think it's just a sharp and incisive thing But but people could conceive of it as as conscious, you know, you know, Weber He's recently to nihilism.
You have a as a social science that is really impossible Because of all sorts of theoretical problems But what is the chapter culminate it culminates in an articulation of a problem the conflict between philosophy and revelation And struts shows that this problem was you could say at the basis of Weber's thought And and and this is a gigantic problem for struts as well as for for Weber Elis way to the opening of a big problem and so it's so it's so it's you could say it's it's the credit of Weber that he was struggling and with this not simply as abstract theoretical matter but with all of his work and it's uh Oh, nastere you mentioned a couple of times that what's impressive about Weber is his honesty and his devotion to science And these sort of you know devotions particularly sort of as platonic resonances for me And so you draw this out in your chapters that what Strauss puts his finger on one other things is there's this sort of moral foundation to Vabors uh scientific undertaking that he may not be entirely aware of himself There's there's a kind of moral drive that's that's under doing it And I don't know I just want to kind of segue a little bit and so I'm still kind of puzzled by Okay, so he leads denialism, but the structure of natural right in history where this chapter on his storism And then we turn to a chapter on vaver Can you explain maybe why the movement and Strauss's thought in the book and why this particular chapter takes place where it does? Yeah, it's um And you know the simplest thing one could say and I think it's not sufficient But it needs to be said is that he mentions that there are these two reasons why natural right are rejected One is his articism and one is attack value distinction But one may wonder why they order right one one may wonder about the relative length Uh, it's uh, I mean clung to think and and also when you read the vapor chap That one realizes that vapor himself was torn there Are parts of vapor that push him very much in the direction of his articism Right and there are other forces that that that leading to oppose it One possible explanation and this this this is what I'm inclined to think is is that uh the argument of natural right in history is that his star is is um Is the consequence of the a modern this worldly attempt to reconstruct the world And and and that and that this particular attempt its impetus was at least in part connected with an attempt to deal with the challenge of revelation And and in the vaver you see the problem that vapor faces is a kind of a despair At this modern this worldly project It's it's so it's so the way where in some ways puts a lens At what is at the root of the problem of his articism? And and and so so so I think it's uh, it it actually um, uh, depends Um, the issue, you know To as thrust understands it so just a small point you've mentioned this twice and we'll get more return to this later in the show But it sounds like what I hear you saying is that vaver seem to have some maybe inculcate grasp Of the theological political problem or something like that where he's he's realizing that revelation poses He's not quite there But his thought is tending toward pointing that this really because I mean like you mentioned the variant of the chapter I guess page 75 is some of the most poetic language that Strauss uses to describe this problem, right? And some of his most famous language that yeah, this ostensibly insoluble problem between reason revelation Yeah, so so so vaver I would go further than what you suggested that you know, maybe I may not have may not sort of articulate the problem Every the same breath that Strauss does in those three paragraphs Right where he gives it kind of a bird's eye view right off the secular struggle between philosophy and revelation That language is not vaver's language and and and Strauss makes makes it clear But he did have very much a lived-in Experience of the tension between science and religion, you know, you know, it's it's uh, that is, you know, he he himself Was devoted to science But at the same time, he was aware of the destructive effect of science because that science has on on religion And and and he thought all devotion to causes Ultimately have a religious root and and so as a result of that, it's um Uh, you know, he was sort of uneasy about science.
It's uh, and he's uneasy about he was uneasy about the um The world that the modern scientific project is created. You know, it's it's at the end of his partisan ethic Um and the spirit of capitalism. He has those phrases that uh That's russ refers many times in in in in in the church. Yeah, that it's uh, very speaks of the of the last men Who think that they have reached the height of civilization, but they are Will up trees without heart and specialists without the spirit or vision as as thrust is translated.
Yes, so so there is um, um, uh, So so if you if you have this kind of appreciation of religion and the vaver wasn't eight yes, you know, that there's It's a but he he appreciated religion in a good size of four of course Maybe uh, we're kind of jumping around. I like this. I think this is uh, yeah, it's great. We're agreement to go I mean there's he has this remark where he says that You know favor with thousands of pages, but he devoted only 30 to the basis and the basis involves something like um The claim or the assumption that a conflict is necessary, right?
And and he only uses uh, this is a very interesting part of your book and you really helped me see a little bit of squatter You'll use this two or three or maybe three or four examples So somewhere between two and four, and you argue I think persuasively that he ultimately has two and I think that's that's helpful because these examples All kind of are whirling around but it's a problem that you know the bird's eye view of the problem of reason and revelation Um, but you know, it's interesting that he says that and then after he goes through that bird's eye view He then says, all right, let's come to the surface. All right, after this we have 600 pages with the fewest number sentences and the most number Which is uh, I feel like a stuff in the footness you say that of Hegel or something to write the sentence on and on Um, but you look at that and and it's it's a superficial argument or it's this it's on the surface superficial in the sense of on the surface But so revealing in that that vabour did confront This basic problem and kind of danced around it or was kind of groping around it But didn't really grasp the severity of what he was onto which was I mean this is still vabour's credit again He was on his way to this this most central problem that occupied stress for his whole life Um, but you get the sense that he was too much taken with the idea of science with long complex sentences that are well supported with many footnotes To spend more than 30 pages on these and so there's a there's a really um I don't know where i'm going with this other than to say that uh, there's a real sense in which Strauss and he brings his psychological and philosophical Accuents at the table in full force. There's a way in which Strauss would be uh, um shows you that that even in the very structure of vabour's texts You can see the very appearance or surface of it. You can see the man's struggle right there Now this is very good.
There are a couple of things one one thing you know, I If you one of the things that distinguishes this chapter from the other chapters in the natural history And it's the only chapter that has jokes in it You know, it's like so he has the dis account of the birthright view as all and and The end result is just a terrible situation for philosophy and then uh, we got the If if not a cure at least a good nice sleep you could get by reading a baby's methodology writing a methodology There are others There's another one less obvious and and a little bit harsher in um the big footnote that he has That's so long. There are two substantive footnotes and uh, and uh, and one of them is obviously Very great importance because it deals with vapours thesis about the origin of the spirit of capitalism and and he corrects it It's um and says that it's really Machiavelli that basically is the reason right? Yeah, that that that he thought that vapour thought that The origin of capitalism comes from the religious changes in religious tradition, right? And he didn't sufficiently appreciate possible changes in the south page of 60 and 61 if you're looking for it.
Yeah and so so in this And it's I find it you know stress one can be his footnotes are very interesting because some of the most Interesting things he puts in the footnotes like this whole argument But that's a side, but then there is a joke It's uh, let me see what I forget. Um, oh, yes, so he criticizes Weber for thinking And for thinking that what this what characterizes the spirit of capitalism is to regard the accumulation of capital as an end in itself So strassa is fine to say that it's a moral duty to accumulate capital, but but not so much Uh, the accumulation of capital as an end in itself and then he says Uh, one may venture to say that no writer outside mental institutions ever justify the duty or the moral right to unlimited acquisition on any other ground than that of service to the common good uh If i'm not mistaken This is a kind of a reminder that when Weber wrote this piece, he wasn't a mental institution Uh, you know, it was uh, oh I did not know that. Yeah, so so it's uh, so so but Weber had a mental breakdown from oh my god 97 to 1903 and and I think that the partisan ethic I don't know precisely when he wrote it, but but um, the the essay was published right at right as he was coming out of the The mental breakdown and and the reason I mentioned this is that you know, strassa is is he notices positions that Weber has and and positions that are very tough under the human mind. Um, it's uh, uh, it's uh, uh, so it's um, uh, uh, uh, to go back to the Alex's uh comment about the Why is it that Weber only devoted 30 or 40 pages to the basis of his old position And throughout his view is that somehow the position seems self-evident But what made it so self-evident was a kind of a moral commitment And and and that moral commitment is that he wanted a world full of conflict Yes, as as I saw it if he was if if the the degradation of modernity leads to the niches last men Um, uh, Weber's understanding of the nobility was a nobility that is, um Uh, uh, involves human beings who are uh, who are aware of the reality of the conflict who live the conflict and and and and and not only live in the conflict in the in the spirit of power politics in the in just in the spirit of being warriors, you know, about Um, my community fighting with another community, but but but the conflict has to become an inward conflict And and and to make it an inward conflict Um, Weber in effect, uh, put together, uh, you can say the two powerful pains that the two positions create Uh, whatever advantages that atheism has it comes with the anguish that there is no redemption And and and whatever advantages that the biblical position has it comes with a sense of guilt And and and they very sort of come Combined the two and of course trust us and thinks is sensible to combine the two but but it's it's it's um Uh, but that combination really affects Uh his thoughts, you know, you know, for you know, for you to go back to the example of them the partisan ethic, it's um, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, The fact that he thought sensible people would regard just simply the accumulation of capital as an end itself without Considering that yeah, that if it's good, it's it's definitely common good Uh, that comes from that, um, almost aesthetic spirit Yeah, and and they just own scientific work.
Uh, it's I mean his his mental breakdown is is a very complicated thing but part of it had to do with the fact that, um, he just, um, um, sort of uh devoted himself to this scientific work, um, uh, uh, uh, Letting Calvin is puretence, you know, you know, he really worked very hard and and and and including things with details of Of things that ordinels would not be very important and and and then there was um, um, um, A major fight that he had with his father. Uh, it's uh, his father was um, uh, uh, was abusive to his mom and and and and finally a labor Uh, uh, told him off or kicked him out of his house and and uh, and shortly after, uh, his father died And uh, he had a heart attack of some people And so you're even there, uh, uh, that sense of guilt I think it's it's very much connected to his breakdown. Yeah, I thought I had to do with people always hitting him up for free grills but Let me uh, so I want to you're you're you're pushing in this direction So I want to uh, maybe go into this in a bit more depth So he has this idea of kind of, uh, basic conflicts and he has different examples and it's specifically in the second example that, uh, um, Strauss highlights In the text itself as opposed to the footman on page 67, but not 27 On page 69 he says our second example is Weber's alleged proof that there's an insoluble conflict Between what he calls the ethics of responsibility and the ethics of intention Um, I thought this might be helpful because uh, to go through this a little bit, um, The example of particular because I think this is where he most explicitly at least, uh, In stress of treatment comes close to the this worldly and the otherworldly orientations, right? So I'm wondering if this so he has this commitment to conflicts.
It's part of this tragic and kind of anguishing soul that he has and um, and then from there he he kind of dances I'm sorry one other thing because I meant to say this earlier, but I had to step aside, uh, because my daughter was throwing a tantrum But this chapter is an example of what Strauss does with shnet is what he does with hobs Uh, uh, what he does with many thinkers where he shows himself to be able to follow very very closely The actual thought of a person by reading your pages and there's this lovely anecdote by schmin where he recommended Strauss's uh, notes on the concept of the political So he says, uh, he saw through me as though with x-rays There's only living man to that we have on record. Uh, I wonder what, uh, uh, Uh, with the guy the wild that review of wild what he would have thought of Of that, but I'm sure he never mentioned that to anybody But I don't think wild that was as impressive as schmin And nor nor serious but um, but anyways, uh, yeah, maybe you could I think this is just a great example of his psychological philosophical or Hermeneutics that is his hallmark. I think but maybe you could go through this example. I think it's it's really fascinating what he does Yeah, he has a so if I recall what Strauss You know, Weber uses the example of a syndicalist or so a trade unionist as someone who has, um, Um, uh, embodies the ethics of intention and and and and he argues that this uh, trade unionist could take the Uh, uh, the position Is for instance, you could, uh, they may do it go for a strike Uh thinking that the result of the strike would be a complete devastation for workers And but because they think the strike is the right thing to do that would they would do it and uh, and, uh, And and and they were uh, strasqui- keys on the fact that if, um, the syndicalist Is consistent he would have to recognize that his king-ton is not of this world And then strasqui- course point that but Then then he's not a syndicalist anymore You know, it's uh, so So the first impression that one has of this this conflict is the conflict between because they two secular the two secular position that there are, um, um, um, um, uh, political leaders who um, accounts because they count the consequences of their actions and they try to do the best action in light of the probable consequences And then there are other, uh, leaders who who only are concerned with doing the right thing regardless of the consequences and um, and the question is whether the latter position is really, um, a secular position and and and this, uh, uh, uh, phrasing of a, of a, a, vapor suggests otherwise and and and so from there's a strasqui- what is what is at Aztec between the ethics of responsibility and ethics of intention is basically a conflict between Uh, a kind of a this worthy ethics and an other worthy ethics that it's uh, an other worthy ethics for which what happens in this world, um, Is just subordinated in comparison to the to the other world.
So that's how he moves from, um, um, um, one plane to the to the other plane And that's right. I have a quick question. I don't want to derail us, but, um, how much of his very early writings I didn't even write a book on Judaism and uh, yeah, Lucius in like a Chinese religious beliefs. How much of that?
If that is just isn't it's been a long time since I read that chapter. Yeah That's just to see touch on any of that subtly or it was just kind of besides the point for this, uh, Investigation and then also in a related how much of that the early work on religion informs, uh, do you see trace through his more mature? Uh, political work. Yeah, actually, you know, I have to go back and to the data.
Um, uh, I think that works on, uh, on religion are not that earlier It's okay. Okay. It's and and and they have you could say the root cause the root cause is the essay on the partisan ethics And he looks at the various different world religions, uh, and and and he was just wondering why did capitalism emerge in modern west And among and so so at least at this that's a kind of starting point But why didn't not occur in china or or in ancient israel as to the question of whether the thrust refers to them There's the mention of smith right so there's at least some notion. I mean Mormonism.
I suppose. Oh, yeah Yes, no, he he uses that example but in order to actually that that's an interesting example Strusted subtle the translator completely translates I I gotta go back and I actually am working on a something I've written right now That is about to be published. I'm gonna have to go back and revise that because I didn't know that that was based on this translation until I read your chapter I was like, oh crap It's so yes, that's that's uh, um, the the question of of one with a charismatic leader But that person needs to have genuine charisma or genuine grace by by god or only has to be perceived by his followers and and and and Vabe respects that the founder of Mormonism was was was a swindler but but since his followers think of him as charismatic he classifies him as a cosmetic leader and To go back to that that ethics of intention versus ethics of responsibility I just want to point out something that came out in your analysis I mean what straws is effectively done is from within an apparently purely secular phenomenon Just a a feature of society that you're analyzing or vabors analyzing as strictly as a social scientist He's able to find in the logic of the commitments the moral commitments involved Um a residue you could say of this original prompt or of the ordinary or natural Uh starting point for political philosophy, right? And and vabeber kind of broaches it but doesn't get all the way there right straws pushes it then I mean a couple of points he says vabeber should have done this right and that's what i'm gonna do now I'm gonna make that that move and so then maybe uh something we can do I know Greg wanted to do this is we could take a look at the bird's eye view and talk about that because this is the kind of uh Pinnacle of the chapter.
I'm eating potatoes. You might if I read it. Yeah, I like to at least read this first paragraph on the top page 75 Although There are it's in the middle of two other paragraphs that are very helpful But here this is droughts in the chapter distinction between facts and values page 75 If we take a bird's eye view of the secular struggle between philosophy and theology We can hardly avoid the impression that neither of the two antagonists has ever succeeded in really refuting the other All arguments in favor of revelation seem to be valid only if belief in revelation is presupposed And all arguments against revelation seem to be valid only if unbelief is presupposed This state of things would appear to be but natural Revelation is always so uncertain to unassisted reason that it can never compel the ascent of unassisted reason and man is so built that he can find his satisfaction His bliss and free investigation in articulating the riddle of being But on the other hand he yearns so much for a solution of that riddle and human knowledge is always so limited that the need for divine elimination Cannot be denied and the possibility of revelation cannot be refuted Now it is this state of things that seems to decide irrevocably against philosophy and in favor of revelation Philosophy has to grant that revelation is possible But to grant the revelation is possible means to grant that philosophy is perhaps not the one thing needful that philosophy is perhaps something infinitely unimportant To grant that revelation is possible means to grant that the philosophic life is not necessarily not evidently the right life Philosophy the life devoted to the quest for evident knowledge available to man as man would itself rest on an unevident arbitrary or blind decision This would merely confirm the thesis of faith that there is no possibility of consistency of a consistent and thoroughly sincere life without belief in revelation The mere fact that philosophy and revelation cannot refute each other would constitute the reputation of philosophy by revelation And i'll end quote there, but straw seems to be indicating that this is the problem or the this is the problem where vavors thought leads Like here we are and you have no answer to revelation Yeah, or or the problem that is in a way is um underlies vavors thought right. Yeah, that's better.
Yeah. Yeah, I think that it's a Um, no, it's a very powerful statement. It's um, it's one of those statements that it seems to me that um, it has Divided Many admirers of straws because there is a strain of Of straws and of straws as admirers that Identify philosophy with just simply articulating the fundamental problems and so and which which is certainly true but But the question is whether philosophy can exist if these two possibilities the possibility of revelation remains a possibility Right, but it but it so this particular passage seems to suggest that this grace and profound difficulty for philosophy. Yeah, exactly.
So so you Sort of one possible answer you would say to them To the crisis of our times would be this that look there are these two gigantic peaks The biblical peak And the philosophical peak each one of us has to put one's heart in one or the other but we can't decide we can't decide Which of these peaks are higher and and therefore our decision is arbitrary like we're just picking. Yeah, well, yeah, yeah, so so so So one could some people could just leave it at that right right and and and and As if that is a satisfactory position, right? But it can't be satisfactory to the man. Yeah, this paragraph So just it's not satisfactory.
Okay, so so I think that's but it's And it would be helpful also to look back to the beginning of the of the of the chapter Uh, it's because this in a way replace Uh the problem the the first that the first two paragraphs Um, bring out so let's see whether I have it. Would it be kind enough to read the first paragraph? Yeah, of course. Yeah Yeah, and I also want to read a moment your footnote five on page 92 in just a moment where you argue that Strauss is writing it to levels in this chapter, which I really appreciate it until trying to draw that up But this is the beginning of the chapter this page 35.
Yeah The historicist contention can be reduced to the assertion that natural right is impossible because philosophy in the full sense of the term is impossible Philosophy is possible only if there is an absolute horizon or a natural horizon in contradiction to the historically changing horizons with caves In other words philosophy is possible only if man while incapable of acquiring wisdom or full understanding of the whole is capable of knowing what he does not know That is to say of grasping the fundamental problems and there with the fundamental alternatives Which are in principle, coeval with human thought but the possibility of philosophy is only the necessary And not the sufficient condition of natural right the possibility of philosophy does not require more than that the fundamental problems always be the same But there cannot be natural right if the fundamental problem of political philosophy cannot be solved in a final manner Yeah, so that's so at first it seems that in order to have philosophy all you need And that's a very big thing and I think it's not sufficiently emphasized how big it is Uh, if if there are fundamental problems problems that uh coexist with human life And and and one cannot solve them definitively but understanding the problems In effect means you understand what you don't know and and and that's sufficient for philosophy yet in the next paragraph Um, uh, he suggests that this this may not be sufficient for philosophy, right? Yeah, it's that it's that somehow philosophy also needs to uh to show that it's the the right way of life, right? Yeah, and so it's uh, uh, um Um, uh, so this seems to be that the same difficulty that is being, uh, played over Yes, Alex. Yeah, so one one question I always have about this beginning or I mean I have my suspicions here, but is that he speaks, uh, here in the singular Uh quite a few times of the fundamental political alternative, um to, uh, I guess the political philosophy, uh, um, uh, Which I would think would be, uh, divine guidance, right?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you go back to 75 I think it's important to note that he said if we take a bird's eye view of the secular Right drug, oh between philosophy and the algae we can hardly avoid the impression which is not to say we cannot avoid, right? So, yeah, which is to say we might like an eagle see that despite the impression that nobody succeeded or a few in the other There's this one little place, you know, uh, you know off to the side that maybe something Yeah, he's heard and we can swoop down like an eagle and pluck up our and so I wonder whether, uh, uh, Uh, he's saying if you compare this the beginning and the end that political philosophy, uh, If it does approach the fundamental political alternative might happen across Some argument like this and then be able to go on to some kind of human guidance Which might only amount to say live like Socrates The the wise action might might be wholly theoretical, but I wonder if that's one possible takeaway or but I guess my main question is What does he mean by fundamental political alternative? Yeah, it's um He he he doesn't identify it Uh, he speaks of fundamental problems and fundamental alternatives and it's um Um, um, and in the next paragraph He he refers to Socrates answers to the question of a common auto left And then he points out that this answer is is not bearing up political consequences So the alternative you could basically what I take to the most likely suggestion is this um human guidance versus divine guidance, right? that that's uh, So the socratic answer is is a life of the pursuit of of wisdom as it is seen through unassisted human reason And and if you take that to be this sort of the answer to the human life Then it has effects on politics the kind of politics you would yeah, you would support Uh, would be affected by this view and then then he mentioned he refers to the anti socratic answer and and the anti socratic answer seems to be A view that says that the most important thing is not wisdom or understanding so be that yeah, yeah, and on a very basic level it's um Um, what's the most important thing one possible answer is Is devoting your life to understanding?
But you can see very serious people said no, that's Understanding is good but but The other things that are more important and and and so that's and hence this this becomes a serious conflict and not uh, yeah, yeah Yes, so just to bring this back to vabor right because then he moves to the social science who scientists who don't admit the existence of Alternatives and then he goes into vabor Suddenly so it's kind of abrupt if you if you don't know it's coming it seems abrupt, but it is in his uh after doing the birds i view This is on page 74 just before he gets to the discussion um This is on the bottom 73 he says Uh, vabor refused to bring the sacrifice of the intellect so there he seems like he's somehow in the camp of Socrates, right? So it's committed. Yeah He did not wait for religious revival or for prophets or saviors and he was not at all certain whether religious revival would follow the present age But he was certain that all devotion to causes or ideals has its roots in religious faith And therefore that the decline of religious faith will ultimately lead to the extinction of all causes or ideals And so there it seems to be that vabor's self understanding as a scientist is one of faithful devotion, right? So he starts off kind of sobriotic, but then he has a kind of His self understanding seems what so then he says he continues he tended to say before the alternative of either complete spiritual emptiness or religious revival He just spared of the modern this world the irreligious experiments and yet he remained attached to it because he was fated to believe in science As he understood it Um, the result of this conflict which he could not resolve was his belief that the conflict between values cannot be solved resolved by human reason So I think vabor on this reading emerges is interesting not just because he approaches the problem, but in a way he lives it right?
He's stuck and he's confused them in a fascinating way and he seems somehow I'm not sure I don't know labor, but it seems like he's somehow conscious to a certain degree of it Don't maybe not of the depth of this obviously not of the depth of this confusion full scope of it He certainly I think is conscious to a great degree, you know, you know, it's uh, but but but but but as drugs brings out a lot of confusion in it's not but but on this particular question is that um You once sees a person who is attached to an attitude toward the world Which in some sense he regards that that attitude itself to be a very noble attitude But at the same time he thinks that it is destructive of all nobility And and and so he's attachment cannot be a rational attachment, you know, he's attached to science but but but he can't Give it a reasonable account to himself that that science is good and so that's uh, that's uh Um, uh, so as a result he has a sense of that Somehow he can't be other than a scientist, you know, it's it if for him to be a religious person is would be a kind of a fraud You know, it's it's but that's um, but that's uh, obviously not adequate That's factory Yeah, that was very helpful further He's a better than um, interesting person but also a kind of tormented person But this is a natural stopping point to kind of ask um Some questions of about your history and assu're in greg's beloved lightning round, but one thing Just one about I had a but I had a you ask your question and then I had a listener for listeners Vabor ends stress says obviously we need to return to the natural ordinary view and that's in chapter three Which will be next in our series. Sorry. I just wanted to finish that portion. Oh, no, no Yeah, but so vabor has so much work.
Nasser. Where would you recommend? Uh, one begins to kind of understand his thought is it other specific essays and then he transitions to a one of his books or how would you navigate? Yeah, well, you know, the I would begin with um, the two two lectures that he gave uh towards the end of his life There, uh, they're easily available Science as a vocation and politics as a vocation.
It's uh, um, those are I think are just very interesting Um, uh, lectures, you know, it's uh, it's uh, so that that would be a um The place that I would begin with and um after that, uh, you know, his his book on Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism He's actually a short book originally was just an essay, you know, it was a very long essay, you know It's very dramatic essay But it's a short book so that's so the the ending of that I think brings out Uh, those you find those important passages but the whole analysis is interesting Um, he also has a number of other essays that have been translated on methodology of social sciences. It's uh, and um, uh, so that's that's where I would begin So small point for the folks at home. We did an episode on politics's vocation with uh, Stephen Hayward So they can go listen to that episode if they're very good. Very good.
Who we should say was among our twitter followers who was extremely excited for this So yeah, Steve. I hope you're happy So nasa this is the uh, I want to talk a little bit about your intellectual history and uh teachers or mentors along the way It can start from childhood. But I do uh, one thing I forgot to mention early on So you were a lifelong student essentially at the university of chicago your ma you received it so undergraduate economics masters and economics industrial Industrial economics or sorry industrial organization To be maverick then and uh, so when was yours the kratik turn? I guess Yeah That's maybe that's a way to start.
I know you know as a young man. Maybe there were people in the family that encouraged uh Really? You know, I I grew up. Um, my father was a book reader and and uh, and I had um, as a child Great deal of interest in um in religion in particularly in um, uh mystical poetry in a Islamic poetry But but also I became interested in philosophy.
It's um Uh, uh, first uh You know, I just remember going to that to like my library At high school they had lightness, uh, red monadology and uh, it's uh, um, uh, but then I became um, um, um, somewhat seriously interested in marks, but ultimately in nica Um, uh, and uh, and and when I went to the university of chicago Uh, I wanted to study philosophy. That's that's my original goal. Uh, I took it a class That was taught by a professor in the philosophy department. Um, uh, I won't mention his name because I don't want to do this service Uh, because it could be uh, I'm sure it was part of my own fault.
Um, I really didn't get all that much from the course and and and and and so the course was greek thought and literature And and we were reading pre-stocratic, uh, fragments things like water is best and and you know What am I going to do with that? as and um, and and at the same time, uh, university of chicago's economics department was a very unusual department not only what it was it had um, um, as a prestigious department, but it had um, a real I would say There's a bit of a philosophical bent to it. Yeah, so you weren't taking trips to latin america No, I, well, if only a few people a few people understand what I mean, but right, right? I knew, uh, I met many colleagues from latin america where there's a study but it's um So at the time, you know, you know economics already had taken quite a bit of a mathematical turn But but you had people who are who took seriously his view of economics thought and so I took a course with George sigler Who won the Nobel prize and he taught a course on his view of economic thought and and now if you uh, this this Possibility is unthinkable today in in the economics department.
It's that that the major Figure in the department would teach a course on his thought his view of economic thought but but more fundamentally what attracted me to economics was uh Their promise that they could explain Human life human behavior and and not just in the market but but broader Uh, so another person in at the time was gary becker who used economics to try to explain family life and the and the And so so when I tried to put What the economists were promising and seemed to be delivering on one hand and and my early experiences with the philosophy Um, I thought oh economics is the way to go and uh, so so that so I I am Um, I think my second semester on I think I think I took nine courses in economics. I just said, yeah, it's uh, is that could I be right here? Yeah, but I actually caught going regarding the court system. So it's possible um And so so I was planning on on just pursuing Um, they had a joint program va and any economics.
I got into that and and I was planning on um, um, going in the phd route in that direction um until uh, by accident, uh, I took a course with alan bloom and it's uh, I had um, um, um, friends, uh roommates who had taken courses with uh, with, uh, with him And I've heard all this talk about people called strawsians and it was yeah, it was it was the hype reel I mean you read some of these accounts that uh rooms were packed And uh just the electricity as a lecture. I mean, is that what kind of well, you know, I actually can go I think um There wasn't that much of a hype, you know, you know, it's I think that that maybe the that thing they experienced probably but was different in in cornel Um, yeah, but but but but but there was a there was a ward in the street that there was a new guy who has come in and he has some Interesting things to say and I almost didn't take his his course because he was teaching Uh, uh, some guy I've never heard of his name was zenophon So why would I take a course on zenophon who is the Any misrepresented all of your ancestors, you know, I didn't even know that I was sufficiently intrigued by what I'd heard that so I took I took the course and and um, and and what was really sort of uh, you know, Bloom had a very um, um, great gift of of knowing the interest of of of his students. It's uh, Uh, or it could have been pure accident, but for some reason in that course, uh, he would periodically criticize modern economics And did you guys read the economics? Um, I think yeah, actually I don't think they did.
I think we read memorabilia. Okay. Yeah, but but but but somehow Uh, the The criticism of economics we would come up in class and and at first, uh, um, I thought he didn't know what he was talking about It's uh, it's uh, um, but I became more and more impressed and and and and one anecdote that that I remembered having Um, an effect on me Is is that he Uh, he reported a conversation that he had with Milton Friedman And and he asked Milton Friedman whether he would publish a Keynesian book if that book would earn him more money And and that's fantastic No, but because no, the treatment is an honest person and and then the next question is how do you explain that honesty? You know, I can't economic theory Explained is fantastic.
Yes, and and and and so for me the transition why was was um Was relatively easy because I also learned that there were sort of, you know, philosophical economists It's I mean, I already was familiar with this, but but you know, people like, uh, am Smith and so forth And uh, and so I just turn my direction toward the political philosophy. So that's that's basically Um, my my my journey Well, it's a good it's a good thing you didn't teach the economics because then instead of having this fine, uh books You might have, uh, gone on to be a kind of collegeist No, that's a that's a stress. It's a really inside sentiment Three people who understood that are laughing mightily at home right now Though you thought if you thought as the views on economics are crazy magic if he starts talking about gynecology and Because we're kind of going on Kind of body college No one wonders what stresses thinking in that phrase. Um, but so you uh, uh, so then you went on to graduate school in chicago And so, uh, it makes sense that you went on a stroke, uh, study vamer I mean you have a couple comments one of the acknowledgments employed a little later, but, uh, if you refer to you said the study would not have been Possified not at the late alan bloom this genius of the heart Uh, which is a reference to the penultimate section of beyond geneville But this genius thought it helped me then a young student of economics think about the molenessable metaphysical foundations of my, uh, science What would it lovely?
Uh, testimony to your former, uh, teacher, um, but yeah, so who did you go on to study with, uh, at chicago? Well, he was mostly with bloom, uh, but he died, um, uh, before I could defend my dissertation Uh, I also studied very much with Nathan tarkamos And, um, and, uh, we were very lucky because we had, um, uh, you know, bloom would bring some of his, uh, former students and, or friends So I, I, I took, um, courses with david bollerton, uh, and, uh, verna damhouser Uh, so both of them just, uh, um, wonderful pieces of luck Um, and then I also took, of course, if, uh, other members of the, uh, of the committee, I took a course with, uh, ed shills, uh, who was, um, um, big there very I took, I studied max labor with him, you know, it's, uh, it's apparently, uh, he was present when, when straws gave, um, uh, the lecture To the on max labor in, uh, I think social science 121, and I don't think he appreciated the, the, the, but the, but the, he, the, he, the, uh, it was a formidable person and it was, uh, um, interesting Like, of course to him, and of course, uh, rap learner, um, uh, uh, leon cas was there, yes, isn't it, well Now these, these hey days of there's so much concentrated power in one place. And that's what I think Boston College is going to become too. I agree.
Yeah. So this is Greg's portion now of the show where he asks lightning round questions. Oh, yeah. I didn't know that this was part of the deal.
Yeah. You can skip it or cut it out if you want to. You can roll your eyes at some of the questions, but these are really great. So happy.
So we allowed him to continue on. Okay. All right. Quick answers.
It's up to you though. All right. Favorite philosopher. Oh, quick answer.
Can I give two? We'll accept to play. Do I need you? Yeah.
Yeah. Because Nietzsche, as you could say, he hit me first as a young person. I don't think he's all together sound. But I love him.
But I think you know, Plato is the divine Plato. All right. Not too far from that question. Favorite work of philosophy.
You mean, work of a scholarship book? Yeah. No, no, no, for primary source. The Republic.
Yeah. That's a fine answer. Favorite work of literature. Standons, red and black.
Ooh. Favorite work of Islamic mysticism. Well, it's a roomies poetry. Of course.
Have you ever had any nicknames? Well, some people call me NAS. I mean, my sister sometimes. NAS.
All right. Well, NAS. We'll call you big NAS. All right.
Very good. What's the favorite place you've ever lived? Probably I would say Santa Fe, New Mexico. That's the first place you've ever visited.
I visited many nice places, but the... It's connected to New York is still waiting on someone to get down. No, no, not at all. They're still waiting.
It's a... Yeah, it's a... Perhaps a sort of central Turkey. Awesome.
Cool. What was your first car? Oh. Well, I had a Buick Skylar.
a Buick Skylar, but my second car was very impressive. I had a gigantic old car. What was the alternative to the Cadillacs? Lincoln?
Yeah, it was a gigantic Lincoln that I had in Hyde Park. It was quite a bit down. Any problems here? That's the last one.
What was your first job? My first job, I was flipping burgers at...not Roy Rogers, but could it be Wendy's? I think it was Wendy's. Wendy's.
I think Roy Rogers went...I think it was Roy Rogers maybe. Fair enough. All right, last question. If you had not become a professor, what vocation do you think you would be undertaking?
I think we answered that. Engineer? But I could have been a professor in economics. That's not economics.
That's a possibility. But who knows? Maybe now I might be...consider being a tennis coach. Come on, that sounds great.
That sounds like fun. Very cool. Well, this was a lot of fun. I greatly enjoyed reading your book.
We should mention it again. What's the full title, Alex? Leo Strauss, Max Weber, and a scientific study of politics. University of Chicago Press.
Fantastic book. Highly recommended. Thanks again for being here. This was a quick question.
You don't have to answer or you don't even have to answer honestly. If down the road with a six months advance warning, we decide to do an episode on the Red and the Black, which is a book I really enjoyed. Would you consider joining us? Sure.
I'll be happy to do that. And Alex was interested in the mysticism. His great-grandfather was an Ayatollah. But then Alex...I noticed that you have a Persian connection because you had a podcast with your mom.
And her name was Spanish today. She has to be a Persian. Yeah. And she looks at our Twitter.
She's like, who's this Persian guy you're having on? And I was like, oh, he's a professor of political science. He wrote this very good book. And she's like, oh, I'm going to have to listen to that one.
So she stopped listening for a while. I think you got her back in. So thank you. That's getting her listening.
Well, folks, don't forget to like, rate, subscribe, anything else, Alex? That's it. This is those three things. Good.
All right. And thanks for joining us. Yeah. Thank you.
See you next week on the New Thinkery, folks.