All right, everybody. I'm Dustin Seveau, director of the Back Forum, and the symposium on science, reason, and modern democracy, also professor in full science department. The three overdressed gentlemen behind me, very glad to have them here. We've got Raoul Rodriguez hanging his head in shame and deliver one of my classic introductions.
He's Dean's research associate at MSU in the policy department along with me, Alex Priu from the University of Colorado at Boulder, and Greg McBrayer, who's at Ashland University. They are two thirds of the new thinker, which is a world famous number five in Estonia podcast. Yeah, big and shiny. You can't tell those.
Yeah, that's the reason. But if you were to remove the VPN, YouTube, they would probably be the number one downloaded podcast in the world. They offer you guys are actually you can find their podcast on the same website that like, Elon Musk is on CNN, that's right, Twitter.com. Yeah, next next.
It's really quite a thing. So join me in welcoming these guys to talk about Nica, co-fill, and the future of liberal democracy. Thank you. Yeah, we have a third co-host, and he's actually here, but he saw he's in Lansing.
He, but he saw the raising canes, and then he walked out the raising canes, he saw a coldstone, and they walked out the coldstone, he saw raising canes and kept going. He hasn't managed to leave since, but today we're talking about Tocqueville, Strauss, and Disha, and we're talking about the rule of rhetoric, as your Dean's research associate writing political science, you did your PhD at Notre Dame with the Zugerts. And yeah, friends, I'm sure you can tell us which one you like more later, and Patrick to me, and no, he's not. But you're working on book right now, called redeeming democracy, Tocqueville's new liberalism.
Yes, which was part of my dissertation with those that we just mentioned. So I thought to start, we could just ask, why should people read to Tocqueville? Why is he still important? And then also, you know, Strauss doesn't know him for having, get in publishing that you point out he, he only refers to Tocqueville once published writings.
And as far as lectures, it's just a couple of these lectures in one course. So it's not somebody he seems to spend a terrible amount of time with. So you want to say, well, should we have other scholarship? Why is Strauss actually important to read on despite getting invested?
Yeah, yeah, well, thank you very much for those questions. And obviously, thank you very much for having on the show. I've really been a fan of your guys as I show you're very funny, witty. Thank you.
And you have really important topics too. So that's a flatter you before you attack me. But but your questions in general about Tocqueville, I think in many ways, there's nobody more important to talk about or to think about, especially when you're talking about questions of liberal democracy or the crisis of liberal democracy, it's a very popular topic right now. People are saying that liberalism failed my when my former professors, Patrick to mean, and so many ways I was sort of influenced by Patrick and wanted to investigate this question of liberalism.
And I thought that to be the best way in. And I think it's really helpful. And I've seen this a lot where a lot of students, you know, they're they're very quick to criticize the democracy. There's obviously many criticisms of the democracy.
But sometimes they haven't read to fill. And I think to fill is one of the great defenders of the democracy. And so before you're willing to sort of get rid of the democracy, I have to think through to fill does it bother you that he's French? Not at all.
I love all things. There was my second question. Why should we listen to form? But I mean, he is one of those thinkers who's a critic, but despite the criticism still manages to endorse it.
Yeah, well, I mean, he's a he provides an outside perspective. I mean, that's the thing is that Americans will tend to love their country too much or hate their country too much. Whereas Tofil can be an outside observer and kind of see the good things in bad things. Of course, he's trying to read back to France as well.
Yeah, something in all Americans probably read. So in addition to talk about to fill your paper that you had us read for this really talk about Strauss's interpretation of yeah, so Phil and as Alex just mentioned, Strauss and really say a lot about Tofil, and you're really drawing a lot out of just maybe a couple of lectures that he did class to two questions. First of all, can you tell us maybe I don't know folks even know that Strauss's lecture of available so maybe just that as a preliminary. Yeah, but then secondarily, maybe just lay some groundwork for us.
What did Strauss think of Tofil? What were some of his key understandings? What did he learn from Tofil? What are his critiques of Tofil that he think that Tofil was a you just give a very nice praise of Tofil?
Does he share that praise or does he have you mentioned there's a funny story? Oh, yeah, hilarious story about you. Fun. Yeah, so I've always been interested in both Tofil and Strauss and I was wondering why didn't Strauss ever write anything on on Tofil?
And I was just doing research maybe like a week before I turned my dissertation. And I happened to come across these bootleg Chinese like website where there were these like Tofil lectures, but they're only like one or two pages on there. And I thought, this is really strange. Like, is this real?
Or is like, is this just like something that's been made up? And I emailed the Leo Strauss and then I asked, do you know anything about this? And they said, no, we don't know. And I thought, okay, this is just a minute up.
But then they came back like a week later and said, no, actually, they're part of this larger course that Leo Strauss gave at the University of Chicago in 1954. And so pretty early, by the way, yeah, this pretty early, when's he arrived at Chicago? He arrives there in the 40s. Yeah, okay.
But it was most interesting, I think about this is that it's one year after the publication of natural writing history. And in many ways, this can be seen, I think this lecture course can be seen in certain appendix. What would have happened if Strauss would have kept talking about these later thinkers he ends on on Burke in natural writing history? What would have thought of Tofil Marx and Nietzsche within the same context of natural writing history?
Do you spend a lot of time on illegal Chinese websites? No, I try not to but that's true. The story's not that funny. So tell us about so tell us what Strauss is you have to talk about what is you found these lectures?
What does he have to say? He's like, Tofil's the best, we shall read him. Well, in verse, he says that every student of political science should read Tofil. Very important has a great philosophic inheritance that means from other French thinkers.
But there are limits to Tofil. And he thinks he finds him to be ultimately inadequate, especially on the basis of theory calls Tofil at the end of sociological thinker in things that in some ways he doesn't realize the importance of the way which ideas move society. And he's also thinks that he's sort of a holding her captive to Rousseau on these questions of historical progress. And so they're definitely limits that he sees, but he does tell his students actually to be satisfied with the middle of the road to Tofil.
So that's sort of pedagogical lesson. So one of the things the biggest critiques, it seems that you lay out the Strauss lays out Tofil is that Strauss sees Tofil as captured by the horizon of majority. So that's he wasn't able to stop it to sort of stand outside of his time or something like this. Can you speak about just two questions?
One is, okay, that's the case. Does he still add anything? What do we learn from him? Is we learning about the nature of democracy as opposed to aristocracy?
The guilt earned at the time? That's something to that. You want to say he doesn't see outside of the horizon, but you also want to say you don't want to go as far as to say, he's a Aristotelian, which some interpreters of Tofil students of Strauss try to do. So there's a kind of difficult, I think, Yeah, there's a difficult and the paper that I'm sort of wrestling with too.
I mean, one of the things I was really quite attracted to this already, and so was one of the people that really points us out the most. And I've always been attracted to this idea that Tofil is a sort of Aristotelian. But what would that mean? Well, I mean, in particular, he's, he thinks of him as not being a state of nature thinker, in that this is what makes him a new kind of liberal is that he doesn't inherit the state of nature tradition.
And I originally sort of I wrote a retinal article against that actually, is that Tofil is a state of nature thinker. And first, I just want to be contrary, and have sort of come to agree with it more. This is how it works in academia. You got to name yourself.
But what do you get the same interest in Tofil? Well, it's not more on populism. If you read there, it looks like he's got the second discourse, you know, in the end. What I'd say to be a recent financial question, but what I take to be a recent financial field is this notion that sort of the principle or the goal of the regime seems to shape fundamentally the way that people behave and it shapes everything.
Yeah, so the comprehensive way that the goal of the regime affects relationships with men and women, parents and children, teachers and students, you know, we walk, we talk, we sit that that strikes me as very much Aristotelian, even the young, how human is in animals, the way that we treat animals so well here. I say we're going but we were told to teach the Alex. Relastic, recapture, but sorry. Sorry, you rephrase the question.
Yeah, sure, I guess, I'm sorry. So the question that I was talking about before, was to what degree, I'd like for you to lay out the case that Tofil is a system and then maybe we want to pressure a little bit on the notion that can you allow straws as critique of that? Yeah. And then your response to that critique, I suppose, is that what it's bringing?
Yeah, so I mean, there are important affinities between Tofil and Aristotle. I mean, he, I think the regime question is really important, but of course, there's a radical break in a way to where Tofil says, well, there are only two regimes or two social states. And those two are aristocracy and democracy. And that's an historical sort of contingent question like right now in the middle of the 19th century, the only alternative is the only alternative.
He said then he's going forward that the alternative will be authoritarian as a democracy basically. Yeah, quality was servitude, equality was freedom. But I mean, that's something that I've tried to argue to the Tofil like Rousseys, minimum being sort of by nature free and equal to be leading inequality and then back to equality. So I mean, that's one different is a more historical than Aristotle.
And he also thinks of human beings as being by nature free and equal, where I think Aristotle thinks of human beings being unequal by nature. And so just a, I mean, one of the things that I read you on Strauss, I thought one could make a similar argument against Aristotle himself, right? The Pulitzer sort of a contingent kind of way of organizing. And so people don't really understand Aristotle will say, well, why is he promoting the Pulitzer because it's the kind of regime of the kind of organization, community, say, season is time when in fact there were alternatives, there were the empire, nation, these kinds of things.
And so he's writing him the Twilight of the Pulitzer way. I think that's right. Yeah. And so I wonder what extent one could say that maybe you can help us to see this for Tofil.
It's not that is though these two alternatives are the alternative that these are the alternatives right now in the 19th century. Yeah. And how does that I'm like you, I want to rescue Tofil from the notion of this sort of I don't think that that's historicist to say that at this peak of a moment these seem like the two dominant regime types. Yeah, well, let me give you a practical question.
Yeah, right. Let me just give you a quote. So there's Tofil is writing a letter to his friend and he says, I send you the father of philosophy, some interpreters have said to him, sorry, some interpreters have translated that as Aristotle, which is his father of philosophy, whether he's played over so it's unsure. Okay, he says, you have to give your credit where credit is due to these ancient authorities, but it's a little too antiquated for me.
I think we're kind of beyond that. And it's in some way, it's sort of a certain historicist. He does he thinks we have to be on all in some ways that they're like, you can't we're different time in their own the lessons that he's giving us can only go so far. So there is a certain historicist element to Tofil.
That's early on though. I mean, and then later on, that's the problem in his speech that he gives before the French Academy, there he seems to have much higher respect to Aristotle, Aristotle was so much as cute. He says this is what these ideas of these men have brought forth and made us what we are this a lecture that you said Strauss would not have had access to exactly. So therefore, it's a little bit, yeah, he would have been able to sort of anticipate this civilian strength.
Yeah. I mean, he, Strauss also frames the ancient modern question in terms of the democratic theorists. So, it's a token against aristocracy, which he says to look at through this sort of feudal contingencies of European aristocracy, which is clear that's accidental, if not the essence of aristocracy. And he wants to actually set up the ancient modern thing as aristocracy versus democracy, in a way, right?
But then there's this other side of Strauss's interpretation, which is looking at Tocqueville in relation to Nietzsche on this question of aristocracy. And I think he appreciates Nietzsche's radicality in being willing to say, I think you use the word unflinching, unflinching willingness to just reassert aristocracy. So there is this, I want to think about a bit more about Tocqueville's endorsement of democracy, but also about Nietzsche's sort of reaction to the same phenomenon. I remember the first time I read Tocqueville's after I was in Tunisia, oh my gosh, so I wasn't expecting this sort of expected just this discussion of institutions, but it has a lot of that.
So maybe one way to think about this is what on what basis do Nietzsche versus Tocqueville and Strauss settle this question of whether to endorse or attempt to fight the democratic entity? Yeah, so for Tocqueville, he says that democracy is sort of a providential fact, we have to accept it. And ultimately, he argues that it's a good thing, right? For Christian reasons, it's good for questions of justice, it's more just.
So we should simply accept it. And he realizes that there's a certain lack of human elevation in democracy and that aristocracy may be at greater claim to its greatness. But it should ultimately be accepted. And whereas Nietzsche, of course, has a radical critique of democracy and sort of argues that it leads to the last man and mediocrity, something that Tocqueville shares, but he's much more willing to say to try to make a radical return to aristocracy, a new kind of aristocracy, sort of militaristic, atheistic aristocracy, that's what Strauss states.
And so he's interested in that. What Strauss is most interested in this fact is that in some ways, Nietzsche is able to escape the historical inevitability of democracy and really try to put forward a more radical alternative. And this is part of the crisis of natural right, the ability to have some sort of standard or judgment by which we can judge better and worse. We need to have a certain reason reason is to be able to tell us what is better.
And Tocqueville is not willing, like the ancients, like Aristotle to say, one regime is better than another regime. He says, well, these are two distinct humanities, aristocracy, democracy, democracy, and we can't judge, but we just have to accept it. Of course, he makes some sort of judgment that democracy is more just and is more Christian and better. But he ultimately just accepts and he should of course criticize his democracy for being Christian, for being egalitarian.
And so he thinks that Nietzsche being a little bit more profound, but leading to certain radicalism that is problematic. One of the things you put out in your paper is I'm persuaded by is that a lot of topials remarks seem highly rhetorical. Yeah. And so, he is ambivalence between democracy and aristocracy might not be sincere.
They might actually think aristocracy is a superior form of government, but that he doesn't see that having a serious possibility future. And so he's partly, I think what he's up to is trying to get some of his fellow aristocrats to just accept that democracy. And by the way, this is true, like this is what happened in 19th and then 20th century, right? Yeah, number of governments became democratic.
And so I wonder if his critique of or is apparent ambivalence between the two is not actually his ultimate opinion. Yeah, I mean, there's definitely a rhetorical element to democracy in America and he's implied much more favor of aristocracy. But when he said the productial fact, right, which means God, right God's sort of charge and making things democratic. But in one of the chapters later, chapter see conflates, problems with accident.
Yeah. And so one could be inclined to be like, well, he doesn't actually think that this is horrible. Just like this is this horrible. Yeah.
Yeah, it's highly rhetorical. But I think at the end of the day, I mean, Strauss thinks that the two goals and out of that he's not he doesn't have the same horizon or or ability to judge these political things that Aristotle played on that. And I think there's a real argument for that. I still think that obviously tote was extremely important is kind of like what the medieval said, it says really dwarf standing on the shoulders of giants.
And that's why I took what's so important. You sort of, I mean, just to kind of talk about a lot of thinkers, so Nietzsche's Strauss tote. Yeah, one of the things that your paper draws out is the distinction between theory and practice. Yeah.
And so Strauss, I think you sort of correctly sort of one out that he's a practical friend of liberal democracy, even though he has a sort of seemingly radical critique of it theoretically, Nietzsche seems to have a radical critique theoretically and a radical practical critique. Yeah. And where does tote feel for them for Strauss and you think in his own right, that's true. We're sorry.
We're still feeling this. Do you see this theory practice divide in tote as well? I mean, I think tote doesn't have a radical enough critique that he doesn't sort of necessarily think Strauss loves about Nietzsche so much that the Nietzsche in a way sees this radical critique in a deeper way. And that maybe that's one of the problems with trying to use tote the re-found liberal democracy is that he's unaware of its deep the deepest problems.
But I guess my point is that I thought on your paper, I was detecting some notion that Strauss is a practical and I was like, well, it's a democracy sort of what we're meeting here. Yeah. I'm wondering if something, if it is the I thought I understood you'd be saying actually tote Phil says, if tote will recognize is that democracy is practically just where we are. Yeah.
Why wouldn't and he's also writing it workly? Why wouldn't he hide his more radical critique of democracy? Is that possible or in other words, what's driving us to feel good enough to rise in? Yeah, I can see lots of folks say this about Strauss that when Strauss has this defensive liberal democracy, the proteas as well.
But one can say that his critique is his friendship with democracy is practical. Yeah. And then just like Strauss, tote was a little more careful to hide is the radical critique of things. No?
Yeah, well, I mean, well, whether there's some sort of a esoteric element of total where he thinks it is more of a more theoretically critical of it. Yeah, I think so. But I mean, you're with Strauss, like you think that actually Phil is somewhat constrained. Yeah, I think I'm with Strauss in this that history in that regard.
Yeah, it's it's, you know, the, it's interesting because I mean, he stress has these remarks in the election notes. He's like, how could everyone ever write this a sensible man would never write all this stuff. And he has a point that, you know, you read, you know, all the stuff you convince yourself you're beyond the ganival and then you commit crimes against bond yard animals, right? Yeah, this is that it was an audio people are going to notice that you're motioning to me to me to be judging to me.
But you know, there's like the leopold in the world, you know, more contemporary theoretical versions of this. It is interesting that Nietzsche's radical, this is going away from Tocqueville, it is interesting that Nietzsche's radical critique didn't lead him to any kind of sound practices. I think there's something theoretically off about Nietzsche's results that you would you would you would presumably engage in this sort of theoretical critique and discover something like the key, where the need for the noble lie, and then you would create a distinction between the philosopher and the other. You'd be at the agency position, Nietzsche gets close to that, but he doesn't really really assert that in the same way as Plato does, or at least if he if he understands that, it doesn't actually inform his motive writing as much as you would think.
I didn't think he's actually quite similar to Tocqueville in that he sees this this Christian sort of motion, it's a democracy as sort of this sweeping nature, Nietzsche and Dokeville both seem as Tocqueville makes this piece or the Nietzsche can't. If I say what's interesting, stress really breaks up, ancient and modern, he breaks up Jerusalem and Athens, and then he breaks up the Christian sort of take on that problem versus the pre-Christian teaching. And so you're left with a host of historical possibilities that have been actualized over 2000 years, where Nietzsche sees a great homogeneity maybe Tocqueville as well. So I wonder if that's just the sort of the interpretation of history by Nietzsche, that leads to the counteracts.
This is a strong disease and he's strong medicine, the rhetoric of the medicine. Yeah, I mean, I think for Nietzsche, I don't want to be careful about this as a Nietzsche scholar, but yeah, there's sort of this new possibilities, whereas I think Tocqueville doesn't see these same new possibilities. We have to find a way within what we have. And I think especially Christianity is really important.
I mean, Tocqueville likes Strauss, thinks that religion is important. And like you said, these are opinions that are necessary and that are all good in general and fruitful. And so we shouldn't try to get rid of it, whereas Nietzsche really tries to take a hammer to religion and create something completely new, have new gods in the way. I mean, when you're in your favorite talk about the role of Christianity and the ancient philosophy sort of providing helpful material out of which democracy can sustain itself.
But I'm sort of doing speak to that. What are those positive things that Christianity and classical philosophy provides for modern democracy that they can't provide for themselves? But then second question, I sort of detect in Tocqueville, the notion that you're right that these things are helpful to local democracy, but that little democracy is actually eating away at them. Yeah.
And so therefore, it's eating away at the pillars that sounds important. So the first question is, what are those things that Christianity provides that we are in need of? And then, yeah, if I'm right, the Tocqueville says that reading away at those, what we're placing them are what was the future look like around tell us. Well, I mean, I think for Tocqueville in particular, you know, he says that we everybody lives on dogmatic leaves.
You need dogmatic leaves. You need to know that when you wake up out of your bed, you're gonna be able to touch the ground. Now, of course, a philosopher could question himatically question all of these things. Even if even philosopher takes 1000 things on trust.
Exactly. And so that's human beings just need to have some sort of authoritative opinion about how they should live their lives. And so religion provides that. That's, you know, took one, I think Strauss from most part agrees with this as well, and that it also, especially for philosophy, because Christianity, religion in general poses a challenge to philosophy.
So in that regard, it's important for the philosophic life. So yeah, I think in those elements, but then I'm sorry, a lot of your questions are, can you flush that out a little bit? So how is it, how is it necessary for the philosophical life? Well, in the sense that it poses a radical challenge to philosophy, I mean, the life of the believer is you follow obey, follow the laws of God.
And the philosophy is, no, this is sort of radical questioning, and we can't obey the laws of God. And so without that, it's also means philosophy has to justify itself has to say, or try to refute in a way, a revelation. And I think that's important element to philosophy is the attempt to refute it or to overcome it. And sort without that obvious opponents can't come into its own challenge?
Oh, yeah. If like, if you're if you're a philosophy student, or you want to study philosophy, but you think all religion is just silly, and you don't even need attention to it, and you don't take it seriously, you're sort of missing an important element of the philosophical education. Right. One thing I think really important, like philosophical thing that runs through this is the relationship between ideas and events or access.
Right. And Strauss, in a number of places claims that ideas exert greater pressure on our lives, and on historical manifestations, then do particular events. Now, there's obviously a limit to this, you would acknowledge that, you know, Aristotle gets hit by a lag in it at five, that everything's different, right? So actually plays a role, but somehow the writing of ideas is a kind of public act has exerts a kind of influence.
And I, you know, it's a very difficult question, I think, just to treat you and try to hash out, but maybe we could try to lay out the possibilities, because Strauss reads toekfill as saying that no historical contingency exerts greater influence on ideas, right? This is a kind of modern sources, yeah, we're historically determined in a way or things, all of these are contingent on events. And then so he presents to him on the other side, you tried to argue and I think pretty persuasively that took those closer to Strauss that he seems at first, but you had to take a little bit on on the balance between these two and whether it tips in the favor of ideas or tips in the favor of historical acts. And it's a matter of, you know, it's a huge question to try to answer that.
Maybe we could just discuss it just to amplify the accidents or the struggle accent, right? The very beginnings of the preface actually to the volume one where he gives this laundry list examples that the last 700 years of human history have been nothing but showing moving the Russian greater democracy, gun powder, right, it equalized the Earth to kind of the build on the printing press. He goes on the way that one can buy the titles and nobility greatly affected. So he gives these so on the side of history is just these series of accidents or something like that, he does sort of all those pop and inch of me, he does give this laundry list right at the beginning of volume one about how here are these series of things that happened materially that change how we organize the change how we live our lives.
So they're that's strong right there at the beginning. Yeah, yeah, so I mean, I think this is just a really important question. What moves society ideas or is it these historical accidents that they come out? And so one of the things that Strauss says about to felicity is too quick to minimize the importance of theory.
And what I try to argue in the paper is that well, one could also argue that Strauss over emphasizes the importance of theory. So I try to find nurse to tell you middle ground, I guess, I'm saying that, well, I think it's in I think to go is actually closer to the more middle position where he does recognize historical contingencies. But yet he's still also aware of the importance of theory. But maybe he isn't as aware of the the impact of theoretical ideas and the way which Strauss is not like a sort of kind of has my bad story.
He doesn't he's almost there but not quite. And then in some ways, you know, putting Strauss and together gives you a better understanding of trying to think about some of these letters and public lectures you get you mentioned and then there's some letter where he talks about how deeply his thought was indebted to Montesqui Pascal. So there's a fourth, I'm not forgetting. I think it was curleiro thing.
Okay. But I mean, in democracy, America itself, it does seem like there's not a whole lot of emphasis on the exception of the cart. Maybe like there's not an emphasis on theory at all in democracy, is there? Well, I think that's rhetorical.
He's minimizing yet to remember the historical circumstances. So he's coming after the French revolution. And as we're all these radical people have been reading Rousseau and went through over through society. And so these post revolutionary liberals want to minimize important like when in Burke and also minimize importance of theory and emphasize the more practical elements.
We were talking about that the earlier day, this notion that is trying to deemphasize theory could be purely practical or talk like you're saying like, we saw what actually politics looks like when people are guided by theory is 10,000 people with their heads on pike's outside Paris. Exactly. That's not very good. Yeah.
Yeah. It's interesting. If you take the restoring position, right, you know, man's happiness is like a pre discursive state, right? Reasons a later development of human history, right, an attempt to sort of wrestle with scarcity.
So as the later development, if reason is a later development and is tied up with man as a social being, and man as alienated from his original happiness, it's not far to get from there to a blame of theory, right, and blame of it. And so, you know, you start getting, you start to look at philosophy almost as necessarily ideology. I was so wants to take another move, which is to say, no, there's this other discursive life, such as I'm living, that's free of the societal trappings, but you can easily get into, you can see this with like a French Revolution afterwards, you could seriously get into an increasing power of reason, therefore philosophy of the form of ideology, but then also a backlash as well. So he might want to hide to a certain degree, his own philosophic debts for the purpose of just presenting himself as an analyst of events or something.
Yeah, tendencies. Yeah, he definitely wants to hide. I mean, this is, I think Boman tells a story about somebody praise the first volume of Democracy America, because it wasn't very theoretical. And took a sort of laugh, he's like, yeah, that's what I wanted them to think.
But he's extremely theoretical. How can you allow me like, I guess he reads the Federalist Papers, there's maybe one scan mentioned like what's well, I mean, the way that I've tried having I've argued this is that in some of the very first chapter of Democracy America is meant to be sort of like a state of nature, so understanding the human beings are by nature free and equal. And then you get the sort of Rousseauian social contract with the Puritans, to believe in says that the Puritan founding is better than the social contract that we're so good even dreamed of. So you have natural freedom, then you have civil freedom where people are trying to come together, but then you need to overcome that because the Puritans are kind of crazy to bring about all these tyrannical and bizarre laws.
So then you get Federalists, but even these are, you know, they're good, but there's still some problems with that. So where we left with so there's I think a movement, he has a sort of Rousseauian moment and multiscuian moment, you know, sort of scallion moments in the book that it's extremely theoretical. The first volume second volume. So you're more you're more interested in the talk.
The more serious question. Well, maybe what you're saying is that there's something boring about Tokyo or there's something sort of their limits and that's kind of what Strauss is arguing to. There are limits of to go. I mean, I'm definitely turning it over to go.
My next project is a multi so I'm looking forward to that. I'm looking forward to that. Yes. Yes.
I think one thing is really incredible. Yeah. The middle essay is online. No, it's on telling truth as perforated.
I forget. I think it's online anyway. God, and it's your teacher is a need to do one thing. Yeah, I'm in store.
Yes. I'm in quarantine. Scholar. I sort of in some ways, many ways.
I'm trying to respond to me. This is due to your academic career. I was trying to respond to your former professors and try to say whatever wrong. So somebody's that this project is really funny.
I don't know what's left to what's left to talk about. Do we think some you aren't? I'm just trying to you know, as I read this, I sort of thought, I mean, most of our audience, so we're sort of you can tell we're not very serious, but we try to series sometimes and we've done a number of episodes on Strauss, Alex and I, both are students of students of Strauss. When I read your paper, I sort of thought, man, this is the first time I read something where I thought Strauss was wrong about something.
I'm just just seemed incorrect. And then I thought, well, maybe he didn't have access to some of these writings that you mentioned. He was only in class. He's only teaching it.
So maybe he depended in that regard. Like, they didn't publish this in other words. And I taught all kinds of crap that I don't actually believe just because like it's Thursday and I'm hung over and trying to, you know, like, I was what Nietzsche said, right? Like, I don't know what that's true.
And so, yeah, it's like, there's a little sobriety. I'm just with the record. I'm actually sober when I teach just that I don't want to make it the wrong idea. Just I just never do that.
So my question, one of the other things that he seems to get maybe wrong to me is that, you know, you point out this on page 17, your paper, Strauss argues that for Tofil's freedom is a sumon poem. And I can't help but wonder if Tofil is working rhetorically or sort of trying to be somewhat esoteric. And I'm somewhat persuaded by that. You know, Mansfield mentions that the 13th chapter is about is the only mention Machiavelli in volume two or something.
It seems pretty clear, right? And so I wonder if maybe Tofil isn't protecting freedom, so you can read the American thing that this is right, the Tofil is most interested in freedom. And as big as concern is that democracy will not serve freedom, it'll be too single-mindedly devoted to equality. And according to you, according to Strauss, that he's insufficient therefore tuned to virtue or excellence.
But why couldn't I say this in my own name, I could sort of advocate for freedom within a democratic regime as a sort of fence or prophylactic measure, because that's the only way I'll actually ever be able to advocate for excellence. So sort of, it can be a tactical emphasis on freedom, because if I can sort of convince my fellow citizens that freedom is important, well, that would include the freedom to do the things that are excellent. And so I don't know that I read and talk about this sort of, I may be wrong, but this single-minded, because even when he says freedom later on, in volume two, there's this notion that it's one of the freedoms he's most interested in this freedom of the mind. And so you do get this sort of notion that human excellence says, hey, talk about art, right?
There's not a great music, you Americans don't read anything. You can't produce good philosophers, you make great ships, but then they're old in a month. Yeah, maybe be the very part of democratic, the democratic right, you can tie into that pushes against the other sort of total analysis. Yeah, sorry, maybe the emphasis on freedom isn't as bad as Strauss makes it out to be.
Or that, or at least, yeah, or that it's a tactical point and not a, that he's actually means interesting freedom, but it's instrumental, like he's an interesting freedom because of the things that you could then therefore be free to do. Yeah, I mean, two full as many lines were so what my only passion or love is like, right? Those are really important. But I think also, yeah, he does think freedom freedom to think that's obviously an extremely important part.
But one of the things we took was he's skeptical about the philosophic life about I mean, he's not what he's very pescallion and sort of doubts what we can know by reason, right? And that ultimately the philosophic life may be just tragic. But the strange thing is he doesn't accept faith. And so if the philosophic life is ultimately tragic, can give us this happiness that we long for, but yet he can't he also can't have faith.
He tries out politics for a while, doesn't like that either. And so he's just really restless soul. But he still thinks freedom is important. But is it freedom for the ultimate philosophy or virtue?
And he doesn't really quite go on. That makes sense. Would it be a problem because then he'd have to justify the old aristocracy, right? I mean, that's the issue stress brings out right that the air stockers has been confused with these like, you know, ex-fuzzy medieval feudal orders, right?
Yeah, to sort of emphasize excellence, he might be confused for being a risk. Right. And this might be, right? You know, it's a very difficult situation when you think about it, trying to navigate this obvious tendency as an average for yourself.
And realize how difficult it is. So it's horrible. Yeah. Both sides.
But yeah, I just it seems like you would have to somehow find a way to you'd have to endorse it on some level. Yeah, you mean, you feel the rhetorical reasons? How was he received by other aristocrats? Like, what did they think?
You know, that's a good question. I haven't really focused so much on the reception of other aristocrats. I know that I was done that. Sorry to do it.
I mean, everybody sort of raised him. And so this all this is the new sort of Montesquieu, the spirit of the American laws. So there were definitely there is extreme high praise throughout for Tokyo. But on this question, a very stochacy, I guess.
Yeah, I mean, this maybe takes us a little bit far away. But I think that Tocqueville, for instance, I mean, he doesn't get the practical solution is like religion. You make people religious to be politically involved, associations, that's a big part of the solution. But there isn't like a return to like a virtue excellence.
And that's what we that's what we really need to return to. That's something what's important about Strauss. The Strauss is the global savus isn't sort of this faint hearted belief in religion or associations or anything like that. But in some ways, it's a return to the fundamental questions and return to the great books.
And that's something that took us aware of, he realizes like learning the classical education is important, but he doesn't emphasize it as much. He doesn't see it as a solution for the problems of liberal democracy quite as much as Strauss might do or even students thought to do. He does talk about the necessity for this sort of, there has to be class degree, we study Greek and Latin. Yeah.
And then even I think he puts it in the wrong class of people, but he does talk about his hope that lawyers can provide a kind of aristocratic element in direct society. Yeah, so he does seem in this dream, the minds were thing. And even just alert me, I'll just speak in my own case by frankly that, you know, first I read it so deeply offended because I was only reading Juk head magazine, obviously at the time. And when he talks about health and educated Phil, he's a magazine.
It's a comic magazine. Well, there's that's the low degree adult. I'm being so much suspicious, but like, the way that he calls us out for our intellectual poverty. Yeah, I mean, like, it struck me and like it made me feel embarrassed and made me it worked.
Like, I should read I'd understand anything. Yeah, I read books and put them on my shelves. Yeah, yeah, one of the intellectual mediocrity, that's right. These causes Cartesian to the car.
And so incredibly doubt things we don't really take the time to think about that. So I mean, it's just I guess one thing is I mean, Strauss's project, if there's a project seems very limited, right? Like a handful of people will go to these universities, they'll study these books. We can keep this thing alive.
Yeah, and so those projects seem some of them to too as well, right? Only handle people go and study Greek and Latin, but they do the best university should. That's almost, I mean, that's almost the same exact sort of prescription, though. I mean, they definitely I mean, education is also the key thing, right?
I mean, political philosophy. And I think Strauss also I mean, there is, you know, German I was in this remarks about the failure of teachers, I think he was trying to create better educated teachers and have some kind of mind this podcast is what exactly is marginal, some marginal effect on the university. And you know, to some degree, he did. I mean, he helped revive the history of political philosophy of something worthy of serious writing, even people who fight him are forced to you know, suddenly write about Santa Fe, and they didn't take seriously for so long.
And to a certain degree that doesn't inject a dose of political moderation, if you're reading all these philosophers is somehow dealing with circumstance and seeing themselves and having marginal effects, it gives you a kind of sobriety about politics that pushes against the sort of ideological excesses of eternity. And the other sort of that's a kind of practical political project that you wouldn't get it first glance from the guy just writes books on books. But the general theme and impression you get from this is one of practical moderation and lower expectations. I've not written anything on top of it.
I have studied him a great deal. And I mean, is it fair to say I mean, it's curious like, Strauss seems to be saying, you know, it's not that interesting, it's not that you're mentioning this, but when Strauss seems to spy in large, all retook them and they all study him. And so that I mean, how do we explain that? That's sort of curious curiosity, it seems, maybe because you've only recently unearthed these two lectures and now we're going to quit.
You by the way, this guy says on Earth, like 20 times, it's like on Leo Strauss dot com. Very, very difficult. But no, I will. I found they run published actually.
Little Chinese website. They were just published. But I'm going to take it out of my no, no, no, no, it sounds great. Is there a search question?
Yeah, I was browsing a study tote pill of draws himself as a picky zet series. Well, I think they're just really close affinities. I mean, I think they both see the danger of theory and practical life. They see this is the affinity between the importance of religion, questions of political science.
So there are these things that are just natural. And of course, he taught this course in 1954, probably had students that became interested in took left and then taught it and then kind of ballooned out of there. And then also, you know, Strauss wrote so much on everything, but he didn't write on took one. So some of these straw seems like, well, I'll write something on to help.
That's one of the reasons. And we're all in most of America. I do think to go back a little bit, maybe we can start to wrap up around this point, but go back a little bit to the question of historical contingency versus the theoretical side. It always struck me about tookville that is two major political works are democracy in America.
So it's looking at democracy in this manifestation. And then, Lonsieux regime, although we see on which, right, any French says, Oh, that's the old regime. And then the French Revolution, but literally taken looks like what happens when you have an old regime decline and then a revolution. And when you look at these historical analysis, they're much like in democracy in America, you sense there's the historically contingent everywhere, right?
But then you start to see there's certain theoretical observations embedded in it. And I wonder, it seems to me like you make a very compelling case this effect that no, no, he's very much theoretical. And it is all over both of these works. But often it is a press and it looks like you're just looking at like the historical events.
So I mean, you know, I'm convinced to a certain degree that Strauss didn't spend as much time with us. And he maybe didn't give to fill this theoretical do. It also seems like Tokyo just didn't like not give as much of a nonsense other side of him in the published works. At least you might wear it.
Yeah, and I think I mean, I guess it's important to remember this is these sort of unpublished lectures. And so you didn't do a full sort of working out of to go back and give up on them. And it's sort of he has a lot of the critiques that he makes up to make some work where he's made a much more serious study. But I think there is definitely a more theoretical elements of to go.
For instance, he says that once it's political, or anti-sitting, we're now still living and go back amongst the dead. And that is true worth is with writing and thinking through these ideas, but the illustrious that. So there's definitely a really strong theoretical element of don't go that. And maybe that Strauss wasn't aware of.
So we want to leave time to maybe talk about a little bit about your background and open it up to questions. So first of all, thank you. I was very interested in the paper. I enjoyed talking about it.
I don't know, it seems weird to ask somebody. Usually as old people. And but how did you get interested in political philosophy? What's the student know to name?
Yeah, well, I mean, part of the reason I was writing a paper on Plato, and I had to write something on questions of justice or through liberal democracy in Plato. And I just happened to stumble upon upon an essay by Leo Strauss. I had no idea who this guy was. I had a book that I was reading.
And I thought, this is actually some really interesting thing to be saying about Plato makes a lot of sense. And then so after that, how did you get interested? How are you writing up? Is this just like a gen ed class you compelled to take on Plato?
It was political theory class at Furman. And the Ben story was teaching. Okay, and how did you want to put it? Furman?
Well, when I was so I was just real quick, just to focus on the folks at home and for our audience here. One of our missions on our missions on our podcast is we do sort of have we try to have elder statesmen and we sort of ask them about how they got into this so people can sort of understand like how it is that people come to study this great books or what loss of your and quite frankly, a lot of times it's chance events that know very few faculty very few various other people sort of knew it 16 17 18. This is what I want to do is a random professor or random book or random account or so how did you do it from in the first place? Yeah, so study with Ben story was a friend of the show.
Yeah, that's important. So when I was when I was young, get a sort of a dumb jock, I just wanted to play sports. And tell us how you got interested in sports. Naturalized by the Billy.
But why not me? He's pushing this line. But no, so I was waiting tables at a restaurant because I needed to have my father had moved away. My parents were divorced.
And my father moved away from our hometown because the restaurant that he was running to work out. And I wanted to stay there in my football coach level. You can come live with me. And so I lived with him and I was waiting tables to try to sort of dig my my school suite out on dates.
But he also mentioned that your hands were such a good. But I was waiting tables and this Southern woman came up to me and said, Hey, do you play football? I said, yes, I do. And then she just started talking to her and she realized I was a sort of charity case.
And wanted to help me and for Christian reasons. And so this is a new Mexico. This is a new me I saw almost New Mexico. And so then she said, we should go check out this this college in South Carolina.
That was actually Baptist school. There was nearby for me, but on the way I saw for him. And I felt that's a beautiful country club in the South. I went out there, you know, Mexico's so dry and South Carolina looks green.
And so I sent my highlight tapes to the ball coaches and the track team and they wanted me to come play there. So that's how I was able to sort of work it out. And I came across a story and by accident or by someone's recommended. Just by accident.
I guess I was always sort of interested in political ideas in general. My father's from Mexico City in Mexico. They were sort of ruling party for like 70 years. I was always curious about why this was the case.
I was interested in politics. I took a political theory class. I didn't think I really like it that much. But then I sort of fell in love.
I was corrupted in a way. I hung the cleats up and picked up the books. And I haven't been absent minded ever since. That's an story was one of your teachers.
Yeah. But I was wife was she also one of your teachers. Is wife no, just sort of was not one of my teachers. She was there at the time.
But just being the best very tightestator. Oh, yeah, she was a teacher. I read the ethics with him. And then they suggested that maybe I should go to go to school.
And I actually went to go be part of Teach for America for two years before that. Where'd you go? Didn't recall it. I'm sure.
And that was that was a lot of fun. I was trying to do sort of great books, education for high school kids, public school, I was going to go on smashing. Well, you know, it was it actually did really well. It was funny.
I had one story where I where a kid he was showed up and he was sort of sleeping and I didn't know what was going on. And I took him outside and I asked him and I said, Hey, you know, why aren't you doing the readings? Is everything okay at home? I thought there's some family issues.
And he said, you know, Mr. Rodriguez, I really wanted to do the reading tonight. But I was so busy staying up reading, Maristell's metaphysics. I just couldn't do my reading.
And I said, I find until I was like, you know, I got put down the metaphysics, just do the reading for class, go get the metaphysics later. This is too advanced to know. But I think in general, I was trying to be as surgery is breaking students dreams and eventually since 2015. Go ahead.
But I do think I mean, for many of them, it was I mean, they were just they were learning things like, Oh, like a lot of them would ask me, how do you want me to read this text? You want me to read it with the Marxist critical lines? No, I don't want you to read it as Marxist critical lines. I still get to go get to go get to go.
I want you to read it. I want you to read the text and tell me how it's relates to your life and how you know, how you think about, you know, whether how you should be a good person, you know, I'm talking about that. And I think the kids really love that, actually. And I think hopefully was for the better than you went straight to Notre Dame after those two years.
Yeah, so then I went to Notre Dame and work with Michael and Catherine Zuckers, and I just really enjoyed my time there. I learned a lot. And I'm working with the two of them. All right.
Well, you want to take a book that stood out to you early on? Yeah, I mean, obviously, took it from the very beginning. But aerosol, the one thing I pick up a lot when I was there at at at I learned a lot about American founding was sorry, I had a nerd named with Michael Zuber Lincoln. But then also, Catherine Zuckers offered a course on self knowledge.
And that's why I read on things essays. And that's why I really fell in love with maintain. That's why I want that to be my next project. Well, we have some folks here that have been dutifully bribed to come and hang out.
We have a microphone, so if you have a question, just raise your hand and we'll get a mic to you. Nobody's actually been bribed here. It's all the pleasure of just knowledge. Nobody knows if anyone's been bribed here.
But thanks, guys, a lot of fun. Quick question about sort of the this is Dustin Seebell, by the way, Professor and Director of LaFrak. If you want to comment on my good looks, now is your opportunity. Alex, your silence speaks volumes.
You're seps look big. I'll take it. I'll take it. There seems to be a difference between Nietzsche and Tokyo on one hand and Strauss on the other when it comes to the process of modernization on the Nietzsche front.
Nietzsche often collapses the democratic movement into Christianity and vice versa, the Christianity into the democratic movement. And at the same time, he suggests that the reason why secularization has taken hold, one reason why God has died, maybe the main reason is, I mean, it's over determined, there's lots of reasons, but one of the main reasons is that the Christian God supported a specific morality, Christian morality and Christian morality puts a great emphasis on truthfulness. And once you take that morality very seriously, it ultimately comes back and undermines the Christian God about whom you're supposed to be ever more truthful and who seems to be hidden from us. So in the case of Nietzsche, you see a way in which modernity is the outgrowth, a complex outgrowth of Christianity, both on the democratic front and on the secularization front.
And similarly with Tocqueville, right early on in part two, you have bacon and Descartes and subsequent modern philosophers. But they are preceded in chronologically by Luther, and Luther is ultimately a kind of modification of the teachings of Jesus Christ. So there too, you have a way in which modernization is ultimately a kind of modification of original Christianity. Strauss on the other hand seems to be diametrically opposed to this view.
And I think there's actually a long footnote in chapter two of Natural History where he takes his usual Weber for sort of accepting the the Tocqueville and Nietzsche in line on it. According to Strauss, modernity is very much anti-Christian. And so I was just wondering if you guys could talk about this a bit. There's it's right.
He poses in many places this idea that majority secularized Christianity. And it seems that way, like if you read like bacon saying cultivate the truth in charity, I thought that sounds very Christian, you know, it all looks just like it's, but then when you realize cultivating the truth, and doing charity through our hands rather than through accent and prayer, there's it hides a very radically anti-Christian teaching. And it's not human province in the place of divine province, but it's mastery of nature. So it is really about replacing the biblical God at its core while retaining some of the near of Christian respectability, right?
So we draw on it. Yeah, just something like that that for Strauss modernity is very much motivated by anti-Christian sentiment. And is to be understood more as a kind of more in terms of a fight against Christianity than as a evolution of it. Yeah.
Yeah, I guess to jump in here. So I think that's one of the things for Nietzsche and for Tocqueville, they see Christianity as sort of being a sort of trans-evaluation of all values, everything has changed. Of course, Nietzsche thinks it's bad, Tocqueville thinks it's good. But they don't see like Strauss's that actually this modern project could be sort of anti-antibiblical.
And it's really an attempt to conquer and overcome Christianity or religion in general. I'm not sure about Tocqueville. That's my only copy out there. I'm just not sure that that's right about Tocqueville.
Again, I wonder if it's rhetorical or, yeah, I still haven't made sense to my own satisfaction of this reference to Machiavelli for example. Does he see that Machiavelli is doing something serious? Yeah, well, even in Tocqueville's footnotes, he does realize that there is, I mean, there are sort of these two poles, sort of a life of obedience and faith and philosophy. So there's a sort of sprousting element in which he can sort of emphasize these two radically different ways.
And so he is certainly aware of that. But I do think he sincerely believes that Christianity transforms society for the good and that liberal democracy is a product of Christianity. I don't think he sees the same things that the sprousties of liberal democracy or liberalism in general, just being a product of a movement, a radical rejection Christianity. Very good.
Other questions? This is Tobin Craig, also professor here. Yeah, hello, right. This is the on the show, by the way, folks are finding a guest, but right.
Plenty of evidence for the considerations that I do from my refusal have been on display. So yeah, thanks, thanks a lot, Raul and Greg and Alex. So I want to hear a little bit from Strauss on tockville because I didn't get to hear anything and I was hoping for some juicy quotes. And so if I can try and draw those out, I mean, but let me just preface with a bit of observation.
I mean, it's so striking that tockville, Nietzsche and Strauss all seem to have the view that democracy stands in need of some kind of a corrective so as to keep alive certain of the highest human possibilities. And that's certainly something that Strauss was very concerned with and you see it most vividly in his two essays on liberal education. I think it's especially of liberal education responsibility, I think, the conclusion of that one, but I think both of them, I remember correctly. And so it's somewhat surprising for me to hear that Strauss doesn't see in tockville, somebody who is sharing this concern.
And who, unlike Nietzsche, retains a kind of political moderation, which seems to be something that Strauss commends again and again as a corrective against certain of the bad tendencies of the particular moment. So just that is a way of prefaceing an invitation to hear some remarks of Strauss on this. She'll enroll probably give the answers, but there's at least this one phrase that you mentioned at the beginning, of course, he offers a high praise for democracy in America, calling it the lot, perhaps, well, perhaps the last great work of political philosophy in the original sense. So there's this begins with this very high praise.
But I'll find a couple and see if ruler Alex on the compliment. This on page 1213, he argues that Tokyo, this is Raoul. Raoul says he argues that Tokyo follows the modern tradition by diminishing the power of theory and reasons to determine what's best. This early modern rationalism and its natural rights discourse was quote based on a sport nation of reason, of the intellectual non-intellectual that's sub-intellectual, the fundamental needs of man and so on.
Later thinkers like tokville radicalized this tendency give some other places where you want highlights in this critique. This was not quoting the paper I thought was very interesting when I was reading these lessons, which by the way, I recommend to everybody. He talks about Burke Payne marks tokville in Nietzsche. And there's one particular pass and a lot of research to where he traces Rousseau to Marx via Hegel.
That's really just brilliant. It's the kind of stuff you just don't read in any of his books. But here's an interesting, I just found this kind of fascinating as a critique of tokville. He says, we're confronted with this alternative to make an extremist movement like the French terror of 1848, or some respectable democracy of Anglo American type.
And that is the problem that this is the practical problem would be a defensible position. I don't know whether it is even the correct position because this notion of the mild paternalistic end, which Nietzsche to had is based on a very grave dilution that social influences of any kind can really exterpate the fundamental beastliness of which man is unfortunately capable, the clear optimism even here, for which we may be set to have paid a very heavy price in the 20th century. So I thought that was fascinating that the kind of historicist optimism of certain types made us oblivious to some of the excesses. Yeah, I mean, you could say that as we quote there that took us sort of unaware of the possibility of the Nazi's way or something like this.
Of course, that's maybe a product of Nietzsche to certain extent. But I think to go does see that the historical movement, I mean, even today, it is much more like the way to describe it, it's much more humane and sort of moderate. And it's not as radical as that's even though to me didn't see these things. It's sort of doesn't see the downward slopes in times of this, but you sort of see the overall trajectory.
And there I think there's a great insight to tokville. You know, the passage is worth pointing it to. Yes, sir, what was that? Here's some of the juicy to the juice that the word trial says tokville is limited.
Yeah. I mean, I have one, the one about value neutrality. That's kind of yeah. It says, I raised this one question, why does tokville decide in favor of democracy seeing this grave problem?
The first answer is that he doesn't decide he doesn't decide someone else has decided for him. And he says, Providence has decided favor of democracy. And so he felt reaches the following conclusion. The last word, almost literally the last word in the book of tokville is that the question cannot be decided there are two social systems, aristocracy democracy, each with its peculiar merits of peculiar defects.
We have to accept the one because it's been victorious or to use the religious language of tokville because Providence has declared in favor of it. If we consider an attitude such as that of tokville, we understand better the human roots of the present attitude of the social sciences toward value judgments. Here, there is no notion of scientific method and so on, which influences tokville's hesitation. There's an inability or unwillingness to make a decision between two social systems.
I think this is something like what you get next favor. You're shaking your hand, you're doing great. Oh, no, I think just to follow up on that. I think that's really important, one of the important critiques that Strauss Adi says, he doesn't see any criterion for deciding the ultimate superiority of one or the other.
He calls it very balanced and moderate relativism. And I think this is this relates back to this concept of natural right, this crisis, inability to say, well, no reason can give us the criteria by which we can decide better or worse. And he sees to it will also fall in victim to this historicist as a mentality. So I'm going to try and make my question coherent.
Because you guys have been in this game a lot longer than I have. But it's a polite way of saying I've only studied philosophy for three years. But I because I know Tocqueville and Nistra, like their lifespans overlapped, correct. And I was wondering if Tocqueville responded to anything Nistra says because Tocqueville is essentially doing everything that Nistra despises because he's creating this doctrine based off bias.
And like Tocqueville believes democracy is corrective. And Nistra says that's exactly the danger of this, you know, herd mentality, because it diminishes the human spirit. But they both seem to end up with the individualism that we will be forced to accept. Like Tocqueville said, you'll go to this solitude of his own heart once you're in democracy, because it turns into like an individualistic thing.
And Nistra says if you truly want to be a free spirit, you must individualize yourself. So I was just wondering, because Tocqueville diminishes the power of theory and reasoning, but Nistra emphasizes it. So do we have any just like, did he ever talk about it? Or did he ever kind of admit to that?
Or is there any? So I mean, if I could remember, Tocqueville is a little bit old, yeah, and I recall once looking at this, and Nisha mentions Tocqueville only twice according to the digitalized version and always our nature does mention to us. Yeah, just in his notes, once in a letter to France over back and once in his fragments from 18, so one is the most subtle heads of the preceding centuries, human gagliani, all were familiar with state service, likewise, Stendall to do that. But and then and then he's talking about another one is the problem with the school of Tocqueville.
So I think these aren't there's not much to go on. But you know, but I would agree, find something about Tocqueville. Really problematic, he hasn't really he doesn't realize his contributing. So I think I think stress might say like Nisha, it might be a sign of what happens when you act like this movement is just okay, you get this counter reaction, you see with Nietzsche, you see it with figures like Carl Schmid, and Schumler, and other German things, Heidegger, where they are so disgusted by liberalism, that they want some kind of redemptive political movement, that redemptive political movement has to be correspondingly severe to the laxness.
And so, you know, it does provoke this. And that might be maybe what he has in mind in that remark that you're just being too, in being too optimistic, you actually promote the counter action, very thing you're trying to avoid with your optimism, you have to create some room. So I hear I'd recommend Tim, I think this will help you to Tim Burns's book, where he makes a lot out of Strauss's references to Churchill as an aristocratic possibility within liberal democracy. That I think starts to create a place where you can articulate a vision of liberalism that can satisfy these desires, right, less they unruly and uneducated.
And do you know anything about that type of liberalism that can satisfy? Yeah, I would take Churchill as the example Strauss gives, I was used to read on this, German Strauss's essay, German I was a well so timber and spoke democracy, I'm actually technology and something and Strauss, I don't know, timber and Strauss technology, there's a great episode of a podcast called New Thinkery on it, two episodes, that's right. He just can't be answer. I'll just respond quickly.
I mean, I think for each of the obvious offers a very radical, critical democracy to the law for some more moderate one. And but the thing is I think to go ahead a certain common sense, he sees that there's there's something good about, you know, like associations, family, religion, whereas Nietzsche is so radical, I mean, Nietzsche was a very sad man, not to say that should be the the turning of the subject, the restless too. But there's just certain things that he just he takes away from ordinary human life, whereas two people sort of like, like Ursula, on the way goes down to ordinary human life and sees the virtues or the good things that can be found in it, whereas Nietzsche is so radical, which is obviously illuminating, but also problematic because he misses certain common sense, cool things. A small point on the sadness, Nietzsche is not chronological, but if you've read the Brothers Caramans off, and you've read the Grand Inquisitor, the part from that, and one of the stories that Ivan tells about the horse being whipped to death.
And it's just a weird curiosity of history or fate or whatever that I don't know if you've never heard the story that Nietzsche went crazy. And it went crazy when he saw somebody eating a horse, just a weird kind of, just a weird coincidence, maybe if you believe in Providence, it's not going to be a problem. Well, we had Testerton says these absurd ideas are in absurdity, and that's what Nietzsche ended in. That's sort of a very cruel sort of attack on the other side.
That's really out of character. That's a good note to end up. Thank you very much. Thanks, Rol.