BAP’s dissertation argues an ostensibly narrow point: that Socrates had it coming. The execution of Socrates is usually characterized as the persecution of an innocent free-thinker, but BAP says that Socrates (and the teaching of philosophy as such) had radicalized the Athenian youth toward antinomian tyranny — the throwing-off of all law and custom in favor of “the justice of nature”, that might makes right.
> The execution of Socrates is usually characterized as the persecution of an innocent free-thinker, but BAP says that Socrates (and the teaching of philosophy as such) had radicalized the Athenian youth toward antinomian tyranny — the throwing-off of all law and custom in favor of “the justice of nature”, that might makes right.
> He traces this back to the philosopher’s discovery of nature as a concept — that there are unchangeable realities (and hierarchies) in the physical world that are outside the purview of law, or custom, or even the gods.
Ha! Yes, this is good. This was also Strauss' key insight. The philosopher, in particular, operates in service of the higher, abstracted version of law, but is an enemy of the common practice of law.
"The exterior, literal meaning of the law serves to sustain the political community in which certain forms of behavior and belief are required, while the ideal meaning of the law is a matter of philosophical speculation only for those who are capable of such speculation. This dual conception of law ... offers what Strauss calls a “moderate” reading meant for the masses and what he calls a “radical” reading meant for the philosophical reader."
The problem with many high-bred rationalists, idealists, etc. is that they are the select few who are capable of being initiated into the halls of the radical – but, then, they try to democratize that "hidden knowledge" and it causes chaos (with tyranny being the ultimate endpoint of chaos); because the crowd doesn't understand how to restrain its own radicalism.
As an example, you can see this very clearly with a statement like: 'all men are created equal'. This can be a perfectly fine axiom for governing a nation, if one can understand its Straussian nature – particularly, in practice, it should only mean that rulers must aim aim to guarantee a minimum of basic rights across the board to their citizens, and no more.
Instead, this phrase now unloaded onto the masses – who read it very seriously and come to believe in equality as a foundational principle – is used to justify all sorts of absurdity and perversion.
But if you have some clever logic there is an incentive to try and ‘democratize’ it because you gain status. Would you deny intellectuals their right to compete for status?
Are you asking for my answer, or BAP's answer, or Dr. Bennett's answer?
Status games aren't limited to just intellectuals, but philosophers seem to have a penchant for targeting the naïve and powerless with destructive esotericism – hence, execution for charges of "radicaliz[ing] the Athenian youth toward antinomian tyranny".
I think it's quite clear that all well-functioning civilizations have essentially three 'powerful' castes that cooperate with each other, and also engage in healthy conflict that spur each other on.
1. Merchants/Technocrats: Charged with innovation, exploration, discovery, generating wealth
2. Warriors/Administrators: Charged with maintaining order, dispensing justice, physical expansion and defense
(I've left off two important castes here: artists and laborers. These two generally do not have power. Laborers are the ordinary members of society, and artists – though the best ones express the soul of a society powerfully – most often rely on patronage from the other castes.)
Bronze and Iron Age societies placed warriors at the apex of the ruling hierarchy, with priests and merchants in a subordinate role. Think about Nebuchadnezzar II's Babylonian Empire.
Axial Age societies in Southeast Asia and Medieval Catholic Europe placed priests at the top of the hierarchy, with the other two as subservient.
Industrial Age England and Gilded Age America clearly favored merchants.
For general prosperity, it doesn't really matter who's on 'top' as long as there is a civilization-level balance of interests, and the incentive structures remain largely separate.
You'll notice that things such as "writing and enforcing ethical legal codes" or "orienting society toward nature's design" must belong to all three power centers – and when one or two are shoved out, it leads to all sorts of degeneracy. You can even notice the particular flavor of degeneracy depending on who has usurped all the power away from the others.
When a country reaches a point where academics can win political points in the name of equity by self-flagellating over who is the most queer-identifying, caste #3 has way over-stepped their role in 'democratizing knowledge' and their intellectual games must be stopped.
I’m glad that you mentioned SE Asia. I’ve been wondering for a while how it came to pass that the priest class became ascendant in India. Do you know of any good description of that history?
Anyway, I agree with a lot of the framework you describe. I probably wouldn’t come to the same conclusion that the modern priestly class needs to be stopped, but the pendulum has swung too far.
So I think the balance of power depends a lot on the macro environment and we can’t just stop the philosophers. We more or less just have to recognize what our environment is and adapt. Now that doesn’t mean we just let esoteric philosophy run amok, but there’s no stopping it without war or a new frontier.
America has always had a powerful priestly class (eg the Puritans), but the existence of the frontier favored entrepreneurship. Now we don’t have that and everything starts to feel crowded. That favors priests. External conflicts favor the Warrior and political classes.
> I’m glad that you mentioned SE Asia. I’ve been wondering for a while how it came to pass that the priest class became ascendant in India. Do you know of any good description of that history?
Probably through the same mechanisms that Ashkenazi Jews enjoy so much dominance in all aspects of Western society today.
A combination of higher-than-average IQ, extensive education, strong in-group preference, assortative mating (in some cases – consciously eugenic family systems), and willingness to remain a nimble/adaptive minority.
Brahmins, in particular, constitute only ~5% of society but to this day punch way above their weight in social, cultural, and political capital; including the secular/non-religious ones.
> The execution of Socrates is usually characterized as the persecution of an innocent free-thinker, but BAP says that Socrates (and the teaching of philosophy as such) had radicalized the Athenian youth toward antinomian tyranny — the throwing-off of all law and custom in favor of “the justice of nature”, that might makes right.
> He traces this back to the philosopher’s discovery of nature as a concept — that there are unchangeable realities (and hierarchies) in the physical world that are outside the purview of law, or custom, or even the gods.
Ha! Yes, this is good. This was also Strauss' key insight. The philosopher, in particular, operates in service of the higher, abstracted version of law, but is an enemy of the common practice of law.
https://pasteboard.co/DqLtOy5zaQf3.png
"The exterior, literal meaning of the law serves to sustain the political community in which certain forms of behavior and belief are required, while the ideal meaning of the law is a matter of philosophical speculation only for those who are capable of such speculation. This dual conception of law ... offers what Strauss calls a “moderate” reading meant for the masses and what he calls a “radical” reading meant for the philosophical reader."
The problem with many high-bred rationalists, idealists, etc. is that they are the select few who are capable of being initiated into the halls of the radical – but, then, they try to democratize that "hidden knowledge" and it causes chaos (with tyranny being the ultimate endpoint of chaos); because the crowd doesn't understand how to restrain its own radicalism.
As an example, you can see this very clearly with a statement like: 'all men are created equal'. This can be a perfectly fine axiom for governing a nation, if one can understand its Straussian nature – particularly, in practice, it should only mean that rulers must aim aim to guarantee a minimum of basic rights across the board to their citizens, and no more.
Instead, this phrase now unloaded onto the masses – who read it very seriously and come to believe in equality as a foundational principle – is used to justify all sorts of absurdity and perversion.
But if you have some clever logic there is an incentive to try and ‘democratize’ it because you gain status. Would you deny intellectuals their right to compete for status?
Are you asking for my answer, or BAP's answer, or Dr. Bennett's answer?
Status games aren't limited to just intellectuals, but philosophers seem to have a penchant for targeting the naïve and powerless with destructive esotericism – hence, execution for charges of "radicaliz[ing] the Athenian youth toward antinomian tyranny".
I think it's quite clear that all well-functioning civilizations have essentially three 'powerful' castes that cooperate with each other, and also engage in healthy conflict that spur each other on.
1. Merchants/Technocrats: Charged with innovation, exploration, discovery, generating wealth
2. Warriors/Administrators: Charged with maintaining order, dispensing justice, physical expansion and defense
3. Priests/Philosophers: Charged with promoting culture, preserving rituals, revealing wisdom, spiritual cohesion
(I've left off two important castes here: artists and laborers. These two generally do not have power. Laborers are the ordinary members of society, and artists – though the best ones express the soul of a society powerfully – most often rely on patronage from the other castes.)
Bronze and Iron Age societies placed warriors at the apex of the ruling hierarchy, with priests and merchants in a subordinate role. Think about Nebuchadnezzar II's Babylonian Empire.
Axial Age societies in Southeast Asia and Medieval Catholic Europe placed priests at the top of the hierarchy, with the other two as subservient.
Industrial Age England and Gilded Age America clearly favored merchants.
For general prosperity, it doesn't really matter who's on 'top' as long as there is a civilization-level balance of interests, and the incentive structures remain largely separate.
You'll notice that things such as "writing and enforcing ethical legal codes" or "orienting society toward nature's design" must belong to all three power centers – and when one or two are shoved out, it leads to all sorts of degeneracy. You can even notice the particular flavor of degeneracy depending on who has usurped all the power away from the others.
When a country reaches a point where academics can win political points in the name of equity by self-flagellating over who is the most queer-identifying, caste #3 has way over-stepped their role in 'democratizing knowledge' and their intellectual games must be stopped.
I’m glad that you mentioned SE Asia. I’ve been wondering for a while how it came to pass that the priest class became ascendant in India. Do you know of any good description of that history?
Anyway, I agree with a lot of the framework you describe. I probably wouldn’t come to the same conclusion that the modern priestly class needs to be stopped, but the pendulum has swung too far.
So I think the balance of power depends a lot on the macro environment and we can’t just stop the philosophers. We more or less just have to recognize what our environment is and adapt. Now that doesn’t mean we just let esoteric philosophy run amok, but there’s no stopping it without war or a new frontier.
America has always had a powerful priestly class (eg the Puritans), but the existence of the frontier favored entrepreneurship. Now we don’t have that and everything starts to feel crowded. That favors priests. External conflicts favor the Warrior and political classes.
> I’m glad that you mentioned SE Asia. I’ve been wondering for a while how it came to pass that the priest class became ascendant in India. Do you know of any good description of that history?
Probably through the same mechanisms that Ashkenazi Jews enjoy so much dominance in all aspects of Western society today.
A combination of higher-than-average IQ, extensive education, strong in-group preference, assortative mating (in some cases – consciously eugenic family systems), and willingness to remain a nimble/adaptive minority.
Brahmins, in particular, constitute only ~5% of society but to this day punch way above their weight in social, cultural, and political capital; including the secular/non-religious ones.
Solid review, thanks Doc.