![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
♠
“There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn't work.”
-- Irving Kristol
"Origin of the Specious: Why Do Neoconservatives Doubt Darwin?" by Ronald Bailey is a 1997 article, but I understand why it was recently linked at a political site, as it is about the movement undermining evolution in American education, and given how front and center this has been in recent months, it took Monk a while to realize that this was a dated piece.
The proposition advanced is whether American conservative intellectuals have been abetting the religious mythology of the Christian fundamentalists in what can come across as a conspiratorial scheme, in their narrow political interests but also for the grander and noble object of preserving a meaningful sense of moral and social order. A flavor of this thinking may be tasted in this Kristol quote:
“If God does not exist, and if religion is an illusion that the majority of men cannot live without...let men believe in the lies of religion since they cannot do without them, and let then a handful of sages, who know the truth and can live with it, keep it among themselves. Men are then divided into the wise and the foolish, the philosophers and the common men, and atheism becomes a guarded, esoteric doctrine--for if the illusions of religion were to be discredited, there is no telling with what madness men would be seized, with what uncontrollable anguish.”
One can read the article, which is a little lengthy but worth the time, and the only note I will bring is the unfortunate development that has occurred since publication. Mr. Bailey liked to play off this neoconservtive 'conspiracy' against the way the Catholic Church with Pope John Paul II was embracing evolution at that time and hence evincing a greater faith in people's moral possibilities. Lately, the Church has backtracked to support this current anti-evolution movement, perhaps opportunistically in light of the success that the Intelligent Design movement has been enjoying, though there has been some wobbling in the ensuing controversy.
Since a personal disclaimer might be wise, I do not subscribe to the notion that religious believers are simple people, understanding that some of the most brilliant people are believers. And I also know that a good many young people like to boast of their atheism as thoughtlessly and frivolously as you please. As you might imagine, Monk sits on the fence, merely fascinated over the play of ideas and passions.
___ ___ ___
I want to get one more passage from Mr. Bailey's article, pertaining to Leo Strauss, who seems to be the father of neo-conservatism, in regard to using the classic philosophic texts as the basis of one's thought:
'In crude terms, some critics of Strauss argue that he interpreted the ancient philosophers as offering two different teachings, an esoteric one which is available only to those who read the ancient texts closely, and an exoteric one accessible to naive readers. The exoteric interpretations were aimed at the mass of people, the vulgar, while the esoteric teachings--the hidden meanings--were vouchsafed to the few, the philosophers. Philosophers know the truth, but must keep it hidden from the vulgar, lest it upset them. What is the hidden truth known to philosophers? That there is no God and there is no ultimate foundation for morality. As Kristol suggests, it is necessary to keep this truth from the vulgar because such knowledge would only engender despair in them and lead to social breakdown. In his book, On Tyranny: An Interpretation of Xenophon's Hiero, Strauss asserts with unusual clarity that Socratic dialogues are "based on the premise that there is a disproportion between the intransigent quest for truth and the requirements of society, or that not all truths are always harmless."
'Political scientist Shadia Drury, a passionate critic of Strauss, puts it this way: "For Strauss, the ills of modernity have their source in the foolish belief that there are no harmless truths, and that belief in God and in rewards and punishments is not necessary for political order....[H]e is convinced that religion is necessary for the well-being of society. But to state publicly that religion is a necessary fiction would destroy any salutary effect it might have. The latter depends on its being believed to be true....If the vulgar discovered, as the philosophers have always known, that God is dead, they might behave as if all is permitted."
'Thus, to preserve society, wise people must publicly support the traditions and myths that sustain the political order and that encourage ordinary people to obey the laws and live justly. People will do so only if they believe that moral rules are divinely decreed or were set up by men who were inspired by the Divine.'
xXx
“There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn't work.”
-- Irving Kristol
"Origin of the Specious: Why Do Neoconservatives Doubt Darwin?" by Ronald Bailey is a 1997 article, but I understand why it was recently linked at a political site, as it is about the movement undermining evolution in American education, and given how front and center this has been in recent months, it took Monk a while to realize that this was a dated piece.
The proposition advanced is whether American conservative intellectuals have been abetting the religious mythology of the Christian fundamentalists in what can come across as a conspiratorial scheme, in their narrow political interests but also for the grander and noble object of preserving a meaningful sense of moral and social order. A flavor of this thinking may be tasted in this Kristol quote:
“If God does not exist, and if religion is an illusion that the majority of men cannot live without...let men believe in the lies of religion since they cannot do without them, and let then a handful of sages, who know the truth and can live with it, keep it among themselves. Men are then divided into the wise and the foolish, the philosophers and the common men, and atheism becomes a guarded, esoteric doctrine--for if the illusions of religion were to be discredited, there is no telling with what madness men would be seized, with what uncontrollable anguish.”
One can read the article, which is a little lengthy but worth the time, and the only note I will bring is the unfortunate development that has occurred since publication. Mr. Bailey liked to play off this neoconservtive 'conspiracy' against the way the Catholic Church with Pope John Paul II was embracing evolution at that time and hence evincing a greater faith in people's moral possibilities. Lately, the Church has backtracked to support this current anti-evolution movement, perhaps opportunistically in light of the success that the Intelligent Design movement has been enjoying, though there has been some wobbling in the ensuing controversy.
Since a personal disclaimer might be wise, I do not subscribe to the notion that religious believers are simple people, understanding that some of the most brilliant people are believers. And I also know that a good many young people like to boast of their atheism as thoughtlessly and frivolously as you please. As you might imagine, Monk sits on the fence, merely fascinated over the play of ideas and passions.
___ ___ ___
I want to get one more passage from Mr. Bailey's article, pertaining to Leo Strauss, who seems to be the father of neo-conservatism, in regard to using the classic philosophic texts as the basis of one's thought:
'In crude terms, some critics of Strauss argue that he interpreted the ancient philosophers as offering two different teachings, an esoteric one which is available only to those who read the ancient texts closely, and an exoteric one accessible to naive readers. The exoteric interpretations were aimed at the mass of people, the vulgar, while the esoteric teachings--the hidden meanings--were vouchsafed to the few, the philosophers. Philosophers know the truth, but must keep it hidden from the vulgar, lest it upset them. What is the hidden truth known to philosophers? That there is no God and there is no ultimate foundation for morality. As Kristol suggests, it is necessary to keep this truth from the vulgar because such knowledge would only engender despair in them and lead to social breakdown. In his book, On Tyranny: An Interpretation of Xenophon's Hiero, Strauss asserts with unusual clarity that Socratic dialogues are "based on the premise that there is a disproportion between the intransigent quest for truth and the requirements of society, or that not all truths are always harmless."
'Political scientist Shadia Drury, a passionate critic of Strauss, puts it this way: "For Strauss, the ills of modernity have their source in the foolish belief that there are no harmless truths, and that belief in God and in rewards and punishments is not necessary for political order....[H]e is convinced that religion is necessary for the well-being of society. But to state publicly that religion is a necessary fiction would destroy any salutary effect it might have. The latter depends on its being believed to be true....If the vulgar discovered, as the philosophers have always known, that God is dead, they might behave as if all is permitted."
'Thus, to preserve society, wise people must publicly support the traditions and myths that sustain the political order and that encourage ordinary people to obey the laws and live justly. People will do so only if they believe that moral rules are divinely decreed or were set up by men who were inspired by the Divine.'
