Strauss, Three Waves of Modernity

informal Q&A on March 26, 1964 after March 25 lecture (Cornell)

On March 25, 1964, at 4:15 p.m., at Cornell University, LEO STRAUSS delivered a lecture publicized as:

“Three Waves of Modernity: Machiavelli, Rousseau, Nietzsche.”

It was later learned that this lecture’s typescript was entitled:

“The Three Waves of Modernity.”

At 9:00 p.m. the following evening, March 26, 1964, PROF. STRAUSS met informally

with a group of students and some faculty, for comments and questions.

Following is Brian Kennedy’s unfolding, on October 15, 2006, of his handwritten notes taken at the time.

To the conclusion of the lecture:

Practically, today’s alternatives are liberal democracy, communism, maybe fascism.

Liberal democracy is preferred in this bunch.

There is no practical difficulty [with this preference], without far-reaching change

bringing in other alternatives.

Theoretically, does liberal democracy at best suffer from weaknesses

otherwise avoidable?

There exist inclinations of liberal democracy of which we must be aware.

Aristotle: in democracy (1) rule of the many; (2) poor outnumber rich.

Thus democracy implies rule of the uneducated, which implies insufficient knowledge

of other countries, preoccupation with domestic problems –

Not good, even for the uneducated!

For us, the many needn’t necessarily remain uneducated.

We can afford education, because rich, because technology.

Now the Enlightenment (mustn’t apply the term to Greece)

was the diffusion of scientific knowledge to take the place of myths.

But are technology, diffusion unqualified blessings?

Hobbes, Descartes, Bacon: science for the sake of power.

But man isn’t wiser through control; H-D-B envisioned control by wise philosopher-scientists.

An increase in power isn’t necessarily related to an increase in wisdom.

17^th-century mistake: necessarily power will be wisely used.

Page 2 (of two pages)

There was a certain support for liberal democracy in classicism;

not now, for we cannot return to before our questioning.

Today: psychoanalysis, existentialism most powerful.

Cf. Kantianism, Hegelianism (except through Marx).

QUESTION: Has anything come from modern social science?

STRAUSS: The examples given – and with difficulty! – invariably are unconvincing.

QUESTION (David Fleiss): Return to classics because lost Christian faith?

Virtue through reason because not virtue through faith?

STRAUSS: Aristotle doesn’t really say virtue through reason:

e.g. one’s trying to stop smoking!

Virtue doesn’t necessarily arise from reason, although it is present in most

decently-brought-up men. Some of course are stupid or have strong passions.

But is Aristotle circular, more persuasive to the gentleman?

How to make the principle stick when talking to those not well-brought-up?

Aristotle is not addressing those, but those who agree.

Gentlemen – even English or Chinese – generally hold views akin to Aristotle’s.

Aristotle: raise question  cease to be decent.

Plato (less practical than Aristotle): do raise, attempt a theoretical answer.

Aristotle’s attempt – a hierarchy of values [sic], since the question must be faced.

But Aristotle still doesn’t talk to it.

QUESTION (Fleiss): How to raise gentlemen?

STRAUSS: Politics VII – VIII.

Do we start higher, and descend to the lower, or vice-versa?

QUESTION: Must modern man then forego the mastery of nature

to recover a sense of the purpose of man?

STRAUSS: Re-phrased -- How can we live as thoughtful individuals in our age?

How to be true to one’s self?

Mustn’t be part of the bee-hive.

Individuals, small societies of friends with a deeper understanding – in a way, anarchistic.

The possibility exists; many haven’t thought of it.

Must resist in our life encroachments due, not to law, but to anonymous influences

from means of communication, tendencies within society.