All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Darwinism and Strauss on CosmicTeleology and Natural Right
Unformatted Document Text:  31 science, to derive ends from passions, and have not acknowledged their failure, that Strauss is not serious in his rejection of such an approach. Masters presents Strauss as ignoring, deliberately and for some esoteric purpose, modern natural right; but this presentation is only possible because Masters ignores, deliberately or not, Strauss’s many remarks in his other writings indicating, without evident irony, the inadequacy of modern natural right. Put more simply, what Masters sees as an ironic overlooking of modern natural right is rather a subtle criticism of modern natural right. Masters is compelled to misread Strauss in this way because to read him properly – to take him as serious when he contends that a nonteleological natural science destroys natural right because one cannot give an adequate account of human ends by treating them as merely posited by desires – would be to admit that Strauss had, in principle if not in detail, seen and rejected Darwinian natural right, which Masters wants to offer as a solution to the problem of natural right identified by Strauss. Strauss comments on the problematic character of modern natural right in a variety of contexts. For example, he begins “The Three Waves of Modernity” with a statement of the crisis of natural right similar to that offered at the beginning of Natural Right and History: “the crisis of modernity,” Strauss says, “reveals itself in the fact, or consists in the fact, that modern western man . . . no longer believes that he can know what is good and bad, what is right and wrong” (1989, 81). This “crisis of modernity,” Strauss reveals in the sequel, is “primarily the crisis of modern political philosophy” (1989, 82). Modern natural right – the effort, based on a nonteleological understanding of the whole, to derive right from passions or to establish ends on the basis of desires or impulses – is, it seems, inherently problematic. Thus Strauss suggests in another context that Hobbes – touted by Masters as evidence of the possibility of successfully

Authors: Holloway, Carson.
first   previous   Page 31 of 41   next   last



background image
31
science, to derive ends from passions, and have not acknowledged their failure, that Strauss is
not serious in his rejection of such an approach. Masters presents Strauss as ignoring,
deliberately and for some esoteric purpose, modern natural right; but this presentation is only
possible because Masters ignores, deliberately or not, Strauss’s many remarks in his other
writings indicating, without evident irony, the inadequacy of modern natural right. Put more
simply, what Masters sees as an ironic overlooking of modern natural right is rather a subtle
criticism of modern natural right. Masters is compelled to misread Strauss in this way because to
read him properly – to take him as serious when he contends that a nonteleological natural
science destroys natural right because one cannot give an adequate account of human ends by
treating them as merely posited by desires – would be to admit that Strauss had, in principle if
not in detail, seen and rejected Darwinian natural right, which Masters wants to offer as a
solution to the problem of natural right identified by Strauss.
Strauss comments on the problematic character of modern natural right in a variety of
contexts. For example, he begins “The Three Waves of Modernity” with a statement of the crisis
of natural right similar to that offered at the beginning of Natural Right and History: “the crisis
of modernity,” Strauss says, “reveals itself in the fact, or consists in the fact, that modern western
man . . . no longer believes that he can know what is good and bad, what is right and wrong”
(1989, 81). This “crisis of modernity,” Strauss reveals in the sequel, is “primarily the crisis of
modern political philosophy” (1989, 82). Modern natural right – the effort, based on a
nonteleological understanding of the whole, to derive right from passions or to establish ends on
the basis of desires or impulses – is, it seems, inherently problematic. Thus Strauss suggests in
another context that Hobbes – touted by Masters as evidence of the possibility of successfully


Convention
Need a solution for abstract management? All Academic can help! Contact us today to find out how our system can help your annual meeting.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 31 of 41   next   last

©2008 All Academic, Inc.