The problem of classical political philosophy

This will be more academic than is usual for this blog, but I think I shocked a few folks in class yesterday by declaring that Plato was looking for a church and I don’t know that my subsequent explanations cleared things up satisfactorily.  So here, as an exercise for myself in clarity, is a rundown.

A problem with classical political philosophy as advanced by Leo Stauss is that it had little or nothing to offer the common man, the man with an IQ of 95.  What Plato (the dominant figure in the amalgamation Strauss calls classical political philosophy) was looking for was a church, and unfortunately there wasn’t one yet.

To explain this, we must first assume that Voegelin was correct in the third volume of Order and History when he identifies Plato’s philosophy as not only an intellectual pursuit, nor even a way of life like Stoicism but rather as a mystical or religious experience of a theophany.  Consider Plato’s treatment of the divine madness of philosophy, the turning of the soul, the erotic desire for the good and the like not as academic philosophy as it is understood today, but rather as experience of divine revelation, or at least akin to such.  The order of the soul and the good are experienced passionately and mystically, not just academically or doctrinally.

However, this new order of the soul has no realistic expression beyond the individual life of the philosopher who inhabits the city in speech.  At most there may be a small philosophic community, but the realization of the just regime of a society ordered by philosophy is extremely unlikely.  Thus, the mystical experience of philosophy is not only unavailable to nearly all men, but its ordering influence will probably not be even indirectly present in their lives.  Politics and the idea of the best regime (the city in speech of philosophy) is a burden for philosophy.  It is tempted to realize the city in speech in the mundane world, or to despair at the wickedness of the world.  The spiritual experience of philosophy expresses itself politically, but it cannot be realized politically.

Christianity offers freedom for philosophy.  Leaving aside the Christian revelation as the fulfillment of the spiritual experience of philosophy described by Plato, Christianity relieves philosophy from the burden of expressing the spiritual experience of the right order of the soul in a temptation to reorder society in its image.  Political philosophy is free to focus on the realization of a tolerable and peaceable order within the City of Man, while the Church meets the spiritual needs of man by being the mundane expression of the eschatological City of God.  The right order of the soul is made available to all, imperfectly in this life, perfectly through grace in death.

Harmony

I have planned a big post criticizing Catholic views on Mary, and was about to settle down to write it, when a friend sent me a link detailing some of the gifts Obama has been given by foreign leaders.  The story included this bit of goodness, “Pope Benedict XVI gave Mr. Obama a mosaic of St. Peter’s Square in a gilt frame and Vatican papers detailing the Catholic Church’s teachings on sex and abortion.”

I can’t bring myself to say anything critical about Catholicism right now, maybe in a week.

Another kind of don’t ask, don’t tell

Ace took a look at the findings of the grand jury in the aforementioned case of the Penn. abortion clinic and the findings go well beyond the horrible things done there.  Rather, it is clear that there was a deliberate cover-up by the political establishment, state regulators and the abortion industry.  There were plenty of complaints about the place, but since 1993 no one has inspected them, even when women died.  An abortion trade group turned down an application for membership, but reported nothing to the authorities.  In the end arrests came when the place was raided because it was over-prescribing painkillers and the cops noticed what a hell-hole it was.

I expect that the standard line from abortion supporters will be that this place was an exception, and it probably is.  But that still cuts against them.  If this place is so exceptionally bad, why didn’t they shut it down long ago?  Why didn’t the champions of “safe, legal and rare” ensure that standards were met and that, to cite one example, dead fetuses weren’t being stored in the lunch refrigerator?  Obviously because they didn’t want to do anything to impede the cause of abortion on demand.  Investigate one abortionist and pretty soon they’ll be investigating more.  Shut down the guy whose late-term “abortion” procedure was to induce labor and kill the baby after full deliver and you’re on the slippery slope to shutting down the guy who doesn’t report cases of statutory rape and the guy who disposes of dead bodies improperly.  And, as Ace asks, who was giving this guy all his referrals?  How many other abortionists sent late-term patients to the guy they knew wasn’t scrupulous about following the law?

Claiming this guy as the exception lets no one off the hook.  If he was so dirty and the rest of the abortion business so pure, why weren’t they eager to get rid of him?  Could it perhaps be that they also have some tiny skeletons in the fridge and therefore are more interested in protecting abortionists than anything else?  And that their politicians and health officials do what they say?

Evil

Safe, legal, and rare?  Yeah right.  “An abortion doctor who catered to minorities, immigrants and poor women was charged with eight counts of murder in the deaths of a patient and seven babies who were born alive and then killed with scissors, prosecutors said Wednesday. Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 69, made millions of dollars over 30 years, performing as many illegal, late-term abortions as he could, prosecutors said.”

One of the dirty secrets of the abortion industry is that it breaks rules left and right.  This is a particularly ugly example, but it’s not alone.  Unreported statutory rapes are a major problem, for instance, as various sting operations have shown.  And liberals, who want to regulate every other aspect of medicine, have little interest in investigating abuses in the abortion industry.  But what else should one expect from people who favor the existence of the abortion industry in the first place?

The people with the “coexist” bumper stickers

are exactly the sort who won’t.  Following on my latest post comes another case from Britain, where “Christian hotel owners who refused a gay couple a double room were today ordered to pay them compensation after a judge ruled they acted unlawfully.”

The husband and wife who own the place have a policy against facilitating extra-marital sex that would have been standard within living memory (anyone remember the Fawlty Towers episode that revolved around Basil becoming obsessed with enforcing this?).  But there’s no tolerance for the existence of such a hotel in today’s diverse liberal society.

Christian hunting

It’s on the rise, as this case from Britain illustrates.

“A psychotherapist faces being struck off after trying to ‘convert’ a homosexual man.  Lesley Pilkington, 60, a  therapist for 20 years, is accused of ‘praying to God’ to ‘heal’ the patient .  Mrs Pilkington, will appear at a landmark disciplinary hearing this week where she faces being stripped of her accreditation to the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy.”

Now, I’m a bit skeptical of this sort of therapy, for while some homosexuals may be able to become functionally straight I think others probably cannot.  I do not think all the deviant urges we are prone to in this fallen world can be cured within it, though they can be resisted.  However, this is beside the point, as in this case the patient (actually a homosexual activist) clearly requested such therapy.  This case would set a precedent that Christian therapists are prohibited from helping patients who request help living in accord with Christian sexual morality.

As I’ve said before, the approach of homosexual activists and their allies to Christians is very clear: us or them.  They are using homosexuality as a weapon to drive Christians from public life.  The flip side of the legal and political presumption in approbation of homosexuality is the disapprobation of Christianity, which teaches that homosexual urges are wrong and should be resisted.

Click

I’m not sure how Oregon State even got my current phone number, but they’re not getting a cent from me.  There’s some good folks there, of course, but overall the school is run by a bunch of politically correct leftists.

Cordial bow ties and shrooms

Taking a break from the usual cranky commentary, I’d like to commend to you the Cordial Churchman, a source of fine bow ties.  The backstory is simple: lady makes bow tie for husband, those who see it want their own, a business is born.  She specializes in fabrics like wool and seersucker that are often ignored by the larger chains producing bow ties, and makes each tie by hand after you order it.  Some of the options are a bit too Murph and the Magic Tones for my taste, by some are excellent.  I ordered a glen plaid butterfly, and about a week later it arrived in the mail with a brief handwritten note attached (a nice touch of customer service).  The tie is well made and should stand up for years of wear.  The only problem was that the points on one end did not quite match, but as only one end is visible when tied this is a very forgivable flaw.  The option to choose your bow tie cut is great.  I stick to butterflies as a rule, but for those who would like to try something else there’s no trouble.  The prices are very reasonable, ranging from $26-$35, plus a few dollars in shipping.  Perhaps the best endorsement I can offer is that I will buy from the Cordial Churchman again.

And since I’m on the subject of cool handmade stuff, I recommend this Etsy store run by some relatives of mine.  Their Jayne Cobb hats have been a hit and the knitted Mario mushrooms I bought make me smile whenever I see them.

Gun control: using both hands and a mental health background check

I think the liberal screaming about Palin, Beck, and climates of hate has lost them a chance to advance a beneficial part of their agenda.  If, instead of immediately trying to place blame for the Tuscon murders on the Tea Party, they had responded with restraint and maturity, they might now be in a position to negotiate some better gun control laws.

Now I recognize that liberals would like a ban or near-ban on private gun ownership, an end to concealed carry, etc…  And I’m entirely at odds with them on those points.  However, there is no real danger of them achieving those ends, so I (were I in a position to do so) would certainly negotiate with them on some smaller points where a consensus might be reached.  There are two points that I think would might have ameliorated, if not prevented, the shootings.

First, reintroduce restrictions on high capacity handgun clips.  I’m not suggesting a ban, but categorizing them with hardware that is already more restricted is probably a good idea and politically feasible.  Generally, a clip that adds 15-20 extra rounds to your handgun’s capacity is going to make it impractical for regular concealed carry anyway.  Make them harder to get.  Stick them in with fully automatic weapons or the like.

Secondly, tighten mental health rules regarding gun purchases.  The murderer’s community college banned him until he was cleared by a mental health professional.  That should have been placed on his record for the background check when he bought a gun, and it should have been disqualifying until he was cleared as stable.

I cannot say for certain whether these measures would have prevented the murders last weekend, or at least lowered the body count.  I think there is a fair chance they would have.  I also think they are sensible proposals that would do very little to interfere with the legitimate ownership of firearms by sane, law-abiding citizens.  And while some gun enthusiasts will never accept any restrictions, I think these measures could have been politically achievable.  Unfortunately, I think the Left’s response to the murders will preclude any such from being passed.  The Right is now much to defensive (and understandably so, since they were all but accused of ordering the shootings) to negotiate.  What was needed was not moral outrage directed at political opponents, but dignity, grief, and eventually a technical discussion of gun laws.

Anti-democractic

What’s striking about the continued liberal invective over last weekend’s murders in Arizona is how thoroughly anti-democratic it is.  It has become abundantly clear, as Dr. K summarizes in his column, that the murderer was not a right-wing loyalist acting on suggestions from Sarah Palin and Co.  Rather, he was a lunatic.  I can understand liberals not liking Palin, Beck, etc…  I can understand their qualms about some right-wing rhetoric (though their hypocrisy in ignoring left-wing vitriol is grating) but there is no way they can in good conscience link what overheated right-wing commentary there is with this shooting.  And they know it.  They know at this point that the murderer was simply nuts and that there is no evidence that he was in any way influenced by right-wing commentary.  But they continue to insist (look over CNN, the WaPo, the NYTimes, etc… for the last few days if you want proof) that conservatives need to apologize and soften their political rhetoric.  In short, they demand that the other side of a democratic discourse subject its political commentary to the approval of its political opponents, not because of something that happened, but because of an imaginary scenario liberals find plausible (if the murderer, instead of being an non-partisan nutter, had been a right-wing nutter).  Liberals are trying to dictate how conservatives should engage in political rhetoric and they are doing so based on a scenario they made up.