Sunday, April 16, 2006
Is he or isn't he?
Is Robert Kagan a Straussian or not? When I read the above linked piece, I get the impression that he's being terribly ironic and is really saying that he is a Straussian. Is that really what he means, or is he just being ironic enough to get someone who thinks people often write esoterically to bite? (This way madness lies...-edI know, I know...!)
Andrew, read Kagan's piece and tell me what you think. So far, every time I run into an opinion of that article, it seems that people (like at Powerline) take Mr. Kagan at his world. However, because of so many seeming hints in the article, it seems that he's being terribly ironic (Allan Bloom putting a cigar out on the hand of a child at a poker game?! He can't be serious about that, which leads me to believe that much of the rest is also ironic. Also, when he says that he never understood a word of Strauss--that seems to be ironic as well...)
Am I crazy, or is he REALLY saying he's a Straussian? That's what I thought when I was being terribly pompous and wrote this post about Kagan's piece. Of course, that very night I had been carefully reading Thoughts on Machiavelli, so I might have just been drunk on Strauss at the time.
UPDATE: If any readers (the few brave souls out there--all 8 of you) care to weigh in, I'd be delighted.
Another UPDATE: Just in case you haven't read Strauss, or didn't really 'get' it when you did, this article here provides a really useful summary of much of Strauss' arguments. And then, of course, you can always go and read Bloom.
Andrew, read Kagan's piece and tell me what you think. So far, every time I run into an opinion of that article, it seems that people (like at Powerline) take Mr. Kagan at his world. However, because of so many seeming hints in the article, it seems that he's being terribly ironic (Allan Bloom putting a cigar out on the hand of a child at a poker game?! He can't be serious about that, which leads me to believe that much of the rest is also ironic. Also, when he says that he never understood a word of Strauss--that seems to be ironic as well...)
Am I crazy, or is he REALLY saying he's a Straussian? That's what I thought when I was being terribly pompous and wrote this post about Kagan's piece. Of course, that very night I had been carefully reading Thoughts on Machiavelli, so I might have just been drunk on Strauss at the time.
UPDATE: If any readers (the few brave souls out there--all 8 of you) care to weigh in, I'd be delighted.
Another UPDATE: Just in case you haven't read Strauss, or didn't really 'get' it when you did, this article here provides a really useful summary of much of Strauss' arguments. And then, of course, you can always go and read Bloom.
Comments:
Post a Comment
