Straussians are closer to postmodernists than to conservatives. Saying this in Intellectual Morons annoyed some conservatives (and perhaps a few postmodernists as well). Rather than take the word of a critic of Leo Strauss on this point, why don't you read what a leading Straussian believes? "There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people," Irving Kristol is quoted in Reason magazine a few years back. "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." John Derbyshire reacts on NRO's Corner: "This line of thinking seems to me to be unspeakably horrible and inhuman, though, yes, I am aware that it has a long pedigree. If that's conservatism, I want out." Ditto.

I think my lack of sympathy to neoconservatives is well established, but I am not as opposed to those quotes by Kristol and Co as others seem to be.

An orthodox rabbi once said to me that he viewed the one true truth as Orthodox Judaism like a light, and then saw Christianity, Reform Judaism, etc. as some sort of prism that distorted the light but still brought something good into society.

Now I am not religious and I’d say my own values come from a variety of sources, and perhaps I am lacking in some, but similarly to the Rabbi I see religion as potentially said metaphorical prism that may transmit those values in some distorted form, but still better than nothing. Does that make me some sort of straussian moral relavatist? I don’t think so.

Just because I may not have a great faith in god does not mean I think I think religion has done a great deal of good, and some evil. I tend to judge religions based on that fact, and I would prefer to live in a society where the masses are Protestants than say Muslims or Hindus. This has nothing to do with the fact that I believe that Christianity is the truth, but I think that it instills certain values upon a society.

Does Kristol believe his statement is true?

It is only a matter of time before Derb comes to work one morning and finds all the locks changed.

RE: BOOB BAIT, SCIENTISM, ETC [Steven Hayward]
I find it odd that Derb embraces the same critique that the Left makes against Straussians...

Kristol's quotations is mixing up two questions: Is there one truth that is true for all? Can eveyone understand it? Now Kristol seems to say "no" to question 2 (which is obviously true: children cannot understand physics), and then seems to assume that means "no" for question 1. This is Avicenna's position, and Thomas attacks it. Thomas defends the view which everyone de fault holds: truth is truth for all. Thomas is not usually accused of holding "modern democratic fallac[ies]." So for Steven Hayward implying that Derb is being Leftist, perhaps he should get a clue. I get the sense that the only philosophy that some of these guys read is by or through Strauss, and then they think they're deep.

Obi Juan: Some of my friends and I have joked about creating a pool to see when John Derbyshire gets fired from National Review, though technically he is just a contributing editor.

As for the actual substance of Hayward's comments, it's worth considering that neoconservative attacks on real conservatives for being "isolationists" "racists" "xenophobes" or reactionaries are indistinguishable from those of leftists.

Furthermore, real conservatives (e.g. Murray Rothbard, Russell Kirk, ME Bradford, Paul Gottfried) have criticized Strauss for decades, when most liberals just discovered he existed in 2003.

I did notice all the attacks today on Derbyshire on the Corner, even from people you don't normally see posting there. A few of the comments seemed a bit hostile, and I confess that I wondered about his job security as well.

Kristol's position is, more or less, the doctrine articulated by Socrates in Book II of the Republic:

"The true lie is hated not only by the gods, but also by men? Whereas the lie in words is in certain cases useful and not hateful; in dealing with enemies -- that would be an instance; or again, when those whom we call our friends in a fit of madness or illusion are going to do some harm, then it is useful and is a sort of medicine or preventive; also in the tales of mythology, of which we were just now speaking...."

Kristol (as I understand him) is not advocating relativism, but the nobility of some falsehoods for some people. The complete and explicit truth may be injurious to some, and so they must be told 'lies in words' for their own good. And therefore, the lies serve a deeper truth.

Compare Plato's (and Strauss's and Kristol's) esotericism with that suggested by Christ's use of parables (Matthew 13:9-13):

"'He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.' And his disciples came and said to him: 'Why speakest thou to them in parables?' Who answered and said to them: 'Because to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven: but to them it is not given. Therefore do I speak to them in parables: because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.'"

A biblical statement more akin to Kristol's statement, Strauss's philosophy, and Ralph's defense of both is found elsewhere in the New Testament: quid est veritas.

Pilate,

You've misread Plato, Strauss and Kristol as relativists. They aren't.

Ralph: Christ's parables are not lies, noble or otherwise. In fact, they are quite explicitly metaphorical. The parables are true; they are just a different type of speech from literal reporting of facts. Now this is quite different from the position intimated by Straussians about _lying_ to the commoners about religion and democracy and WMD etc etc.

"Christ's parables are not lies, noble or otherwise."

Agreed. So in that respect, Socrates' and Christ's positions are dissimilar. Nevertheless, the stated purpose of speaking in parables is to conceal the true meaning from those that lack understanding. To that extent, there is similarity with the 'Straussian' view.

There are differences, Ralph, between deceiving, concealing, and not revealing. In the short run, Christ chose not to reveal eveything publically; of course, his mission in the long run was to reveal everything to everybody (notice that Christ's 'esoteric' explanations of the parables to his apostles are available at any public library).

Even regarding Plato's Socrates, I don't think you are fair. He is basically giving exceptional circumstances when it is OK to decieve. When he reveals his great pseudos, the "noble lie," it certainly may seem that he thinks the hoi poloi of the city are always in these exceptional circumstances. On the other hand, the "noble lie" turns out on a rather straightforward metaphorical reading to be true, and the literally false parts of it are clearly taken from established Greek (esp. Athenian) mythology. In other words, I would say that that's not much of a lie either.

Also, Ralph, if you reread the passage from the Gospel that you typed, notice that Christ doesn't "state" his "purpose" as concealing the truth from anyone. Christ basically says he is refraining from revealing something from those who would not understand anyway. That is not equivalent to deceiving or concealing. Kristol's position, in contrast, is that deceiving people into believe that God exists when he doesn't is good.

"There are differences ... between deceiving, concealing, and not revealing."

Of course. But the distance between the parable and the noble lie is not as great as you suggest. The parable is a story that is literally false -- in Matthew 13, for example, Christ is referring to a fictional sower -- but conveys a deeper truth. The same can be said of Socrates' noblie lies; they are not 'true lies' but mere 'lies in words' that place real truths in the soul.

Socrates makes extensive use of noble lies: the rewriting of religious doctrine, the myth of the metals, the lottery system. And only the myth of the metals is true on a straightforward metaphorical reading.

I doubt you will find any of the above persuasive. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Concerning the main point -- the relation of Straussians to postmodernism -- it is clear that, despite surface similarities, they are fundamentally different. The former believe that the text has objective meaning, the latter do not. The former believe in truth, the latter do not.

I knew I had a good reason for maintaining my voter registration as an "Independent." I've been an atheist libertarian (with a small "L") and now consider myself an agnostic conservative.

My views on religion are always informed by science and, that evolution has occurred is indisputable, even if we don't yet know all the details of its mechanism.

Can one be a conservative and not believe in God? Absolutely. I am living proof of it. So, the left's cherished stereotype that all conservatives are Christians (nonsense! many are Jews, as well) is a fallacy.

To be sure, the majority are Christians, but that doesn't mean that conservative thinking need be necessarily equated with Christianity or religion.

One may hold conservative views and values without subscribing to every tenet of the Republican Party's platform just as surely as there are Libertarians who don't subscribe to every facet of the Libertarian Party's platform.

The rigid, black and white view that to be a conservative one must adhere to some sort of orthodoxy is absurd. Anyone who would say that conservatism is explemplified by Irving Kristol is ignoring a spectrum of thought within the conservative camp that should be considered, as well. Not every conservative believes in God any more than every Democrat believes in gun control (Howard Dean doesn't).