Straussianism and Philsophers

Studying with Prof. Paul, a Straussian, was very different from studying with Prof. Irving, but understanding and articulating the differences makes for an interesting exercise, which I'll undertake initially through the fact / value distinction. Often in graduate school, we would discuss the distinction between "positive and normative," that is, "the way things are rather than the way things should be." This continuum manifests itself a tension between facts and values, with facts being inarguable and values, in contrast, being open to distinction. Both are unarguably part of the human experience, but the key difference comes in reconciling this tension, a process that is as old as philosophy itself. However I view the fact-value distinction as a tension between complexity and simplicity, which from an engineering perspective is obvious, but that perspective is not quite as universally understood as it might seem to an engineer. That is, reality is complex, while the human mind can only comprehend a small portion of that reality, which in turn drives the philosophical dynamic. 

 There are a number of examples of this tension between simplicity and reality, between clarity and complexity. One of the earliest and most clear is that between Plato's Republic and Laws. The Republic was written early in Plato's career and is clear, straightforward, and direct. He makes sharp distinctions between topics, which makes his arguments easy to understand and remember. However Plato's Laws was written later in his career and was probably more true but less clear. Plato said, "Sometimes it's this way, but other times it's that way..." yawn. In contrast to Plato was his student, Aristotle, who was more a natural scientist than his teacher. Even though Aristotle is remembered for all he got incorrect, it was his perspective on and interest in the natural world of cosmos that is of particular interest for this author. Most significant is his acknowledgement of the complexity of the natural world, which is reflected in the political in terms of excellence or virtue. The world does not present people with well structured, closed-form solutions. The world is more complex and thus different.

This division between the human and natural, between the simple and complex, between values and facts manifests itself as a tension throughout the history of political philosophy. Modern philosophers feature an exemplary pair in Kant and Hegel. Although it's been a few years since I read either, the key difference is between the simplicity, values, and rationality of Kant and the complexity, facts, and empiricism of Hegel. Kant performed thought experiments, wrote much, and seldom strayed from his university. Hegel, in contrast, tried to explain the complexity of the world he saw around him. His most famous attempt to do this is the dialectic composed of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Of course the communists took Hegel's ideas and perverted them as communists tend to do, but I argue that Hegel was getting at something fundamental about the complexity of the real world. His work on historicity and categorization structure support this conclusion. The real insight is that Hegel did his best with the tools, concepts, and ideas that were available to him. Computer-based tools provide undreamt of capabilities today, so it seems that we should at least try to apply them to these important philosophical and policy questions. 

These tensions manifest themselves in the present day as well. John Rawls of Harvard wrote A Theory of Justice, in which there's an "original position" in which you don't know if you're rich or poor. This rational, thought-based style is called what makes Rawls a "neo-Kantian." In contrast to Rawls I offer Leo Strauss who places more emphasis on facts, history, and tradition, making him more of an Aristotelian -- that is, he recognizes that his writings will not capture the great complexity of reality, and such efforts will come up short, but it's worthwhile and beneficial to try. 

Extending from the 20th to the 21st century, the great cognitive prosthetic power of the modern computer can be applied to philosophical and policy questions as a way to manage the complexity inherent in them. However, doing so requires bridging the cultural gap between philosophers and engineers, between social scientists and computer scientists. As an engineer and computer scientist moving into the worlds of philosophers and social scientists I expected the divide would not be that large, but I was wrong.