Philosopher King vs. Philosophy Kingdom
Some Straussian-inspired thoughts on the biggest political challenge of our age: moderation and restraint.
“Plato demands that the philosophers should become kings; he does not demand that philosophy should become the rule…”
“The quest for knowledge implies that in all cases where sufficient evidence is lacking, assent must be withheld or judgment must be suspended. Now, it is impossible to withhold assent or to suspend judgment in matters of extreme urgency which require immediate decision…”
- Leo Strauss, “Reason and Revelation,” 1948.
Edmund Burke, often thought of as the 18th century father of conservatism who argued for reform over revolution, would most likely agree here with the above Straussian insight with the need for a Philosopher King, not a Philosophy Kingdom. Burke argued that creating a governance of pure “reason” lacked empirical evidence and would undo the guidance and order, even the ability to take political and social action, that centuries of refining tradition has provided our individual civilizations. That is not to say he was against incorporating some of the fruits of philosophical endeavors such as the Enlightenment into governance - he did, after all, support the American Revolution, seeing in it essentially a reform movement that would refine and further the virtues of English legal traditions. He just did not think that tradition should be supplanted by philosophical utopianism.
I think a rephrasing or addendum to Burke’s defense of tradition, as drawn from these Strauss quotes, is that society needs “the arbitrary,” not just “reason.” Let us take age of consent laws, for example. What is the difference between the ages of 17 and 18? Nothing that we can fully explain with reason. But we need the arbitrary, such as this a-rational, tradition-based concept of adulthood, for society and the polity to function. To get stuck on reason and rationale would be to infinitely suspend judgement and execution.
In the essay my above quotes are pulled from, Strauss contrasts the concepts of Reason and Revelation, seeing in the origins of philosophy a quest for truth beyond revelation - instead, philosophy demands demonstration. Philosophy entails questioning the rationale of our traditions and beliefs, but to Strauss, philosophers must curtail themselves from absolutely undermining tradition and belief, as without the law and order facilitated by belief, the philosopher would not have the freedom to philosophize. Strauss thus points to the nuances of Plato’s writing, showing that Plato calls for a king who is able to philosophize, but not impose the outcomes of his philosophical deliberations on the polity. Like Burke, Strauss’s interpretation of Plato seems to be that the role of philosophy in politics should be one of measured but restrained guidance so as to not cripple the polity’s foundations and ability to function.
The above Leo Strauss ideas have me thinking about the internal shape of the zealous political ideologies of today. On the left, I think we are seeing an increasing call for a Philosophy Kingdom, not simply a Philosopher King. Throughout my own experiences on the far-left, both socially and professionally while in graduate school or with friends in academic and public interest spaces, I see outright contempt for the notion of reform over revolution, and a belief that being “correct“ based on philosophic reason (say, invoking terms such as neoliberalism, cis-heteronormativity, white supremacy, liberation, etc) gives license to any form of social or political action that “resists” the above philosophic-ish concepts. Perhaps, as we have the term “scientism,” here would be a good place to introduce the term “philosophistism,” which would also serve to highlight the sophistry into which it is so easy for political philosophy to descend.
On the social conservative far-right, we can see the opposite - a political faction that does not want the Philosopher King nor the Philosophy Kingdom, but the Natural Law King and the Natural Law Kingdom. Or, perhaps to be more Straussian in my phrasing and implications, the social conservative far-right could be the Cleric King and the Kingdom of Revelation. Certainly, foreign governments and alliances are already actively pursuing their ambition for tradition-ruled Kingdom over the reason Kingdoms of the West, from Hungary to Iran. However, the Kingdom of Revelation also holds wide appeal in some Western social conservative far-right spaces, such as within “trad” proponents. There is nothing wrong with a personal preference for traditional gender roles, or even thinking that traditional gender roles and family structures are generally a social good that should be incentivized and afforded status. But too often, the internet “trad” movements take what could be a balanced approach to advocating for the role of tradition, and instead, turn it into a theater to fight what they see as the meaninglessness and lack of fulfillment in the philosophic vision of the increasingly mainstream far-left.
Some of our new generation of “trad” social conservatives - a form of social conservatism different than the Religious Right of years past in being less devout, but pragmatically embracing religion via orthopraxy - have motivations that call to mind one of Strauss’s earlier works, “German Nihilism,” that he delivered as a lecture at the New School for Social Research in 1941. In it, Strauss asks of us to recognize the role that utopian left-wing academics played in creating the conditions that gave rise to National Socialism. He argues that there was a general dissatisfaction amongst much of the youth who saw a life based on production and consumption for self-preservation to be meaningless, and the communist and idealist visions being taught by the professoriate to be part and parcel of the meaninglessness of modern life. Learning of no other philosophic alternative, academia being hijacked by one particular ideology, many students simply turned to the opposite. If the highest virtue of the academic left entailed equality and comfort for all, these young “German nihilists” made their highest virtue the virtue of militarism, leading to an outlet in National Socialism.
I only bring this up not because I think that internet “trad” social conservatives are akin to Nazis - far from it. I bring this up because I think it is an example of how ideological extremism begets ideological extremism. We have seen before and we will see again how a social and political commitment to a utopian Kingdom of Philosophy can provoke an opposite Kingdom of Revelation - that is, a kingdom of amplifying and militarizing the arbitrary pillars of tradition, law, and order in an attempt to restore meaning and guidance. Yet each reactionary vision of governance misses the true call of governance that Strauss would argue is present in the vision of the classical philosophers - to facilitate a life of eudaimonia, the good life, one that is not merely safe and comfortable, nor a life of always taking risks in the name of excellence and higher causes, but enriched via discovering and practicing the virtues and with that, the freedom of thought and association that can allow the polis and the individual to flourish.
In our age of technology, I believe that moderating the impulse to fight ideological extremism with ideological extremism is our biggest challenge. In the 1950s, Hannah Arendt was already writing as much, showing that the bureaucracies and sciences of modernity was what created the conditions for the concept of “ideology” to even form, and from there, to become a totalizing force in our internal lives, our interpersonal relationships, and our politics. With social and digital media today, the chain of increasingly immaterial and extreme ideological responsa seems less likely than ever to break.
I believe for the moment that what we need now is not the Philosopher King nor the Cleric King, but a King who can best do the work both of the philosopher and the theologian, who can understand the human need for, and guidance found in, both reason and revelation. We need a King whose balance of reason and revelation can use that to build a Kingdom not ruled by the principles of either, but who understands the human need for both. We need a Kingdom in which - with balance between both reason and revelation - the individual can find meaning, guidance, fulfillment, and does not feel threatened by an upset to status by the privileging of either one of these two guiding poles over the other.
I'm not American, just an ex soviet citizen, whose inspiration in life was America and the UK and what they represented for us, especially women. It seems to me the downfall of America is imminent, unless the third moderate party or force appears, the constant stoking of hatred between far left and far right will inevitably lead to civil war. I hope I'm wrong! I'm not even in America, but it's hard not to hate both parties, the rhetoric is just so strong, it's made to provoke the visceral reaction, but don't they care they tearing up their own country? Depressing. I live in Israel where there's no shortage of opinions on politics or lifestyle, but it's a bad tone to bring it to public spaces, which I love! I can connect to a person from every walk of life, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, not know whatever they voted for, and have an insightful enriching conversation as humans!