Plato the neocon?

Mike H. sent me this link to a brief response to a recent book on Plato by Simon Blackburn (author of “Think,” which hasn’t been as popular as “Blink” — go figure). The book is about how a number of neocons in the Bush administration were students of Leo Strauss, who understood Plato to claim (convincingly, I guess) that the state can decide to do whatever it wants and mislead the people in any way it wants in order to get its tasks done.

It’s certainly true that Plato thought some people were wiser than others, and the rulership should be entrusted to the wisest. And, if the political leaders truly are wise, as Plato understands wisdom, then the state doing “whatever it wants” would be a good thing (since what it wants is what wisdom would endorse). I would say, though, that at least several of these neocons either had an imporperly inflated sense of their own wisdom, or else (more likely) renounced the obligation to follow wisdom, and followed some sort of “will to power” instead; perhaps believing, as they learned from their teacher, that that’s exactly what Plato would advise.

Further thoughts?

Nietzsche’s philosophy

From brother Nietzsche:

“… today if one hears anyone commended for living ‘wisely’ or ‘like a philosopher’, it means hardly more than ‘prudently and apart’. Wisdom: that seems to the rabble to be a kind of flight, an artiface and means for getting oneself out of a dangerous game; but the genuine philosopher — as he seems to us, my friends? — lives ‘unphilosophically’ and ‘unwisely’, above all imprudently, and bears the burden and duty of a hundred attempts and temptations of life — he risks himself constantly, he plays the dangerous game…”

Comments?

Richard Rorty (1931-2007)

Richard Rorty, a very influential philosopher, who tried to connect philosophy’s concerns with other concerns across the academy, died recently. His obituary can be found here.

I’m not sure how many readers of this blog have read any of Rorty’s works, but I’d be interested in anyone’s opinion as to their worth. I myself think he had a real talent at writing clear and compelling prose, and finding creative and controversial perspectives. But I think usually he was wrong, and usually misrepresented the philosophers he described.

For more discussion of Rorty, see the entry on Brian Leiter’s webapge, on the blogroll to the right.

Funny NYT mistake (from Huenemanniac)

So our president just met with the Pope and they exchanged gifts. Here’s the account from the New York Times, with an unusual and funny mistake:

The two men, as is traditional in such visits, traded gifts. The pope presented the president with an etching of St. Peter’s Square from the 17th century and a gold papal medallion. The president gave the pope a white walking stick made by a former homeless man turned artist from Texas, covered with the 10 commandments in multiple colors.

The pope double-checked with the president what was written on the stick.

“The 10 commandments, sir,” the pope said. He did not use the normal honorific of “Your Holiness.”

(Is Bush now insisting on this honorific?)