The Natural Evil of Man

[Stone Island]

From "Notes on Schmitt’s Essay" by Leo Strauss in Carl Schmitt’s The Concept of the Political (http://www.amazon.com/Concept-Political-Expanded-Carl-Schmitt/dp/0226738922/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234984242&sr=8-1):

Hobbes differs from developed liberalism only, but certainly by his knowing and seeing against what the liberal ideal of civilization has to be persistently fought for: not merely against rotten institutions, against the evil will of a ruling class, but against the natural evil of man; in an unliberal world Hobbes forges ahead to lay the foundation of liberalism against the—sit venia verbo—unliberal nature of man, whereas later men, ignorant of their premises and goals, trust in the original goodness (based on God’s creation and providence) of human nature or, on the basis of natural-scientific neutrality, nurse hopes for an improvement of nature, hopes unjustified by man’s experience of himself. Hobbes, in view of the state of nature, attempts to overcome the state of nature within the limits in which it allows being overcome, whereas later men either dream up a state of nature or, on the basis of a supposed deeper insight into history and therewith into the essence of man, forget the state of nature (Schmitt, 1996, 92).

x-posted (http://patterico.com/jury/2009/02/18/the-unliberal-nature-of-man/)

[Hokulele]

Notes on the nature of a soul.

"Shipmates, have ye shipped in that ship?"

Queequeg and I had just left the Pequod, and were sauntering away from the water, for the moment each occupied with his own thoughts, when the above words were put to us by a stranger, who, pausing before us, levelled his massive forefinger at the vessel in question. He was but shabbily apparelled in faded jacket and patched trowsers; a rag of a black handkerchief investing his neck. A confluent small-pox had in all directions flowed over his face, and left it like the complicated ribbed bed of a torrent, when the rushing waters have been dried up.

"Have ye shipped in her?" he repeated.

"You mean the ship Pequod, I suppose," said I, trying to gain a little more time for an uninterrupted look at him.

"Aye, the Pequod - that ship there," he said, drawing back his whole arm, and then rapidly shoving it straight out from him, with the fixed bayonet of his pointed finger darted full at the object.

"Yes," said I, "we have just signed the articles."

"Anything down there about your souls?"

"About what?"

"Oh, perhaps you hav'n't got any," he said quickly. "No matter though, I know many chaps that hav'n't got any, - good luck to 'em; and they are all the better off for it. A soul's a sort of a fifth wheel to a wagon."

"What are you jabbering about, shipmate?" said I.

"He's got enough, though, to make up for all deficiencies of that sort in other chaps," abruptly said the stranger, placing a nervous emphasis upon the word he.

"Queequeg," said I, "let's go; this fellow has broken loose from somewhere; he's talking about something and somebody we don't know."

[drkitten]

From "Notes on Schmitt’s Essay" by Leo Strauss in Carl Schmitt’s The Concept of the Political (http://www.amazon.com/Concept-Political-Expanded-Carl-Schmitt/dp/0226738922/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234984242&sr=8-1):

Seems rather presumptuous to call Hobbes opinion on "the—sit venia verbo—unliberal nature of man" knowledge, don't you think?

[godless dave]

This isn't a new idea in liberalism. The US Constitution contains so many checks and balances between different areas of government because the authors knew that individual humans can be corrupted or attempt to abuse power.

This should probably moved to the political forum, as it's not a religious issue at all.

[Foster Zygote]

Hmmm, I wonder what Stone Island thinks about the OP...

[Gord_in_Toronto]

From "Notes on Schmitt’s Essay" by Leo Strauss in Carl Schmitt’s The Concept of the Political (http://www.amazon.com/Concept-Political-Expanded-Carl-Schmitt/dp/0226738922/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234984242&sr=8-1):



x-posted (http://patterico.com/jury/2009/02/18/the-unliberal-nature-of-man/)

I count only two periods (aka Full stops) in that quote. A little more clarity might help. :boggled:

[Stone Island]

This isn't a new idea in liberalism. The US Constitution contains so many checks and balances between different areas of government because the authors knew that individual humans can be corrupted or attempt to abuse power.

This should probably moved to the political forum, as it's not a religious issue at all.

Not religious, 'tis philosophical.

The Founders, or at least the three who wrote The Federalist Papers, didn't believe that men could be corrupted, rather they thought that men by the very nature of their reason, the different circumstances of wealth, and the tendency to have different opinions with regard to religion, were by nature already corrupt, or as near enough in behavior as to make no essential difference with regard to practical polices. In politics there is no Kantian or Rawlsian moment were we can look beyond our physical, temporal desires or needs and think about what's really good for everyone. They would be very skeptical of a progressive notion that we could just set politics aside and let the experts solve the problems.

Can men govern themselves through reason or are all governments based on force or luck?

The departments of government were arranged in such a way as to encourage ambition to counteract ambition and the sphere was widened so that there were so many factions that no one could ever be expected to long hold a majority.

[godless dave]

Not religious, 'tis philosophical.

The departments of government were arranged in such a way as to encourage ambition to counteract ambition and the sphere was widened so that there were so many factions that no one could ever be expected to long hold a majority.


That's basically restating what I said.

[Hokulele]

So ambition is evil.

Huh.

[Stone Island]

That's basically restating what I said.

Except with the addition that the Founders didn't believe that man may be corrupted. They were generally what we might call lapsarians in their understanding of human nature. Men are by nature fallen and there is no perfectibility possible.

It may be a small point, but I believe it to be key.

[D'rok]

From "Notes on Schmitt’s Essay" by Leo Strauss in Carl Schmitt’s The Concept of the Political (http://www.amazon.com/Concept-Political-Expanded-Carl-Schmitt/dp/0226738922/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234984242&sr=8-1):



x-posted (http://patterico.com/jury/2009/02/18/the-unliberal-nature-of-man/)

I happen to own and have read this book. Here is the context from which your quote is snipped, with the additions bolded:

The right to the securing of life, pure and simple - and this right sums up Hobbes' natural right - has fully the character of an inalienable human right, that is, of an individual's claim that takes precedence over the state and determines its purpose and its limits; Hobbes' foundation for the natural-right claim to the securing of life pure and simple sets the path to the whole system of human rights in the sense of liberalism, if his foundation does not actually make such a course necessary. Hobbes differs from developed liberalism only, but certainly by his knowing and seeing against what the liberal ideal of civilization has to be persistently fought for: not merely against rotten institutions, against the evil will of a ruling class, but against the natural evil of man; in an unliberal world Hobbes forges ahead to lay the foundation of liberalism against the—sit venia verbo—unliberal nature of man, whereas later men, ignorant of their premises and goals, trust in the original goodness (based on God’s creation and providence) of human nature or, on the basis of natural-scientific neutrality, nurse hopes for an improvement of nature, hopes unjustified by man’s experience of himself. Hobbes, in view of the state of nature, attempts to overcome the state of nature within the limits in which it allows being overcome, whereas later men either dream up a state of nature or, on the basis of a supposed deeper insight into history and therewith into the essence of man, forget the state of nature. But - in all fairness to later men - ultimately that dreaming and that oblivion are merely the consequence of the position of civilization introduced by Hobbes. (Schmitt, 1996, 91-922).

And the concluding sentence of that section:

Whereas Hobbes in a uniliberal world accomplishes the founding of liberalism, Schmitt in a liberal world undertakes the critique of liberalism.I can't tell if you posted this in sympathy with Schmitt's critique of liberalism, but you should be alive to the irony - you (and Schmitt) can only critique liberalism due to the actualization of the liberal world founded by Hobbes.

And also, trust me, you don't want to return to a uniliberal world. It should clue you in that one of the most strident critics of liberalism (Schmitt) was, quite literally, an evil, vicious Nazi bastard.

[Stone Island]

I can't tell if you posted this in sympathy with Schmitt's critique of liberalism, but you should be alive to the irony - you (and Schmitt) can only critique liberalism due to the actualization of the liberal world founded by Hobbes.

And also, trust me, you don't want to return to a uniliberal world. It should clue you in that one of the most strident critics of liberalism (Schmitt) was, quite literally, an evil, vicious Nazi bastard.

Oh, I am alive to the irony.

And, for me, that is the essential modern political problem. If we cannot say that our creed (say the Declaration of Independence) is true in some objective and meaningful way, if politics is essentially the distinction of friend and enemy, what is preventing us from a return to unliberal politics?

So, yes, I am sympathetic to Schmitt's critique, and I don't like it one bit. Part of my "project", if I can be said to have such a thing, is to figure out why he's wrong or what can be done if he's right.

[D'rok]

Oh, I am alive to the irony.

And, for me, that is the essential modern political problem. If we cannot say that our creed (say the Declaration of Independence) is true in some objective and meaningful way, if politics is essentially the distinction of friend and enemy, what is preventing us from a return to unliberal politics?

So, yes, I am sympathetic to Schmitt's critique, and I don't like it one bit. Part of my "project", if I can be said to have such a thing, is to figure out why he's wrong or what can be done if he's right.

The implication that Strauss is driving at is that we can't return to uniliberal politics because we have been "perfected" enough by liberalism that we are no longer in our "natural" state (war of all against all; nasty, brutish and short life, etc.), and we therefore no longer define the political in terms of pure enmity. We are "perfected" to a degree that evens allows us to absorb critiques of the very process that perfected us (liberalization) without undermining that process.

Of course, this requires accepting some degree of historicism - at the minimum, the proposition that progress is possible, if not inevitable.

The question of the objective truths of our creeds is not really the right one. A Hegelian would argue that by working out the contradictions inherent in our creed through living it historically, we demonstrate it's objective truth - i.e, it becomes objectively true as a result of its own actualization in history. It moves from an idea to an objectively realized concrete reality.

Some, like Kojeve, propose that the friend/enemy distinction, even if truly the essence of the political, is resolved by the synthesis of Master and Slave into the Citizen. We no longer self-identify as Masters or Slaves - our self-consciousness is rooted in the blending of Aristocratic equality (Mastery) and Bourgeois equivalence (Slavery) into the Synthetic equity of the Citizen (equality recognized without sacrificing recognition of difference).

How's that for a disgorging of political theory? Whew.

[godless dave]

Except with the addition that the Founders didn't believe that man may be corrupted. They were generally what we might call lapsarians in their understanding of human nature. Men are by nature fallen and there is no perfectibility possible.

Evidence for this assertion?

[godless dave]

Oh, I am alive to the irony.

And, for me, that is the essential modern political problem. If we cannot say that our creed (say the Declaration of Independence) is true in some objective and meaningful way, if politics is essentially the distinction of friend and enemy,

False dichotomy.


what is preventing us from a return to unliberal politics?


The fact that, in those nation-states with liberal politics, most of the citizens seem to like it that way.

[Stone Island]

Evidence for this assertion?

Why don't you try for some evidence against that assertion. Should be easier, don't you think?

[godless dave]

Why don't you try for some evidence against that assertion. Should be easier, don't you think?

You're the one making the assertion. It's up to you to support it.

[Stone Island]

You're the one making the assertion. It's up to you to support it.
The Federalist Papers #10 (Madison) (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm):
As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.
The Federalist Papers, #51 (Madison):
But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

[godless dave]

Those excerpts don't support your claim. They assert that human reason is fallible and that humans are prone to mutual animosities. That's not "by nature fallen".

If your assertion is that human aren't perfect, then of course I, and 6.2 billion other people, would agree with you. I'm not aware of anyone who would dispute that.

[Stone Island]

Those excerpts don't support your claim. They assert that human reason is fallible and that humans are prone to mutual animosities. That's not "by nature fallen".

Oh, really? Please explain.

[joobz]

And, for me, that is the essential modern political problem. If we cannot say that our creed (say the Declaration of Independence) is true in some objective and meaningful way, if politics is essentially the distinction of friend and enemy, what is preventing us from a return to unliberal politics?
Historical observation.

A creed(as you called it) need not be objectively true to be functionally useful. Also, we do not know of better systems yet. If one was to come along, it would be foolish not to adopt to it.

[godless dave]

Oh, really? Please explain.

"human reason is fallible and that humans are prone to mutual animosities" does not mean "humans are by nature fallen". It means exactly what it says: human reason is fallible and humans are prone to mutual animosities". There's nothing "fallen" or "corrupt" about that.

[Stone Island]

"human reason is fallible and that humans are prone to mutual animosities" does not mean "humans are by nature fallen". It means exactly what it says: human reason is fallible and humans are prone to mutual animosities". There's nothing "fallen" or "corrupt" about that.

Nice assertion, and they could have certainly meant either, but do you have anything more?

If angels were to govern men, no limitations on government would be necessary. Why does Madison use this reference to the divine if not to reference the fallen nature of man?

[Foster Zygote]

"If angels were to govern men, no limitations on government would be necessary." Why does Madison use this reference to the divine if not to reference the fallen nature of man?

Why should we assume that he literally believed in angels? What if he'd spoken of some other mythical beings? Could it be that he was speaking poetically about the futility of expecting unlimited government to act without abusing its power?

[godless dave]

Nice assertion, and they could have certainly meant either, but do you have anything more?


I'm going to go out on a limb and assume the literal meaning of the sentence is what the author meant.

If angels were to govern men, no limitations on government would be necessary. Why does Madison use this reference to the divine if not to reference the fallen nature of man?

He seems to be saying that men aren't perfect nor are they perfectly altruistic. They tend to act in their perceived self-interest.