Reviews for Revolt against modernity

The average rating for Revolt against modernity based on 2 reviews is 4.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2016-11-16 00:00:00 Ricky Spanish Ted McAllister's Revolt Against Modernity is a highly rewarding read. The book is primarily intended for a traditionalist conservative (paleocon) audience, though any reader interested in Leo Strauss or Eric Voegelin will find good general presentations of their teachings here, along with useful and illuminating comparisons and contrasts between these two thinkers. McAllister argues that Strauss and Voegelin, though not traditionalist conservatives, have provided traditionalist conservatives with essential philosophic critiques of the modern age, and helpful-though by no means sufficient-responses to the modern "crisis." McAllister comes across as highly appreciative of both figures, and forms this balanced judgment: "If Strauss offered a more powerful diagnosis, Voegelin offered a more powerful cure." (p. 176). Strauss and Voegelin provide different, though complementary accounts of modern declension. They agree that modern thought severely and illegitimately restricts what is deemed knowable, thereby obscuring that we are part of a larger order not of our own devising. This has unleashed a Pandora's box of problems. Both thinkers also stress that knowledge was merely a secondary, facilitating goal of the Enlightenment, freedom (power, will, creativity) rested at its center. McAllister finds both declension tales useful, but considers Strauss the greatest conservative critic of modernity. "Voegelin emphasized the willful heart that sought freedom through knowledge…Strauss more accurately emphasized the power of the triumph of will over knowledge that has come to characterize the contemporary late modern era." (p. 133) Since modernity involves a contraction of the metaphysical horizon, McAllister deems the "mystic" Voegelin as presenting a powerful antidote. Through his "philosophy of consciousness," Voegelin provides much more adequate treatment of religion and philosophy than does Strauss, who offers a somewhat truncated view of philosophy, and who, unlike Voegelin, insists on a complete separation of philosophy and religion. So, Voegelin offers a much richer articulation of metaphysical Order for his readers than does Strauss. Another point in Voeglin's favor from a traditionalist conservative point of view is that Voegelin offers a positive evaluation of Christianity, whereas Strauss views it in a more problematic light. McAllister also paradoxically notes that Voegelin's rich articulation of philosophical and religious symbolism is actually in some sense a weakness, and that Strauss's relatively truncated presentation of philosophy (which not only is divorced from religion but which does not take traditional ontology seriously) is in some sense a strength. Voegelin's mystical "God-talk" cuts against the modern grain; in comparison, Strauss's "skeptical" interpretation of philosophy is more accessible to modern sensibilities, which is one reason Strauss is better known and read than Voegelin. Though Strauss's work is constructed so as not to conflict too overwhelmingly with contemporary intellectual prejudices, it is capable of sweeping the reader away from the here and now, and McAllister does his best to tease out the implications and the profundity of Strauss's view of philosophy. Near the end of the chapter devoted exclusively to Strauss, and that attempts to fit all the puzzle pieces together, McAllister quotes Strauss from The City And Man concerning "the all important question which is coeval with philosophy although the philosophers do not frequently pronounce it-the question quid sit deus." (p. 217-18) ("What is God?" in translation.) Apparently, the skepticism of Strauss's philosopher turns out somehow ultimately to be something more. And speaking of God, though McAllister certainly stresses that Strauss treated religion as intellectually defensible and with genuine respect, he did not mention a further point: some who have found Strauss's Athens vs. Jerusalem tension compelling have opted for religion over philosophy. At the end of the book, McAllister cedes the conservative label to the ascendant neocons and argues that in today's (mid-1990's) inhospitable environment the traditionalist conservatives have no choice but to become reactionaries. Though he acknowledges Strauss's huge impact on the neocons (and helps the reader to understand it), McAllister thinks that the work of Strauss as well as Voegelin-whom the paleocons have always admired-will become even more important to the paleocons over time. Together they offer a turbulent world a defense of Order, both intellectually and politically speaking. Revolt Against Modernity gets high marks for its capable treatment of Strauss and Voegelin. McAllister obviously absorbed himself in the writings of these men he finds so compelling. To me, a distinctive aspect of his treatment of Strauss is the emphasis he places on Strauss's alleged yearning for a return to the political/cultural conditions of Maimonides and Alfarabi. Like many other accounts of Strauss, McAllister's acknowledges Strauss's appreciation of liberal democracy and his attempt to strengthen it against internal corrosion, but one gets the sense that for McAllister's Strauss, liberal democracy was ultimately unworkable. As for Voegelin, since my prior exposure has consisted merely in reading The New Science Of Politics, McAllister's text gave me a better grasp of Voegelin's views, particularly his "philosophy of consciousness." I definitely intent to explore more Voegelin in the future, both primary and secondary sources. It should be mentioned that in the more than 20 years since McAllister penned this book, the paleocons have become more hostile rather than more receptive to Strauss. For instance, Paul Gottfried and Grant Havers have recently written highly learned and articulate critiques of Strauss from the Right. So, readers interested in assessing McAllisters positive evaluation of Strauss's work from a traditionalist conservative frame of reference should be aware that there are other opinions out there to consult.

Review # 2 was written on 2015-12-08 00:00:00 Annie Gentry I don't know why I bothered finishing this book. It was short, I guess, and it did have some interesting bits that I did not know about or much about such as Carl Schmitt's influence on Strauß. But the basic gist of the book is that Strauß and his fawning epigones in the religious right think that some kind of religious orthodoxy is necessary to keep the masses in check while the true philosophical elites, that being the Straussian inner circle, are all closet nihilists who know that morality is for chumps. I already knew that. In fact, it has now become a cliché that the religious right is the party of glaring moral hypocrisy. Larry Craig, anyone?