Comments on A sounding… by CK MacLeod

@ adam:
I see - sounds a little less, if you'll excuse the term, un-scientific than the last time you explained it to me. Will have to read up on it some more. Best most relevant text for a poor man?

@ narciso:
I think it would be Hegel, if you're looking for a father. The precursors would I think be Joachim of Fiore or other eschatologists going back to the ancients.

@ adam:
I can see that as a beginning point - though, on that subject, the beginning point aspect of the originary hypothesis has stuck in my craw. I never understood why it can't or doesn't in fact have to be repeatable. Nature seems to work by massive redundancy, so I have to imagine a latent potential realizable under certain conditions, possibly realized many times, partially, then lost to accident or defect, and realizable again if lost.

taqqiyon would be a great user-name. For someone else.

@ adam:
I read a lot of Arendt a long time ago, so her ideas may be rummaging around un-attributed in my brainpain. Not sure. The insight that struck me the most, with attribution, was from Habermas, on the presumptions of good faith necessary for the conduct of any civil conversation and for civil society generally. I could string together other associations and insights, and maybe I should, but I was struck during my recent reading by how much of what I've encountered elsewhere over the years was all there in Locke, and by no coincidence embedded in the founding precepts of this here US of A, which, like all of the rest of you, I presume, I've been absorbing since I could speak.

Now having finished the Pestritto book on Wilson, which focuses heavily on Wilson's historicist attack on trans-historical natural rights philosophy, I'm looking even harder for a language that synthesizes historicism, many of whose insights I find compelling, and natural rights, which I also find compelling. I seek this not just because it interests me - though that would be reason enough - but because I see us living that synthesis or dialogue. To some extent the Democrats have become the historicist party, the Republicans the natural rights party, and each shows the predictable defects. The people cry out for synthesis and instead get polarization, while the politicians are inevitably perceived as liars and would-be tyrants or facilitators of tyranny from the other pole, since a consensual truth lies inherently beyond their reach, given their starting points.

Kojève and Strauss are said to have taken the two positions in self-consciously extreme forms, for the sake of putting them in the sharpest possible relief against each other.