11 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Athens and Jerusalem Revisited, November 21, 2004
I am writing this review mainly in response to the two reviews submitted by Mr. Whitaker below. Apparently the main criticism of the aforementioned reviews is that Pangle does not take seriously enough the Bible's claim to wisdom. Indeed Whitaker appears to be more interested in defending his own teacher's (Leon Kass's) version of the Athens vs. Jerusalem debate against Pangle, and then to impute this version to the teacher of both Pangle and Kass, Leo Strauss, than he is with considering that what Pangle has written may be true. What Hancock has written regarding Strauss's supposed indecision or neutrality is simply wrong. It is true that Strauss approached the Jerusalem side of the debate with great sobriety, but he was no less than Pangle a defender of Socratic philosophy against revelation. As Stanley Rosen--one of Strauss's best students--has noted on many occasions, no serious student of Strauss ever doubted that Strauss was not a theist but that he recognized the anthropological necessity of belief in revelation for the vast majority of modern Westerners, i.e., for those lacking the intellectual gifts necessary to pursue philosophy in the Socratic sense. There simply is no doubt that, by Strauss's interpretation, one cannot be a true believer in the God of revelation and also be true to the philosophic (Socratic) way of life. The tension is simply irreducible, and is akin to the tension between the philosopher and the city. In Socratic terms this is the Delphic imperative to pursue self-knowledge rather than submit to orthodoxy of any kind. It should be noted that one does not choose to be a philosopher but rather is or is not capable of becoming a philosopher, if properly educated, based on the nature of one's soul. In the "Republic" Socrates describes to Glaucon and Adeimantus the differences among types of souls by telling the young men the myth of the lottery of lives (Er) and the mysteries of philosophy. The Myth of Er replaces the tragedy of the Fall with philosophy. Philosophy denies evil in the Biblical sense and replaces fear of God with wonder and amazement. This is why philosophy is closer to comedy than tragedy: a Socratic satyr-play. Those with souls which fall on the side of revelation would do better, in my opinion, not to attempt a synthesis of Athens and Jerusalem--as Mr. Whitaker obviously would like to pursue--but rather to defend revelation against Socratic rationalism. "Whether the Bible or philosophy is right is of course the only question which ultimately matters. But in order to understand that question one must first see philosophy as it is. One must not see it from the outset through Biblical glasses. Wherever each of us may stand, no respectable purpose is served by trying to prove that we eat the cake and have it. Socrates used all his powers to awaken those who can think out of the slumber of thoughtlessness. We ill follow his example if we use his authority for putting ourselves to sleep" (Leo Strauss, "On the Euthyphron").
Pangle does point out a positive connection between Socratic philosophy and the religions of monotheistic revelation. The difference between ancient and modern philosophy is grounded in their differing views of human nature and divinity. Plato seems to indicate obscurely that the deepest fulfillment of human nature is achieved through rational inquiry into the eternally divine, and Socratic philosophy is the defense of this inquiry. Modern philosophy holds that human nature strives toward nothing but the satisfaction of base desires and passions and rejects as unnatural and fanatical the higher aspirations of human nature which the ancients took for granted. It seems that since all human beings are not equally capable of intelligently pursuing this divine way of life (philosophy) the moderns rejected divinity during the political project of emancipation brought forth in the Enlightenment in order to legislate such things as equality and the natural rights of man. It is true that the divine as understood by Socratic philosophy is quite different from the divine as understood by the believers in revelation. Socratic philosophy understands the Socratic way of life to be the most choiceworthy life for a human being which provides the only true view of the eternal (the eternal being the fundamental questions and problems which confront human thought as such), whereas revelation rejects Socratic skepticism (as it must) and the aporetic way of life of the philosopher in favor of politicized orthodoxy, i.e., communal religious practice. Pangle is keen to point out that, despite these differences, Socratic political philosophy and believers in revelation of the God of Abraham have common political principles which unite them against the Enlightenment form of political atheism. This commonality consists in the rejection of moral relativism spawned by the modern Enlightenment in the name of equality, which denies that there is an answer to the question "How should I live?" in favor of allowing each individual to decide for himself what is best, regardless of how base or immoral, and to go about being a God himself by "creating" the world in accord with his will.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
10 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Challenging, Rewarding Book, November 25, 2003
By A Customer
An extremely learned, thoughtful study of the book of Genesis up to and including the binding of Isaac. Boasts an impressive command of commentaries ancient, medieval, and modern on the text. Highly recommended.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
7 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
A Difficult Read but Thought Provoking, June 15, 2004
By A Customer
First of all, this book is about philosophy and theology, not about politics. By the term "Political Philosophy" the author means "Political" in terms of how men organize their belief systems. Specifically, the author cites a number of theologians, both modern (Karl Barth, Soren Kirkegard, Milton) and ancient (Socrates, Plato, St. Augustine, Maimonedes).
Second, what this book is about: the author examines the text of Genesis from the beginning through the life of Abraham. I can imagine a follow-up book that examines the rest of the Pentateuch through the life of Moses. A primary concern of the author is the relationship between God and Man, especially regarding the nature of man as a sinful being, and his need to perform sacrifice to God. A secondary major theme is the nature of dialogue between individual men (Adam, Cain, Noah & his sons, and most importantly Abraham) and God.
This book is thoroughly researched and annotated. The actual text is 184 pages, and the remaining about 1/3 of the book is citations and short excerpts and explanations of the various philosophers that Pangle has referred to in the body of the text. A serious student could use the citations as a reading list.
My primary disagreement with Pangle's book, is that I believe,the two main contributions Abraham's experience with God gave to mankind's philosophy and theology were 1)there is But THE One God, and 2)the end of Human Sacrifice as a propriation of that God. Pangle ultimately is more concerned with the concept of Justice.
I read all of this book once, and several sections twice. In some discussions the author's main point gets lost in the heavy citation and quotations. Also, the author's own (theological) bias with regard to the need and requirement of sacrifice as expressed in Genesis seems to color the discussion. However, I am not a theologian or philosopher, nor do I have the extensive sources at hand that Pangle does, and my Hebrew and Latin skills date from high school coursework in the late 60's.
Still, this book is worth reading as it will encourage the reader to examine his own understandings and force him to at least think about he/she would defend them. The exposure to the writings of Milton, St. Augustine, Socrates, etc are certainly worth the price of time and effort to read this book.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No