On the assumption of "a thorough going relativity of values and ideals" there can be no rational basis for preferring tolerance to sadistic domination. Ted
--------
True. But luckily rationalism isn't the only basis for people's preferences, and whether rational or not, most people do seem to prefer to live in the absence of sadistic domination by the state. Whether or not they embrace tolerance, in the absence of abuse is of course another matter.
On the other hand, I admit it is a little hard to make this case, since not quite half of the US seems to consistently vote for abuse--and if not for themselves, then for others.
Any way, the article on Strauss was pretty good, but it suffered from what most things on Strauss do. It failed to make a positive case against Strauss. It's one thing to write about what an anti-democratic jerk he was, and its relatively easy to explain how he was no friend to either equality or tolerance--let alone any so-called `democracy' I want to live in. But it is much more difficult to present the alternative, that is what `you' as a reader stand for, in opposition to Strauss. In other words it is pretty difficult to assert the case for, what Strauss is attacking.
Part of the problem is that you have to go back and read the works he analyzed to ground his view, and many of these are rather loathsome in their own terms. In addition, he deliberately mis-reads and then calls it interpretation--okay if you say so Leo. So you can get mired in figuring out what the cited author's intentions were under his contemporary conditions and then go back to Strauss and figure out why he is mis-reading what seemed to be relatively straight forward. A certain amount of Leo's mis-readings are deliberate attacks, not on the original philosopher, but on the accepted philosophical view of that author. In other words Leo is doing philosophy as he understands it. Since I am no philosophy student, it makes it hard to figure out what the consensus view of a particular school of philosophy was on this or that particular philosopher---and then figure out why Leo is writing what he is writing. It's a very elaborate and tedious game.
The game is made even more difficult because part of Leo's attacks are aimed at the idea of an evolving history of philosophy. More particularly, he wants to attack the idea that our current position in historical time gives us access to a relativity of viewpoints and a non-committal assessment of values espoused in the past. In other words, Strauss reads work in some ideal absolute time frame that is devoid of physical circumstance, and unincumbered by culture and history. He is profoundly anti-empirical, which is extremely odd, since his subject is politics! So he wants to raise political thoughts, actions, events, processes, and experience into an ideal realm where it can be depicted as a rational project. But this is ludicrous.
Then too, Leo is not a very good writer. Regardless of his apparent `rationalism' he wasn't self-consistent, and followed his own intuitions in a relatively unreflective way. So in my opinion he wasn't a very good philosopher either.
And then the other problem is most people, well me for example, are not very clear about what they think is the basis for their own version of an open society. So, when I go after Strauss, I need to figure out what I really want in order to see what is specifically so loathsome about Leo.
On the other hand, it is good exercise, since it highlights what is so obnoxious, wrong, and radical (in a bad sense) about the US right and the current tyrants in power
CG