Abraham lincoln and, frederick douglass, her most recent book is titled his greatest how lincoln moved the nation. And she also earlier, a book titled erotic liberalism women and revolution in montesquieu use persian letters seems topical for todays conversation, our second guest is arthur meltzer. He is a professor of political thought at the Michigan State university, where he also cofounded symposium on science reason and modern democracy. He received his ph. D. From harvard in 1978. And i also highly recommend his latest book. I think its your latest book philosophy between the lines, the lost history of esoteric writing. And i should say, since this event is cosponsored by the foundation for constitutional government, you can also see several of their conversations with bill kristol in that series. Were going to begin with arthur on the subject of thermos, and then well turn to diana. And i want to point out again joins us from Michigan State. Who better to speak to the subject of thermos than spartan. Well, thank very much. It, of course, a very great pleasure to be here on the occasion of his 90th birthday, a although to be perfectly honest, its difficult to summon the full measure of serious sadness that the event merits when the man scarcely a day over 75 and ive as my topic through mass or which plato famously argues forms a crucial, distinct part of the human alongside desire and. It could seem that this subject is a bit far from the announced topic of our panel. But it is in fact the all purpose topic for any panel on harvards. His writings show us again and. Again how through mass is the key that unlocks a multitude of doors in every area life. And harvey is the preeminent through most theorist of our time. On turning to this topic, the first fact that draws out one is just how silent thinkers have become it through most of the early modern period. It would seem that in their shared product project to pacify the world through a combination of equality and econom ism enlightenment thinkers found very little use for mass. Thus there is not even a generally agreed name for this thing in languages those like harvey were influenced by leo. Ive often fallen back on the greek term few miles or although agreement on the proper spelling and employing spirit. This as a rough translation. I will do the same. It is not until rousseau explodes on the scene and with him the counter that one finds a return to and and comprehensive analysis of film loss. Here under the term a more proper which means literally selflove, though often translated vanity and partly through rousseaus influence. We then find in hegel an elaborate theory of recognition and finally in nature the doctrine of the will to power which is through was raised to a metaphysical fury of the whole through moss on steroids. But setting aside the strange intellectual history of the topic, let us take up the of moss itself. Take it up from beginning. That is to say its origins and function within animal nature and then the complex and diverse forms into which it grows and mutates in the unique environment of the human soul. But since is short and sue moss is long, we will begin at the beginning and end pretty close to the beginning. Also. The gods living in perfect sufficiency and rest completed every moment have no needs. And so presumably no desires or drives. But the animals, including the human to. But for the animals to live means to continually burn through ones store of necessary goods like food and water, and to continually endeavor to replace them. Thus, nature has provisioned animals with desires for the particular things that their bodies need. But added to this depletion and decay from within. There is, of course, danger from without hostile animals, storms, fire and the like. So nature has also provided animals with aversions to the they must avoid. So all of this is pretty obvious, but fundamental natural desires that are virgins do not buy themselves account for all that animals seek or do they if the world were like the garden of eden, a place without difficulty, obstruction, without war or work, so that the primary inclinations were all easily and directly satisfied without delay or, diversion. But the harsh and intractable that we live, they face difficulties and obstacles and this happens. Thwarted desire will commonly give rise to secondary desires, which aim at means to the first aim at the removal of the obstacles to the primary good. So if we look for grazing animals, we find that their food is right there at their feet. And generally speaking grass puts a little resistance being eaten. So here the desire to eat is remarkably simple and immediate, leading straight its satisfaction. But for carnivores, their meal runs from them. And when caught fights them. Therefore, the primary desire must spin off secondary ones to address the difficulties obstructing it desires. Focus focused on the preliminary tasks of catching the fleeting prey and then on killing it. So nature has seen this problem and equips animals not only with the primary desires and aversions, but also with other that will help them with the obstacles that they naturally face to these inclinations. In the case of the lion, its strong capable of rapid acceleration and as well as its claws and powerful jaw. Different animals will of course outfitted differently. But in the case almost all the will not only be physical, but also and especially psychological or motivate. Indeed, difficult and dangerous tasks require one thing. Most of all, and that is the ability to ones faculties to summon great energy and effort and spring into action. And this element a capacity for forceful self mobilization is to finally get to the point. What is meant by full loss at least in its basic and animal form. And it is standard issue for animals to underlie in the elemental and near universal character of this animal faculty. One might make reference to the contempt jury term or concept that seems closest to film loss. And what i have in mind is the term adrenaline for adrenaline is indeed almost universally vertebrate animals. As turns out, however, this term adrenaline also helps to clarify through contrast the meaning of the term to for addressing adrenaline is known as the or flight hormone, a fact that reminds us that the mere faculty of summoning great and effort can be used diametrically opposite purposes purposes in the face of danger. One can energetically attack or energetically run away for whatever reason. The concern of fillmores concerns exclusively the former as the english translation spirit witness makes clear. Indeed, perhaps the best definition of loss at. This stage is the fight in us. But what is the reason this particular focus and this and this turning from the alternative fleeing . Well, there is nothing unique or particularly about fleeing danger, but there something very unique and interesting and consequential about turning and fighting as weve seen human animals have desires and aversions desires, desires moving toward what is good. Aversion moving away from what is bad. But turning and fighting is moving toward what is bad. Strictly speaking, in that sense, its neither a desire nor an aversion. But in some unique third thing that is also pregnant with further ram affections later on in humans to state just one ramification through loss in mobilizing us for action has not only physical ill effects and increased increased and lung activity but also mental. It energizes the mind but it also clears the mind. Eliminating thoughts, focusing it completely on the danger at hand hand. But must necessarily go one step further for the danger at hand will inevitably trigger within fear and our natural inclinations, either to run away or else to freeze in place, make ourselves small, and envisage. And these these fearful inner responses are themselves a great danger to us. In this situation, situation, because they undermine our to throw everything have into the fight, they make us fade, hardened if not paralyzed. But this means that some of that unique thing that goes toward the bad always fights a battle one against the external danger and one against the internal danger. Our own fear. We need to conquer ourselves before we can conquer others. This is the first glimmer of larger role humans will play in human life as something that can stand apart from desire. A virgin and aversion, judging and ruling them. It makes us the double beings that we are. It through film loss that we form a second self that looks back upon the first with pride or shame shame. But this complex topic is for another day. So lets get back to our origins where we left it. Animal few in the elemental sense of the fight in us that then becomes the seed that later virgins within human soul into the far more complete and elusive phenomenon human to us. It is that transition in its beginnings that. We want to understand now, plato, who uses term loss both for or for both the animal and the human forms of the loss does not openly at thema ties. This distinction and transition from the animal to the human. But rousseau, who reserves his term propre exclusively for humans does so. Here is what identifies as the crucial event in the rise of propre. This human was in humans quote the primitive passions which all tend toward our happiness focus us only on objects that relate our happiness, but when deflected from their object by obstacles, they become more focused on the obstacle to remove it. Then on the to attain it. Then they change and become irascible, hating, and that is how the natural love of self becomes more appropriate appropriate. So to clarify animals for them, us we have just seen also arises when the animals natural desire. Its an obstacle that compels it to turn away temporarily from primary object in order to vigorously combat and remove the obstacle. It but essential to animal film. Rousseau now helps us to see is that word tempera early . The animals battled with the obstacle, no matter how furious, no matter how momentarily moments to thoroughly continuous to remain wholly a means to desires original and that is that is the goal of victory over the obstacle does not somehow get transformed into distinct and in its own right, and one that is greater in important their attractiveness than the original end. But such transformation according to rousseau that is the defining characteristic of human to most or almost proper. In other animals are and remain wholly led by inclinations as, plato would put it in the animals desire rules and through moss, therefore in an animal is entirely subordinate and entirely subordinate capacity or tool awakened and rouse to action only when the desires ends. Meeting resistance temporary or early call in its. But within the human soul for various reasons soon lost becomes a much more independent or selfsufficient self subsistence thing liberated from service to desires ends and moved instead by its own ends, by the somatic goods such as victory, honor and revenge, and in its of these new goods, it will offer, it will often our desires and turning the tables become desires ruler. All of this is part of what plato meant in it meant to say human do loss when argued in the republic that some constitutes an indepth and part of the soul, distinct from desire, as well as from reason in humans through loss really takes on a life of its own and has a hand in almost everything that we do. So that is the basic view that im proposing. The modest first step in approaching a complex and elusive phenomenon. But now let provide one simple and concrete. Illustrate of this view for the purpose of fleshing it out. Also to a little more evidence for validity. And finally also to. To bring out some of his larger. The illustration takes off from the obvious if mostly slight. In fact that the human animal whatever else it may be, is also preeminently the sport of animal. What is a sport. It is a truly bizarre thing. People agree to pursue a difficult but perfectly arbitrary meaningless and made up goal in order to engage in competition over it. Me and my friends are going to try to get this inflated pigs bladder across chalk line. Why dont you and your friends to stop. On what understanding of human psychology is that attractive proposition for . It clearly is attractive to. The millions of people who spend hundreds of millions of hours and billions of dollars engaging in this and other sports in the process, sacrificing ease and comfort, enduring pain and causing serious injury. But this strange sport of behavior makes kind of perfect sense and, provides a kind of perfect illustration when it is seen as a direct expression of uniquely human form, of through mass, which has become liberated from natural desire, both regarding its and its goals, regarding motive. The sport of animal lovers, few monarchs struggle and victory, not as a means to the satisfaction of its thwarted desires, but as an end in itself and regarding goals as if striving and is itself the whole purpose of the activity, then it seems not really to matter what the official goal is at all. One thus becomes free to invent any meaningless without any connection to real human desires or needs just so long as it is agreed upon. Well, define and difficult. Still, although we are indeed sporting animals, that is not or most deeply what we are in the we know that sports just games forms of play and recreation. They are not serious and even if we except now humans is mosss basic premise that victory as such is true human good. We are still allowed to ask victory at what a World Champion and tiddledywinks player is not as great as a victory is not as great a victor as churchill and roosevelt were after world war two. Only highest, most serious can inspire the fullest striving and the greatest victories. So the sport life is ultimately based on a somatic illusion that since striving is, the goals dont really matter. They do. In the end, the value of your striving cannot be separated from the value of what you are striving for. So striving and loss can never stand alone. It is die attic in the sense of a means and die add. It needs the right relation to something, not itself to be itself. Sue moss, is simply the spirited drive, fight and win. It is that plus its necessary three concomitant, which is the embrace of something to fight for the devotion to some group or dedication to some ideal and i would argue that the single greatest of misunderstanding of moss comes from missing. This dyadic character. And then identifying through moss. With the first component and neglecting the second. That is to say, the striving component and neglecting the devotion to a goal component. This is especially misleading because there is often a surprising difference. Not to say opposition between those elements. In other words, do moss is not a single stable thing. Its a complex package full of inner. Does is looking at through moss. You know one dimensional way seeing the proud spirit spirited fighter people assume that he is wholly a wholly selfserve rving person when in fact, while often selfish, he burns within with the need for service and sacrifice. They see he can be aggressive and cruel, but his longing to protect and defend, they they assume he is arrogant and headstrong, which he may be, but do not guess his eagerness for obedience to the right authority. And i would i would say in support of these assertions that people i have known in the u. S. Military, they are not many did seem to fit this general description. I would also mention in this context, plato, who argues in the republic that counter intuitive or counter logical as it may seem, noble dogs full of through mass can be extremely ferocious intruders, and yet supremely gentle and loyal to those they are protecting. So to end this cycle logical discussion on a more concrete political note, i would like to connect the aspect of the loss that i first beginning a character attack of through loss linked to a famous question most people like to be real realists in their political and would tend to accept the proposition that sooner or later in any society the people with the most power will come out on top. They will rule, but without question, those with the most power in us, as in almost every other society in the world, is the military. So why arent all countries ruled by their military . Very simple, obvious question. That is never been maybe definitive, fully answered. Instead of the 995 countries in the world, fewer than ten are military dictatorships dictatorships. Now, obviously there are lot of different answers to this question relating to the different histories institution of each nation. But i would suggest that an important part of the answer is this convoluted complex, semi contradictory psychology of almost that weve been discussing. Most people assume that those who have and acquired great power those who are spirited and ambitious are uncomplicated and like all the tough in the movies, they will push their power and influence in a straight line. As far it will go. But to begin with, the obvious the largest number of people in country who are willing to sacrifice their lives for others are in the military. They are also willing to snap to attention and salute smartly and obey orders. Of course, that has all been imposed them. But i think its fair to say that at all. It also comes quite naturally to precisely because they are fighters. In sum the military ethos of obedience and sacrifice. Sacrifice is probably an important factor. Helping to explain their shrinking from rule, their political restraint. And that can be shown to flow from through mass, rightly understood. So in some i this as one further small demonstration of harvey demands oft repeated observation that one cannot understand without understanding some of. This session is build as the gender neutral society. However, the title of Harvey Mansfield 2006 book, which was response to the gender neutral, was manliness bold. Stark. No. Subtitle or simply manliness. So where has manliness gone . Has gender neutral ity become so dominant that even American Enterprise institute shies from the word manly ness . And this despite fact that its own name has the ring of manliness to it, to be is manly, to difficult tasks and scorn the danger. Certainly the American Institute champions the commercial daring that tocqueville thought was of americans. Though bourgeois americans brought brio to their for gain beyond. The business that is the business of america, the nation itself can be understood as an enterprise, a political founded of the sort that interested both aristotle and machiavelli. Aei the nobility of that larger American Enterprise. So in keeping with our institutional responsibility and the forthrightness of professor mansfield, lets say that our theme for the afternoon, late is manliness or manliness under the contemporary of gender neutrality. The first thing to note is that under is a position that manliness chafes against. It prefers to be over above, on top, in command. Curiously, despite the boldness of his title and many provocations throughout, harvey does not call for the restoration of manliness to its former glory. He is, in the end, a moderate defender of. It turns out that there are good reasons to doubt the goodness of manliness as prime among them. Its stubborn resistance resistance to listen to good reasons. Moreover, there isnt any dearth of manliness. Despite the cancellation of word, mansfield finds there is plenty of the thing itself among us. Too much, in fact, what has happened is that manliness has been refashioned through gender neutral into autonomy in transcendence, and thereby brought within of everyone in the past, harvey tells us manliness was characteristic of men and not all men, but only a portion of men. The few manly men, the manly men ruled. But they did not rule . Absolutely. Despite tyrannical impulses, they were kept in check by the unmanly, particularly women and philosophers. Mothers, wives, sisters and daughters let their sons, husbands, brothers, fathers know when courage and protective manliness on which women. When that had crossed the line over into rashness or oppression or simply male bullheaded idiocy. Whereas a woman spoke or more accurately complained only to the men in her domestic circle, the philosophers being men themselves abstract acted from the personal wisdom of women, generalized the critique. Socrates and plato challenged homer and the insane, aggressive homeric heroes. Aristotle sought to tame militaristic, imperialistic manliness of the greeks by pointing out that war should be pursued for the sake of peace, both ironic women and philosophers traditionally been critics of manliness but appreciate critics or another way of saying the same thing. They have been like mansfield. Modest defenders of manliness aware that manliness as an element of human nature cannot be extinguished, and thus that a tempered and, civilized version of it is necessary, if only to defend against the unlimited, tyrannical variety. To put this in up to the terms without the manliness of the american zelensky, to inspire the people, the barbarism of bare chested Vladimir Putin will triumph. So we can see the threat of extreme manliness in putin, in islamic terrorism and our own homegrown disorder of masculinity. According the fbi, there are 33,000 thousand active gangs in the states. You can probably name a few. The bloods, the latin kings, the cosa nostra, and now the proud boys. The name. Their reveals wrong headedness, taking pride in proud might be less foolhardy in their acts of rebellion than proud boys. In any case, male bonding can go seriously awry. But its absence is dangerous, too. In the news of late have been the desperate let alone and angry adolescent who shoot up schools. Our politicians respond with calls to limit access to guns, increase access to Mental Health professionals. Their diagnosis, however, does not reach the spiritual afflicting young males as nature predicted. Thoroughgoing nihilists will rather will nothing than not will. Driven by rage and resent, they seek to annihilate the world. This is face of autonomy. But are others. According to the genealogy that mansfield traces, when manliness was driven underground and forced to assume various gender neutral aliases like. It became noxious in being separated from males universalized manliness. Its always tenuous moorings. The heart of the book traces how traditional manly assertion was transferred formed into manly nihilism via darwin and nature and. In turn, how nihilism, how manly was embraced by the woman warrior simone de beauvoir, who refashioned it into the womanly nihilism radical feminism as mans field points out, radical feminism remains womanly in its methods relying on the reevaluation of values through raising and a school ish control of language, especially pronouns rather than violence. But its aim, the aim of radical feminism is release women from their subordination to men by overcoming womens enslave movement to their own biology. For beauvoir, women have historically been despicably mired in immanence and. They must rise from immanence to transcendence rejecting the falsity of essences. The eternal feminine for freedom of creative selfdefinition. Radical feminism. Thus in the thus imitates and vindicates the nietzsche and or trans man as the height of human striving. As harvey succinctly put it, beauvoir is nature in drag because because nihilism denies a human essence, it denies also the political and moral significance of the bifurcation of that human essence into male and female natures. When there is no sense of ones own being and no higher or end for assertiveness to serve, then assertion itself becomes the be all and end all of human existence. Assertion runs riot manliness loses its protective responsible, dare we say, with approval. Its patriarchal side it becomes virulent rather than virtuous. Mansfield shows the dark side, the force at work, especially in its disguised modern forms, which include scientific nihilism as well as feminist nihilism. Unlike psychologists and neurologists, reductively study men in bits and pieces as mansfield seeks to assemble and assess male nature as a coherent whole, while Academic Studies of sex differences documented certain traits in men like aggression, spatial reasoning. No researcher has ever bothered to ask how is spatial ability in men to their aggression. Mansfield not only asks the he answers it with concise account of the deep link between aggression and abstract action, which are two forms of being single minded. Mansfield however quickly transcends the realm of. Generic masculinity. Turns instead to poets and novelists as better guides than the biologists and social scientists to the higher and more exclusive levels of manliness. Where manliness is both more admirable and on occasion, more shameful, as in the hot blooded honor driven errors of ajax literature also teaches about the civilized manliness of the gentleman. The very highest reach of manliness is visible in the courageous philosopher whose freedom of mind is not incompatible with a politic care for the salutary prejudices. Ordinary life. By the time his tour of manliness is complete, harvey has made the case a properly circumscribed, a manliness that remain within the horizon of morality. In other words, manliness attentive to the welfare of weaker and, more vulnerable human beings, especially the weaker sex with frankness that he admits is ungentlemanly. Harvey insists on womens weakness reaching winning manliness to those civilized side bounds, however, will be difficult since getting manliness walk the line johnny cash style so to depends greatly on how the weaker sex behaves. Mansfield agrees with tocqueville that. It is women who establish the moral horizon and that they do so through privileged position in the domestic sphere. Nonetheless mansfield does not endorse a return to the separate spheres arrangement the model of republican womanhood that, tocqueville and before him rousseau had praised. In he dismisses as reactionary the strict division of labor based sexual complementarity in which men and women equally valued are understood to have different different virtues, different response. Following john mill, rather than tocqueville, the contemporary world now understands sexual equality in economic and individualistic, of equal access to education and the professions. Mansfield does not call for any there. He does, however, envision some redrawing of the public distinction in american life. Mansfield suggests that we take advantage of the liberal distinction between state and society. So in public, under the law, we should continue to insist on the liberal formality of gender neutrality. But in private there should a more honest acknowledgment of gender and yes, even truth of age old stereotype. In sum, let us follow John Stuart Mill in public and error startle in private, maybe a different version, the lock in the short term and aristotle in the long term. So thats a quick overview of harveys book. What id like to do the remaining time is make some observation about what has changed the sex and gender front in 16 years since manliness was published and then see whether its framework helps us understand what is happening now and where we might be headed. And i need to take a moment to take a sip to fortify myself for this next section. I wore my lion themed earrings to give me courage. Although the Gay Rights Movement was already in full during the decade of the aughts, harvey chose, to say very little about it. Nonetheless, i think one could argue that the advent of same sex marriage was predictable. Extension of gender neutral society. If the sexual difference between men and is to go unnoticed in the law then soon enough, the difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality will go unnoticed also. Of course, for individuals the directionality of ones era matters intensely. Yet society at large no longer cares whether an individuals attracted the same or the opposite. Sex. Thus, we have gay marriages and of course, gay divorces. We also have gay families. Yet honesty compels us admit that each member, a gay family is the result of heterosexual congress. Egg and must be conjoined, even if only at the level of the gametes in the petri dish. Because no. Same pairing is capable of reproducing from itself the fundamental difference between heterosexuality. Homosexuality remains aristotles definition of the as requiring the conjoining of male and female for the sake of the future has not been invalidated. It has been resolutely, manfully ignored. However and the movement to overcome sex differences has transitioned to new fields as the increasing only unwieldy acronym, lgbtq eye. A testifies. The central letter now is t. Do you count them . There are seven. Its the middle one. The letter now is t for transgender. It an interesting shift. The movement used to be about the world that dare not speak its name which is to say it concerned the status of an erotic orientation in the legal and social acceptability of that of those relationships. By contrast, the new issue is remarkably on erotic. It is about but a gender identity. It is stripped of connection others and wretchedly selfinvolved. Perhaps should not be surprising that t to i a trajectory terminates with the letter a which stands for all sexual or a romantic. Thats the alpha primitive right. Not sexual. Not romantic. This is not the richly embroidered Scarlet Letter of hester prince adultery. Exactly how the wider world is denying rights or to those who prefer own company is a little unclear. Maybe romantic comedies or a microaggression against them. But to return to those in transition. Trans is the new incarnation of beauvoir as transcendence. The demand made on society for this particular class of persons is to be gender affirming, not gender neutral. This is somewhat at odds with the other idea out there, symbolized by the killer of t q a q stands for queer and those who now embrace this slur view gender as nonbinary. What is purely a matter of construction can be deconstructed at will. The gender queer or gender nonconforming incur experimentation with various permutations of gender . There is think it admission here that gender neutrality and attempts raise nonstereotypical boys and girls never made much headway. It seems that most people conform. They are cis gendered, which is to say they dress and behave pretty much as one might expect based the old stereotypes. Indeed, the last couple of decades, the second very sex characteristic have come back in fashion. Men have returned to facial in a big way. They may have to cultivate sensitive beauty, but they can look like lumberjacks. And women, least those who didnt grow up in the 1970s, have returned to wearing dresses and long hair. By contrast, the gender queer the the transgender feel in their spirit or their bones, or maybe just in their head that they are wrongly clashed with the group whose biologic apparatus they have mistakenly been saddled with. And guess, i think there are rarer, genuine instances of incongruity in natures intention. As aristotle pointed out, long nature wishes to do certain that are not always realized. Modern science is ready on the spot with drugs and surgeries accomplish what used to be called gender reassignment, but which is now called gender confirmation. It might be a value to press a bit on the gender of the transgender by asking what is the essence of a woman such that one could be a woman in spirit, though a man in form or vice versa, a man in spirit though a woman in form. What are the qualities of the capacities or the virtues that one is seeking . Could one manifest those without a physical fix . Why does the physical matter so much if . Ones essence already is as one asserts it to be. I think its a potent sign of the modern worlds materialist that both the transgendered and the genderqueer, both those who want to be more identifiably gendered, and those who want to be more indeterminate or inbetween are so focused not to say obsessed with the body. Its hormones and its presentation despite our tendency, medicalized everything. I think is a growing awareness, especially among of the medical malfeasance at work in so readily confirming what might be phase or a fad. Decades ago the transgendered were usually individuals born male and for some few social and medical transition psychic harmony. Of late though the situation has changed dramatically with a rash of girls deciding they boys. Why, if they just want to do boy stuff like play baseball and ditch dolls. Well, america parents have always given girls leeway to be tomboys. I speak as a tomboy. Indeed, have had considerably more flexibility than did boys to be gender nonconforming in their pursuit. Apparently feminism and its offspring, the sexual revolution, have not improved girlhood in america with no resources in religion, Public Opinion to resist the relentless reduction of everything. Two bodies. Its no that girls today have no idea what it might mean to be a woman in any other sense than that presented our hypersexualized culture. For preteen and teenage girls transitioning is a fashionable way of their confusion and moral dilemmas. This is the destructive terminus of the deep misogyny behind radical feminism. While beauvoir for transcendence rather than transitioning, transitioning is the effectual truth of her hatred of the second sex that was the name of beauvoirs famous book second sex. Why remain in second if one doesnt have to the trans phenomenon will not stop with transiting between and mars. Transhumanism is now on the horizon. This is not the spiritualized version that nietzsche hinted at. Todays transhumanism focuses on the body and its reconfiguration. Take the mania for tattoos piercings and scarification where the body is regarded as a canvas for artistic recreation in full body tattoos. You can see these online full body tattoos. Every inch of skin is inked, including the entire face eyelids as well as the private parts of the body. In effect, distinction between the public and private parts of the body disappears. Extremetech chewing is an attempt to deny human nakedness to our original, even radical forms of body manipulation are being tried. The quest, what is called morphological freedom, takes two directions. Either blurring the man beast divide or blurring the man machine divide. So, for instance, trans humans have their tongues split to be forked like a lizards. Some implant horns and tails. And meanwhile the cyborg wannabes have their own set of implants from an embedded chip in your hand for Keyless Entry into your front door to lead lights surgically inserted under the skin in glowing patterns. Unless we return some more substantial notion human nature this mad quest for metamorphosis will continue. Harvey reminds us that there is an alternative. There are forms of transcendence to us as embody souls . There is, for instance, a way of transcending the difference that begins by respecting it. If men are more likely to be courageous and women more likely to be moderate. And if marriage is a meeting of minds as well as bodies, then in that commingling and women. Yes, cisgendered ones can. From one another by coming to appreciate the qualities of the other the virtues of each are modified and enlarged. This is the growing togetherness achieved in long and successful marriages. Harvey recommends marriage as one model of transcendence. There is another kind of transcending as well. Possible for those develop that smallest but divine element within our being and whose perception of the whole takes in its gendered. While transcending gender bias, one thinks of novelists like george eliot and henry james, philosophers like aristotle and thinkers like Harvey Mansfield, who do justice to the fullness of humanity from. Thank you both. We have a little time for questions and again for who are watching online. We would like to ask a question then either via email or asserted on twitter through the ways that are described on the web page. Maybe ill begin with a simple question. My own the very outset of manliness. The very first named example of manliness in the book is margaret thatcher. Im just curious, what what do you suppose that tells us about manliness, about firmness . Margaret thatcher is first named example. Its usually in men but not always an elaborate. Well, yeah. I mean harvard makes the case that. Yeah, its called manliness for a reason and it belongs more to the male sex. Arthur. I mean, go back to our earlier in your your fight flight adrenaline. Yeah. You focused on adrenaline fight or flight. But what accounts for. What causes one to choose between those . Theres another chemical, testosterone presumably, men are more inclined. Fight women more inclined to flee. Arthur, id love to hear your thoughts on this as and i just note that early in manliness as he introduces concept of thermos, you describe it as quote the spiritedness that every human being has in some measure, but manly have excess of. Again, im curious about the relationship between gender and thermos. Also, id love to hear your reaction. Harveys contention that professor mansfields contention that the manly have too in excess. Yeah, well, i just start again back a few steps. You know, foremost something that i argued sort of in some form among all animals. But, you know, but as soon as you form that thought, the next thought is but some a lot more than others. And so you lions and dogs and horses and on these are platos examples, especially a bit of the philharmonic and and then further within a species. I mean if youre a dog lover, you know that dogs vary a lot in characters and some are a lot more dramatic others. And similarly among human beings, theres a wide of difference. It does seem me, you know, that men are typically, you know, more thematic than. Women are. Although what makes it complicated that womens, you know, women can have a lot of humor and it just doesnt look the same. And partly its precisely because its regarded as manly. You know, women will choose, you know, find some other way to express it rather than, you know, in your face. You open manliness of you know, of some men. So thats a little complicated that question. But complications notwithstanding, it does seem to me that you know by instinct you know if if theres you know someone is breaking in the middle of the night, you know, the man feels this is my job, you know, and you know, and it may be, you know, maybe in this the woman is more is stronger, younger or better fighter than the man. And so that may get overruled by a rational consideration. But it seems to me on the instinctive level part of manliness is protective and and you know it just comes out you know you know very powerfully so and then the further point is that among men theres a very broad distinction and theres this you some languages like greek, they make a distinction. You know, theres anthropologists means male man, meaning both species, species, human and the male of, the species. But on their is a word that they dedicated to just the and it means, you know, the really the manly man, you know, the tough guy and so on. You know, in spanish, you know, similar distinction in english you dont, although there are plenty of expressions, man, you know, tough guy. And so to sort of say they express the same idea. So, yeah, i think that is very broad but unequal distribution of loss. But yeah, to your direct question. Yeah i think that that then do tend to be more men than women. If we had more time, if i were a less moderate moderator, i might ask whether on todays political scene, the best of some of our or women. And ill bet ill leave that to the side because i have another question for you, arthur. I mentioned at the outset introducing you your wonderful, wonderful book on philosopher fee, on the writing of philosophy, on writing, the the writing of, the writing of truth in subtle and sometimes guarded and shrouded ways. Dianas remarks she alluded to the harveys discussion in manliness of the relationship between manliness through most and and the work, the act of philosophy. Im curious to somebody whos written and studied this yourself, studied. How would you describe the relationship between two and philosophy itself not as a subject of philosophy but as an act of philosophers or the spirit of philosophers. Yeah. I mean, id be inclined to say that something that does the job. Philosophy is needed in philosophy. That is to say a kind of daring and courage, unflinching. But its not do most that. Its that its kind of the philosophers of kind of i think, you know, transcend it too much. I think its the platonic position that that philosophers are not to monarch but that they have in some way a more real courage to monarch that underlying dramatic courage. I mean you must its just riddled with contradictions and and so, you know what . You know, achilles is on the one hand, the model, the the tough guy in the philharmonic, man. But many ways, you know its so hes, so vulnerable. I mean, he goes a rage because you someone has taken something from him and hes hes too hes too vulnerable. Hes too easily wounded. And his anger and almost both deny that fact, but stem from it. And so theres got to be a better kind of courage and a better kind of courage as to. Is to, first of all, to accept, you know, the things you cant. So you dont against things youre not dominated. I mean, in the example rousseau gives of the philosopher rises from get you trying to get rid the obstacle and you cant forget the obstacle you cant stop fighting that obstacle cant go and and what makes you through modern kind of fighter . Its a weakness. And he says explicitly why does this happen . He says theres a number of reasons, but one of them is what he calls weakness of soul, the ability not to react excuse me, strength of soul is the ability to not react. You know, when when something be fixed, you can walk away. It. I have just gotten a new dog and walked this dog in lincoln park and she is eager and shes very thrombotic. Let me say, and she would like nothing more in the world. One thing she wants to do is catch a squirrel and so on. I walking her. If she sees a squirrel just she just wants to take off after it and so on. And of course, all the squirrels are savvy enough that a lot of dogs in that park, they notice they near the trees and theyre up the tree, you know, is scrolling the tree and the dog will run after the squirrel will see it up, the tree will run around. The tree once will try to jump on the tree, you know, see how high it can get. And she starts from down here. So about that height and then she lets it go. Whereas a human being you cant, you know, like you let go, you need to pursue, you need to avenge this. Its an insult. I have to fight, fight, fight. And thats in the end, a weakness. And so the philosopher has a better courage and a better shoe loss for having that strength of soul. But it enables him or her walk away from things that they cant change. Did. I dont know. Yeah. Diana, i have another question. You. But if youd like to jump in on this. Yeah, no ahead. Give me a break. Lets change gears completely. Yeah, well, she was completely this is its what, july 6th, two days ago was the declaration of independence. Given all that, youve your own career in your focusing on the founding and our institutions should, we think of the declaration of independence as, a manly document, and if so, how . Yeah, sure. You pledge your life, your fortune and, your sacred honor. But that is an instance of manliness. I guess id like to take a couple of steps back, though, because i think there is something new about the american version of manliness that is different. Maybe from what harvey sketches. He sketches manliness, fundamentally aristocratic, the manly individual asserts himself and his significance in cosmos. And thats why the dog he doesnt give its his it is his significa that is at stake. Harvey also so so this superior individual is asserting his own superiority, the superiority of his way of life. So the greek poets who celebrated greek manliness held that it is fitting for the greeks to rule barbarians. And following aristotle concludes that manliness is at its heart tier ethnical. There is something imperialist shtick there. Manly quote from harvey here manly men in taking responsibility. Others cannot stop themselves from ruling their inferiors and from treating them as slaves their very goodness when. It is responsible, compels them to compel others to make good, to. Thats the end of the quote. But what i wonder is the american founding and its doctrine of the equality of rights bearing individuals, the endowment of nature and natures god, whether that doesnt contain a kind of remedy for the tyranny that is implicit in at the same time that it calls forth the manliness for human flourishing. So the declaration does demand manly its left to human beings to vindicate and secure the rights belong to us by nature. But the declaration independence also restrains manliness, because those human beings who hazard their lives or fortunes and their sacred honor act not for themselves alone, but for all. And in the name of all. And moreover, by their they acquire no title to rule. That goes selfrule, that goes beyond the limits of self. Republican selfgovernment. So it does seem to that the american founding is aiming for a new kind of impartiality in politics. Yes, we separated ourselves, the mother country. We set ourselves apart. But the ground on which we did so, not an assertion of our superiority, as in it is fitting for greeks to rule barbarians. But instead, in the assertion of the equality in which all mankind shares. So the american regime is better than those regimes not founded the consent of the governed, but goodness, we are better. But our goodness does not compel us to compel others to similar goodness. In fact, the way we the goodness of our regime doctrine of human equality set certain internal limits to the imperialism of. And i think you can actually this if you just look at look at the individuals. Can you fit washing ton lincoln and churchill can you fit them within the account of manly with its inherent tyranny . And i dont think you can quite do it. In other words, washington, lincoln and are not like pericles and caesar. So so yes. So i think this this phenomenon of modern democratic statesmanship shows the possibility a selfrestraint, non tyrannical manliness. And just to im pretty grim about the future but maybe 111 pitch for an avenue to make better. I think our best bet for a revival of moderate manliness is a reassertion of the truths the declaration. If we once again asserted those truths to be selfevident, we might find both manly and a standard by which to keep manliness moderate and moral. But thats beautiful. Can i ask a follow up question on this . I mean one of the reasons why i posed the initial question is, it seems to me fairly selfevident that no pun intended declarations sort of nature is an assertive, a brave document and actually uses the term manly in describing the legislatures that push back against the king. Its its easy to see maybe the declaration as a manly document. But in our own time when the challenge at hand seems to less sort of throwing off and asserting our right in power build new ones. But to maintain and preserve institutions. Im curious how you see manliness filtering into that particularly having lincoln in mind his own concerns about the preservation institutions. How do you see manliness fitting into that responsibility in . Our time . Yeah. I mean, thats thats the address. This you know, reverence for the law, the kind of selfrestraint thats manliness as far as selfrestraint, what is required to live under a law of your own making. Rule . Not not legitimate. Know. But i mean, is it to keep circling back . Is it its man i suppose its manly to assert oneself in creating a new constitution. But what about the generation that ratified the constitution. They didnt write it. They didnt create a they didnt announce it. But they their contribution to. This was to be bound by. And in our own time to be bound by institute is not of our own making. Rather the sort of joy and energy of throwing those things off and a new on our own time. Yeah. Thats right. In other words, that revolutionary temperament that brought the nation into being at a certain point becomes a kind of threat to the maintenance of the of the nation. Washington was aware of that lincoln is aware of that. And so it does seem to me that what they are calling for is is much more demanding. It really is the the rule of reason. But that also means that the project of selfgovernment is not concluded. It means that each generation has something it must do. It the the the the the proposition hasnt yet been proven whether. We are capable of selfgovernment. That is a high that is a high aspiration. Just one last question and twitter has offered us no wisdom, as far as i can tell. So i have time for one last one. Its one thing to see a manliness or to most in the executive branch, not necessarily executive branch, but in the executive in our constitutional system. And this came up in the previous discussion. How should we think of these things and the other parts government in the legislature years and in the work of judges. Madison saw that ambition would counteract ambition ambition of each branch. The will of each branch. All those. Hamilton said the judiciary probably shouldnt have a will of its own. How should we of these aspects of of of human life not in the presidency, but in the legislatures or in the judicial. I mean, in a way already answered it with ambition. Count thing, ambition. So, yes, we have a very ambitious executive. But yeah, i mean, it is the the the ambition each officeholder to carry out his office, to maintain the prerogatives of his. So there is a constant enlargement of each branch of. Fought against by the by the other branches resisting that. But but you actually want to encourage that management of ambition. I dont mean to sort of pull you out of antiquity into the modern time. If you could stay for just a moment, do you have any thoughts on. Well, yeah, let me pick it up from your initial question of whether the declaration independence is manly and i basically, with everything diana said, but obviously youre youre youre youre your colonial rulers that get lost and, you know, youre going to rule yourself. Thats thats the main thing to do. In addition, the way its done, its in the name the rights of man or the rights of human beings and thats, you know, an assertion i mean, the rights of man is something Something Like that, you know some awareness of justice and that people should be treated well, you know. You doesnt have any clear beginning. I mean people but but its kind of codification of the rights of man. Thats the kind of enlightenment product and its a kind of assertion of, okay, heres what we are. Were human and be and were good, not were, you know, we do this job or that job live in this country or that country. But were were human beings. And human beings are of worth and thats thats, you know, just believe me and im going to defend that. So theres, you know, a man the assertion. So, you know modernity is supposed to be and in some ways is a kind of on film us and manliness was clearly in like hobbes but you know manliness to us theyre very slippery complicated phenomena and you find them on every side of every in some ways. And so, you know, hobbes, who on the one hand is basically telling people to just stay alive, dont worry about your pride. The leviathan is, you know, named for, you know, this lion king of the children of pride. But at the same time, it was a very original, very daring even more daring than writing a book called manliness to to write the book that hobbes wrote. And so theres a kind of man leanness behind the, you know. The attack on manliness. And you see things like that all the time. I mean, you are you speak about that in book. So i dont know. Its just its complicated. You have to sort of ask yourself, why am i asking this question at a certain point . Because. Because can you can find manliness on both sides. I mean, so modernity in general. I mean, theres this famous line of strauss is about machiavelli. We since we were talking about the origin of modernity earlier on answer strauss is maybe, you know, a certain antipathy, a logical idea is a major motivator. Well either thats a its a fancy word for anger. And anger is its almost so. So its sort of motivated by fear loss in some and and so similarly the rights of man and the declaration independence in the name of our rights were standing up and say im human you cant do this to me. So thats manly. Now the objection would be its manly, but its its got to lower horizons. Youre saying i have rights, but what are your rights . Well, dont kill me. Dont take my property. You know thats all im asking. So then rights then seem to be assertive to assert too little. Maybe. But on the other hand, to pick up where diana was going. I mean, hegel is the one who tries to say, okay, were never going to get rid of this concern for our dignity, pride and manliness to us. But theres an inner dialectic and he agrees its contradicted and contradictory in many ways that, you know, you want other people to tell you how good you are. But if youre so good, then why do you have you know, these people who you dont respect is better than you . Why do you need to have them tell you that youre good . So its just riddled with all these contradictions. And hegel at least thinks that theres a, you know, as that theres a resolution. And the resolution is Something Like the rights of man, that if were all equal then we can recognize and respect each other. And and and theres no contradiction in taking, you know, your dignity for someone whos respecting your equal worth. So so hegels doing holds out a hope that theres a solution to the political on the level of humans. You know if the earlier enlightenment never mind through us have a political problem on the grounds of economic selfinterest and you know thats what were more associated with. But, but you know, hegel saying, no, no, no, its not selfinterest. Its its doors that its got a peaceful resolution and something the lines of what youre saying. So obviously it there. Well were past time i feel bad i didnt sort of blue past the stop on this but i did want to say before we close weve spent the afternoon talking about professor mansfield as hes sat here listening to this. I wonder if you might have any thoughts and. I could point out everything we got wrong, but if we have a microphone, either if youd like to take the podium or microphone can find you. But only please join me in thanking our two panelists. And professor. Well, thank you all. Im not used to hearing my name, but ive spoken so often. But i must say, at the end of the i think i did used to it. And in fact, if i heard a sentence, harvey, in it, i thought was being ignored. I, i, and i didnt see. If i were a businessman, sat in and made a product like henry ford and everybody would use your name to describe a car but a certain attraction attraction for manly people. But i wanted to Say Something also first to salute salute my son. We and daughter in law sandra. Oh, my brother john, my spectacular wife father and my to others too many numerous to name i thought i would like to say a little bit about conservatism because i was described as consort of the two and thats certainly true. And i accept that and assert that and and you conservatives out there, im with you. Im of you. I always describe myself as a consumer is republican. And thats a little bit more republican than conservative because i like to win, but still are conservative. And yet we havent had a panel on conservatism and the subject really hasnt been discussed. And i have to tell you that in all heart and ive 60 years of college, ive never taught a course on conservatism. So let me try to explain this also. This is a word some Certain Party of conservatism today that. Conservative ism is is a part of liberalism. Liberalism, i understand a philosophy of rights and our Politics Today is essentially a politics of liberalism because people of rights and they do so on both sides. So for example, abortion issue is the right to life versus the right to choose. Was it to rights to liberal things and thats extended liberalism is. Like i say, extended. It extends farther than the people whom we call liberals today and who whose liberalism in smaller sense, conservatives attack. But conservatism is really over like, say, the the little brother, little sister of liberalism comes out of a reaction. Its reactive. Its the other side. The liberals. This smaller sense who are on the attack, they have initiatives. They to push us beyond what is sensible and reasonable to do. But through something grander and bigger than liberalism. And thats to be seen in the philosophy of the ancients. Plato and aristotle are the leaders but theres a number of them, including josephus, as i mentioned, and and and i could describe what you learned from the ancients as learning how to live in the land of virtue and the beauties and the difficulties of land. And in this land there is a secret which you might call the garden of tact referred to before the garden of tact consisting of people and authors who know more than they think is reasonable to say. They know more than they say say. And there are wildflowers and weeds in this garden that are allowed to grow and are more beautiful than. Those otherwise and liberalism knows essentially nothing of the land of virtue a sort of beer. You have. Learn first that there are liberals. Who, as far as our as long as our politics remains liberal in the extended sense will always exist. The left with always be with us. Dont think that you can abolish it. In fact, i would say. Its generally a feature or a virtue of conservatives that dont think that the other side will go away. Thats really more the belief the left that progress consists in making decisions, which are irreversible. All progress is in progress. And unless it cannot be recalled, my example, president obama when introducing his Health Care Program Affordable Health program said im not the first president to take up the question of health care, but i want to be the last. Thats the kind of ambition im senseless assertiveness on the other side, the conservatives mustnt imitate, but also must be aware. So we need the land of virtue. Partly for this reason, because we need be able to appreciate the character of liberalism, but also because doesnt say about what human beings can think. Think and do with excellence. So thats why i say thanks. Well, thank you, professor mansfield, thank you so much to the foundation for constitution government for organizing this with us. Thanks to all of our speakers. Thanks to all of you for joining us. Now i hope youll join us for a reception outside where we can continue to to celebrate the work and life of professor mansfield. Thank you. Our topic today is wg to start with our discussion of native americans. This is one of two different discussions. Were having i want to make clear that were not talking about the indian wars in this kind of lecture thats going to be in a
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.