Chapter of that book, setting the stage for his discussion of manliness throughout, history and in our time was titled the gender neutral society, and that is the title of todays panel discussion. Were so lucky to be joined today by two friends of aei. Ill introduce them both and then well begin. Diana schaub is professor of Political Science at loyola university, maryland. And im happy to say a senior fellow here at aei. She writes and studies statesmen and political rhetoric, including Abraham Lincoln and frederick douglass. Her most recent book is titled his greatest speeches how lincoln moved the nation. And she also earlier wrote a book titled erotic liberalism women and in modern skews 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 the symposium on science, reason and modern. He received his ph. D. From harvard in 1978, and i also highly his latest book i think its your latest philosophy between the lines, the lost history of esoteric writing. And i should say, since this event is caused sponsored by the foundation for constitutional government, you can also see several of their conversation sessions with bill kristol in that series. Were going begin with arthur. On the subject of thermos, and then well turn to diana and want to point out again, arthur joins us from Michigan State. Who better to speak to the subject of thermos than a spartan. Well, thank very much. It is, of course, a very great pleasure to be here on the occasion of part of his 90th birthday. A although to be perfectly honest its difficult to summon the full measure of serious illness that the event when the man scarcely a day over 75 and ive as my topic through mass or spiritedness which plato famously forms a crucial and distinct part of the human alongside desire and reason. It could seem that this subject is bit far from the announced topic of our panel, but it is in fact the all purpose topic for any panel on harvards works. His writings show us again and again how through mass is the key that unlocks a multitude of doors in every area of life. And harvey is the preeminent cmos theorist of our time. On turning to this topic. The first fact that draws one is just how silent thinkers have become about 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 is not even a generally agreed upon name for this thing in. Modern languages. Those harvey were influenced by leo strauss. Ive often back on the greek term few miles or although agreement on the spelling and employing spiritedness as a rough translation. I do the same. It is not until rousseau explodes on the scene and with him the counter enlightenment that one finds a return to and and and comprehensive analysis of film loss here under the term a more appropriate which means literally selflove. Though often translated as vanity and partly through rousseau whose influence that we then find in hegel, or an elaborate theory of recognize. And finally, nature. The doctrine of the will to power, which is to master res to a metaphysical fury of the whole through moss on. But setting aside the strange intellectual history of the topic, let us take up the story of moss itself and take it up from the beginning. That is to say, its origins and function within animal nature and then complex and diverse forms into which it grows and mutates in the unique environment of the human soul. But since time is short. And sue moss is long. We will begin at the 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 too. But for the animal to live means to continually burn through ones bodies store of necessary goods like food and water, and to continually endeavor to replace them. Thus nature has provisioned animals with desires, the particular things that their bodies need. But added to this depletion and decay from within. There is also, of course, danger from without hostile animals, storms, fire flood and the like. So nature has also provided animals with aversions to the things they must avoid. So all of is pretty obvious, but these fundamental natural desires are virgins do not buy themselves, account for all that animals seek or do they would if the world like the garden of eden, a place without difficulty or Obstruction Without war or work, so that the primary inclinations were all easily and directly satisfied. Without delay. Or diversion. But in the harsh and in tractable world that we live in, they face difficulties and obstacles. And when this happens, thwarted desire will commonly give rise to other 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 to its satisfaction. But for carnivores, their meal runs from them, and when caught fights them. Therefore, the primary desire spin off secondary ones to address the difficulties obstructing it desires. Focus focused on the preliminary tasks of catching the fleeing 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 faculties that will help them deal with the obstacles they naturally face to these primary inclinations. In the of the lion, its strong limbs capable of rapid acceleration and as well as its claws and powerful jaw. Different animals will, of course, be outfitted differently. But in the case of 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 mobilize ones faculties to summon great energy and effort and spring into action. And this element of capacity for forceful self mobilization is to finally get to the point what is meant by full mass, at least in its most basic and animal form. And it is standard issue for 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 closest to film loss. And what i have in mind, the term adrenaline for adrenaline is indeed found almost universally vertebrate animals. As it turns out, however, this term adrenaline also helps to clarify through contrast the for meaning of the term through loss for a a adrenaline is known as the or flight hormone, a fact that reminds us that the mere faculty of summoning great energy and effort can be used for diametrically opposite purposes. In the face of danger. One can energetically attack or energetically away. For whatever reason. The concern of fillmores concerns exclusively. The former as the english translation spirit heartedness makes clear. Indeed, perhaps the best definition of loss at this stage is the fight in us. But what is the reason for this particular focus on this and thus turning away from the alternative of fleeing. Well, there is nothing unique or particularly interesting about fleeing danger. But there is 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 humans. To state just one ramification through loss in mobilizing us for action has not only physical ill effects and increased increased heart and lung activity but also mental. It energizes the mind, but it also clears mind. Eliminating thoughts, focusing it completely on the danger at hand. But it necessarily go one step further for the danger at hand will inevitably trigger within us 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 effort to throw everything we have into the fight, they make us fade, hardened, if not paralyzed. But this means that few more. 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 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 that we are. It is through film loss that we form a second self that looks back upon the first with pride or shame. But this complex topic is for another day. So lets get back to our origins story where we left it. Animal loss in the elemental sense of the fight in us that then becomes the seed that later virgins within soul into the far more complex and elusive phenomenon of human. The loss. It is that transition in its beginnings that we want to understand. Now, plato, who uses the term loss both for or for both the animal and the human forms of the loss does not openly at least freeman ties this distinction and transition from the animal to the human. But rousseau, who reserves his term for corrupt exclusively for humans, does. So here is what rousseau identifies as the crucial event in the rise propre of this human to arise in humans. Quote the primitive passion which all tend directly our happiness focus us only on objects that relate to our happiness. But when deflected from their object obstacles, they more focused the obstacle to remove it than on the object to attain it. Then they change nature and become irascible and hating. And that is how the natural love of self becomes more propre. So to clarify animals whom us we have just seen also arises when the animals natural desire or its an obstacle that compels it to turn away temporarily from its primary object in order to vigorously combat and the obstacle to it. But is essential to animal feel loss. So now us to see is that word temporarily. The animals battle the obstacle no matter furious, no matter how moments terribly momentarily to thoroughly absorbing continuous 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 a distinct end in its own, and one that is greater in important sort attractiveness than the original end. But such transformation according rousseau, that is the defining characteristic of human to most or almost proper in other words animals are and remain wholly led by their inclinations as. Plato would put it in the animals soul 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, temper early call in its support, but within the human soul for various reasons, seumas becomes a much more independent or selfsufficient self subsistence thing, liberated from service to desires ends and moved instead by its own ends, by somatic goods such as victory, honor and revenge, and in its pursuit of these new goods, it will offer, it will often resist our desires and. Even turning the tables become desires. Ruler. All of this is of what plato meant in it meant to say about human do loss. When he argued in the republic that some loss constitutes an independ and part of the sole distinct from desire as well as from reason in humans through loss really takes on a life its own and has a hand in almost everything that we do. So that is basic view that im proposing here a modest first step in approaching a complex and the elusive phenomenon. But now let provide one simple and concrete illustration of this view for the purpose, fleshing it out also to provide a little more evidence for validity. And finally, also to. To bring out some of his larger significance. The illustration takes off from the. If mostly slight. In fact that the human animal else it may be, is also preeminently the sport of animal. What is a sport . It is a truly bizarre thing. People to pursue a difficult but perfectly arbitrary 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 that chalk line. Why dont you and your friends try to stop. On what understanding of psychology is that an 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, comfort, enduring pain, and causing serious injury. But this strange sport of behavior makes kind of perfect sense and provides a kind of perfect elastic nation, a winner is seen as a direct expression of our uniquely human form of loss, which has liberated from desire, both regarding motive and its. Regarding motive. The sport of animal loves through meiotic struggle and victory, not as a means to the saddest faction of its thwarted desires, but as an end in itself. And regarding goal, as if striving and is itself the whole purpose of the activity, then it seems not really to what the official goal at all. One thus becomes free to invent any meaningless goal 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 primarily or most deeply what we are in the. We know that sports are just games, forms of play recreation. They are not serious. And even if we except for now humans to mosss basic premise that victory as such is the true human good. We are allowed to ask victory at what a World Champion tiddledywinks player is not as as a victory is not as great a victor as churchill and. Roosevelt were after world two. Only the highest, most serious goals can inspire the fullest striving and the greatest victories. So the sport of life is based on a few molecules. In that sense, striving is everything. The goals dont really. They do. In the end, the value of your striving cannot be from the value of what you are striving for. So striving and through loss can, never stand alone. It is dynamic 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 that plus its necessary three concomitant which is embrace of something to fight for the devotion to some group or dedication to some ideal and i would argue that the single greatest source of misunderstanding of moss comes from missing. This dyadic character. And then therefore identifying through moss in entirely with the first component and neglecting the second, that is to say, the striving 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 two elements. In other words, two moss is not a single thing. Its a complex package full of inner tensions. Thus looking at through in a one dimensional way, seeing only the proud spirit and spirited fighter people assume that he wholly a wholly selfserve person when in fact, while often selfish, he burns within with a need for service and sacrifice. They see he can be aggressive and cruel, but miss his longing to protect and 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 that people i have known in the us military, though they are not many did seem to fit this general description 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 moss can be extremely ferocious against intruders, and yet supremely gentle and loyal to those they are protecting. So to end this cycle discussion on a more concrete political note, i would like to connect the aspect of the loss. I first beginning a character a stick of through moss linked to a famous political question. Most people like to be real realists in their political and would tend 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 militaries . Very simple, obvious question that its never been maybe definitive, fully answered instead of. 995 countries in the world, fewer ten are military dictatorships. Now, obviously, there are a 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 that weve been discussing. Most people that those who have and acquired great power those who are spirited and ambitious are uncomplicated and like all the tough guys in the movies they will push their power and influence in a Straight Line as far as it will go. But to begin with the obvious point 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. Of course, that has all been imposed them. But i think its fair to say that at all. It also comes quite naturally to them precisely because they are fighters in some the military ethos of obedience and sacrifice. Sacrifice is probably an important factor in helping to explain their shrinking from rule, their restraint. And that can be shown to flow from through mass, rightly understood. So in some offer this as one further small demonstration of harvey mansfields off repeated observation that one cannot understand without understanding of. This session is build as the gender neutral society. However, the title of harvey mansfield, his 2006 book, which was a response to the gender neutral society was manliness. Bold, stark. No. Subtitle. Simply manliness. So where has manliness . Has gender neutral become so dominant that even the American Enterprise institute, from the word manly this and this despite fact that its own name has the of manliness to it. To be enterprising is manly to tackle difficult tasks scorn the danger. Certainly the American Enterprise institute champions, the commercial daring that tocqueville thought was characteristic of americans, though bourgeois americans astonishing brio to quest for gain beyond the business that is the business america, the nation itself can be understood as an enterprise. A political founding of. The sort that interested both aristotle and machiavelli. Aei champions. The nobility of that larger American Enterprise. So in keeping with our institution tional responsibility and the forthrightness of professor mansfield, lets that our theme for the afternoon Late Afternoon is manliness or manliness. Under the contemporary regime of gender neutrality, the first thing to note is that under is a position that manliness against it prefers to be over above. On top in command. Curiously, despite 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 manliness. It turns out that there 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 language into autonomy in dependance, transcendence and thereby brought within of everyone in the past, harvey tells us, manliness was characteristic of men and not men, but only a portion of men the few manly men the manly men ruled. But they did not rule. Absolutely. Despite their tyrannical impulses. They were kept 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 line over into rashness or oppression or simply male bullheaded idiocy. Whereas a woman spoke or more accurately complained only to the men her domestic circle, the philosophers being men themselves abstracted from the personal wisdom of women, and generalized the critique. Socrates and challenged homer, the insanely aggressive heroes. Aristotle sought to tame the militaristic, imperialistic manliness of the greeks by pointing out that war should be pursued for the sake of peace. Both ironic women philosophers have traditionally critics of manliness but appreciative critics or another way of the same thing. They have been like mansfield, modest defenders of manliness, aware that manliness as an element, human nature cannot be extinguished, and thus that a tempered and civilized version of it is necessary, if only to defend against the tyrannical variety. To put this in up to the minute terms without the heroic manliness of a lot of men. Zelinsky to inspire the ukrainian people the barbarism of bare chested Vladimir Putin will triumph so we can see the threat of extreme manliness. Putin and islamic terrorism and in our own homegrown disordered masculinity. According to the fbi, there are. 3000 active gangs in the united 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 men 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. In the news of late have been the desperately alone and adolescent males who shoot up schools our politicians respond with calls to limit access guns and increase access to Mental Health professionals. Their diagnosis however does not reach spiritual crisis afflicting males as nature predicted by thoroughgoing nihilists will rather will nothing less than not will. Driven by rage and resentment, they seek to annihilate the. This is one face of autonomy. But there are others. According to the that mansfield traces manliness was driven underground and forced to assume various neutral aliases like autonomy. It became noxious. In being separated from males and universalized manliness slipped. Its always tenuous moral moorings. The heart of the book traces how traditional manly assertion was transferred drummed into manly nihilism, darwin and nature and in turn how nihilism, how manly nihilism was embraced by woman warrior simone de beauvoir, who refashioned it. The womanly nihilism radical feminism as mans field points out, radical feminism remains womanly in methods relying 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 to release women from their subordination men by overcoming womens insult 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 like the eternal feminine for freedom of creative selfdefinition, radical feminism, thus in the thus imitates and the nietzsche in over man or trans man as the height of human striving. As harvey succinctly put it, beauvoir is in drag because because nihilism denies a human essence. It denies also the political moral significance of the bifurcation of that human essence into male and female, when there is no sense of ones own being and no higher being 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 of the force at work, especially its disguised modern form, which includes scientific nihilism as well as feminist nihilism. Unlike the psychologies the neurologists who reductively study men in bits and pieces, mansfield seeks to assemble and assess male nature as a coherent whole. While Academic Studies sex differences have documented certain in men like aggression spatial reasoning, no researcher has ever bothered to ask how is spatial in men related to their aggression . Mansfield not only asks the question, he answers it with a concise account of the deep link between and abstraction, which are two forms of being single. Mansfield quickly transcends the realm of generic masculinity. He 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 of manliness is visible. The courageous philosopher whose, inner freedom of mind is not incompatible with a politic care for the salutary prejudices of ordinary life. By the time his tour of manliness is complete, harvey has made the case for a properly circumscribed manliness. A manliness that remain within the horizon of. In other words. A manliness attentive to the welfare of weaker and vulnerable human beings, especially the weaker sex with frankness that he admits is unjust. Lee harvey insists on womens weakness, returning manliness to those civilized bounds, however, will be difficult since getting manliness walk the line johnny cash style. So to speak depends greatly how the weaker sex behaves. Mansfield agrees with tocqueville that. It is women who establish the moral horizon and that they do so through their privileged position in the domestic sphere. Nonetheless, mansfield does not endorse a return to the separate spheres arrangement and the model of republican womanhood that and before him, rousseau had praised. In fact, he dismisses as reactionary the strict division of labor based on sexual complementarity in which men and women equally are understood to have different different virtues, different response abilities. Following John Stuart Mill, rather than tocqueville, the contemporary world now understands sexual equality in, the economic and individualistic terms of equal access to education and the professions. Mansfield does not call for any curtailment there. He, however, envision some of the public distinction in american life. Mansfield suggests that we take of the liberal distinction 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 be a more honest acknowledgment of gender differences. And yes, even the truth of age old stereotype. In sum, let us follow John Stuart Mill in public and error startle in private, maybe a different version of the lock in the short term and aristotle in the long term. So thats a overview of harveys. What id like to do in the remaining time is make some observation about what has changed on the sex and gender front in 16 years since manliness was, and then see whether framework helps us understand 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 lion themed earrings to give me courage. Although the Gay Rights Movement was already in full swing during the decade the aughts, harvey chose to say very little about it. Nonetheless, i think one could argue that the of same sex marriage was a predictable extension of gender neutral society. If the sexual difference between and women is to go unnoticed in the law, then soon enough difference between heterosexuality and homophobia will go unnoticed. Also of course, for individuals. The directionality of ones era matters intensely. Yet society at large . No longer cares whether an individual attracted to 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 of a gay family is the result of heterosexual congress. Egg and must be conjoined somehow, even if only at the level of the gametes in the petri dish. Because no. Same sex pairing is capable of reproducing from within itself. The fundamental difference between heterosexuality homosexuality remains aristotles definition of the as requiring conjoining of male and female. The sake of the future has been invalidated. It has been resolutely or manfully ignored. However, and the movement to overcome sex has transitioned to fields as the increasing unwieldy acronym lgbtq eye. A testifies. The central letter now is t if you count them. There are seven. Its the middle one. The central letter now is t for transgender. It represents an interesting shift. The movement used to be about world that dare not speak its name which is to say it concerned the status an erotic orientation in the legal and social acceptability of that of those relationships. By contrast, the new issue is remarkably on. It is about but a gender identity is stripped of connection others and wretchedly selfinvolved. Perhaps it should not be surprising that the t to i a trajectory terminates with the letter a, which stands for asexual or a romantic. Thats the alpha primitive, right . Not sexual, not romantic. This is not the richly Scarlet Letter of hester adultery. Exactly how the wider world denying rights or visible pity to those who prefer their own company is a little unclear. Maybe romantic comedies, a microaggression against them. But to to those in transition trans is new incarnation of beauvoir as transcendence the demand 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 the gender queer or gender nonconforming incur age experimentation with various permutation of gender. There is think it admission here that gender and attempts to raise nonstereotypical and girls never made much headway. It seems most people conform. They are cis, which is to say they and behave pretty much as one might expect based the old stereotypes. Indeed, the last couple of decades, the second very sex characteristic sticks have come back in fashion. Men have returned to facial hair in a big way. They may have to cultivate sensitive beauty, but they can look like lumberjacks and women, at least those who didnt grow up in the 1970s have returned to wearing and long hair. By contrast with the the the trans gender feel in their spirit, their bones, or maybe just in their that they are wrongly classed the group whose biological apparatus they have mistakenly been saddled with. And i 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 to accomplish what used to be called gender, but which is now called gender confirmation. It might be a value to press a bit on the gender essentialism of the transgender card by asking what is the essence of a woman such 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 of the virtues that 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 indeterminate or inbetween are so focused not to say obsessed with the body. Its hormones and its presentation. Despite our tendency to medicalized everything, i think is a growing awareness, especially among parents of the medical malfeasance at work in so confirming what might be a phase or a fad. Decades ago the transgendered were usually individuals born male and for some few social and medical transition brought a psychic harmony of late though the situation has changed dramatically with a rash of girls deciding they are boys. Why, if they just to do boy stuff like play baseball and ditch the dolls . Well, america and parents have always given girls leeway to be tomboys. I speak as a tomboy. Indeed, have had considerably flexibility than did to be gender nonconforming in their pursuits. Apparently feminism and its offspring in the sexual revolution have improved girlhood in america. With no resources in religion or Public Opinion to resist relentless reduction of everything to bodies, its no wonder that girls today have no idea what it might mean to be a woman in any other sense than that presented by our hypersexualized culture. For preteen and teenage girls transitioning is a fashionable way out of their confusion and moral dilemmas. This is the destructive 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 the second sex. Why remain in second . If one doesnt have to . The trans phenomenon will not stop with transiting between venus and mars. Trans humanism 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 every inch of is inked, including entire face eyelids lips as well as the private parts of the body. In effect, the between the public and private parts of the body disappears. Extremetech chewing is an attempt to deny human nakedness to overwrite our original, even more 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 some, trans humans have their tongues to be forked like a lizards. Some implant horns and tails. And meanwhile the cyborg 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 of human nature, this mad quest for metamorphosis will continue. Harvey reminds us that there is an alternative. There forms of transcendence proper to us, as embody souls. There is, for instance, a way of transcending the sexual difference that begins by respecting it. If men are more likely to be courageous and women more likely to moderate, and if marriage a meeting of minds as well as bodies, then in that commingling men and women. Yes, the cis ones can learn from one another by to appreciate the qualities, the other the virtues of each are modified and enlarged. This is the growing togetherness achieved in long and Success School marriages. Harvey. Marriage as one model of transcendence. There is another kind of transcendence as well possible for those who develop that smallest but most divine element within our being and whose perception of the whole takes in its gendered nature. While transcending gender bias one thinks of novelists like george eliot and henry james, philosophers like aristotle and thinkers like harvey, 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 to ask a question, then submit it either via email or a circuit on twitter through the ways that are described on the web page. Maybe ill begin with a simple question. My own, the very 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 that Margaret Thatcher is the 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 a reason and it belongs more to the male sex. Arthur i mean, go to our earlier i your your fight or flight adrenaline. Yeah. You on adrenaline fight or flight. But what accounts for what . What causes one to choose between those . Theres another chemical, testosterone presumably, men are more inclined to fight women more inclined to flee. Arthur, id love to hear your thoughts on this as well and i just note that early in manliness as he introduces the concept of thermos, he describes as, quote, the spiritedness that every being has in some measure. But the manly have an excess. Again, im curious, the relationship between gender and thermos, but also id love to hear your reaction to harveys contention that professor mansfields that the manly have themselves in excess. Yeah, well, i just start again back a few steps. You know, foremost is something that i argued, sort of found in some form among all animals. But, you know, as soon as you form that thought, the next thought is but some a lot more than others. And so, you know, lions, dogs and horses and so on. These are platos examples, especially a bit of the philharmonic and. And then further within a species species, i mean, if youre a dog lover, you know, dogs vary a lot in their characters and some are a lot more dramatic than others. And similarly, among beings, theres a wide range of difference. It does seem to me, you know, that men are typically, you know, more thematic than women are, although what makes complicated is that womens, you know, women can have a lot of too much. And just doesnt look the same. And partly its precisely its regarded as manly. You know, women will, you know, find some other way to it rather than, you know, inyourface. You know, open manliness of, you know, of some men. So thats a little complicated question. But complications, it does seem to me that, you know, by instinct, you know, if if theres you know, someone is breaking in at the middle of the night, you know, the man feels this is my job. You know. And, you know, and maybe, you know, maybe in this case the woman is more is stronger or younger or better fighter than the man. And so that may get overruled by a rational consideration. But it seems to be on the instinctive level. Part of manliness is protective and and you know it just comes out, you know, you know, very powerfully. And then the further point is that, even among men, theres a very broad distinction. And so theres this, you know, some languages like greek that make a distinction, you know, anthropologist means, male man, meaning both specie species, human and the male of the species, but on their is a word that they have dedicated to just the male. And it means, you know, the really the manly man, you know, the tough guy and so on. Know in spanish, you know, similar distinction in english you dont, although there are plenty of expressions like, man, you know, tough guy. And so on to sort of say that express the same idea. So yeah i think that is very broad but unequal distribution of loss. But yeah to direct question. Yeah, i think that the men do tend to be more men than, women. If we had more time and if i were a less moderate moderator, i might ask whether todays political scene the best exemplars of the most, are men or women. And ill but 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 philosophy, on the writing of philosophy, on esoteric writing. The the you writing of the writing truth in subtle and sometimes guarded enshrouded ways. Dianas remarks she alluded to harveys discussion in manliness of the relationship between manliness symbols and the work, the act of philosophy. Im curious as somebody who has written and studied this yourself studied philosophy. How would you describe relationship between buffs and philosophy itself, not 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 of the law 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 philosopher ism kind of i think you know, transcend it too much. I think its the platonic position that that you know philosophers are not to monarch but they have in some way a more real courage than the two monarch. That underlying prebiotic courage. I mean, to us, its just riddled with contradictions and and so you know what . You know, achilles is on the one hand, the model the tough guy and the monarch man. But in many ways, you know, its so hes so vulnerable. I mean, youve got he was into a rage because know someone has taken something from him and if hes too hes too vulnerable. Hes too easily wounded. And his anger in his doom was, both deny that fact, but stemmed from it. And so theres got to be a better kind of courage and better kind of courage as to. Is to, first of all, to accept, you know, the things you cant change. So you dont rail against things. Youre not dominated. I mean, in the example rousseau gives of the philosopher from get you trying to get rid the obstacle and you cant forget obstacle, you cant stop fighting that obstacle cant go and and thats what makes you through monarch and a fighter but its a weakness. And he says, why does this happen . And 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, the ability to not, you know, when when something cant be fixed. You can walk away from it. I have just gotten a new dog and i walked his dog in lincoln park and she is very eager and shes very smart, 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 her if she sees a squirrel, just as she just wants to take off after it and so on. And of course, all the are savvy enough to know a lot dogs in that park, they notice they near the trees and theyre up the tree, you know, as the scrolling of the 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 by that height and she lets it go whereas a human being you cant, you know like you cant let go. You need to pursue that. You need to invent this. Its an insult. I have to fight, fight, fight. And thats in the end, a weakness. And so if philosopher has a better courage and a better fear loss for having strength of soul. But it enables him or her to walk away from things that they cant change change. Then i dont. Yeah. Diana, i have another question for you, but if youd like to jump in on this. No, go ahead. Give me a break. Lets change gears completely. Yeah, well, she was completely this is, what, july 6th, two days ago was the declaration of independence. Given all that, youve your own career, your writings, focusing on the founding, our institutions should, we think of the declaration of independence as manly document. And if so, how . Yeah, sure. You pledge life, your fortune and your sacred honor that that is an instance of manliness manliness. I guess id like to take a couple of steps, 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 is fundamentally aristocratic, the manly individual asserts, and his significance in, the cosmos. And thats why the dog doesnt give it gives his is his significa base is at stake. Harvey also so this superior individual is asserting his own superiority, asserting the superiority of his way of. So the greek poets who celebrated greek manliness that it is fitting for the greeks rule barbarians. And following aristotle mansfield concludes that is at its heart to tyrannical. There is something impure there. Manly quote from harvey. Manly men in taking responsible for others cannot stop themselves from ruling their inferiors and treating them as slaves their very goodness when 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 doctrine of the equality rights bearing individuals, the endowment of nature and god, whether that doesnt contain kind of remedy for tyranny, that is implicit in manliness. At the same time, it calls forth the manliness required for human flourishing. So declaration does demand manly virtue. Its left to human beings to vindicate and secure the rights that belong to us by nature. But the declaration of independence also restrains because those human beings who hazard their lives or fortunes and their sacred honor act not for themselves alone, but for and in the name of all, and moreover, by their success, they acquire no to rule. That goes beyond self rule that goes beyond limits of self. Republican selfgovernment. So it does seem to that the american founding is aiming for a new 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 the greeks to rule barbarians. But instead, in the an assertion of the equality in which all mankind shares so the american regime is better than those regimes not founded upon 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 understand the goodness of our regime, the doctrine of human equality set certain internal limits to the imperialism, overt you and i think you can actually see this. If you just look at look the individuals can you fit washington, lincoln and churchill . Can fit them within the ancient account of manly virtue with its tyranny. And i dont think you can quite do it. In other words washington, lincoln and churchill are not like pericles, alcibiades, and caesar. 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 future, but maybe 111 pitch for an avenue to make better. I think our best bet a revival of moderate manliness is a reassertion of the truths, the declaration. If we once again asserted those truths to be selfevident, and we might find both manly wherewithal and a standard by which to keep manliness moderate and moral. 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 document, a brave document. And uses the term manly in describing the legislatures that push back the king. Its easy to see maybe the declaration as a manly document. But in our own time, when the challenge at hand seems to be less sort of throwing off institu and asserting our right, our right and power to build ones, but to maintain and preserve institutions. Im curious how you see manliness filtering that particularly having lincoln in mind his own concerns about the preservation of institutions. How do you see manliness into that responsibility in time . Yeah. I mean, thats thats the address. This you know, reverence for the law, the kind of selfrestraint thats manliness as selfrestraint. What is required to live under law of your own making mob rule, not not legitimate. But i mean, is it to keep circling back . Is it. Its men . I suppose its manly. Assert oneself in creating a new constitution. But what about generation that ratified the constitution . They didnt write it. They didnt created. They didnt announce it. But they their contribution to. This was to be bound by it. And in our time, to be bound by institute tions, not of our own making, rather than the sort of joy and energy of throwing those things off and creating 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 of the nation. Washington was aware of that. Lincoln is aware of that. And so it does seem to me that what 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 that it must do. It has the 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 has offered us no wisdom, as far as i can tell yet. So i have time for one last one. Its one thing to see manliness or to most in the executive branch, not necessarily executive branch, but in the executive in our constitutional. And this came up in the previous discussion. How should we think of these things and the other parts of government in the legislature years and in the work of judges . Madison saw that ambition would counteract ambition, the ambition of each branch, the will of each branch, all those hamilton said the judiciary probably shouldnt a will of its own. How should we think of these aspects of of of human life not in the presidency, but in legislatures or in the judicial . I mean, in a way, you already answered it with ambition. Count, rank, 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 and to maintain the prerogatives of his office. So there is a constant enlargement of 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 into the modern time. But if you could stay over just a moment. Do you have any thoughts . Well, yeah let me pick it up from your initial question of whether the declaration of independence is manly and i basically agree with everything diana said, but obviously, if youre youre youre youre telling your colonial rulers to get lost in the you know, youre going to rule yourself. Thats thats a mammoth thing to do. In addition, its the way its done in the name of 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 know, doesnt have any clear beginning. I mean, people, you know, but but its kind codification of the rights of man, the kind of enlightenment product. And its a kind of assertion of, okay, heres what we are. Were and be and were good not because 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 infinite worth. And , thats thats, you know, just believe me and im going to defend that. So theres, you know, a manly assertion. So, you know, modernity is supposed to be and in some ways is a kind of on to mass and on manliness, most clearly in, someone like hobbes. But you manliness us theyre slippery, complicated phenomena. And you find them on every side of every issue. In some ways. And so, you know, hobbes, who on the one hand is basically people to just stay alive and dont worry about your pride in the leviathan is, you know, named for, you know, this line king of the children pride. But the same time it was very original, very daring, even more daring than writing a book called manliness to to write the book that that hobbs wrote. And so theres a kind of man behind the, you know, the attack on manliness. And you see things like that all the time. I mean, you 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 early in your answer. Strauss maybe you know a certain anti theological idea is a major motivator. Well, either thats a fancy word for anger and anger is its almost so so its of motivated by fear loss some way and and so similarly rights of man and the declaration of 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 horizons. Youre saying. I have rights. But what are your rights . Well, dont kill me. Dont take my property. You. Thats all im asking. So then rights then seem to be assertive to assert too little. Maybe. But on the other hand, to up where diana was going, i mean, hegel is the one who tries to say, okay, were never to get rid of this concern for our dignity and pride and manliness to us. But theres an inner dialectic, and he agrees that its contradicted and contradictory 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 as better than you . Why do you need to have them tell you that youre good . So its just riddle with all these contradictions and hegel, at least thinks that theres a, you know, a synthesis. Theres a resolution. And the resolution is Something Like the rights of man that if were equal, then we can recognize and each other and and and theres no contradiction in taking, you know, your dignity for someone respecting your equal worth. So so hegels doing who holds out a hope that theres a solution to the political problem on the level of humans. You know, if the earlier enlightenment says never mind through us solution of political problem the 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 its its doors that its got a peaceful resolution and something along the lines of what youre saying. So ill just leave it there. Well, were past time feel bad. I didnt sort of blew past stop sign on this but i did want to say before we close weve spent the afternoon talking about mansfield as hes sat here to this. I wonder if you might have any in conclusion, it could point out we got wrong, but if we have a microphone, either, if youd like to take the podium or a microphone can find you. But wont you please join me . Thanking our two panelists. And professor ralph. Thank you all. Im not used to hearing my name spoken so often, but i must say at the end of the afternoon, i think i do get used to it. And in fact, if i heard a sentence without harvey in it, i thought i was being ignored. I dont even see if i read businessmen and sat in and made a product like henry ford and everybody would use your name and to describe a car. Its a certain attraction attraction for manly people. But i wanted to Say Something also. First to salute. My son. Will and daughter in law sandra, my brother john, my spectacular wife, father and my to others. Too many too numerous to name. I thought i would like to say a little bit about conservatism because i was described as consort 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 which is republican. And thats a little bit more republican than conservative because i like to win. But still a 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 six years of college, ive never taught a course on conservatism. So let try to explain this and answer whether this is a word or some Certain Party conservatism today that. Conservative is is a part of liberalism. Liberalism. I understand is a philosophy of rights. And our Politics Today is essentially a politics liberalism because people speak of rights and 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 extended liberalism . Is. I say extended. It extends farther than the people whom we call liberals today and who whose liberalism. That smaller sense conservatives attack. But conservatism is really as like, say, the the little brother or little sister of liberalism this comes out of reaction. Its reactive. Its the other side. The liberals in this smaller sense who are on the attack, they their initiatives they want 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 of the ancients, plato and aristotle, the leaders. But there theres a number of them, including josephus, as mentioned, and and and i, i could describe what you learn from the ancients as learning how to live in the land of virtue and the beauties and the difficulties of that 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 and authors who more than they think is reasonable to say, but 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 otherwise. And liberalism knows essentially nothing of the land of virtue. So the beer conservative, you have to learn first that there liberals. Who as far as our as long as our politics remains liberal the extended sense will always exist. The left will always be with us. Dont think that you can abolish it. In fact, i would say its generally feature a virtue of conservatives that they 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 and unless it cannot be recalled, my example president obama when introducing his Health Care ProgramAffordable Health program, said im not the first president and to take up the question health care but i want to be the last. Thats the kind of ambition and senseless assertiveness on. The other side, the conservative mustnt imitate, but also must be of. So we need the land of virtue. Partly for this reason, because we need to be able to appreciate the character of liberalism, but also because liberalism doesnt say enough about what human beings can think, think and do with excellence. So thats what 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. Okay. Welcome. Uh, our audience in the