It needed no subtitle the opening chapter, the first 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, maryland. And im happy to say senior fellow here at aei. She writes and studies statements and political rhetoric, including especially 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 keepin