By James V. Schall · Tuesday, January 24, 2012 James V. Schall’s “A Catholic Reading of the Gorgias of Plato” appears in Telos 157 (Winter 2011). Read the full version online at the TELOS Online website, or purchase a print copy of the issue here.
 The Gorgias of Plato is of particular interest to political philosophy. Not only is there a detailed discussion of punishment and oratory, but also of practical political ways of action and their foundation. This dialogue is of particular worth for the Roman Catholic notion of the relation of reason and revelation. Political life leaves us with the notion that not all crimes are punished, nor are all good deeds rewarded. This fact leaves the Platonic concern of whether the world is created in injustice. The myth at the end of the Gorgias suggests that politicians are the ones most likely to cause extensive damage and evil in the world. It also argues that unless such deeds are suffered for, thus righting the principle, they will be punished. This consideration naturally leads to the issue of resurrection, an issue about which even Marxist-oriented philosophers like Adorno and Horkheimer saw the logic.
Continue reading →
By James V. Schall · Monday, October 9, 2006 The Washington Times recently (August 12) published a useful and insightful Editorial, “It’s Fascism,” that I will use to comment on this nomenclature. First, the Editorial points out the gradual change in President Bush’s designation of the enemy. He, with Mr. Blair, began using the word “terrorist,” but more recently he has used the designation “fascist.” “Is this a legitimate use?” the Editorial asks itself. Fascism, it continues, is a “political philosophy” that exalts a group or nation over the individual. It could also imply a religion. Fascism promoted central rule, subordinated individuals to “political leadership.” The term thus can legitimately be used to designate those responsible for the recent “terrorist” understandings of themselves.
The Editorial identifies groups like “al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas” and other organizations as “fascist,” that is, they operate in effect on these principles. “Non-Muslims” are regarded as “a lesser breed of expendable or contemptible dhimmis and infidels.” Social and economic restrictions are placed on every group that does not conform to the ruling power. The Editorial says that “this is not mainstream Islam. . . . It is a corruption of the faith.”
Continue reading →
By James V. Schall · Sunday, October 8, 2006 The war in which we are currently engaged confuses us, in part because many will not admit it is a war. We do not know what to call it. Nor do we know what to call the self-declared enemy who has been attacking us in one form or another for some twenty-five years, ever more visibly and dangerously since September 11, 2001, with subsequent events in Afghanistan, Iraq, Spain, London, Bombay, Bali, Paris, Lebanon, and Israel. Those there are who insist that it is not a “war” at all but perhaps, at best, a police issue, no big problem. Others contend that it is a result of American or Western expansionism so that its cure is simply for us to return to our frontiers and be content with what we have. If we do this withdrawal, every threat will immediately cease at this point. No, in another view, it is due to poverty and oppression, even though most of the perpetrators of the war are quite rich. Yet another interpretation is that this turmoil stems from a very small minority with no relation to national or religious origins, a kind of floating international brigade of bandits, like the Mafia, out for their own profit and glory. The variants on these themes are almost infinite.
What names should we use that will accurately define and designate the cause? Calling things by their right names is the first requirement of reality; refusing to do so, the first cause of confusion, if not defeat. At first, we were told that the war is against something called “terrorism.” Its perpetrators were logically called “terrorists.” It was considered “hate-language” to call them anything else. However, we find listed on no map a place called “Terroritoria,” where said “terrorists” otherwise dwell in peace plotting our demise. It has no capital, no military uniform for its mostly invisible troops, no rules of combat. In this designation, some difficult ensues when we try to identify or designate a group that just wants to “terrorize” others, as if that is an explanation. Some may like to travel or to fish for pleasure; they like “terror” for terror’s sake, just a question of taste.
Continue reading →
|
|
