The Weblog

Home for the heteronomous

“Tuesday” and “Hatred” do not go together as “musical” and “literate” do

I hate the Supreme Court.

June 16, 2009 - Posted by | Tuesday Hatred


  1. I hate that I forgot to bring a pillow to sit on today at work. I kinda, sorta, not really hate that I’ll be working a few twelve-hour days to make up for the days I’ll be missing… when I’m on holiday in Miami!

    I hate that I had a nightmare last night that was, as far as I can remember, a version of John Carpenter’s The Thing with special guest Chuck Norris.

    Comment by Currence | June 16, 2009

  2. I never read it and I’m pretty sure I’ll never read it, but I hate that book by that Straussian about motorcycles. I think I hate Rahe’s book with Montesquieu in the title – again, I haven’t read it and likely won’t. Straussians have been so disappointing lately.

    Comment by Craig | June 16, 2009

  3. I hate waking up to go to the bathroom and then being unable to fall asleep for what feels like hours.

    Comment by Adam Kotsko | June 16, 2009

  4. I hate books with the subtitle “Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel, and the War on Terror”. And you know what? I hate them without even reading them first.

    Comment by Wrongshore | June 16, 2009

  5. But Wrongshore – now they call her infidel!

    I hate Americans.

    Comment by stras jones | June 16, 2009

  6. I hate crappy presses. I hate the author, editor and publisher who let through (minimum) three “op cits” which had no original referent in book where I was chasing important references. My proposed punishment is a conversation with me in which I begin every sentence with “As I said earlier..” when I didn’t say anything relevant earlier. They’ll worry they’ve got Alzheimer’s and then we’ll see how they like it. I hate that it’s probably not the crappy press’s fault that they’re crappy.

    I hate the mere fact of sweating.

    I hate the cruel irony that I am able to correct writing in languages which I am not able to write correctly.

    Comment by RobDP | June 16, 2009

  7. He’s a Straussian?

    Comment by ben | June 16, 2009

  8. Yes, look at the book endorsements and where he went for his PhD. As well as the subject matter. Unless you meant Rahe!

    Comment by Craig | June 16, 2009

  9. You may not know this, but you can get a doctorate at chicago, and even serve on the committee on social thought, without being a straussian.

    Comment by ben | June 16, 2009

  10. But you won’t get Mansfield to endorse your book.

    Comment by Craig | June 17, 2009

  11. His essay in the Times a few weeks back goes some ways in confirming your suspicion, Craig. I keep meaning to write a reaction post to that essay, and haven’t yet found the time.

    Comment by Brad | June 17, 2009

  12. I hate that I’ve no idea who this mysterious motorcycle-riding Straussian is.

    Comment by stras jones | June 17, 2009

  13. Stras, see here.

    Comment by Brad Johnson | June 17, 2009

  14. I’m not sure how anyone could read his own essay or one or two reviews and not plainly see that he is a Straussian. It touches on standard Straussian themes (technology, nihilism, loss of masculinity) and figures (Nietzsche, Marx, Heidegger) and is endorsed by senior Straussians (they tend to stick together and promote shoddy work so long as it fits into the party line) and he comes from a Straussian bastion (Chicago) and when a typical Straussian route (into senior public service/think tanks). (Note: my original point was the Straussian works have been disappointing lately; I’m not dismissing his book because it is Straussian.)

    Comment by Craig | June 17, 2009

  15. I only read the magazine article. Those themes and figures are hardly proper to Straussians; those themes exercised those figures, who came rather before Strauss. I took it as just another piece on intellectuals and working with one’s hands/the simple life, which is, you know, anyone could turn something like that out.

    And I don’t put much stock in the Chicago connection as such.

    Comment by ben | June 17, 2009

  16. This article gives the most specific background information I’ve read so far regarding Crawford’s relationship to Chicago – why he went there, who he studied with, etc. He may not consider himself a Straussian. (He doesn’t actually say either way.) But, as pointed out above and as noted by several commenters to the article itself, Strauss unquestionably looms large.

    Comment by marcegoodman | June 17, 2009

  17. “Chicago’s philosophy department is the stronghold of the ideas of influential conservative philosopher Leo Strauss”


    Though certainly, Tarcov.

    Also: “This kingly sport”.

    Comment by ben | June 17, 2009

  18. This kingly sport


    Comment by stras jones | June 17, 2009

  19. You probably won’t get Mansfield to blurb your book unless you’re either his student or Tarcov’s (Mansfield probably won’t – and almost never has in the past to my knowledge – blurb books by Ralph Lerner’s students, for example).

    Comment by burritoboy | June 17, 2009

  20. Riding motorcycles.

    Comment by ben | June 17, 2009

  21. “This kingly sport


    I believe he’s analogizing motorcycle racing to horsemanship, which figures very large in Xenophon – again, Xenophon being quite important to Strauss.

    Comment by burritoboy | June 17, 2009

  22. In 21 burritoboy mocks the hermeneutics of suspicion by accurately modeling what its practitioners would say in this context. Right?

    Comment by ben | June 17, 2009

  23. Ben,

    I don’t understand what you’re saying.

    Comment by burritoboy | June 18, 2009

  24. What I’m saying is that your linkage of his characterization of motorcycle racing to Xenophon strikes me as extremely tendentious.

    Comment by ben | June 18, 2009

  25. I don’t see it as tendentious.

    Comment by burritoboy | June 23, 2009

  26. Uh, no shit?

    Comment by ben | June 23, 2009

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: