A useful description of the importance of prudence or wisdom (sophia) rather than theory or formal education in statesmanship:
Following a discussion of virtue as a mean between extremes, Aristotle attributes to concrete action a higher degree of truth than to general principles of ethics.
The mark “of a man with high moral standards is his ability to see the truth in each particular moral question, since he is … the standard and measure for such questions.” (20) Ethics in politics, then, is not merely announcing moral postulates or retreating before the complexities of the world.
What matters, said Voegelin, are
not correct principles about what is right by nature in an immutable generality, nor the acute consciousness of the tension between the immutable truth and its mutable application (possibly even with tragic overtones), but the changeability, the kineton itself, and the methods to lift it to the reality of truth. The truth of existence is attained when it becomes concrete, i.e., in action. (21)
In classical and Christian ethics, the first of the moral virtues is sophia or prudentia because without adequate understanding of the structure of reality, including the conditio humana, moral action with rational coordination of means and ends is impossible. (22)
Voegelin’s characterization of the spoudaios (who sees the “truth in concrete things”) carries an important moral message for the democratic statesman. No amount of single tangible facts imparted through education can substitute for the type of experience that pushes great men to the limits of their human possibilities. The knowledge of the statesman grows out of the eternal laws by which man moves in the social world. The validity of those laws, the Aristotelian truth that man is a political animal, does not derive from “objective” facts in conformity with the mathematizing models of the natural sciences. The key to those laws of man lies in the practical wisdom through which the statesman elevates his experiences into universal laws of human nature. (23)”
— “Eric Voegelin and Reinhold Niebuhr on the Moral Resources of Democracy,” Greg Russell in Modern Age, Sep 22, 2006
Poor Voegelin was dispised and pretty much marginalized by his fellow political scientists. He was lucky to get a job in Baton Rouge at Lousiana State–back in those days or now not exactly stanford or even University of Oklahoma.
The bigger issue is why political philosophy and political science have been in their american incarnation so intellectually bankrupt? Its funny it used to be called political studies back in the day (different disciplines studying political matters) but then like now they were keen on being political scientists. On a good day I guess you can say its at best a hodgepodge of techniques from other disciplines–all attenuated and mostly a propagandist statist guild of people who could not do math and cut it in economics or business (not that they are any great shakes either). Anyhoo, if there is any idea that is useful and interesting produced by american political science ever word of it has failed to get out.
Voegelin had some good ideas but an obtuse writer probing difficult topics. Too bad his comrades have no use for him or any ideas..
OOps. Once had an interaction with a number of political scientists in washington (I’m an economist). I mentioned to them that it would be a great idea if as part of their PhD studies they were required to spend a semester working in the congress or a statehouse or even a city hall. They said no–the important thing to know was the “literature” and to go to the right conferences and try to do work with some of the “names” in the “profession”. Go to the american political science association website and check it out and also their top journal to see silliness–minds like Voegelins long gone from the scene in american politics and political science.
Hey Robert –
Yes, Voegelin is very marginalized.
But he’s full of fascinating things.
Only some Catholic universities teach him now.
And he’s considered a kind of proto fascist I think (maybe I’m wrong on that)
The APSA is full of people counting ballots and bullets and setting up models of decision theory etc etc. Not my cup of tea.
Maybe there’s a value there I can’t see…if there is it’s bought at the price of something much more valuable – historical understanding.
I do not know Voegelin, but this:
“The truth of existence is attained when it becomes concrete, i.e., in action.”
…is in conformance with Sorel, Nietzche and the other enablers of modern corporatist totalitariansim. Action is the absolute, guided only by relativism and pragmatism (not said, but implicit).
Not in itself enough for a semi-literate in the canon such as myself to pin a label, but enough to hoist an eybrow.
Hi Jeff –
I don’t think that’s what Voegelin had in mind..
I won’t speak about Sorel – but Nietzsche is not an enabler of any kind of totalitarianism..
he went crazy yes. but that’s about it.
His thinking is close to Buddhism..it’s not a repudiation of thought or principles in favor of action.
it’s a rejection of “naive” thought applied recklessly…
he’s against mistaking the map for reality