An Interview with Thomas Pangle 05/02 by Western Word Radio | Blog Talk Radio.
Posts Tagged ‘thomas l. pangle’
Reflections: Radio interview with Professor Thomas Pangle
Posted in American Civic Heritage, American Constitutional Debates, education, on liberal education, on Pangle, philosophy, tagged "andres melo", andresmelo, rarefactions, reflection, reflections, thomas l. pangle, thomas pangle on July 1, 2012| Leave a Comment »
Reflections: “Great Debate: Advocates and Opponents of the American Constitution”, Review of Professor Thomas Pangle’s on-line course
Posted in Abraham Lincoln, American Civic Heritage, American Civil War, American Constitutional Debates, Colombia, education, on Aristotle, on Charles Taylor, on Leo Strauss, on Nicomachean Ethics, on Pangle, on politics, on the Apology, On the Bible, philosophy, political rhetoric, tagged "andres melo", alexander hamilton, amelo14, american civic heritage, american constitution, american constitutional debates, andresmelo, anti-federalists, antifederalists, Aristotle, brutus, canada, Colombia, comparative politics, constitucion del 91, constitucionalismo, constitution, constitutional debates, constitutionalism, federalist papers, federalists, george mason, great debate, hamilton, jay, law, leo strauss, madison, Plato, political philosophy, political rhetoric, politics, publius, robert yates, the teaching company, thomas l. pangle, thomas pangle, us constitution, usa on November 17, 2010| Leave a Comment »
Review of: Great Debate: Advocates and Opponents of the American Constitution, here
(Taught by Professor Thomas L. Pangle here , The Teaching Company)
________
I. INTRODUCTION
Perhaps one way to express the extraordinary debt we owe Professor Thomas Pangle for the many gifts his teaching generously provides us, is by recalling one of the specific difficult issues taken up in the deeply and intelligently contested debates held between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists over the very meaning of the American Founding and the foundational requirements of the new American Constitution. Thus, in dealing with the very complex question over the separation of powers ——partly following Montesquieu, the Oracle for all those involved in the debate—– Hamilton goes on to defend the idea that for the very stability of a sound modern commercially-oriented Republic, the executive must possess, embody and publicly be made clear to possess, what he calls ENERGY. Hamilton writes: “Energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government” (FP, No. 70, p. 421).
And surely one part of the goodness of the gift that Professor Pangle offers us in these 12 (yes, only 12!), very short, very dynamic, very powerful and very concise lectures, is precisely his ENERGY-rich presentation of the Founding Debate itself, an energetic presentation which should in fact allow for a better sense of the dynamics of government and of governing by better prepared citizens, that is to say, ennobled citizens better educated for the intricacies of learning to rule and to be ruled as the dignified self-governing beings that they can become. In other words, these lectures, at the very least, allow for the creation of the requisite spaces for a better UNDERSTANDING of the conditions underpinning the political sphere on its own terms, that is to say, of the struggles undergone to gain the privilege of ruling and of the intense struggles over the hierarchical ordering of the ends of good government as seen by diverse practically-minded statesmen/stateswomen. The course does so via an understanding of the conceptually and practically privileged origin, irrepeatable historical origin, which IS the unique and momentous Founding of any given political community. Such prioritization of the Founding notably defended as particularly enlightening by all of classical political philosophy, but nowhere more clearly brought to light for us to see than in the dramatic presentation which is Plato’s Laws. Within the American civic heritage such privileged moment is precisely that of the Confederation Debates held between 1787 and 1790 when the post-revolutionary “Articles of Confederation” came under serious questioning during and after the Convention of 1787. It is the Federalists (Madison, Hamilton, Jay; using the pen name “Publius”) —–in response to highly critical newspaper articles published anonymously by brilliant Anti-Federalists (Brutus, Federal Farmer, Centinel), some of whom had left the Convention filled with intense indignation—— who, because of said challenge, are “put on the spotlight” and made to defend their radical, previously unheard of, innovations.
And, it is made transparently clear to us, in the urgency of the tone of the delivery, and through certain republican rhetorical abilities used (!), that such a return ——which stands in serious contrast to a simple shallow “progressive” reading of history as economically/ideologically driven——- is by no means an exercise in luxurious time consumption. Rather, such a return bespeaks of the crisis of the American political system, if not of the very crisis of the democratic west itself as exemplified in ONE of its member nations (albeit a very powerful, one could even say, a kind of model one; of this, more later). Or, as Professor Pangle’s Professor wrote:
“It is not self-forgetting and pain-loving antiquarianism nor self-forgetting and intoxicating romanticism which induces us to turn with passionate interest, with unqualified willingness to learn, toward the political thought of antiquity. We are impelled to do so by the crisis of our time.” (Strauss, The City and Man, 1).
This uniquely energetic presentation, then, is all the more comprehensible as a kind of response to such a crisis. Such a vigorous presentation is a philosophically-inspired reflexive attempt at UNDERSTANDING the core elements that may be considered, in part, and primarily by those interested in the political life itself, in order to become the types of public leaders ——in their souls, so to speak—– who can ultimately generate sound, decisive and prudent educational practices amongst their liberally-educated citizens. Such leaders, the dignity of whose moral virtuous and intellectual skills is repeatedly recovered by Professor Pangle, would then be better capable of generating a certain kind of political healing of our complex modern democratic condition, which ——–because not seen in its complexity—– can be worsened furthermore by a false sense of security that is derived always from all convenient uncritical “ideological” oversimplifications. Such medical therapeutics, in an important sense, deals with origins, not merely with a multiplicity of simplified and disconnected symptoms. Undoubtedly, Aristotelically speaking, the course is partly a courageous attempt at a therapeutics of critical recovery. And to know that this unique experience is available to us all via the internet through The Teaching Company bespeaks of the energetic generosity of shared thought and of thoughtful American enterprise.
II. BETWEEN THE LINES
But prior to going into the CONTENT of the course itself, it might be wise to look at some of the features which make the course such an exemplary one for us all, academics and non-academics alike; specially for those of us interested in recovering the dignity of political life, of public service and of the complex sacrifices and dilemmas involved in the pursuance of our highest most virtuous moral and intellectual ideals.
Reflections: The Bibliography of Professor Thomas L. Pangle
Posted in on Leo Strauss, on Pangle, on politics, on Xenophon, philosophy, tagged "andres melo", amelo14, andresmelo, bibliography, classical political philosophy, classical reason, Pangle, recovering reason, thomas l. pangle, thomas pangle, timothy burns on October 18, 2010| Leave a Comment »
With the welcome publication of the important Recovering Reason: Essays in Honor of Thomas L. Pangle (ed. Timothy Burns, here) we now have an accessible bibliography for those of us interested in the work of a true exemplar of the philosophic life, its depth and its joy. This post merely transcribes said bibliography.
(Note 1: For an important lecture by Professor Pangle on the nature of Socratic Political Philosophy following Leo Strauss see here . Only viewable on the Windows Platform).
(Note 2: For a recent interview by the Jack Miller Center see here . )
(Note 3: Those seriously interested but unable to have access to most of these works, specially in developing countries, contact me.)
Bibliography of the Published Work of Thomas L. Pangle
1973
Montesquieu ‘s Philosophy of Liberalism; A Commentary on The Spirit of the
Laws. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Review of Charles Yost’s The Conduct and Misconduct of American Foreign
Policy. Yale Review 62. no. 4 (June); XVI-XVIII.
1974
Review of R. Hackforth’s Plato’s Phaedo, Phaedrus. and Philebus. American
Political Science Review 68, no. I (Mar.): 258-260.
Review of John Stuart Mill, The Later Letters (4 vols.) edited by Francis E.
Mineka and Dwight N. Lindley. Yale Review 63, no. 1 (Oct.): VIII-XII.
1975
“England After 1832.” The Yale Review 65, no. 1 (Oct.): 143-46. (Review
essay of Collected Works of Walter Bagehot, edited by Norman St. John
Stevas. The Political Essays, Vols. V-VIII.)
1976
“‘The Political Psychology of Religion in Plato’s Laws.” American Political
Science Review 70. no. 4: 1059-77.
“The Moral basis of National Security: Four Historical Perspectives.” In
Historical Dimensions of National Security Studies, edited by Klaus Knorr.
307-72. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas.
Review of Eric Voegelin’s From Enlightenment to Revolution. Political Theory
4, no. 1 (Feb.): 104-08.
1977
Review of G. M. A. Grube’s Plato: Republic. American Political Science Review
71 no. 3: 1336-37.
1978
“Rediscovering Rights.” The Public Interest 50 (Winter): 157-60. (Review
essay of Ronald Dworkin’s Taking Rights Seriously.)
“The Period of Cold War.” The Yale Review 67, no. 2 (Dec.): 289 -92. (Review
essay of Daniel Yergin’s The Shattered Peace.)
Review of Michael Walzer’s Just and Unjust Wars. American Political Science
Review 72, no. 4: 1393-95.
Review of D. J. Manning, Liberalism. American Political Science Review 72,
no. 4: 1380-81.
Review of Melvin Richter’s The Political Theory of’ Montesquieu and David
Carrithers’ A Compendium of The Spirit of the Laws. Political Theory 6, no
4: 567-69.
1979
“A Note on the Theoretical Foundation of the Just War Doctrine,” The Thomist
43, no. 3: 464-73.
Review of W. B. Gallie’s Philosophers of Peace and War. Review of
Metaphysics 33. no. 2.
1980
The Laws of Plato, translated with notes and a book-length interpretive study.
New York: Basic Books.
Review of Charles Beitz’s Political Theory and International Relations. Review
of Metaphysics 34. no. 1.