Selective Breeding and the Birth of Philosophy

* Book: Selective Breeding and the Birth of Philosophy. by Costin Alamariu .

URL =

Description

Michael Millerman:

"For Alamariu “the birth of philosophy” is likewise connected to anti-egalitarian biological sciences, and specifically “selective breeding” or eugenics. Philosophy is born when aristocracy declines yet tries to preserve the aristocratic principle, by appealing to an abstracted, radicalized version of it: the notion of nature.

Alamariu shows that the pre-philosophic notion of nature had everything to do with vitality, “especially with blood… breeding, eugenics, and heredity.” Nature was not mere life but fullness of life, intensity of life. Just as the ideas in Plato’s cave allegory are the most beingful beings, whereas the shadows on the wall of the cave represent a lesser degree of being, for the pre-philosophic aristocrats the man of nature was the most beingful man and everyone else was man only to a lesser extent, shadow-man. Leo Strauss, an important reference point throughout this book, himself observed that philosophy begins with the discovery of nature. But whereas Strauss at most only implied a eugenic dimension to the doctrine of natural right, Alamariu puts it front and center."

(https://im1776.com/2023/10/27/selective-breeding-review/)

Contents

Michael Millerman:

"Chapter 1 discusses the idea that primitive societies, completely ruled by custom, cannot produce the distance from custom that is necessary as a precondition for the notion of nature to arise. In other words, primitive societies cannot discover nature - a discovery that Leo Strauss said is coeval with philosophy.

Alamariu argues that only the foreign conquest by an aristocratic regime of a primitive society (which is fundamentally democratic and egalitarian) can introduce into society the preliminary elements that later open the door to the birth of philosophy. He discusses the various factors in such a conquest that facilitate a radical break with the customs of fundamental democracy.

For instance, the warriors of an aristocracy are often united in an institution called a warband or Mannerbund, which is characterized, among other things, by the fact that it exists on the margins of society. In other words, the young warrior class escapes the dominance of custom just to the extent that it is allowed to roam free, like a pack of wild wolves, in order to sharpen its fighting abilities.

Also, when society has a conquering part and a conquered part, there is now the ability for the conquering part to rely on the conquered part for all the labours of mere life, leaving it free to pursue more disinterested, theoretical pursuits, which later can lead to philosophical discoveries.

Another point Alamariu makes is that aristocratic societies are societies that practice selective breeding at least among their livestock. This practice also teaches them that there is something "natural" (physis) that differs from custom (nomos). These and other factors serve as a precondition in aristocratic society for what later becomes the philosophical notion of nature.

In Chapter Two, Alamariu shows through examination of the writings of Pindar that the pre-philosophical, aristocratic notion of nature had everything to do with a certain intensity of life, i.e. that it was biological, that it was expressed, manifest, or revealed in and through the body. It is important, in his view, that we recover the prephilosophical notion of nature in relation to the aristocratic appreciation of body excellence. Otherwise, if we operate merely with the philosophical concept of nature, we risk forgetting what it was designed to accomplish.

What was the philosophical notion of nature designed to accomplish? Alamariu argues as follows. When an aristocratic society starts to collapse or decay, there are some "better turned out" individuals in it whose energies are now liberated from even aristocratic custom, and they want above all to preserve the aristocratic principle -- not of custom but of nature -- in the face of social decline. They do so by radicalizing the notion of excellence and conceptualizing it as the standard of judgment for men and societies. Philosophers seek to keep alive the promise of "men of nature," men of a peculiar intensity and vitality of life that is not bound by custom.

Alamariu argues that philosophers are not alone in wanting to preserve nature. Tyrants have the same goal. Tyrants break with custom and the rule of law to preserve the independence and influence of men of nature. At least, Alamariu argues, the long-standing Greek suspicion toward philosophers as friends of tyrants is merited by their shared concern for the men of nature. Alamariu argues that both Plato (Chapter Three) and Nietzsche (Chapter Four) understood and taught the kinship of philosophy and tyranny. But Plato taught it under a mask of concealment, whereas Nietzsche was content to speak of it more frankly -- a strategy that Alamariu himself apparently supports and follows."