1

Periagoge:LiberalEducationintheModernUniversity1

JohnvonHeyking,UniversityofLethbridge

Conversationandthe“TurningAroundoftheSoul”

Oneofthecommoncriticismsofthecontemporaryuniversityisthatitlacks

individualsunwillingorincapableevenofconversing.CriticssuchasAnthony

KronmanandStephenMillerrightlyobservethatthere’ssomethingabout

contemporarycultureandthecontemporaryuniversityhostiletotheartsorhabits

ofconversation.Conversationhashadaplaceinliberaleducationgoingbackat

leasttothePlatonicdialogue,ifnotbackfurther,shouldonewishtoseethingsthis

way,tothepointintheevolutionofbipedsthatsatconversingsolongthatasapes,

theylosttheirtailsandbecamehumanbeings.2Conversationastheprimarymode

ofliberaleducationisnotmeanttoproduce“results”butisanongoingquestfor

understandingthehumanconditioninallitsmanifold.AsKronmannotesofits

participants,whetherscholarsorgreattexts:“Theyrefertoeachother,

commending,correcting,disapproving,andbuildingontheworksofthosewhohave

gonebefore.”3MichaelOakeshottcapturesthespiritofconversationbycomparing

1IthankTiloSchabert,JohnGueguen,MarkHenry,BruceFingerhut,andJamesRhodesforsharingtheirrecollectionsoftheirteacherswithme,and(alongwithBrendanPurcell)forcommentingonpreviousdraftsofthisessay.2MichaelOakeshott,“TheVoiceofPoetryintheConversationofMankind,”RationalisminPolitics,(Indianapolis:LibertyFund,1991),490.3AnthonyT.Kronman,Education’sEnd:WhyOurCollegesandUniversitiesHaveGivenUpontheMeaningofLife,(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,2007),168;StephenMiller,Conversation:AHistoryofaDecliningArt,(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,2006);IhavereviewedMiller’sbookhere(“FriendshipanditsLanguage,”TheCresset:AReviewofLiterature,theArts,andPublicAffairs,Lent2007(http://www.valpo.edu/cresset/2007/Lent%202007%20von%20Heyking.pdf).

2

ittogambling:“Conversationisnotanenterprisedesignedtoyieldanextrinsic

profit,acontestwhereawinnergetsaprize,norisitanactivityofexegesis;itisan

unrehearsedintellectualadventure.Itiswithconversationaswithgambling,its

significanceliesneitherinwinningnorinlosing,butinwagering.”4

Conversationistheexpressionofhumanfreedom.Inwagering,onerisks

everything.Inlearning,oneriskseverythingonecurrentlyis,possiblytobecome

whatonecannotpresentlyforesee.Conversationasliberaleducationimplies

liberationfromthenecessities,includingourfelt“necessity”toyieldresults.For

Oakeshott,conversationisfreebecauseitisnotabout“anything”inparticular.Itis

abouttheentiretyofthehumancondition,butnosinglevoiceisdominantandno

singledefinitiveanswerisexpected.Evenmore,whatever“answers”getutteredare

notjudgedbytheirutility.Thefree,orliberal,conversanthasbeenfreedfrom

necessity.Conversationisthusnotsimplyidlechatter,buttheactivityofexistential

virtuethatexpressesourengagementwithreality.EricVoegelin’scommentabout

one’sapproachtocriticalhistoryillustratesthiswell:“Inordertowritecritical

history,therefore,itisnotenoughtoalterwhatonesays;onemustalterone’svery

being(or,“onemustbedifferently”(manmußanderssein)).”5

Conversationthuspresupposescertainvirtuesofopennessthatthemselvesare

notthesameasconversation.Voegelinidentifiedthecapacitytohavefreeinquiry

4Oakeshott,RationalisminPolitics,490.5EricVoegelin,“TheGermanUniversityandGermanSociety,”PublishedEssays,1966­1985,CollectedWorksofEricVoegelin,vol.12,ed.,EllisSandoz,(BatonRouge:LouisianaStateUniversityPress,1990),3.ThealternatetranslationissuggestedbyBrendanPurcell,uponwhoseanalysisofconversioninVoegelin’steachingIrelyinthispaper(“CanaPhilosopherBeaPropheticWitnesstotheTruth?”Paperpreparedforthe2007EricVoegelinSocietymeeting,AnnualMeetingoftheAmericanPoliticalScienceAssociation).AllsubsequentreferencestotheCollectedWorksofEricVoegelin(UniversityofMissouriPress1990‐2009)abbreviatedasCW.

3

presupposesanopennesstowardtruththatisnotdistortedbyideologicalagendas,

utility,orlibidodominandi.6Conversationpresupposesawillingnesstoconverse.

Platofamouslyexpressesthecentralexperienceofliberationinthefollowingway:

Thentherewouldbeanarttothisverything,”Isaid,“thisturningaround(tesperiagoges),havingtodowiththewaythesoulwouldbemosteasilyandeffectivelyredirected(metastrophe),notanartofimplantingsightinit,butofhowtocontrivethatforsomeonewhohassight,butdoesn’thaveitturnedtherightwayorlookingatwhatitneedsto.7

Teaching,asVoegelinfrequentlyobserved,istheartoftheperiagoge.Inauniversity

culturecharacterizedbythetreatmentofknowledgeasusefulcommodity,

careerism,andpoliticalcorrectness,itisdifficulttohaveagenuineexperienceof

periagogebecausetheclamoringofthosevoiceseclipsethegentleandfragilepull

thatwisdomhasonus.Somuchofourmoderncivilizationconspiresagainstthat

gentlepullthatwehavedifficultyexplainingandjustifyingit,andwehavebarely

recognizeitwhenithappens.Theloverofthegoodandnobleisconsidered

mystical,obscure,queer,strange,andunproductive.

Inthisessay,Ishallexaminetwogreatscholar‐teachers,EricVoegelin(1901‐

85)andGerhartNiemeyer(1907‐97),inmyownfield,politicalphilosophy,who

navigatedthoseclamoringvoicesandevokedagenuineexperienceofperiagogein

theirstudents(Ishallprovidesomebiographicalintroductionbelow).Ishall

considertheirwritingsoneducationandontheuniversity,butmyfocuswillbeon

theactivityoftheirteaching,asreportedmostly,butnotexclusively,inthetributes

6SeeEricVoegelin,“OnDebateandExistence,”CW12,36‐51.7Plato,Republic,trans.,JoeSachs,(FocusPublishing),518d.

4

theirstudentspaidtothem.Manyoftheirstudentsexperiencedperiagoge,anditis

intheirrecollectionsweseethemanifoldofwaysandoccasionsstudents

experienceperiagoge.Becausethereisnoonemodelofperiagoge,onemustexpect

adegreeofvariationamongtheaccountsofstudents.Evenso,certainpatterns

emerge.

PoliticalPhilosophyAgainstIdeologyandtheSocialScientists

VoegelinandNiemeyersoughttoinoculatetheirstudentsagainstthefalse

presumptionscontemporaryideology.Asuniversityteachersandscholars,they

alsosawthatsocialscienceplayedaroleinfacilitatingthosefalsepresumptions,

eitherbytheirfailureadequatelytocriticizeideologyorbytheiroutrightsupportof

them.Afterall,muchofmodernideologyspeaksinthenameofsocialscience,

whetherofthepositivist,Marxist,racist,orother“‐ist”variety.Asaresult,their

criticismsofsocialsciencewerepartlyacriticismofcontemporaryideologyandthe

stateofcivilization,buttheywerealsoeffortstoretrieveaplaceforliberallearning

withinthemodernuniversity.

EricVoegelin’slifelongworkwasanactofresistanceagainstthe

dehumanizingideologiesofthetwentieth‐century,aswellasthe“softer”formsof

intellectualconfusioninliberaldemocracythatsharedsomeofthephilosophical

lineageasthemoreaggressiveideologies.8Afterreceivinghisdoctorateunderthe

8Foradescriptionof“resistance,”seeThomasW.Heilke,“Science,Philosophy,andResistance:On

5

tutelageofthegreatlegalscholar,HansKelsen,hetaughtlawandsociologyatthe

UniversityofViennauntilhefledin1938totheUnitedStates.Therehetaughtat

LouisianaStateUniversityfrom1942untiltakinguptheMaxWeberChairatthe

UniversityofMunichin1958whereheretiredin1969.Afterthat,hewasaFellow

attheHooverInstitutionofWarandPeaceatStanfordUniversityuntilhisdeathin

1985.Duringthe1960sandpartofthe1970s,hewouldteachasemestereverytwo

yearsattheUniversityofNotreDame.Hiswritingswerealarge‐scalediagnosisof

thecrisisofWesterncivilizationandefforttoregainorder.Hismostsignificant

worksarehisfivevolumeOrderandHistory(1956‐85)andtheNewScienceof

Politics(1952).9Histeachingefforts,describedingreaterdetaillaterinthisessay,

weredirectedatinoculatingstudentsagainstthoseideologies,andtoinstill

periagogetothosestudentswhowouldlisten.Voegelinsawsocialscience

(Wissenschaft)aslessdestructivethansomeotherpoliticalthinkersofthe

twentieth‐century,includingMichaelOakeshottandLeoStrauss,thoughhewasno

lesscriticalofitspractitioners,includingMaxWeber.10Weber’sgreatest

achievementwasinunderliningtheimportanceofbeingopentonewdevelopments

inscience,newdiscoveriesinparticular.ThesignificanceofWeber,whichVoegelin

attemptedtocontinue,wasinincorporatingthediscoveriesofnon‐Westerncultures

intoageneraltheoryofhumanity.Weberfailedatdevelopingatheoryofhumanity,

EricVoegelin’sPracticeofOpposition,”TheReviewofPolitics,56(Fall,1994):727‐752.9OrderandHistory,CW14‐18;“NewScienceofPolitics,”CW5.Formoredetailsofhislife,seehisAutobiographicalReflections,CW34andEllisSandoz,TheVoegelinianRevolution:ABiographicalIntroduction,(NewBrunswick,NJ:TransactionPublishers,2000).10VoegelinwroteseveralfocusedstudiesofWeber:“OnMaxWeber,”PublishedEssays,1922­1928,CW7,100‐17;“MaxWeber,”PublishedEssays,1929­1933,CW8,130‐48;“Introduction”to“NewScienceofPolitics,”CW5,88‐108;“TheGreatnessofMaxWeber,”(EleventhLecture),HitlerandtheGermans,CW31,257‐74.SeealsoAutobiographicalReflections,CW34,39‐41.

6

butVoegelincreditshimforseeingtheimportanceoftrying.Voegelin’sfull

explanationisworthquoting:

IfWeberneverthelessdidnotderailintosomesortofrelativismoranarchism,thatisbecause,evenwithouttheconductofsuchanalysis,hewasastaunchethicalcharacterandinfact(asthebiographybyhisnephew,EduardBaumgarten,hasbroughtout)amystic.Soheknewwhatwasrightwithoutknowingthereasonsforit.Butofcourse,sofarasscienceisconcerned,thatisaveryprecariousposition,becausestudentsafterallwanttoknowthereasonswhytheyshouldconductthemselvesinacertainmanner;andwhenthereasons–thatis,therationalorderofexistence–areexcludedfromconsideration,emotionsareliabletocarryyouawayintoallsortsofideologicalandidealisticadventuresinwhichtheendsbecomemorefascinatingthanthemeans.HereisthegapinWeber’sworkconstitutingthegreatproblemwithwhichIhavedealtduringthefiftyyearssinceIgotacquaintedwithhisideas.11

Manyofthe“ideologicalandidealisticadventures”thatstrivetofillthegapwere

explainedinmyothercontributiontothisvolume.InexplainingtheWeberian

startingpointofhislife’swork,Voegelinsituatesitinthestudent’sneedtohavethe

activityofWeberianscienceexplained.Inotherwords,Voegelinrecognizeshow

centraltheexistentialtruthofscienceistostudents,perhapsmorecentraltothem

thanfortheirelderprofessors.Weberrecognizedthedead‐endofspecialization,

butcouldnotadequatelydevelopanaccountofpoliticalandhistoricalrealitythat

couldunifythedetailsofnewknowledgewhosestudyhepioneered.12ForVoegelin,

theexampleofWeberdemonstratesthepossibilityforphilosophicalopennessin

socialsciencewhichisinfrequentlyfollowed.

11AutobiographicalReflections,CW34,40.12SeemyaccountofWeberandspecializationinscienceinmycompanionessayinthisvolume,“ObstaclestoLiberalEducationintheModernUniversity.”

7

ForVoegelin,“openness,”aconcepthederivedfromphilosophersincluding

PlatoandHenriBergson,meantviewingtheempiricalmaterialsastheyare.

Ideologiesareaformofself‐assertion,orlibidodominandi,becausetheydistort

empiricalmaterialsintoaready‐madeself‐image.Materialsthatdonotfitget

discardedoronepretendstheydonotexist,anintellectualmovewhosemost

extremepoliticalexpressionistheconcentrationcamp.13The“softer”formofthis

self‐assertioncanbefoundinthepositivistmethodologiesthatsustainAmerican

(andGerman)politicalscience.

Voegelin’scriticismsofsocialsciencedatebacktohisearlycareerinthelate

1920sduringhistimeattheUniversityofVienna,whereacademicandpoliticallife

wasstronglyinfluencedbyHansKelsen’slegalpositivismandneo‐Kantian

methodologies.14Neo‐KantianNormlogikmadetwomovesthatVoegelincameto

reject.Thefirstwasthepositivistpositionthatanythingthatliesoutsideofthe

capacityofthephysicalsciencestoexamine,includingtheology,philosophy,history,

etc.,wasnotanappropriateobjectofscienceunderstoodasempiricalanalysis.Yet,

theneo‐Kantiandidnotrejecttheexistenceofsuchtopics.Rather,thisledtothe

secondmove,whichwastoregardthesetopicsas“values,”asMaxWeberdid.But

suchamoveassumesthatthescholarwhoexaminesthem“approximatesthe

functionofthetransindividualevaluatingsubject(transcendentalego)ofcognition,

ifandinsofarashehimselfincorporatestheculturalvalueofbeingacultivated

13EricVoegelin,“Science,Politics,andGnosticism,”264‐65,274‐5.14Fordetails,seeThomasHeilkeandJohnvonHeyking,“Editors’Introduction,”PublishedEssays,1922­1928,CW7;JürgenGebhardtandBarryCooper,“Editors’Introduction,”OntheFormoftheAmericanMind,CW1,ix‐xxxv.

8

person.”15TheeffortoftheGermaneducationaleffortofBildung,then,wasto

createthiscultivatedpersonwhocouldstandabovetheempiricalmaterials.

Voegelin’sextendedcriticismsofneo‐Kantianismpointoutwhythisbifurcatedview

ofreality–rawanddisorganizedempiricaldataontheonehand,andthe

transcendentalegowhowillshisownreasonsfororganizingthosedata–is

untenable.VoegelinwouldcarrythesecriticismstotheUnitedStateswhenhe

wouldcriticizethelesssophisticatedversionsofpositivisticandhistoricalpolitical

theoryintheAnglo‐Americanworld.16

LetusreturntoVoegelin’sassessmentofWeber,whomVoegelinsawasclosely

connectedtoneo‐Kantianism.VoegelinadmiredWeber’s“openness”tonew

possibilitiesbutthoughthelackedadeepersenseofopenness,orPlatoniceros,that

mighthaveenabledWebertoformulateadeepersenseofhumanityoutofthe

fragmentsofmaterialshecollected.ReflectinguponWeber’scontinuedattemptsto

formulatethehumanspiritinthemodernage(e.g.,hisadmirationforTolstoy),

VoegelinconcludesWeber’stranscendencewasunresolved.

VoegelincitestwokeyepisodesofWeber’sbiographypertinenttoour

discussionofperiagoge.ThefirstisWeber’sexistentialreflectionsinspiredbyhis

illness.Hetoldhiswifethat“SometimeIwillfindahole,outofwhichIrushup

15GebhardtandCooper,“Editors’Introduction,”CW1,xv.16Voegelin,“PoliticalTheory,”inCW33;“TheOxfordPoliticalPhilosophers,”CW11,24‐46.BarryCooperobservesthatVoegelinwasimpatientwithAmericandebatesinthe1950sand1960soversocialscience,methodology,andbehavioralismbecause“hehadalreadydealtwiththeseissuesataphilosophicallymoresophisticatedlevelsomethirtyyearsearlier”(BeginningtheQuest:LawandPoliticsintheEarlyWorkofEricVoegelin,(Columbia,MO:UniversityofMissouriPress,2009),18).

9

againintotheheights.”17Voegelinconsidersthesymbolofarocketshootingoutofa

holeoneofanideologicalactivist,whorushesoutfromoppressionuptotheheights.

However,Weberwasnoideologicalactivist,ashisresignationoverthemodernage

wasleavenedwithaninarticulatelongingfortranscendence:“Besidethis,one

thinksofthePlatonicparableofthecaveandofthemanwhoisopento

transcendenceandfeelshimselfcompelledtoturnhimselfaroundinordertocarry

outoftheperiagogeandascendtowardthelight.QuitedifferentlyMaxWeber:He

rusheslikearocketoutofthehole.Thesymbolforthatageandforitsunresolved

tensioncouldhardlybemorecharacteristic.”18

AfewpageslaterVoegelincitesWeber’sexchangewithhiswife,Marianne,over

hisquestiontoherwhethershecouldthinkofhimasamystic.Hisrejoindertoher

negativeresponseispoignant:“’IsupposeitcouldbethatIamone.SinceIhave

dreamedmoreinmylifethanoneshouldreallyallowoneselftodo,Iamalso

nowhereathomewithcompletecertainty.ItisasifIcouldandwouldalso

completelywithdrawmyselffromeverything.’Thatisasplendidformulationofthe

Paulinehosme,theas‐if‐not,oftheChristiancounsel,‘Beintheworld,butnotofit.

17Voegelin,“TheGreatnessofMaxWeber,”inHitlerandtheGermans,CW31,270.VoegelincitesEduardBaumgarten,MaxWeber:WerkundPerson:DokumenteausgewahlteundkommentiertvonEduardBaumgarten,(Tubingen:J.C.B.Mohr,1964),638.18Comparewithanearlier(1925)assessmentofWeber,“OnMaxWeber,”CW7,111‐16,whereVoegelinfindsWeber’stranscendentalegointhelonelycompanyofhisdaimon.Yet,Weber’sdaimonfunctionsdifferentlyfromthatofSocrates:“theultimatemeaningoflifeisnottofinditsmeaning,butconstantlytocreateit.Forourconsciousnessthereisapointbeforetheworld,wherewearealone,soalonethatnoonecanfollowusthere.”CooperdescribesWeber’sdaimonas“asomewhatNietzscheanwayofreferringtotheneo‐Kantiantranscendentalego.Howevername,thetaskofthehistoricalscientistwastomarshalhiswillandabilitytoimpressaconcreteshapeorformuponhistory”(Cooper,BeginningtheQuest,33).Writinginthe1920s,Voegelinwouldfindthemightiestsymboloftheage,andtheclearestexpressionoftheexistentialstateofsocialscience,wasWeber’slonelyconversationwithhisdaimon(seealsoHeilkeandHeyking,“Editors’Introduction,”CW7,7).

10

Liveintheworldasifyoudidnotliveinitandbelongtoit’(cf.1Cor.7:29‐31).”19

ForVoegelin,thestakesofunresolvedtranscendence,stuntedperiagogeifyouwill,

arehighbecausefailuretobringoutthehighesteroticlongingsinhumanbeingscan

becatastrophic.AsVoegelinfoundwithWeber,andwithPlato,erosisaterrible

forcethatcanbegoodorevil.Thepurposeofeducation,then,istoevokethe

experienceofperiagogeinthePlatonicsense,butstartingfromthespiritual

disturbancesofthemodernage,ofwhichWeberwasoneofthegreatest

articulations.

GerhartNiemeyer’sconfrontationwithsocialscienceislessextendedthanthat

ofVoegelinbecauseheregardeditaspartofthewiderstoryofmodernideology.20

LikeVoegelin,hetoofledNazism,inGermany,andafterteachingatPrinceton

UniversityandOglethorpeUniversityinAtlanta,hetaughtattheUniversityofNotre

Damefrom1955to1992.HeandVoegelinwerefriendsandNiemeyerincorporated

manyofVoegelin’sinsightsonideology,reason,andfaith,intohisnumerousessays

andbooks,mostnotably,BetweenNothingnessandParadise.21Niemeyerreliedon

Voegelin’scriticismofWeberiansocialscienceintheNewScienceofPolitics,and,

19“GreatnessofMaxWeber,”HitlerandtheGermans,CW31,273.20WithinandAboveOurselves:EssaysinPoliticalAnalysis,(IntercollegiateStudiesInstitute,1997),247‐9.V.BradleyLewisanalyzesNiemeyer’sassessmentoflegalpositivisminhisLawWithoutForce,andtherolethisassessmentplayswithinhisoverallthinkingconcerningpoliticalorder(“GerhartNiemeyer:PoliticalOrderandtheProblemofNaturalRight,”PoliticalScienceReviewer,31(2002):119‐26).21LawWithoutForce:TheFunctionofPoliticsinInternationalLaw,(TransactionPublishers,2001,reprint)andBetweenNothingnessandParadise,(SouthBend:St.Augustine’sPress,1998,reprint).Asampleofhisessayswerecollectedintwoseparatevolumes:WithinandAboveOurselves:EssaysinPoliticalAnalysisandAftersightandForesight:SelectedEssays,(UniversityofAmericaPress,1988).Atributevolumetohisworkwaspublishedas,JohnGeugenandMichaelHenry,TheGoodManinSociety:ActiveContempation:EssaysinHonorofGerhartNiemeyer,(UniversityofAmericaPress,1989);anonlinesymposiumofessaysthatreviewhisworkcanbefoundinThePoliticalScienceReviewer,Fall2002,31(1)(http://www.isi.org/journals/archive/issue.aspx?id=71280b0e‐0941‐4a11‐93e1‐59aee2b929bc).BiographicaldetailscanbefoundinPaulV.Niemeyer,APathRemembered:TheLivesofGerhartandLucieNiemeyer,(IntercollegiateStudiesInstitute,2006).

11

accordingtoJamesRhodes,NiemeyertaughtVoegelin’sNewScienceofPoliticsto

undergraduatesin1959,spending“significanttimeontheWeberchapter.”22Even

so,Niemeyerhaddevelopedacritiqueofpositivismasearlyastheearly1930s

whenhestudiedunderlegalscholarHermanHeller,whoseStaatslehre,which

NiemeyerhelpedprepareonaccountofHeller’suntimelydeath,criticizedthe

positivistconceptionoflawasbeinganabstractionunrelatedtosovereigntyandthe

state.23Niemeyer,likeVoegelin,sawthelimitationsoflegalpositivisminits

inabilitytoaccountforthegreaterpoliticalrealitythatsciencemustaddress.

ForNiemeyer,thepositivismofsocialscienceisrootedinthemodernturn,seen

inthinkersincludingThomasHobbes,ofviewinghumanbeingsintermsofthe

physicalproperties,whichconstitutesareducedviewofhumanity.Thebiggest

problemwithsocialscienceisthatwhileitcanprovidenumerousdetailsabout

externalfacts,its“tabooontheory”meansitcannotunderstandthemeaningof

events.ForsomeoneofNiemeyer’sgeneration,thefailureofsocialscienceto

understandtotalitarianismwasdamning.ApositivistsocialscientistlikeHerman

Finercould,inMussolini’sItaly,provideasuperblydetailedaccountofMussolini,but

“thebookutterlyfailedtocomprehendthespiritofevilinfascism.Its

incomprehensionwasafittingfoiltoNevilleChamberlain’sillusionthatHitlerwas

nothingmorethanazealousGermanpatriotwhomerelydesiredtouniteallethnic

GermansandwhocouldbeappeasedbyofferinghimtheGerman‐speakingpartof

22PersonalcommunicationwithJamesRhodes.23Niemeyer,APathRemembered,146.HermannHeller,Staatslehre,ed.,GerhartNiemeyer,(Leiden,A.W.Sijthoff,1934).

12

Czechoslovakia”.24Amorerecentexampleofthefailureofpositivismtounderstand

politicalrealitycanbeseenintheattemptatcriticismthatColumbiaUniversity

PresidentLeeBollinger,alegalscholaroftheFirstAmendment,directedathis

university’sguest,IranianPresidentMahmoudAhmadinejad.Afterlistingalitanyof

humanrightsatrocitiescommittedbytheIranianregime,thebestBollingercould

dowastocallAhmadinejad,whowasatleastnominallyelected,a“pettyandcruel

dictator.”25Thebestcontemporarypositivismcandescriberadicalideologiesisas

ananti‐typetoAmericanconstitutionalism.26Isitanywonder,forNiemeyer,that

thestudentrebellioninFrancein1968begantheirdemonstrationsatNanterre

Universityagainstthesociologydepartmentandits“positivisticapproaches.”27

Socialsciencefindsitselfhelplessinrespondingtoquestionsofmeaning,butits

ownfoundationsalsocreatetheexpectationofhavingmeaningexplainedand

created.Forthisreason,Niemeyertookspecialinterestinteachingliterature

detailingtheinabilityofliberalandmorallyrelativisticsocietiestocounterthe

rebelliousyoung(e.g.,Turgenev’sFathersandSonsandMaxFrisch’sTheFirebugs).28

Socialscienceflatterstheyoungbyholdingoutthepromiseofknowingthewholeof

socialreality,butlacksthespiritualdepthtosatisfytheiryearnings.

24AftersightandForesight,194,citingFiner,Mussolini’sItaly,(London:V.Gollancz,1935).25LeeC.Bollinger,“IntroductoryRemarksatSIPA‐WorldLeadersForumwithPresidentofIranMahmoudAhmadinejad”September24,2007(http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/07/09/lcbopeningremarks.html).26IhaveprovidedmyownanalysisoftheIranianPresident’sideologyin,“Iran’sPresidentandthePoliticsoftheTwelfthImam,”GuestCommentary,AshbrookCenterforPublicAffairs,November2005(http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/guest/05/vonheyking/twelfthimam.html).27WithinandAboveOurselves,270.28GregoryWolfe,“DiscerningtheSpirits:GerhartNiemeyerasCultureCritic,”PoliticalScienceReviewer,31(1)(Fall2002):170‐2.

13

TheradicalideologiesofComteanism,Marxism,andsoonconstitute

attemptstocreatea“fuller”viewofhumanity,butlargelyonthebasisoftheearly

moderneffort.Niemeyerseesalreadyinthepositivismofearlymodernitythe

dreamof“autonomousman”whereby,indeed,theempiricalfactsofexistenceare

given,butmanisfreetowillanymeaningtothem.Thisistherootofthefact‐value

distinctionbutalsothebasisforthedreamoftherevolutionarywhoseruleover

meaningexpandsintoadreamlikedesiretodominateallofreality.Itisdreamlike

becauseitisanactoftheimagination.Thepointofmodernthoughtisnot

understandingreality,butchangingit,agoal“notconfinedtorevolutionary

ideologiesbutcharacterizedtheapproachestonaturalscience,psychology,and

sociology.Theproductofthiskindofeducationisthemodernself,

characteristicallysplitintoself‐pityandself‐deificationormagnification.”This

modernselfisreproducedthroughvariousversionsofmoderneducation,most

dramaticallyintotalitariansocietieswhoseeducationis“designedtoproducedocile

instrumentsusefultothetotalitarianrulersalone.”29

ForNiemeyer,thegoalofcontemporaryhighereducationmustbeto

overcomethelibidodominandicharacteristicofmodernthinking,whichmeans

educationmustnecessarilybeaboutthewholeperson.Niemeyerfrequently

referredtoAristotle’snotionof“existentialvirtues”(atermheborrowedfromEric

Voegelin),which,distinctfromandmorecomprehensivethanmoralandintellectual

29AftersightandForesight,335‐6.Aformerchairman(andlawprofessor)oftheCalgary,Alberta,BoardofEducationvoicedthissentimentwhenhestated:“Thechildisnotyourchild.Canadianchildrenarethepropertyofthestate,likeouroil,ourgas,andourpipelines...it'sthelaw.”(QuotedbyWilliamGairdner,speechdeliveredtoQueen’sUniversity(Kingston,Ontario)SchoolofLaw,2March1994,postedhere:http://www.williamgairdner.com/politicalcorrectness‐libertyeq/).

14

virtues,referto“thecomplexofattitudesrequiredfortheharmonyandunityofa

humancomposite,arealmofcommonexistence,”whichareexpressedmostdeeply

inthepracticeoffriendship.30Education,then,instillsethicalandintellectual

virtues,butultimatelymustbedirectedtotheexistentialvirtuesandthecapacityof

studentstopracticefriendship.

ThepracticeoffriendshipsustainshisreflectionsoftheWesternuniversity:

TheWesternuniversity,then,notonlyembodiestheconceptofbeingbut,isalso,aphilosophicalrealismwhichpresupposesthatthereisanexternalworldindependentofthemind,andthatitisintelligible….Itisallthesameimpliedinthemanifoldoftheuniversity’steachingactivities,allofwhichproclaimpubliclythatsomethingis,thatourmindscanknowit,andthatwecantransmitreliableknowledgethroughconceptualconstructionsofourminds.31

NiemeyercontraststhecommunicatiooftheWesternuniversitywiththe

“communitiesofmonks”ofTheravadaBuddhism“pursuingtheirsubjectivepathsto

personalenlightenment.”Infact,the“communitiesofmonks”cannotbe

communitiesbecausetheyinfactsharenorealitybutnirvana,whichmeans

extinction,andsocommunity,orfriendship,isimpossibleinsuchcommunities

where“theconceptofdependentorigination…[bars]anyideaofbeingintheminds

ofitsadherents”orcommunicatedamongthem.Communication,whichimplies

communicationaboutthesomethingthatiseminentlysharableamongall

participants,istheessenceoftheuniversity,asitisforfriendship.32Thus,

Niemeyer’scallforthe“restorationofratio”inthemodernuniversityisalsoacall

30BetweenNothingnessandParadise,194.31WithinandAboveOurselves,244.32Thisdoesnotmean,however,thatthegood“beyondbeing,”asPlatodescribesit,whichisineffable,cannotformthebasisoffriendshipandcommunity.Conversely,itcan.Fordetails,seeJamesRhodes,Eros,Wisdom,andSilence:Plato’sEroticDialogues,(Columbia,MO:UniversityofMissouriPress,2003).

15

fortherestorationoftheactivityofcommunicatio,thepracticesoftheexistential

virtues,whichincludes,asafirststep,breakingthe“tabooontheory”establishedby

positivism.

Partofthecommunicatiothatconstitutestheuniversityisitsrelationto

tradition.Niemeyer,ofcourse,wasnotinterestedinnostalgia,forhehadaprecise

understandingoftradition:“Traditionprovidesaframeworkfordecisions….

Traditionattendsallrelationsbetweenparticularpersons….Traditionispublic

memory–thestuffthatAristotledescribesas‘civicfriendship.’”33Justasmemoryis

thecentralintellectualfacultyinanindividual,andthememoriesofalifelived

togetherconstitutethefoundationforfriendship(foritprovidesthefoundationfor

theirfutureprojects),sotoodoespublicmemoryconstitutepoliticalcommunity.In

otherwords,traditionisthesymbolhumanbeingsusetodescribethemselvesas

partsinawhole,andwhichexperiencedassuccession,a“memoryofwhatis

significant.”Ofcourse,therearedisagreementsoverwhatissignificant,but

discussing,arguing,and,changingimperceptibly,andaboveall,piouslyreceiving

this,as“oneapproachesthewoundsofafather”(NiemeyercitesBurke),constitutes

theessenceoftradition,andofcommunity.34TraditionwasNiemeyer’stermforthe

responsibilitywehaveofcaringfortheinheritancewereceiveashumanbeings,of

“everythingthatbearsahumanface,forallhumanquestingfortheground,theend,

andtheway.”Asfriendshipistheprofoundestexpressionofthecommunityformed

byteachersandlearners,sotootraditionistheprofoundestexpressionofthe

civilizationalgrounduponwhichthosefriendshipsarenourishedandpracticed.33WithinandAboveOurselves,255.SeealsoBetweenNothingnessandParadise,175‐78.34AftersightandForesight,345.

16

Withthesepreliminarytheoreticalreflectionsconcerningtheactivityof

thinkingandteachinginthecontemporaryuniversityinmind,wenowturnto

Voegelin’sandNiemeyer’sactivityofteachinginthecontemporaryuniversity.

TeacherasProphet:GerhartNiemeyer

Plato’sdescriptionofeducationasaturningaround(tesperiagoges)ofthe

soul(Republic518d3‐4)iskeytounderstandingtheteachingeffortsofboth

VoegelinandNiemeyer.ForGerhartNiemeyer,the“metaphysical”takesonadded

weightbecauseofthedarknessofthecivilizationalcavefromwhichlearningneeds

toemerge.WhileNiemeyermaynothavethoughtofhimselfasaprophet,John

Geugen’suseofthiscategoryforhimandhiscolleagueStanleyParryisapt:“The

correct(“prophetic”)responseis‘metapolitical’—thatis,educational,cultural,and

religiousattemptstorecoverthe‘substantivemeaning’ofourpoliticalcommunity

inthetraditionthatexpressesour‘experienceoftruth.’”35The“prophetic”teacher

doesmorethaninitiateastudentintohiscultural“inheritance.”The“prophetic”

teacherexplicitlyviewsteachingasdirectedagainsttheentirepersonofthestudent

initsintellectualandspiritualdimensions.ItiswhatNiemeyercalled,borrowing

fromVoegelin’sanalysisofAristotle’svirtuetheory,existentialvirtue,whichrefers

tothevirtueofthewholeperson.BruceFingerhut’srecollectionofhisfirstdayof

classwithNiemeyerexpressesthisexperience:“Irealizedatthatmomentthatall

35JohnGeugen,“StanleyParry:TeacherandProphet,”Logos,10(2)Spring2007:109.

17

mypreviouseducationhadservedonlyonepurpose‐togetmeintothatclassroom

withthatman.Iwouldhavetostartover.”36Similarly,GregoryWolfestates:“An

encounterwithGerhartNiemeyerisnotmerelyamentalexperience,butonewhich

affectsthewholeperson.”37Hereareclear,thoughcompact,expressionsofwhat

Platomeantbydescribingeducationasperiagoge–theturningaroundofthesoul.

Friendshipisaconsistentthemeinthetestimonialsamongformerstudents

forNiemeyer,thoughperhaps“fellowship”withstudents,asMarkHenryremarks,is

amoreappropriateterm:“Hislifewasfilledwithfriendships,manyspanninghalfa

centuryormore,becauseofthegenerosityofhisspiritandhisimmenselyattractive

personality.Hehadagiftforandanintenseappreciationandneedoffriendshipand

“fellowship,”whichincludednurturingfriendshipswithhisstudents.”38His

proximityalsomakesitselffeltontherecollectionsofformerstudents:“It'salook

onhisfacethatIchieflyremember,asofsomeonetryingpolitelytoleavea

conversation‐andaroom‐withamouthfulofspoiledporridge.”39GabrielRestrepo,

whostudiedwithNiemeyeratthePhoenixInstitute,asummerprogramwhere

studentsattendNotreDametostudypoliticalphilosophyalsoemphasizes

Niemeyer’scapacityforfriendshipascentraltohisteaching.Herecounts

Niemeyer’sappreciationforthephysicalproximityoffriendsontheoccasionofa

commentNiemeyermadetoafriendontheoccasionofhisfriend’sordination:“We

donotseeeachotheroftenbutIneverfeelthattheintersticeshavemeantaloss.36BruceFingerhut,“LookfortheLift:ABiographicalEssayonGerhartNiemeyer,”PoliticalScienceReviewer,Fall2002,31(1):34.37“TabulaGratulatoria,”inTheGoodManinSociety,304.38MichaelHenry,“ThePresenceofaTeacher,”UniversityBookman,46(1)Spring2008(http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=861&theme=home&loc=b).ThisisareviewessayofNiemeyer,APathRemembered.39Fingerhut,“LookfortheLift,”33.

18

ThusIwasnottosadnottobeabletotalktoyouthatnight.Itwasnotanoccasion

forconversing.Isawyou,Ifeltyourhand,andgottheglancefromyoureye.No

morewasneeded.”40ForRestrepo,Niemeyer’ssuccessasateacherandascholar

derivedfromhiscapacityforfriendshipanditscentralityforbeinghuman.

Evenso,asintimatedbyHenry’spreferenceforthelanguageof“fellowship”

over“friendship,”Niemeyer’sfriendshipwasclosertoafatherlyloveofhischildren

(mostlysons,asNotreDamewasmale‐onlyforthemajorityoftimeNiemeyer

taughtthere,admittingitsfirstfemalestudentsin1972).Niemeyerwasfarfrom

cuttingtheimageoftheobsequiouscontemporaryacademicwhoposesasanequal

tohisstudents.TheobituarypublishedinNotreDameMagazinecalledhima

“staunchconservative”who“wasanintimidatingfiguretostudents.”41Walter

Nicgorski,hiscolleague,providesamorebalancedaccountinhisrecollectionof

havingacloseprofessional,butnotpersonal,relationshipwithhim,andthat

“Niemeyerwasnotregardedashavingadispositionorpracticeofspeakingreadily

ofhispersonalstate,”asfriendsmighttendtodo.42However,GregoryWolfe

recollectssomeofNiemeyer’spersonalpathosintheclassroom:“Inhispointingout

ThomasMann'sownintensesufferingoverthetragicfateofGermany,Niemeyer's

ownsufferingresonatedintheclassroom.”43GueguenrecallsNiemeyerneverhad

difficultyconnectingwithstudents,whomhefrequentlyinvitedtohishomefor

discussions.Niemeyerhadthecapacity,afterposingtostudentsadirectquestion,

40GabrielMoraRestrepo,“ThePoliticalPhilosophyofGerhartNiemeyer,”Pensamientoy

Cultura,2(1999):136.41“Inmemoriam,”NotreDameMagazine,Autumn1997:6.42WalterNicgorski,“Politics,PoliticalPhilosophy,andChristianFaith:GerhartNiemeyer’sJourney,”PoliticalScienceReviewer,31(Fall2002):41‐2.43GregoryWolfe,“DiscerningtheSpirits,”174.

19

oflooking“intous,asitseemed,tohelpusfindtheanswersomewherewithin,

quietlyurgingwithhisreassuring,confidenteyes.”GuegueninvokesnovelistMarion

Montgomery’sphraseofthoseafatherhaschosenassonstodescribethe

experienceofbeingastudentofNiemeyer.44MichaelHenrydescribesNiemeyer’s

fatherlyloveinlightofhisappreciationoftradition:

InhiscontinuedeffortstopromoteoursuccessIbelievehewasmotivatedcertainlybyafatherlyinterestinourpersonalaccomplishments,butalso,onadeeperlevel,byasenseofresponsibilityforfosteringasucceedinggenerationtocontinuetheworkinwhichhesawhimselfengaged,handingonacriticallydeepenedunderstandingofwhathehadreceived.Niemeyer’sexcellenceat“fathering”grewoutofhiscontemplativededicationto“sonship”;thatis,hegavealifetimeofprofoundthoughttothetradition,andthefaith,hehadreceived.Becausehestrovetoliveandeventoembodywhatheknewandlovedhewasabletotransmittohisstudentsanexampleofthelifeofphilosophyinthetruestsense,thelifededicatedtothelovingsearchforwisdom.45

Asnotedabove,Niemeyerunderstoodthattraditioncouldnotbeaccepted

uncritically.Moretothepoint,handingdowninvolvesnotsimplythetransmission

ofdoctrine,butalsoimpartingtheexistentialvirtues,whichonedoesbyexample,

andwhichdrawfromdeeperdepthsofthehumansoulthandoestradition.

Geugenexplainsthisdeeper,“prophetic,”dimensionofNiemeyer’sfatherly

lovetowardhisstudents:“AtNotreDame,ParryandNiemeyersawthemselvesas

mentorsengagedinrestoringtradition‘toitsontologicalstatusastheformof

44JohnGueguen,“AStudent’sTeacher:GerhartNiemeyer(Feb.15,1907–June23,1997),”PoliticalScienceReviewer,27(1998):1‐2,6.45MichaelHenry,“TheHeritageofGerhartNiemeyer,”TheIntercollegiateReview,Fall1997:3.Henryelsewherecomments:““Manyofhisstudentssoughtandfoundinhim,notjustamentor,butafatherwhoenteredwiththemintoaprofoundlyloving,mutuallyloyalspiritualandintellectualfellowshipbasedonasharedloveoftheGood”(“GerhartNiemeyerSymposium:Introduction,”PoliticalScienceReviewer,31(Fall2002):31).

20

society.’Theystroveto‘re‐experience’thattraditioninthecompanyofyoung

minds,apprenticeswhowouldonedayhavedisciplesoftheirown.Intheirsouls

wouldsurvive‘inacriticallypurifiedmanner...theorderofsociety’(“RT,”135f).

Theclassroomwasalreadya‘re‐constructedcommunity’discoveringhowto

‘experiencetruth’andhowtoinducethesameexperienceinotherswithfullrespect

forthefreedomoftheirmindsandwills.”46Theactivityofliberallearningisfound

intheformoffellowshipbecausepartakinginthetraditionoflearningmeanstaking

themeaningoftraditionascommunityseriously.

Educationrequiresclearingoftheideologicalunderbrushthathindersthe

eroticquestfortruth.Inalesserteacher,thisclearingmighttaketheformof

alertingstudentstothe“crisis”ofWesterncivilizationandoftheuniversitythat

frequentlytaintsanalysesofhighereducation.47Aproblemwith“crisis”aspartof

one’spedagogyisthatonecanneverreallyexperienceperiagoge,theturning

aroundofthesoul.Liberationisalwayshauntedbythefactthatonemustalways

turnaroundandsolvepoliticalproblems.Whilewehaveadutytoourpolis,“crisis”

mentalitypreventsusfromenjoyingthenecessarymomentofliberationthatisthe

preconditionofourabilitytoserveourpoliswithrighteousness.AsNiemeyer

observesinhisessay,“TheGloryandMiseryofEducation,”liberaleducationis

rootedintheliberationofthesoulfromnecessity,andthisliberationalsoformsthe

46Geugen,“StanleyParry,”109,citingRev.StanleyJ.Parry,CSC,“TheRestorationofTradition,”ModernAge3,no.2(Spring1961):125–38.47TimothyFullernoteshowthiscrisismentality,whichcharacterizedAllanBloomandwhichMichaelOakeshottrejected,corrodestheexperienceofliberaleducation:“Oakeshottcharacteristicallyresistsallapocalypticformulations,seeinginthemrecipesforsuspendingconversationalityinfavorofapoliticizingcounterrevolutionthatwilldefineeducationasthecarryingonofwarbyothermeans”(“Introduction,”toMichaelOakeshott,TheVoiceofLiberalLearning,(Indianapolis:LibertyFund,2001),xxxii).

21

preconditionforcommunityformedbythedesiretoknow.48

Asaconservativeandcriticofmodernideologyandutopia,the“crisis”

mentalitycertainlywasanoptionavailabletoNiemeyer.However,asRhodes

argues,itwasanoptionherefusedtotakebecausehisconservatismwasrootedin

“commonsense,”whichmeantmorethantheopinionscommontotheUnitedStates,

butrootedinthegreattraditionofphilosophicalrealismintheancientGreeksand

philosophicalChristians.49TheconservatismofNiemeyerwasdefinitelynot

ideologicalconservatism,butratherrootedinanappreciationofthecomplexityof

realityinitsmanifold;monism,thehallmarkofideology,cannotbepresentwhen

thismanifoldisrecollected.

SoNiemeyer,followingPlato,beginsliberaleducationwithanassessmentof

politicaldisorder.Gueguenrecollectshisteachingmethodfromhisnotesofayear‐

longseminarhetookwithNiemeyeroncommunistideology.Gueguenidentifies

threestagesoverthecourseoftheyear.Inthefirststage,Niemeyercoveredthe

basicpoliticalideasanddoctrinesofcommunistideology.Yet,thiswasnotall,even

inthisfirststage.Thepointofunderstandingtheideologywastoascendto

philosophicalfundamentals.50IfLeninismviewsbeingasrevolution,thenNiemeyer

wouldpushtheclasstoaskwhatisbeing,whichwouldleadthemtoconsiderLenin

inlightofother,greater,philosophersincludingPlatoorSt.ThomasAquinas.

Similarly,reflectingupontheMarxistvisionofsocietywouldleadstudentsto

considerwhatasocietyingeneralis.Orpolitics.Orhumannature.Liberal

48AftersightandForesight,340.49JamesRhodes,“GerhartNiemeyer:SeekeroftheWay,”Logos,10(2)Spring2007:120‐23.50Gueguen,“AStudent’sTeacher,”5‐6.

22

educationistheascentfromthecave.

Gueguenobservesthesephilosophicalquestions,asfundamentalastheyare,

pointedtomoralquestions,thenextstage,reachedearlyinthesecondtermofthe

course.Ifcommunistideologydoesnotpenetratetophilosophicalfundamentals,

onemustaskwhy.ForNiemeyer,ashearguesmostextensivelyinBetween

NothingnessandParadise,itistheverynatureofideologytoreducerealitytoa

singlepart.Ifphilosophicalinquirymovesfromparttowhole,orindividualto

species,thenideologytreatsthepartasthewhole,therebydistortingthings,and

doingbothintellectualandphysicalviolencetoone’spoliticalworld.Theviolence

ofcommunismintheSovietUnionandelsewhereispredicatedontheviolencein

thought.

Themoralstagegiveswayultimatelytothereligious.Themoralstage

explainstheeviloftheideologybutdoesnotsaveonefromit,whichinvolves

evokingthefullamplitudeofhumanexperiencethatideologyseekstodestroy.

GueguendrawsfromhisclassnotestoquoteNiemeyer:“[Christianity]hitsthe

mind,theemotions,thewill–thewholeman.”Communistideologytriestoreplace

Christianityandevenmimicsitwithitsownplanstosavetheworld,itsownhell,its

ownpurgatory,itsownutopianparadise.OfcourseChristianitydiffers,butone

cannotfullyappreciatethenatureofideologywithoutalsounderstandingwhatit

apes,andthisrequiresappealingnotonlytoknowledgeofChristianity,buttoits

livedexperience.Gueguennotes:“ithasbecomemoreapparenttomethatDr.

Niemeyerwasusingtheideologyasawaytoshapethesoulsofyoungpeoplesothat

theycouldmoretrulyappreciatetherealquestionsandtheiranswers.Hisgoalwas

23

notunrelatedtothetraditionalendsofaliberaleducation.Onlywhenwewere

armedwithsuchaneducationcouldweeffectivelyundotheworkofMarxand

Lenin.”51

Inthenextsection,weshallseethatVoegelin’steachingfollowedasimilar

patternofexistentialascent.Niemeyer’steachingmethodappearstofollowhisown

lifeexperience.WalterNicgorskiobservesasimilartripartitepatterninNiemeyer’s

writtenworkoverthecourseofhiscareer:

Niemeyerwas,inachronologicalsense,firstamanofpolitics,indeedapassionatemanofpolitics;then,outofdistressandperplexity,hebecameamanofphilosophysearchingtounderstandtherootsandcausesofthedisorderhefound;andthen,amanofChristianfaithwhoseowninquiriesandlifecametobeshapeddecisivelybythatfaith.Theprogressionfrompoliticstophilosophytofaithwasnotonewheretheearlierstageisleftbehindateachpoint.Rather,eachstagerepresentedanewcenterforhislifeinwhichtheearlierconcernsandemphasesstillhadacriticalrole.NiemeyerremainedpassionatelyconcernedwithpoliticsevenwhenhecameinthelightofChristianfaithtohaveawell‐informedsenseofthelimitsofpolitics.Niemeyerneverabandonedphilosophicalinquiry,butatacertainpointhisinquirybecameclearlydirectedandilluminatedbyChristianfaith;heembracedthenotionof"faithseekingunderstanding.”52

Indeed,thethreestages–political,philosophical,andChristian(whichoverlaptoa

largedegreewithGueguen’sphilosophical,moral,andreligiousstages),while

distinct,cannotbeseparated.Niemeyerhimselfobservesthisunityinoneofhis

earlyessayswrittenbeforeheconvertedtoChristianity,wherehedescribesthe

insidiousmoralprojectofsocialscience’slogic:“Inclaimingtobeabletosolvethe

problemsofsociallifebyscientificmethods,thesocialdisciplinesreallyundertake

51Gueguen,“AStudent’sTeacher,”7‐8.52Nicgorski,“Politics,PoliticalPhilosophy,andChristianFaith,”44‐5.

24

tomakemoraldecisionsonthebasisofstrictlylogicalderivationsfromfacts.”53All

scienceimpliesamorality,whichmeansthatthescientificunderstandingofscience

mustalsobeamoraljudgmentofscience.

Niemeyer,then,sawtheclassroomastheplaceofrecreatingtheoriginary

experiencesofphilosophicalerosaswellascaritasinhisrelationshipswithhis

students.ThisleadsRhodestociteJosefPieper’sdescriptionofteachingforSt.

ThomasAquinasinhistributetoNiemeyer.Thefullquotationisworth

reproducing:

Theteacher,remarksPieper,enjoysa“relationshipwithtruth,thepowerofsilentlisteningtoreality,”andcombinesitwith“somethingthatprobablycannoteverbelearned,”namely,“lovingdevotiontothelearner,...lovingidentificationoftheteacherwiththebeginner”thatfosterstruelearning.Truelearningis“morethanamereacquisitionofmaterial.”Indeed,itisa“growingintoaspiritualrealitywhichthelearnercannotyetgraspasapurelyintellectualmatter.”Theteacher’slovingcareofthelearnercausesthelearnerto“recognizetheamazingqualities,themirandum,”ofasubjectandputsthelearner“ontheroadtogenuinequestioning.Anditisgenuinequestioningthatinspiresalltruelearning.Granted,theteacherimpartsinformationandengagesinthedisputesoftheday.Theseefforts,however,properly“endlikethePlatonicdialogues;theymakenoclaimtoofferingcomprehensiveanswers,butthrowthegatesopentoaninfinitudeoffurtherseeking”sothat“theroadopensupintoaboundlessunknown.”54

WithNiemeyeronecanidentifyagreaterclarityoftheteacher’sidentificationwith

thesoulsofhisstudents,drawnfromNiemeyr’scaritas,whichdeepensthemoral

reasonsforhisnonpresenceasonewho“teaches”hisstudent“thepowerofsilent

listeningtoreality.”

53Niemeyer,“FaithandFactsinSocialScience,"TheologyToday5(4)(January1949),490.54Rhodes,“GerhartNiemeyer,”114,citingJosefPieper,GuidetoThomasAquinas(NewYork:Mentor‐OmegaBooks,1962),87,88,91.

25

IattendedtheUniversityofNotreDameasaPhDstudentandhadthe

opportunitytoattendareadinggroupunderProfessorNiemeyer’sguidanceinfall

of1994.WereadhistranslationofAnamnesisbyEricVoegelin.55Irecallhimasa

wonderfulteacherwhoaskeddeepandpenetratingquestionsofus.Ialsorecallhe

wasverydemandinginourattentiontothetextandtheseriousnessofour

endeavor.Someofmycolleagueswerealittleintimidatedbywhattheytookas

bruskness,whichwechalkeduptohisGermanstyleofteaching.Irecallnotbeing

terriblyintimidated.MyownGermanbackgroundgavemetheunderstandingthat

Germanauthorityfigurescanhaveatenderheartunderneath;itisabitofaritualto

reachthattenderheart.InevergottoknowProfessorNiemeyeraswellashis

formerstudentsIhavecitedinthisessay,butIcansayheexercisedcaritasinhis

desireforustounderstandthecentralquestionsofhumanexistencefoundinthis

text.His“bruskness”wasreallyadesiretofocustheattentionofusstudentsonto

theexistentialquestionsraisedbythetext.NotonlydidIlearntoreadthistext

carefully,andnotonlydidIgainaphilosophicalvocabularytohelpmeunderstand

whatwasgoingoninthisdifficulttext,butIalsounderstoodtheimportanceofthe

teacher’spresence,andwhywecouldsaycertainthingsaretruesimplybecause

theyareandnotbecausetheycomplywithsomefurtherstandardorrule.As

GueguennotesofNiemeyer’scapacitytoencapsulategreatthoughtsinabrief

phrase,Igainedinsightintohowtruthgetsembodiedintheexistentialmovementof

thehumanperson.“Justice,”“virtue,”and“truth”becamelivedrealities,andnot

academicabstractions,lying“outthere”tobeblithelymanipulatedbyaboredand55EricVoegelin,Anamnesis,trans.,GerhartNiemeyer,(Columbia,MO:UniversityofMissouriPress,1978).

26

alienatedmodernacademic.

EricVoegelin:“Phenomenon”andFounder

Inadditiontobeingagreatteacher,GerhartNiemeyerwasafriendofEric

Voegelinandstudentofhisthought.56WhileNiemeyerleftbehindanimportant

legacyofwrittenwork,itisnoinsulttoNiemeyertocharacterizeVoegelinasthe

profounderandmoreoriginalthinker.ThisisonereasonVoegelin’scapacityasa

teachergetsmixedreviews.57TomFlanagan,whotookundergraduateclassesfrom

both,regardedNiemeyerthebetterteacher.Niemeyer’steachingmethodwas

Socratic.Hewas“constantlyaskingpeoplequestionsandgettingthemtoexplore.

Andheorchestratedallthissothatwewouldalsocometogether.Icanremember

allthebooksIreadinNiemeyer’sclass.Incontrast,Ican’trememberanything

specificthatVoegelinsaid,althoughhewasthereforanentireterm.”58Niemeyer,

whoexercisedSocraticerosaswellascaritas,evokedagreaterreactionfromthis

particularformerstudent.IfMichaelOakeshottiscorrectinhisobservationthata

teacherisnotreallyateacherunlessthestudentlearns,thenFlanagan’smemoryof

hisexperienceandofhisreadingsmightserveasausefulmarkerofNiemeyer’s

greatercapacityasteacher.However,weshouldbecautioustoavoiddrawingtoo

hastyaconclusion.

56Fordetails,seeRhodes,“GerhartNiemeyer,”118andNiemeyer,APathRemembered,310‐14.57InvaluableinthisregardaretherecollectionsofalargenumberofhisstudentsinBarryCooperandJodiBruhn(eds.),VoegelinRecollected:ConversationsonaLife,(Columbia,MO:UniversityofMissouriPress,2008).58VoegelinRecollected,132.

27

FlanaganreflectsthesentimentofmanyundergraduatestudentsofVoegelin

innotinghewas“mesmerized”byVoegelin.Hewas“agoodspeaker”and

“tremendouslyeruditeandinteresting.”Readinginthesamevolumethe

recollectionsofVoegelin’sstudentsattheUniversityofMunich,oneisnotsurprised

byFlanagan’sreaction.Voegelin’slectureswerewideranging,andformostmortals,

astonishment,notunderstanding,wasthemainreaction.Thus,Flanaganconcludes,

Voegelin“wasn’treallyateacher,hewasaphenomenon.”

Flanagan’stestimonialservesasareminderthatagreatmind(andone

certainlynothostagetoone’sfragmentaryspecialization)risksbeing

incomprehensibletostudents.ThetestimonialsofhisstudentsatLouisianaState

Universityalsotestifytohisgreatnessasascholar,buttheytendtospeakmore

positivelyashiscapacityasanundergraduateteacher.Partofthismightbedueto

thefactthatVoegelinwasstillanimmigrantduringhistimeatLSU.Hewaslearning

tobecomeanAmerican,andmayhavebeenlearningthisfromhiscolleagues,as

wellashisstudentsevenwhilehewasteachingthem.Oneoftheconstantsintheir

recollectionsisthatitwasobviousVoegelinwasbeingmagnanimoustowardthem.

Hewasobviouslyagreatman,andtheytookhismagnanimityasoldworld

generosityandstyle.

Thegapbetweenstudentandteacheralsocharacterizedhisrelationswith

hisGermanstudents.ItseemsVoegelinleftLSUforMunichwiththehopeof

recreatingtheGeistkreisofscholarsheenjoyedinViennainhisyouth.59Eitherthat

59SeecommentsbyTiloSchabertinVoegelinRecollected,105.FordetailsofVoegelin’slifeinVienna,seeVoegelinRecollected,220‐253.HedescribestheGeistkreis,whichwascomposedofscholarswhowouldremainhislifelongfriends:“Itwasagroupofyoungerpeoplewhometregularlyeverymonth,

28

oraschoolofscientistswhocouldrejuvenatetheactivityofscienceinGermany.60

However,thiswasnotmeanttobe,inpartduetohisown(self‐imposed)isolation

andlackoffriends.

Asateacherofundergraduates,Voegelinhadareputationamongmanyfor

strictnessandbeingunfriendly,butitseemsthiswasastrategytoweedout

ideologicalorsimplystupidandlazystudents.AccordingtoClaus‐EkkehardBarsch,

Voegelin’sstrategybenefitedthosewhostayed.Itseemsithelpedthemgainclarity

onthefundamentalissues.Moreover,heobserveshowappreciativeVoegelinwas

forstudentstotalktohiminwalksbetweenclasses.Voegelin’sformerstudentsat

LSUandNDconfirmthissideofhim.61EllisSandoznoteshowVoegelingave

undergraduateandgraduatestudentsasensetheywereparticipatingwithhimin

theactivityofscience:“TothisdegreeVoegelinwasdoingscienceashetaught,

whetherinlectureorinseminar–andeverybodyknewthisiswhatweweredoing:

thestudentsandclassweretogreaterlesserdegreeparticipantsinapersuasive

inquiry,insomethingappreciatedasasearchfortruth,fortruththatmattered!I

thinkthispalpablesenseofparticipationintheactivityofinquirywasperhapsthe

chiefsourceofVoegelin’spopularityasateacher.”62

oneofthemgivingalectureonasubjectofhischoiceandtheotherstearinghimtopieces….Animportantcharacteristicofthegroupwasthatwewereallheldtogetherbyourintellectualinterestsinthepursuitofthisorthatscience,butthatatthesametimeagoodnumberofthememberswerenotsimplyattachedtotheuniversitybutwereengagedinvariousbusinessactivities.”(AutobiographicalReflections,35‐36).ThelackofidentificationwiththeUniversityofViennaremindsusofStephenMiller’sobservationthatthe“clubbablemen”oftheEnlightenmentpursuedtheirmostimportantconversationsoutsidetheparametersoftheuniversities(Conversation,79‐118).60VoegelinRecollected,111.61VoegelinRecollected,81.62EllisSandoz,“EricVoegelinAsMasterTeacher:NotesForATalk,”RoundtableDiscussion,AmericanPoliticalScienceAssociation&EricVoegelinSociety,AnnualMeetingsinChicago,September4,2004.IthankProfessorSandozforsharinghisnoteswithme.

29

Voegelinalsoevokedaneroticattraction,especiallyfromsomeofhisfemale

students.Usinganeclecticmethodofstudyingstudentbehaviorinallhisclasses,

BarschnotesofVoegelin’sbrighterfemalestudentsthat“theireyeswereopenand

theirlegswereopen.Andtheylookedliketheywereinamixtureofrelaxingand

theoppositeofrelaxing….Tense!Always.IthinkthatVoegelinhadanerotic

attraction.Thatwasmygeneralimpression.”63VoegelinexertedaSocratic

eroticismofthesoulthatcharacterizesgreatteachers,andthatremindsusthisform

oferoticismcallsforththeentireperson.64PlatoexpressesitwellinthePhaedrus

whenhespeaksofthelover“shuddering”whilebeholdinghisbelovedwhomhe

seesastheiconofthegood.65

Thegapbetweenthe“phenomenon”andstudentnarrowsintherecollections

ofhisgraduatestudents.AccordingtoTiloSchabert,heregularlyinvitedhisstaff

andstudentsforgatheringsathisMunichapartmentandsometimesforabarbeque

athiscottageinWeilheim.66Hecertainlypreferredthecompanyofhisstudentsto

hiscolleagues.However,someofhisstudentsexpressfrustrationathisaloofness

andincapacityforconversation.

AllthelimitationsofVoegelin’spersonalityandhisaloofnessseemedto

dissolveforthosegraduatestudentswhoendedupparticipatinginhisown

scientificinvestigations.Hewasinconstantconversationanddialoguewiththem

concerningthelatestbooks,theories,andcurrentevents.67Schabertexplainsthat

63VoegelinRecollected,82‐3.64SeeWilliamDeresiewicz,“LoveonCampus,”AmericanScholar,Summer2007:36‐46(http://www.theamericanscholar.org/su07/love‐deresiewicz.html).65Plato,Phaedrus,251a.66VoegelinRecollected,89.67TiloSchabert,“DieWerkstattEricVoegelins,”ZeitschriftfurPolitik,Marz2002,49(1):83‐95.

30

Voegelin’s“workshop”consistedofhisimmediateresearchassistants,butalsothose

withwhomhecorrespondedbyletter,andhisstudentsinhislectures:

Afterinitiatingaconversation–andwithoutconsideringwhetherwhatwastofollowwouldinterestallwhowerepresentorwouldevenbeacceptabletothem–EricVoegelinwouldpresentthelatestideasthathadcometohiminthecourseofhisthought,ofhiswork.Manifestly,thesewereideasthathewantedfirstto"test."Theyweredeliveredinthatmannerhealwaysmaintained:oneofpresentingthemasconceptualdiscoveriesthatwereabsolutelyunfamiliar,shockingandunorthodox,yetofafar‐reachingsignificance.Voegelinusuallyproceededinpreciselythesamewayinlecturesandpresentations,especiallyduringthediscussionround.Onsuchoccasions,heappearedasthefigureoftheexperimentalmindthatrebelliouslyprobedtothefurthest,leastexpectedlimit.Theeffectuponhisaudiencewaspalpable:ittoonowbrimmedwithcreativeexcitementaswell.Voegelinregardedhislecturesasamanifestationofhisworkshopthathadnoparallelanywhereelse.Asamatterofparticularnote:itwasatjustsuchlecturesthatVoegelinwonothersovertohisthoughtandgainedthemforthestudyofhiswork.68

Students,whocouldnotpossiblyfullyunderstandwhatVoegelinwastalkingabout,

couldstillsensethesignificanceandthrillofscientificinquiry.Herewasa

scientist’sexistentialmotionintruth.Ofcourse,Voegelinwasnotaregularscholar

inthesenseofbeingaspecialist.Anexuberantgnatbiologistcanthrillhisstudents

byteachingthemaboutitsdigestiveorgans.Voegelin,aswehaveseen,was

attemptingtomovebeyondWeber’sattempttodevelopatheoryofhumanity.

ThomasHollweckelaboratesVoegelin’sinvitationtostudentsto“thinkwith”

him:

Voegelinasateacher,thatmeanstomefirstofall,Voegelinasakeenobserverofthepersonwithwhomhewashavingaconversationandassomeonewhovisibly

68Schabert,“DieWerkstattEricVoegelins,”91.TranslationtakenfromunpublishedEnglishtranslation.IthankProfessorSchabertforsharinghismanuscriptwithme.

31

thoughtyourthoughtswithyou,whichmybynomeansmeantthathisthoughtprocesseswouldarriveatthesameendasyourown.Thisiswhenthingswouldbecomeextremelyinteresting;forthenyouknewthatsomethingimportantwasgoingon,somethingthatembodiedtometheessenceofWissenschaftandphilosophy.Voegelinneverhadanyneedtointerrupt,excepttointerject“whatdoyoumean.Idonotunderstand,”whenIhadonceagainfailedtoexpressmythoughtsclearly.69

Underthecircumstancesof“thinkingwith”atalentedgraduatestudent,Voegelin

displayedaSocraticsenseofteachingdeeperperhapseventhanofSocrates,who,it

seems,never“thoughtwith”anotherinterlocutorinthesenseoftreatinghimasan

equal,atleastintermsofthetopicathand.70HisSocraticteachingwastheresultof

hiscapacitytoremovehimselffromthetopicofinquiry:“Itisthesignofa

sovereignthinkerthathehasnoneedtomentionhisownwritingsonaparticular

subjectandthathedoesnotchewthecudofoldaccomplishments.WhenVoegelin

invitedyoutoreadsomethinghehadwrittenitwas,asTiloSchabertpointsout,

‘workinprogress.’Voegelininvitedyoutothinkwithhim,notabouthim,not

againsthim,butaboutthesubjectmatter.”71

Ofcourse,aninequalityexistedbetweenVoegelinandhistopstudentsby

virtueofVoegelin’sintellect,which,thestudentsrecognized:“WhatIpersonally

valuedmorethananythingelseinVoegelin’sthinkingwasitsanalyticalpower.He

wastheonlymaneverfromwhomIwouldacceptstatementsaboutwhatcannotbe

proven,becauseIknewthatifanyoneeverhad,hehadthoughtitthroughandhad

69ThomasHollweck,“RoundtableDiscussion:VoegelinasMasterTeacher,”CommentspresentedatEricVoegelinSociety,2004AnnualMeetingoftheAmericanPoliticalScienceAssociation(http://www.artsci.lsu.edu/voegelin/EVS/2004%20Papers/Hollweck22004.htm).70Thisisacontentiousclaim,asSocraticignorance,ifwetakeitseriously,impliesagenuineequalityamongSocratesandallmen.SørenKierkegaardbringsthisequalityoutverywell.71Hollweck,“VoegelinasMasterTeacher.”

32

notreliedonintuition.”72Evenso,forseveralofhisGermanstudents,theauthority

ofhisintellectmeantsomethingmorethangivingthemthefaithtotakehiswordfor

grantedonthisorthattopic.HisGermanstudentsgrewupinthepost‐WorldWarII

period,whichmeanttheirownparents–fathersinparticular‐weredirectlyaffected

bythewar.Thefathersofsomewerekilled(whichmeanttheybarelywouldhave

knownthem),whileothershadbeenNationalSocialists.73Voegelinwasafather

figureformanyofthemforthesamereasonSocrateswasafatherfigureforthe

dispossessedyouthofAthens.Theoldorderwaseitherdeadorcorrupt,andhe

representedthenewwayformanyofhisstudents(thoughheseemsnottohave

noticednorcultivatedthiskindofrelationship).

ManysidesofVoegelintheteachertreatedheresofararegatheredupinthe

seriesoflectures,“HitlerandtheGermans,”deliveredin1964,thatperhaps

constitutedtheclimaxofhisteachingcareer.74Aswehaveseen,manyofVoegelin’s

studentsregardedhimamesmerizing“phenomenon”buthissignificancewasnot

altogethercleartothem.Hissignificancetothisaudience,composedmostlyof

students,wasclearbecausethetopicwasaboutthem,orrather,aboutthesociety

theyhadinheritedfromtheircorruptedparents.Purcellcomparestheperformance

toSocratespullingAthenianyouthsoutoftheircave:“Forhisaudience,

encounteringVoegelindeliveringthelectureswaslikemeetingsomeonecomingup

fromtheunderworldofPlato’scave,wouldbetheirSocraticguide.Inthatsense,

72Hollweck,“VoegelinasMasterTeacher.”73VoegelinRecollected,113.74Voegelin,HitlerandtheGermans,CW31.ThefollowinganalysisdrawsuponPurcell’sanalysisoftheselectures,whichfocusesonVoegelin’sperformanceofthem,insteadofthepublishedversion(“CanaPhilosopherBeaPropheticWitnesstotheTruth?”).

33

ManfredHenningsenremarkedthattheirgreatestimpactwasintheiractual

performance,‘inexpectationofaGermanmetanoia.’”75PurcellarguesthatVoegelin,

forwhom,likeSocratesorKierkegaard,philosophyisawayofexistenceinsteadof

simplyholdingconcepts,thelectureswereintendedtorecreatethecapacityfor

civicfriendshipintruthinGermany,arebuildingofsoulsin“acommunityof

existentialconcern”:“That’sperhapsthefullestsignificanceofthoselectures–they

expressedVoegelin’sownphiliapolitike,hisattitudeofpoliticalfriendshiptowards

hisaudience.Theywereintendedtogroundthecommonhomonoia–

likemindednessinparticipationinthesamedivinenous–anewgenerationof

Germanspoudaioi,ofaninnerdignityandexternalcivicvirtueequivalenttoMax

Weber’s.”76LikeSocrateswhorefoundsthebeautifulcityinthesoulsoftheyoung

withwhomheconverses,Voegelinattemptedtoreconstitutethelifeoftruthfulness

inadestroyedGermansociety.

PurcellanalyzesthemethodofVoegelin’sattempttoevokeperiagogeinhis

students.HedrawsuponKierkegaard’sprogramofelicitinginhisaudiencethree

stepsinconversion:aesthetic,ethical,andreligious,aswellasafourthstep,

towardsthetruthofexistence.ThesestepsarecomparabletotheonesGueguen,

andNicgorskitoadegree,noticeofGerhartNiemeyer’steaching.Thesestepsof

ascentareattemptstopracticethe“artoftheperiagoge,”asVoegelinreferredto

liberaleducation.

75Purcell,“CanaPhilosopherBeaPropheticWitnesstotheTruth?”,2,quotingHenningsen,“EineMischungausSchlachthofundKlapsmühle,EinleitungzuEricVoegelin,”HitlerunddieDeutschen,(Munich:WilhelmFink,2006),38.76Purcell,“CanaPhilosopherBeaPropheticWitnesstotheTruth?”,6.Henningsendocumentsanumberofstudentsinattendancewhowouldgoontoformacross‐sectionofGermanspoudaioi,representingmedia,government,bureaucracy,andtheacademy(“EinleitungzuEricVoegelin,”19).

34

Thefirststeptowardconversionistoenterintotheaestheticbymeansof

ironyandsatire.Effortsbypost‐warGermanphilosophers,historians,andsocial

scientiststoexplaintheNaziphenomenawerepatheticbecausetheytoo

participatedinthedestructionofreality(whichhelpsexplainwhythetitleof

Voegelin’slectureswas“HitlerandtheGermans”(myemphasis),toshowthatHitler

doesnotariseinaculturalvacuum).VoegelinborrowsheavilyfromKarlKraus’s

satiresontheNazisandcultureintheinter‐warperiodtodemonstrate,witha

considerabledegreeofbluntness,howanyoneshouldhaveseenthedestructionof

orderinsociety.Satireexposesthedestruction,buttheironicpresentationof

detailsenablestheaudiencetodistanceitselffrom“thecommonlyaccepteddoxaof

academiccontemporaryhistoriography.”77Voegelinbluntlydemonstratestohis

studentsthattheparagonsofintelligenceandmoralityintheirsocietyarestupid

idiots.NowonderhewasprofessionallyisolatedinGermany!Evenso,Purcell

singlesouttheaestheticasVoegelin’sfirststeptowardevokingperiagogein

students.Satireandironyarenotmeanttobelittleorintimidate,asmanyofhis

studentsthought,butwas“aimedathealingthroughcauterization.”Ofcourse,

satireandironycanappearasmereinsulttosome,and,withouttheshared

backgroundofbeingyounginacorruptsocietylikeVoegelin’sGermanstudents

were,itwouldbedifficulttodeterminethetargetofVoegelin’sbarbs.

Fromtheaesthetic,Voegelinmovestotheethical.Itshouldbenoted,though,

thatPurcell’sKierkegaardiancategories(towhichVoegelindoesnotrefer)are

existential,nottemporal,ones.Thismeansthateachispresentateachandevery

77Purcell,“CanaPhilosopherBeaPropheticWitnesstotheTruth?”,3.

35

pointofthelectures.Onedoesnotfindthefirstlectureintheaesthetic,thesecond

lectureintheethical,andsoon.

HavingdemonstratedtheabsurdityoftheNazisandtheirsubsequent

“scientific”interpreters,andhavingachievedanironicdistancingfromthe

authoritativeclaimsofthelatter,Voegelinelicitsethicalconversionexpressedfirst

asmoralindignationandsecondasaffirmationofmoralorderasakeyconstituent

ofscientificunderstandingofpoliticalreality.Theabsurdityofparticipatinginthe

secondaryrealityofideologydeservesmoralindignation,whichisanaffirmationof

participationinacommonreality.Voegelinusestheexampleofajournalistwho

criticizesaformerAuschwitzprisonerforlosingcontrolonthewitnessstandand

callingaformerguardamurderer,eventhoughtheguard“merely”beathimintoa

cripple.Voegelin’sindignationatthejournalistisapparent:“Forwhatitissayingis

thatoneshouldpeacefullyallowoneselftobekilledandshouldn’tinanywayshout

‘murderer!’...AslongasIhavenotbeenkilled,Imustnotsaythattheotherpersonis

amurder.IfIseethatthisotheroneiscommittingmurder,Istillmaynotsay

‘murderer!’beforehehasbeenconvictedinapropercourt.”78Onecanseeinthe

journalistalegalistmindsetthatwouldprohibittheformerprisonerfromspeaking

truthwhendoingsobreakstheletterofthelaw.

Havingaffirmedthemoralorderintheconversiontotheethical,Voegelin

thenelicitsreligiousconversion,orperhapsmoreaccurately,“conversiontothe

transcendent.”79Fromaffirmingthemoralorderintheethicalconversion,Voegelin

movesintothetranscendentunderwhichtheindividualstandstobejudgedbythat78Voegelin,HitlerandtheGermans,CW31,64.79Purcell,“CanaPhilosopherBeaPropheticWitnesstotheTruth?”,4.

36

standard.Voegelinidentifiesthelossofreality,rootedinman’sdesiretobethe

creatorofhisownexistenceandvalues,asthesourceofGermandisorder,andcites

onesentenceofNovalistosummarizethissentiment:“’TheworldshallbeasIwish

it!’ThereyoualreadyhaveinanutshellthewholeproblemofHitler,thecentral

problemofthededivinizinganddehumanizing.”80Incontrast,Voegelinsuccinctly

clarifiesthetranscendent,andempiricallytrue,standardunderwhichmanexists:

“Theexperienceofreasonandspiritagreeonthepointthatmanexperiences

himselfasabeingwhodoesnotexistfromhimself.Heexistsinanalreadygiven

world.Thisworlditselfexistsbyreasonofamystery,andthenameforthemystery,

forthecauseofthisbeingoftheworld,ofwhichmanisacomponent,isreferredto

as‘God.’So,dependenceofexistenceonthedivinecausationofexistencehas

remainedthebasicquestionofphilosophyuptotoday.”81Ofcourse,Voegelinwas

notaspokesmanforChristianityoranyotherreligion.ButChristianity,aswellas

Socraticpoliticalphilosophy,callsupontheindividualtolivehislifeintruthandto

bejudgedbythattruth.The“experiencesofreasonandspirit”telluslifeistobe

livedinexistentialtruth,andthatphilosophyisnotsimplytheholdingofrightor

eventrueopinionsandconcepts.ThisenablesVoegelintodevoteconsiderable

attentiontocriticizingtheChristianchurchesduringtheNaziera,fortheyfailedto

bearwitnesstotranscendenttruth.Willingnesstoliveunderjudgmentexpresses

the“openness”towardthedivinegrounddiscussedabove.Onlysuchsoulsare

capableofpoliticalandphilosophicalfriendship.ThatVoegelinwascapableof

80Voegelin,HitlerandtheGermans,CW31,88.81Voegelin,HitlerandtheGermans,CW31,86.

37

elicitingsuchfriendshipinhisuniversitylecturestestifiestohisgreatnessasa

teacher.

The“HitlerandtheGermans”lecturesappeartohavebeenfoundational

eventsforthosewhoheardthem.Manyintheaudiencewentontoformimportant

partsoftheGermanregime.Ouranalysisofhisteachingbeganwithsome

reservationsofhistalents,whichhisformerstudentsexplainedtobetheresultof

hisgreatnessasascholar,whichtendedtomakeitdifficultforstudentstokeepup

withhim.Thosewhowereabletodevelopaworkingrelationshipwithhimidentify

hiscapacityto“thinkwith”thestudentasthebondbetweenthem.Morethe

originalscholarthanNiemeyer,Voegelin“pushedahead”withhisscienceand

thinking,whichriskedleavingbehindstudents.However,aswesawwithPurcell’s

accountofthe“HitlerandtheGerman”lectures,Voegelinwasverycapableof

teachingtoawidearrayofintellects,andofcondescending(inthegoodsenseofthe

term)tothelongingsofthestudents.

Conclusion

VoegelinandNiemeyerunderstoodteachinginthePlatonictermsofturning

aroundthesoulsofstudentsfromthecrisisoftheircivilization,towardexistential

truth.Theirwrittenworkmatchestheirteachingefforts,firstintermsofdiagnosing

thecrisisandfindingawayoutofit.Itisanidlequestiontoaskwhowasthebetter

teacher,foreachhadhisstrengthsandweaknesses,andeachindividualstudent

reacteddifferentlytobothmen.Evenso,theirdifferentself‐understandingsas

38

scholarsappeartohaveresultedindifferentteachingstyles.Voegelin,themore

originalthinker,seemedtohavehadamorepronouncedimpactonthosewhocould

“thinkwith”him.Niemeyerwasmoreself‐consciouslyafather‐figureforhis

studentsandtherefore,whilestillhighlydemandingoftheirattentionand

intelligence,didnotregardhisstudentsaspeoplewhocould“thinkwith”him.

Instead,Niemeyerattemptedtore‐createtheoriginaryexperiencesofthetradition

ofthinkingthatheunderstoodhimselfashandingdown.Foralltheattention

NiemeyerandVoegelinpaidtorecollection(afterall,Niemeyertranslated

Voegelin’sbook,Anamnesis),Voegelinwaslessinterestedinviewinghimselfasan

imparterofatradition.Thisisnottosayhe,likeaprogressivist,rejectedtradition.

Rather,heseemedtohavetreatedtraditionasastarting‐pointforinquiry,andit

wastheactivityofinquirythatinterestedhimthemost.

However,itisdifficulttosaymuchmoreabouttheirrespectiveteaching

methods.EventhoughIhaveidentifiedathree‐stage“ascent”ineachone’smethod,

itshouldbemadeclearthatthesethreestagesareroughcategories,andthateach

stageisnottobeunderstoodasisolatedfromtheothers.Inthissense,onecan

appreciatethecomplexityoftheirteachingandthe“artoftheperiagoge,”which

entailsawidearrayofartsandtechniquestogetstudentstolearn.AsRalph

McInernyexplainsinhiscontributiontotheFestschriftforNiemeyer,teachingisa

taskthat“cannotbeaccomplished”becauseallateachercandoispoint.82He

cannotmakehisstudentlearnandthereforeisalwaysthehelplessinitiatorof

liberaleducation.Onemightthinkteachingisforthisreasonafutiletask.However,

82RalphMcInerny,“ReflectionsonTeaching,”TheGoodManinSociety,137.

39

thehelplessnessoftheteachermightbeonereasonSocratesintheSymposium

explainshowDiotimadescribesthemulti‐dimensionalerosas:“courageous,stout,

andkeen,askilledhunter,alwaysweavingdevices,desirousofpracticalwisdom

andinventive,philosophizingthroughallhislife,askilledmagician,druggist,

sophist.”83ThesameadjectivescouldbeusedforVoegelinandNiemeyer,who

participateinthewayofthinkingofteachingofDiotimaandofSocrates.

83Plato,Symposium,203d‐e.