When I posted part I of Leon Kass's courtship essay, I promised to locate and post an actual defense of Dr. Kass. Maybe even two of them. Well, here they are, gleaned from the comment sections of other blogs who got there ahead of me. Is it morally questionable to do this? Perhaps. I'm hoping that full attribution and links will wash me clean of sin.

Since I'm constitutionally incapable of giving Dr. Kass a completely free ride, I've included a few negatives as well. Originally, the pro-Leon pieces were to appear in boldface, in their entirety. The anti-Leons would be similarly italicized. Everybody else, standard type.

On further reflection, I've decided that classification scheme is insufficiently discriminating. I don't want a broad brush here. Pointillism seems the way to go. Many contributors had a mixed message. Also, I'm reversing the typefaces. Italics for defense. Boldface for criticism. Just because I can.

First up, Crooked Timber...

Kass had something of a cult following when I was an undergrad at the U of C. It’s not hard to see why—in his insistence on a positive notion of human wellbeing and the good life, there are points of contact with someone like Marcuse or Fromm.

Even the ice cream thing isn’t necessarily so silly. Eating is a fundamental act, something you should take seriously and devote your full attention to, something that needs to be cultivated to appreciate and do well. Isn’t there some truth to that?

Not to say he isn’t nuts, of course.

Posted by lemuel pitkin October 21st, 2005 at 1:44 am
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It’s not even the opinions that get me – it’s the bloated, farting, tumescent pomposity. Point, and jeer.

Posted by Alex October 21st, 2005 at 4:16 am
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gosh, I liked the prose. It’s refreshing to see someone deploy archaic words correctly and effectively.

I also admire Kass’s intellectual consistency. The ice cream quote is evidence, I think, of an acute and rigorous mind following some of the assumptions and principles behind the earlier passages to their right and proper end.

Trampling Mr Kass is a bit like trampling Henry James. He shouldn’t, clearly, be in a position to make decisions on bioethics or influence policy in our time. But he is quaint, and I kinda like him.

Posted by ed October 21st, 2005 at 4:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will probably be skewered for saying this, but instead of discounting Mr. Kaas because he offends our post sexual revolution sensibilities, we should listen.
I believe he is making a valid point. He believes that something important to the relationship between men and women and to our own happiness has been lost.
I disagree in the way he is trying to make his point. Mr Kaas’ return to modesty and virtue, as they were acted out in his day, is no more pleasant to my mind than today’s drivel about “negotiating relationships”.
Mr. Kaas’ talk about modesty and virtue is really about finding protecting and fostering love. To my mind, his world is closer to the mark of what we should be talking about, than our talk of today about “having a heathly realtionship”.

Its about love dammit! We don’t discuss love in America. We talk about being healthy. Of being in a healthy relationship. Of negotiating with our partners. I want what I want and you want what you want, so we will negotiate a compromise.

Love is secondary in our world, it was of primary importance in Mr. Kaas’ world. In my mind, Mr Kaas is at least pointing in the right direction.

Posted by Dave October 21st, 2005 at 9:04
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Having been in several of his classes at the University of Chicago, I’ll put forward that Leon Kass is a truly gifted teacher, a graceful and talented writer, and a moral philosopher whose premises are all based on ideas that were really last “current” a thousand years ago. To Professor Kass, St. Thomas Aquinas is a modern philosopher.
I love and completely agree with ed’s comments from above:

“Trampling Mr Kass is a bit like trampling Henry James. He shouldn’t, clearly, be in a position to make decisions on bioethics or influence policy in our time. But he is quaint, and I kinda like him.”

Kass is a great man to have an argument with, and a nice counterpoint to us relativist humanists, but the thought of him being Surgeon General is terrifying.

Posted by scory October 21st, 2005 at 9:22 am
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please remember that one of Mr. Kass’ goals is to ‘offend’ and turn off the ‘unserious.’ He is a Straussian-extrordinaire, therefore he is writing esoterically. His over-the-top crabby old man statements are meant to get people all riled up on the surface, but he expects the serious reader to look past all that.
Let’s pretend he deserves a serious reading and what he’s trying to get at: I think it is that he believes true friendship can only exist between men, and that having women running around pretending to be equal just makes society too hard to control. Since he believes (like Strauss) that there really is no ‘natural’ order to things besides the strong doing what’s to their advantage, he thinks men should get back in control (by persuading the women that it’s in their best interest).

I also think he really believes that men cannot control their sexual desires without the help of ‘virtuous women,’ or at least that they have no reason to. In this, he is not so different from the orthodox Muslims who believe every piece of skin must be hidden.

In any case, try not to be distracted by what he means to distract you with: the liberals’ reaction to the ice cream comment is exactly the sort of thing Straussians laugh about behind closed doors.

Posted by e October 21st, 2005 at 9:25 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I should start by saying that I know Leon Kass and his family. I have been a guest at his house and he at mine. His wife, Amy, also a professor at the U of C, is the finest teacher I have ever known. So, discount what I have to say as you see fit. I am certain that Leon fully expected to catch flak for his comments. Whenever you enter into public discourse, you have to expect some pie-in-the-face (or should I say, ice cream?) reaction. He doesn’t need me to defend him.
But I’d like to defend him nonetheless, at least against the personal, ad hominem attacks that he’s caught, here and on other sites.
What you might want to understand is that his stated concerns for young people generally, and young women particularly, are sincere and carefully considered, not code for a desire to demean and subordinate women. His relationship with his wife and daughters is respectful, loving and equal and I suspect that, if you knew them, you would like and approve of their family. Naturally, my assertion that Leon is a good man with a good family doesn’t provide a shred of support for his argument, but I don’t want the attacks on his character to go unrebutted.
See, what happened with Amy and Leon was they saw all their favorite students spending tremendous effort and thought on how to advance their careers or get into grad school or improve their minds but hardly any on who to marry. They believe (as I do) that the decision as to whether and who to marry is the most important choice a person can make and that the smart, talented young people they saw on a daily basis were messing it up. Being from the U of C, they naturally concluded that what everyone needed was a 636 page tome of assigned reading in the classics. So they assembled a book, “Wing To Wing, Oar To Oar: Readings on Courting and Marrying.” It is about what you’d expect from two lifelong U of C scholars tackling the subject of marriage. Lots of different authors with different, interesting takes on the topic. In their own words, the book was offered “in wisdom-seeking rather than wisdom-delivering-spirit, as writings that make us think, that challenge our unexamined opinions, expand our sympathies, elevate our gaze, and introduce us to possibilities open to human beings in everyday life that may be undreamt of in our philosophizing.” pg.19. If you are honestly interested in the subject or what they think, I recommend the book to you.
So disagree with his fundamental points all you like. Tell him you think that, for all the problems that he elegantly identifies in today’s young people, his diagnosis is flawed and his prescription is wrong. I have, to his face. But, before you impugn his motives or attack his character, consider that you really do not know what you are talking about.

Posted by K. Hannigan October 21st, 2005 at 9:51 am
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first step to self-knowledge is knowing that you are ignorant.

You folks, with all your snarky comments, have any of you read a book on love? Studied the nature of love? If you had, then you would understand where Mr Kaas was coming from. Notice, I did not say that you would have to agree.

But, at least you’d be able to make an argument that wasn’t just an attack on Mr. Kaas.

Pathetic. You wear your ignorance like a shield and sustain it with you outrage that someone dares to question the nature of things.

Posted by Dave October 21st, 2005 at 10:04 am
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey, I went to the U of C. “Impughing his motives” and “attacking his character” are the first things they teach you if you study with a Straussian. Of course, they wrap it up in the pretty paper of “challenging our unexamined positions.” But the Kass virgin/whore idea is pretty clear from his own argument. Basically, if the profs in Social Thought could just get the world back to the the way the Greeks ran things—when men didn’t really need women for sexual pleasure, just procreation—they would be much happier. They should should all just come out of the closet.

Posted by Jeff October 21st, 2005 at 10:25 am
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmm. So what if I thought long and hard about who I wanted to marry, and kept coming to the conclusion that I wanted to marry another man. How would the good Professor council me?

Posted by djw October 21st, 2005 at 11:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a recently matriculated PhD. student at the U of Chicago, I am officially embarassed for my school.

Posted by T.W. McKinney October 21st, 2005 at 1:40 pm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I dunno, K. Hannigan. Nobody could possibly object to:

“writings that make us think, that challenge our unexamined opinions, expand our sympathies, elevate our gaze, and introduce us to possibilities open to human beings in everyday life that may be undreamt of in our philosophizing”

And in between hoots of laughter, folks have pointed out that Kass holds fast to unexamined opinions, has narrow sympathies, is unable to elevate his gaze, and cannot see “possibilities open to human beings in everyday life … undreamt of in [his] philosophizing.” Part of the trouble with his writing on this topic is its utter banality. It may be the banality of another age, but its fustiness doesn’t make it smarter.
And for someone who believes that love springs from sublimated lust to accuse other people of having a limited view of love is a little too much.

In addition to their banality these ideas do have consequences in the blighting of lives, so yes people will respond vigorously, and if you choose to make uninformed, broad-brush arguments about sexuality and bring back the virgin|whore dichotomy etc. etc., one of the responses you can expect is merciless ridicule. Some of it’s over the top, yes. Most of it’s pretty entertaining.

Posted by Colin Danby October 21st, 2005 at 1:42 pm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And to those who defend this dinosaur, his personal charms are irrelevant to the views he expressed. Perhaps he is a benevolent dictator to his wife and daughters—that doesn’t make his dictatorship ethical.

And speaking of love, how can anyone say he knows anything about it whatsoever? Subsumed lust is not love. It’s nowhere close to it.

And his last fallacy (a common one) is in assuming that his acquaintance with college students gives him any real insight into how functioning adults work in our society. College students are in transition, still making their personalities, easily swayed by their heroes, and for the most part, utterly ignorant of the real world and real relationships, because they haven’t been on their own yet. It is an irritatingly common failing of many academics, to think that what they observe in students rarified lives can be extrapolated to the majority of the population.

Posted by emjaybee October 21st, 2005
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fuck you all. Its obviously much more fun and “liberating” to make fun of this guy than to address any of the points that he is making, or to wonder why these topics might be important.

A society is only as good as the families that hold it up. With the sexual revolution of our society came a whole bunch of weird shit that has affected our nation in a lot of different ways.

Are they good, bad, hard to say? I dont know. But I find it hilarious that no one wants to admit that Kass might have a point about how unrestrained sexual activity will negatively impact a society as a whole.

Posted by Chuck October 21st, 2005 at 4:50 pm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chuck: "I find it hilarious that no one wants to admit that Kass might have a point about how unrestrained sexual activity will negatively impact a society as a whole."

Also, the “Time Cube” guy might have a point, how there may be certain flaws in quantum electrodynamics, but because he’s nuts and his own ideas are rubbish, that point is lost.

"Fuck you all."

Kiss my ass, Chuck.

Posted by W. Kiernan October 22nd, 2005 at 7:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Leon Kass would, I’m sure, be overjoyed to learn that everyone is judging the U of Chicago by his example (and by the example of the Committee on Social Thought in general). I’m sure he’s a great teacher, and I’m sure I would have left his classes with my skin crawling the way I left half my classes as an undergraduate at Chicago, but he’s spent most of his career not only writing this sort of mind-bending ghastliness but trying to put the name of the university behind him in everything he does. I left that university shuddering and swearing I would never go back; it was only later that I realized I had let this sort of bad apple ruin what should have been, and at times was, an amazing experience. I don’t know what it is about the place that allows the worst to be so full of passionate intensity; certainly it isn’t the lack of alternatives—the professoriate as a whole, I think, isn’t that much more reactionary or irrational than the average...

Posted by commenter

October 24th, 2005 at 11:52 pm

Kevin Drum...

Kevin and his ilk display again the reason why republicans will never embrace the liberal agenda. Kevin can dismiss Kass with a chuckle and a wave of his wrist without ever addressing divorce, infidelity, loss of shame, lack of commitment, the glorification of self over service--none of this merits any serious consideration. Sexual freedom has no negative consequence in Kevin's world does it? ...How do you expect to ever convince a moderate Republican who cares about this stuff that you care too, when you ridicule this way.

I pity this country. Kass is so funny, such an idiot, so easily dismissed!

Posted by: alice on October 21, 2005 at 8:58 AM
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who REALLY likes the notion of having to choose everything for yourself and does it really make you happy?

I grew up with a paradoxical father - an atheist libertarian who also adopted the 50's "Father Knows Best" style of parenting - the quintessential friendly autocrat. Being dragged around attractions as a kid with absolutely no choice as to where to go, it was one of my fondest dreams to grow up and go to places of my own choosing. Being told I had to think for myself, then being told what to think, I greatly desired to get away and be my own person.

I am mid-30's and single. I'm totally in control of my own life. Sure I don't always have a friend or male companion to go places with. However absolute submission to a male authority figure is far more loathsome to me than loneliness. My thoughts and beliefs and time are all my own.

Just to repeat myself, there are things worse than loneliness.

p.s. - I attended the U. of C. undergrad. The sadness in the eyes of young women there stems from the general unattractiveness and ineptness of the male population. The straight men are 95% dorks who never dated a woman before and treat women like crap through sheer incompetence and ignorance.

Posted by: Librul on October 21, 2005 at 11:32 AM
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What exactly is Leon Kass planning on DOING about the sluts in our midst? It just sounds like a bunch of whining. Everyone complains about sluts, but no one ever does anything about them...

Posted by:kokblok on October 21, 2005 at 11:52 AM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personally, I find Maggie Gallagher far more loathesome than Leon Kass. I get the sense that underneath it all, Kass is basically a decent human being. Not so with the wretched Gallagher. It's been most gratifying to see her getting torn to shreds over the last few days by the commenters at Volokh.com, where she is guest-blogging about the evils of gay marriage.

Posted by: Don P on October 21, 2005 at 12:59 PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't like promiscuity any more than Mr. Kass does, but I think men ought to be as chaste as women have traditionally had to be. I don't want my sons thinking "hookups" are anything but pitiful. I want them to save sex for the person they intend to marry. (They're 3 and 7, so I have no idea whether they'll be straight or gay, and I really don't want them to think about that yet, either. If they are gay, I hope strongly that by the time they're adults, gays can marry.) I also want them to understand that THEY control their sexual urges; it's not the girl's responsibility to keep things cool while they put on pressure...

Posted by: Karen Cox on October 21, 2005 at 11:38

Not one Kass defender surfaced at Pandagon...

Dianne said on October 22, 2005 10:38 AM:

"he's at the University of Chicago, known affectionately to its students as "Where Fun Comes to Die.""

Hey! I resemble that remark! U of C can be a lot of fun if you have the right sort of sick, perverted mind. The type of mind that goes to class for (dramatic pause) fun. The type of mind that competes to take classes with the extra-hard, extra-obnoxious professor. Ok, U of C is number 500 out of 500 as a party school (beating out West Point), but so what? Most U of C students would rather be at a library than a party any day. For one thing, that's where the hot geeks hang out. And the stacks are nice, quiet, and generally fairly private if one needs to...disprove Kass's theory about women not liking sex. Most of the school thinks the Committee for Social Thought is full of idiots...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There you have it. Something nice about Leon Kass, right here at Classical Values. Mark your calendars.