On a Certain Critique of “Straussianism”

1991 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan Tarcov
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Modern Philosophy ◽  
Fundamental Question ◽  
Leo Strauss ◽  
Young Scholar ◽  
Classical Philosophy ◽  
Theoretical Question

This article examines a certain critique of what I will take the liberty of calling “Straussianism,” a critique which raises questions I believe are worth discussing, especially by all those interested in the work of Leo Strauss. This particular critique appeared in a review of a book on Platonic political philosophy, a review by a young scholar who had published only a couple of articles on classical political philosophy himself.This reviewer aptly characterizes the author as one who, “thoroughly dissatisfied with modern philosophy in all its forms, and unwilling to take refuge in Thomism … turns back to classical philosophy, to the teaching of Plato and Aristotle, as the true teaching” (p. 326). According to this perceptive critic, the author considered the quarrel of the ancients and the moderns “definitely settled in favor of the classics. After having disposed of this fundamental question, which as such is a theoretical question, he can pursue a practical or political intention on the foundation of the classical teaching.”

scholarly journals Philosophy, revelation and politics: The recovery of medieval Islamic political philosophy

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 47-55
Author(s):  
Funda Günsoy
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Modern Philosophy ◽  
Leo Strauss ◽  
Way Of Life ◽  
Philosophical Thought ◽  
Radical Enlightenment ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Order ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Ancient Political Philosophy

In contemporary philosophical thought, Leo Strauss is associated with the rediscovery of ancient political philosophy against modern political philosophy. The rediscovery of ancient political philosophy is the rediscovery of classical rationalism or “moderate Enlightenment” against modern rationalism or “radical Enlightenment” and can be understood as recapturing the “the question of man’s right life” and “the question of the right order of society”. This article would like to show that it was his study of medieval Islamic and Jewish texts that enabled Strauss to rediscover the classical rationalism. Also, in this article we would like to argue that although the opposition between Athens and Jerusalem, Reason and Revelation embodies two irreconcilable alternatives or a way of life in his thought, this opposition should be only examined with references to claims about radical rationalism of modern philosophy. In this case, we would like to argue that there can be seen a commonality between these “opponents”, i.e., Athens and Jerusalem, Reason and Revelation in terms of both their attitudes towards morality and their approaches to the relationship between philosophy and society.

scholarly journals LEO STRAUSS: A CRITIQUE OF HEGEL’S POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

2020 ◽  
pp. 17-25
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Modern Science ◽  
Philosophy Of History ◽  
Modern World ◽  
Alternative Theory ◽  
Leo Strauss ◽  
Radical Critique ◽  
Political Theories ◽  
Conservative Revolution ◽  
Classical Philosophy

The article is devoted to Leo Strauss’s critique of Hegel’s political philosophy. The author holds this topic relevant in the context of the crisis of modern political science. To understand the causes and nature of this crisis, it is necessary to pay attention to alternative philosophical and political theories of the XX century. Leo Strauss’s philosophy of politics is just such an alternative theory. Strauss made a radical critique of modern political philosophy, which he saw as an important part of the project of modern civilization. Strauss stresses that Hegel became one of the most prominent philosophers who participated in the creation of modern science and the modern world. The author considers the main critical arguments of Strauss, evaluates their validity and their significance for the Straussian conservative revolution in philosophy. The author pays special attention to the question of Hegel’s role in the break with classical political philosophy. Strauss accused Hegel that he had taken all the major steps that led to this rupture. Hegel, according to Strauss, secularized political thinking, which led to the loss of universal Christian values. The consequence of this secularization was the dominance of positivism in political philosophy. Hegel’s philosophy of history, according to Strauss, is relativism. Hegel’s historicism and progressivism are contradictory and inconsistent. Strauss also accuses Hegel of abandoning the philosophical esoteric art of writing. The article draws attention to the fact that Strauss recognized the importance of Hegel as an outstanding thinker of his time. Strauss viewed Hegel’s philosophy as a kind of intermediate link between classical philosophy and modern positivism. The author concludes that for Strauss the critique of Hegel’s political philosophy became an important element of his project of restoration of classical political philosophy. The article uses little-known materials from Strauss’s lectures in 1958 and 1965.

Leo Strauss and the American Founding

1991 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 157-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas G. West
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Modern Philosophy ◽  
Leo Strauss ◽  
American Founding ◽  
The West ◽  
Good Society ◽  
The World

Strauss devoted his life to the recovery of classical political philosophy. The incentive for this enterprise was what Strauss called “the crisis of the West.” That crisis “consists in the West's having become uncertain of its purpose,” which was to establish the good society on the basis of reason and science. Twentith-century history revealed that the progressive spread of democracy throughout the world was hardly assured. Moreover, the “good society” of Western liberalism no longer looked unquestionably good. Modern philosophy eventually concluded that reason itself was to blame: not only could reason not establish the good society; it could not even say what the good society is.

From Crusades to Colonization: Violence in Secular and Religious Political Theory

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Xavier Scott
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Modern Philosophy ◽  
Early Modern ◽  
International Law ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
State Power ◽  
Charles Taylor ◽  
Medieval Period ◽  
Beliefs And Values

This paper examines the transition in political philosophy between the medieval and early-modern periods by focusing on the emergence of sovereignty doctrine. Scholars such as Charles Taylor and John Rawls have focused on the ability of modern-states to overcome conflicts between different religious confessionals. In contrast, this paper seeks to examine some of the peace-promoting features of Latin-Christendom and some of the conflict-promoting features of modern-secular states. The Christian universalism of the medieval period is contrasted with the colonial ventures promoted by the Peace of Westphalia. This paper’s goal is not to argue that secularism is in fact more violent than religion. Rather, it seeks to demonstrate the major role that religion played in early modern philosophy and the development of sovereignty doctrine. It argues against the view that the modern, secular state is capable of neutrality vis-à-vis religion, and also combats the view that the secular nature of modern international law means that it is neutral to the different beliefs and values of the world’s peoples. These observations emphasize the ways in which state power and legitimacy are at the heart of the secular turn in political philosophy. 

Differenzierungen im Begriff, Gegenwart‘ bei Husserl und Merleau-Ponty

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-54
Author(s):  
Jörg Zimmer
Keyword(s):  
Modern Philosophy ◽  
The Body ◽  
Fundamental Concept ◽  
Phenomenological Description ◽  
Philosophy Of Time ◽  
Phenomenology Of Perception ◽  
The World ◽  
Classical Philosophy ◽  
The Moment ◽  
Empty Time

In classical philosophy of time, present time mainly has been considered in its fleetingness: it is transition, in the Platonic meaning of the sudden or in the Aristotelian sense of discreet moment and isolated intensity that escapes possible perception. Through the idea of subjective constitution of time, Husserl’s phenomenology tries to spread the moment. He transcends the idea of linear and empty time in modern philosophy. Phenomenological description of time experience analyses the filled character of the moment that can be detained in the performance of consciousness. As a consequence of the temporality of consciousness, he nevertheless remains in the temporal conception of presence. The phenomenology of Merleau-Ponty, however, is able to grasp the spacial meaning of presence. In his perspective of a phenomenology of perception, presence can be understood as a space surrounding the body, as a field of present things given in perception. Merleau-Ponty recovers the ancient sense of ‘praesentia’ as a fundamental concept of being in the world.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document