Philosophy of Religion or Political Philosophy? The Debate Between Leo Strauss and Julius Guttmann

2007 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 135-155
Author(s):  
Chiara Adorisio
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Philosophy Of Religion ◽  
Ancient Philosophy ◽  
Leo Strauss ◽  
Medieval Philosophy ◽  
Philosophical Methods ◽  
Personal Attitudes ◽  
The Law ◽  
Medieval Jewish Philosophy ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractThe article reconstructs and examines the debate between Leo Strauss (1899–1973) and Julius Guttmann (1880–1950) on the interpretation of the essence of Jewish medieval philosophy. Is Jewish medieval philosophy characterised by being essentially a philosophy of religion or, as Strauss objected in his critique of Guttmann, is it better understood if we consider that Jewish medieval rationalists conceived the problem of the relationship between philosophy and Judaism primarily as the problem of the relationship between philosophy and the law?Though both Guttmann and Strauss seem to discuss in their works the question of the interpretation of medieval Jewish philosophy in a historical way, their arguments were in fact rooted in a theoretical and philosophical interest. Strauss and Guttmann followed different philosophical methods, had different personal attitudes toward Judaism and faith, but both tried to learn from medieval and ancient philosophy to understand the problems of modern and contemporary rationalism.

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 Philosophy and Exegesis in al-Fârâbî, Averroes, and Maimonides

2008 ◽  
Vol 64 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos Fraenkel
Keyword(s):  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Ancient Philosophy ◽  
The Other ◽  
Main Question ◽  
Standard Position ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The Law ◽  
Law Of Moses ◽  
Jewish Philosophy ◽  
Medieval Jewish Philosophy

Abstract Maimonides and Averroes shared in many respects a philosophical-religious outlook and have been described as disciples of al-Fârâbî, the founder of the school of Arabic Aristotelianism (falsafa). At first view, however, their legacy could hardly be more different : while Averroes wrote almost only commentaries on Aristotle, Maimonides did not write a single work that, strictly speaking, falls into a traditional philosophical genre. He is, on the other hand, a prominent commentator as well — only that instead of explicating Aristotle, he comments on the Law of Moses. The main question I address in this paper is whether this strikingly different relation to philosophy and exegesis in Averroes and Maimonides can be explained as two ways of implementing a conceptual framework established by al-Fârâbî. I first examine al-Fârâbî’s project, which I suggest is determined by a twofold task : to take up and continue the project of ancient philosophy and to define its place in a society in which the authority of the divine Law is undisputed. Then I argue that while Averroes’ work can on the whole be understood as continuing al-Fârâbî’s project, this is only in a qualified way true for Maimonides who in part creatively transforms al-Fârâbî and in part relies on premises that can clearly not be derived from al-Fârâbî. Maimonides’ position on philosophy and exegesis is in important respects different from the standard position of the falâsifa — and this had far-reaching implications for later medieval Jewish philosophy.

scholarly journals Lawgivers, Virtue, and the Mixed Regime: Reflections on Richard Bodéüs’s The Political Dimensions of Aristotle’s Ethics

Dialogue ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-50
Author(s):  
KEVIN CHERRY
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
The Political ◽  
Mixed Regime ◽  
The Law ◽  
Political Dimensions ◽  
Aristotle's Ethics ◽  
The Relationship

In this paper, I engage with the works of Richard Bodéüs about Aristotle’s understanding of the relationship between law, virtue, and education. I argue that there is an important difference between the demands of the law and those of reason, especially in the defective, but more common, regimes. This difference is also found in the best regime possible for most cities, the mixed regime Aristotle calls ‘polity’ (or, in Greek, politeia), insofar as it represents a balance between oligarchy and democracy. To educate citizens in this regime requires what Aristotle calls “political philosophy.”

4. Fields of medieval philosophy

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Marenbon
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Moral Philosophy ◽  
Philosophy Of Mind ◽  
Philosophy Of Language ◽  
Philosophy Of Religion ◽  
Nicomachean Ethics ◽  
Medieval Philosophy ◽  
Language Ethics

‘Fields of medieval philosophy’ considers how logic, metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, ethics, political philosophy, and the philosophy of religion were treated in medieval philosophy’s four traditions. Logic was considered valuable in itself, and was studied with great technical sophistication and used as a tool throughout philosophy, where it set the form of discussion. Arabic and Latin logic developed into parallel traditions although both were based on Aristotle’s logical texts. Aristotle’s key texts—Metaphysics, On Interpretation, On the Soul, and Nicomachean Ethics—were central to all four traditions. They encouraged thinking that tied together philosophy of mind and philosophy of language; were fundamental for investigating perception, memory, and reasoning; and were central to moral philosophy.

What Can We Learn from Political History? Leo Strauss and Raymond Aron, Readers of Thucydides

2018 ◽  
Vol 80 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-86
Author(s):  
Sophie Marcotte-Chenard
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Political History ◽  
Essential Feature ◽  
Historical Consciousness ◽  
Leo Strauss ◽  
Raymond Aron ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractThrough a comparison of Leo Strauss's and Raymond Aron's interpretations of Thucydides's history, this paper sheds light on the relationship between political history and political philosophy. In continuing the dialogue between the two thinkers, I demonstrate that in spite of their opposed views on modern historical consciousness, they converge in a defense of the object and method of classical political history. However, there is a deeper disagreement regarding the relationship between philosophy and politics. While Strauss makes the case for the compatibility of classical political history and classical political philosophy on the grounds that Thucydides is a “philosophic historian,” Aron argues that it is precisely because Thucydides is not a philosopher that he succeeds in understanding an essential feature of political things, namely, contingency in history.

A Comparative Overview of the Fair Wear and Tear Exception: the Duty of Holders of Temporary Interests to Preserve Property

2002 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-100
Author(s):  
Raffaele Caterina
Keyword(s):  
Common Core ◽  
Complete Solution ◽  
Roman Law ◽  
Private Ownership ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Personal Rights ◽  
Wear And Tear ◽  
Long Life ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Relationship

“A system of private ownership must provide for something more sophisticated than absolute ownership of the property by one person. A property owner needs to be able to do more than own it during his lifetime and pass it on to someone else on his death.”1 Those who own things with a long life quite naturally feel the urge to deal in segments of time. Most of the owner's ambitions in respect of time can be met by the law of contract. But contract does not offer a complete solution, since contracts create only personal rights. Certain of the owner's legitimate wishes can be achieved only if the law allows them to be given effect in rem—that is, as proprietary rights. Legal systems have responded differently to the need for proprietary rights limited in time. Roman law created usufruct and other iura in re aliena; English law created different legal estates. Every system has faced similar problems. One issue has been the extent to which the holder of a limited interest should be restricted in his or her use and enjoyment in order to protect the holders of other interests in the same thing. A common core of principles regulates the relationship between those who hold temporary interests and the reversioners. For instance, every system forbids holder of the possessory interest to damage the thing arbitrarily. But other rules are more controversial. This study focuses upon the rules which do not forbid, but compel, certain courses of action.

Parliamentarism and the Legislative Branch

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
András Sajó ◽  
Renáta Uitz
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Political Parties ◽  
Legislative Branch ◽  
Effective Decision ◽  
The Law ◽  
Internal Operations ◽  
Effective Decision Making ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Law Making

This chapter examines the relationship between parliamentarism and the legislative branch. It explores the evolution of the legislative branch, leading to disillusionment with the rationalized law-making factory, a venture run by political parties beyond the reach of constitutional rules. The rise of democratically bred party rule is positioned between the forces favouring free debate versus effective decision-making in the legislature. The chapter analyses the institutional make-up and internal operations of the legislature, the role of the opposition in the legislative assembly, and explores the benefits of bicameralism for boosting the powers of the legislative branch. Finally, it looks at the law-making process and its outsourcing via delegating legislative powers to the executive.

Introduction

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cécile Laborde ◽  
Aurélia Bardon
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
Religious Symbols ◽  
Secular Education ◽  
The Law ◽  
Structural Architecture

There is already an important literature on religion and political philosophy, focusing especially on controversies about religious symbols, freedom of speech, or secular education. The introduction explains the distinctive approach of the volume. Instead of focusing on specific political controversies, the book explores the conceptual, structural architecture of liberal political philosophy itself. The authors distinguish four different themes: the special status of religion in the law; state sovereignty, non-establishment, and neutrality; accommodation and religious freedom; and toleration, conscience, and identity. The chapter explains the particular questions raised in each of these four themes, and briefly presents the twenty-two contributions gathered in the volume.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document