scholarly journals LEO STRAUSSAS: ISTORIZMAS, POLITINĖ FILOSOFIJA IR POLITIKOS MOKSLAS

Problemos ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 83 ◽  
pp. 96-106
Author(s):  
Mindaugas Stoškus
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Scientific Discourse ◽  
Political Regime ◽  
Leo Strauss ◽  
Philosophical Thinking ◽  
Natural Right ◽  
Main Ideas

Straipsnyje analizuojamas Leo Strausso iškeltas istorizmo poveikis politinei filosofijai. Aptariamos istorizmo sąsajos su pozityvizmu, moderniąja politine filosofija. Aiškinamasi, kuo remdamasis istorizmas iš mokslinio diskurso eliminuoja pagrindines klasikinės politinės filosofijos problemas apie teisingumą, prigimtinę teisę ir geriausią režimą, svarstoma, kokį poveikį tai padarė visai politinei filosofijai. Straipsnyje analizuojama, kaip ir kokias istoristines nuostatas perėmė naujas politikos mokslas, kaip tai paveikė politikos mokslininkų požiūrį į filosofinę politinės tikrovės analizę. Nagrinėjamos Strausso idėjos apie istorizmo vidinius prieštaravimus, jo nesugebėjimą nuosekliai pagrįsti nei filosofinio mąstymo ribotumo, nei istoristinio požiūrio patikimumo. Iškeliama ir ginama mintis, jog politikos mokslas, perėmęs istoristines nuostatas, taip pat neišvengiamai įsivelia į prieštaravimus.Leo Strauss: Historicism, Political Philosophy, and Political ScienceMindaugas Stoškus SummaryThe aim of this article is to discuss the influence of historicism on political philosophy which was revealed by Leo Strauss. The paper deals with links between historicism, modern political philosophy, and political science. Reasons are explicated for historicist elimination from scientific discourse of the main problems of classical political philosophy: justice, natural right, best political regime. The paper discusses the main ideas of historicism, which political science absorbed, and Strauss`s exposed contradictions of historicism, its inability to prove consistently the narrowness of philosophical thinking or the reliability of historicist attitude. Political science also becomes self-contradictory as much as it uses historicist approach.

The Revival of Classical Political Philosophy: A Critique

1962 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 341-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stanley Rothman
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Full Scale ◽  
Leo Strauss ◽  
Single Individual ◽  
Natural Right ◽  
The Past ◽  
Contemporary Study ◽  
The University ◽  
Moral Nihilism

Perhaps no single individual has had as much impact on the discipline of political science during the past several years as has Leo Strauss of the University of Chicago. Both he and his disciples (and they are disciples in the “classical” sense) have engaged in a full scale attack upon the premises underlying the contemporary study of politics.Strauss argues that these premises are illfounded and self-contradictory, and, if taken seriously, lead to moral nihilism. He contends, further, that another set of premises, those of “classical natural right,” which treat man in terms of his natural end and his relation to the “mysterious whole,” are capable of providing a more adequate foundation for the study of politics.

A Reply to Rothman

1962 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 353-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Cropsey
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Natural Science ◽  
Natural Philosophy ◽  
Leo Strauss ◽  
Natural Right

Readers of Stanley Rothman's article “The Revival of Classical Political Philosophy: A Critique” will be aware that the title he has chosen does not indicate the full scope of his endeavor. He has in fact attempted to state and criticize the grounds of classical political and natural philosophy, and to state and in a certain measure defend the grounds of modern social and natural science. Exceptional resources of scholarship and analytic power would be needed to dispose of those tremendous themes, which I believe Rothman has not succeeded in doing. A prominent purpose of Rothman's paper is to criticize the work of Professor Leo Strauss and of some of his students, on the view that he, and after his instruction they, are the animators of the attempted revival of classical doctrines concerning natural right. The attempt to revive natural right is presented as complementary with a belief in the weakness of social science as now understood by the majority of academic and other professionals. The purpose of the present reflections on Rothman's article is to see how far he has made a valid criticism of the classics and of the men he regards as their attempted restorers; and to consider the soundness of his views on the received sciences.

Leo Strauss's Confrontation with Max Weber: A Search for a Genuine Social Science

1997 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nasser Behnegar
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Modern Philosophy ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Max Weber ◽  
Divine Revelation ◽  
Natural Right ◽  
Human Situation ◽  
Valid Knowledge ◽  
History Of

An analysis of Leo Strauss's difficult and relatively neglected criticism of Max Weber in Natural Right and History reveals the fundamental difficulties that political science, and social science more generally, must overcome in order to be a genuine science. In Strauss's view, the inadequacy of the fact-value distinction, which is now widely acknowledged, compels a re-examination of Weber's denial of the possibility of valid knowledge of values. Strauss identifies the serious ground of this denial as Weber's insight that modern philosophy or science cannot refute religion. Believing that philosophy or science cannot ultimately give an account of itself that meets the challenge of religion, Weber maintained a “tragic” view of the human situation. Strauss also expresses profound doubt about the possibility of philosophy or science, but ultimately he suggests that a certain kind of study of the history of political philosophy might resolve the conflict between philosophy and divine revelation, and, therewith, the “value problem.”

Leo Strauss and the politics of biblical religion

2001 ◽  
Vol 30 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 353-363
Author(s):  
Grant Havers
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Political Stability ◽  
Leo Strauss ◽  
Natural Right ◽  
Biblical Religion

Leo Strauss was one of the few political philosophers of the twentieth century to study the relation between faith and political philosophy. Yet Strauss's notoriously esoteric style has led scholars to wildly diverse interpretations of his views: his defenders believe that Strauss supports biblical religion as an instrument of truth and morality, while his critics contend that he opposes biblical religion for its biases while appreciating its political usefulness. I shall argue that Strauss is deeply opposed to the doctrines and political usage of biblical religion. For biblical doctrines clash with his theory of natural right, the latter being the basis of political stability, according to Strauss.

scholarly journals Artificial Intelligence in Politics, Media and Public Administration: Reflections on the Thematic Portfolio

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 3-9
Author(s):  
Sergey Fedorchenko
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
Soft Power ◽  
Intelligent Systems ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Scientific Discourse ◽  
Political Regime ◽  
Political Agenda ◽  
The Political

The issue «Artificial Intelligence in the Sphere of Politics, Media Space and Public Administration» was conceived after updating the topic of artificial intelligence in the socio-political and value sphere at several scientific events organized by the Department of History, Political Science and Law of Moscow Region State University: Scientific and Public Forum «Values and artificial intelligence» (10.11.2019) and the round table «Ethics and artificial intelligence» (04.16.2019). This issue includes works devoted to the issues of the practice of artificial intelligence in public administration, public policy and other fields. The authors also touched on the nuances of scientific discourse and futorology. The compiler of the issue is Candidate of Political Sciences, associate professor Fedorchenko Sergey Nikolaevich. Artificial intelligence technologies are a pretty debatable topic. Artificial intelligence technologies are a pretty debatable topic. Currently, political leaders, scientists and members of the public are actively discussing the problems of artificial intelligence related to the following aspects: new opportunities for political communication; media policy, mediation of the political sphere; axiological policy; social networks, bots; government departments; opportunities and limitations of new technologies in political analysis; the importance of intelligent systems for democracy and democratic procedures; threats of cyber autocracy; legitimacy of the political regime and national security; political values, political propaganda, frames, political myths, stereotypes, «soft power», «smart power»; digital diplomacy; the risks of media manipulation, information wars, the formation of a political agenda; experience of using intelligent systems in the organization of high-quality communication between society and the state. The theme of the issue is extremely relevant for modern academic political science. artificial intelligence, digitalization, political science, scientific discourse, futorology, state, democracy, manipulation, political communications. The issue is aimed at specialists, political scientists, graduate students and all those who are interested in this difficult issue in an interdisciplinary manner.

CULTURE AND LAW IN WEIMAR JEWISH MEDIEVALISM: LEO STRAUSS'S CRITIQUE OF JULIUS GUTTMANN

2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 119-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
BENJAMIN ALDES WURGAFT
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
The Political ◽  
Leo Strauss ◽  
Natural Right ◽  
Liberal Tradition ◽  
Jewish Thought ◽  
Jewish Historian ◽  
German Jewish ◽  
Hermann Cohen

The German Jewish historian of political philosophy Leo Strauss is best known for mature works in which he proposed the existence of an esoteric tradition in political philosophy, attacked the liberal tradition of political thought, and defended a classical approach to natural right against its modern counterparts. This essay demonstrates that in his youth, beginning during a scholarly apprenticeship at the Berlin Akademie für die Wissenschaft des Judentums, Strauss championed “medievals” (rather than ancients) against “moderns,” and did so through a sparring match with his postdoctoral supervisor Julius Guttmann, whom he cast in the role of representative “modern.” While for Guttmann the stakes were scholarly, for Strauss they were political. Strauss's Weimar Jewish “medievalism” was a deliberate rejection of the tradition of modern Jewish thought Strauss associated with Guttmann's teacher Hermann Cohen, whom Strauss accused of neglecting the political distinctiveness of Jewish thought. While the conflict between Strauss and Guttmann has been neglected in much of the literature on Strauss, it served as the crucible in which many of his mature views, including his famous exoteric (sometimes called “esoteric”) writing thesis, began to take shape.

Leo Strauss: The Ancient as Modern

1988 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 497-514 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernard Susser
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Political Science ◽  
The United States ◽  
Leo Strauss ◽  
Intellectual Tradition ◽  
Intellectual Style ◽  
Post War ◽  
American Political Science

Although his approach to politics and philosophy were relatively little known outside the United States, Leo Strauss was perhaps the most revered and the most controversial figure in post-war American political science. His followers today form what is arguably the most cohesive intellectual fraternity in the discipline. They constitute a highly influential opposition to the empirical–quantitative course taken by political science and political philosophy. This study explores Strauss's ideas highlighting the unconventional mixture of substance and style that gives them an arrestingly idiosyncratic character. Substantively, Strauss belonged to the pre-modern intellectual tradition that understood Truth as accessible and knowable through philosophical contemplation. The form of his argumentation, however, his relentless critique of modernity and the moderns, is conducted with all the cognitive weaponry provided for by the modernist intellectual style.

Thoughts on Leo Strauss's Interpretation of Aristotle's Natural Right Teaching

2016 ◽  
Vol 78 (3) ◽  
pp. 419-442 ◽  
Author(s):  
André Luiz Cruz Sousa
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
Political Thought ◽  
History Of Philosophy ◽  
Nicomachean Ethics ◽  
Leo Strauss ◽  
Natural Right ◽  
History Of

AbstractThe essay discusses the interpretation of Aristotle's natural right teaching by Leo Strauss. This interpretation ought to be seen as the result of an investigation into the history of philosophy and of an attempt to philosophically address political problems. By virtue of this twofold origin, the Straussian commentary is unorthodox: it deviates from traditional Aristotelianism (Aquinas and Averroes) and it seems alien to the text of the Nicomachean Ethics. Strauss's criticism of medieval variants results from their incapacity—shared by contemporary political thought—to address a perplexing issue: political exception. He sees in Aristotle's political teaching a way to escape from this failure: the unification, in natural right, of the requirements of statesmanship and ethics. The discovery of this way allowed Strauss to produce an interpretation of natural right that articulates important points pertaining to Aristotelian political science.

On the Revival of Classical Political Philosophy

1973 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 161-179 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles N. R. McCoy
Keyword(s):  
Political Philosophy ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Leo Strauss ◽  
American Political Science

In the “metaphysical squabbles” that Bertrand de Jouvenel has said characterize much of American political science, none has been more bitter and perplexing than the controversy surrounding the work of Leo Strauss. To the extent that one can speak of a revival of classical political philosophy in this country, the credit for it assuredly belongs to the influence of Strauss's profound scholarship. Nonetheless there is common agreement among fairminded reviewers of Strauss's writings that a “calculated obscurity” hides his message. “He does not wish to tell us, in bold propositional terms, what is on his mind,” says Robert McShea. Granted that “Strauss indulges in the … game of esoteric silences,” that his real views are often “camouflaged,” we must see these devices for what Lee McDonald suggests they are: devices to persuade the reader to “a special way of reading the ‘classics’”; they are not primarily concerned with “specific details of interpretation.”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document