Re-defining Strauss’s Political Philosophy through Strauss’s Interpretation of Nietzsche: Theologico-Political Problem and Plato

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-30
Author(s):  
Sungwoo Park
Il Politico ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 84 (1) ◽  
pp. 100-116
Author(s):  
Marco Menon

This paper offers a short overview of Heinrich Meier’s books on Carl Schmitt’s political theology, namely Carl Schmitt und Leo Strauss, and Die Lehre Carl Schmitts. These writings, published respectively in 1988 and 1994, and recently translated into Italian by Cantagalli (Siena), have raised both enthusiastical appraisal and fierce criticism. The gist of Meier’s interpretation is the following: the core of Schmitt’s thought is his Christian faith. Schmitt’s political doctrine must be unterstood as political theology, that is, as a political doctrine which claims to be grounded on divine revelation. The fundamental attitude of the political theologian, therefore, is pious obedience to God’s unfathomable will. The hypothesis of the paper is that Meier’s reading, which from a historical point of view might appear as highly controversial, is essentially the attempt to articulate the fundamental alternative between political theology and political philosophy. Meier’s alleged stylization of Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss is a form of “platonism”, i.e., a theoretical purification aimed at a clear formulation of what he means by “the theologico-political problem”.


2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 208-222
Author(s):  
Alan Reynolds

This paper is divided into three sections. First, I describe the wide plurality of views on issues of animal ethics, showing that our disagreements here are deep and profound. This fact of reasonable pluralism about animal ethics presents a political problem. According to the dominant liberal tradition of political philosophy, it is impermissible for one faction of people to impose its values upon another faction of people who reasonably reject those values. Instead, we are obligated to justify our political actions to each other using reasons that everyone can accept. Thus, in the second section I suggest that our condition of reasonable pluralism inspires us to turn toward some form of contractarianism. The social contract tradition emerged precisely as an attempt to think about how a society characterized by deep moral disagreement could nonetheless agree about the basic principles of justice. I will show, in this section, that although the social contract tradition would seem to contain the best tools for thinking about how to deal with moral disagreement, it fails to help us think through the important issues of animal ethics. In the concluding section, I suggest some ways in which political philosophy might move beyond contractarianism when thinking about this issue, including embracing an agonistic style of politics.


2007 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 551-552
Author(s):  
Laurence Lampert

Leo Strauss and the Theologico-Political Problem, Heinrich Meier, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006, pp. xxii, 183.One of the debates accompanying the reception of Leo Strauss's lifework as it grows into an inescapable force in political philosophy has been this: Where does Strauss really stand on the relation between reason and revelation? Heinrich Meier's new book ends that debate.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jordan Joseph Wadden

Political philosophy has a lot to say about oppression, but does it adequately address the issue? This project asserts that it does not. The primary goal of this thesis is to redefine how we look at this socio-political problem, and to create a new model for analysis and application. I begin with a discussion of social contract theory and the many ways it has changed in an attempt to properly address the issue of oppression. Following this, the project turns towards an ethico-epistemological analysis of the elements of oppression in the modern social sphere. In this analysis, I look at prejudice, bias, disagreement, virtue, and vice as they pertain to the problem of oppression. Notably, this project considers the epistemic effects/affects of both the oppressed’s and the oppressor’s viewpoint. Finally, the project culminates in the development of the Argument for Self-Skepticism, my alternative to current social contract theory.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jordan Joseph Wadden

Political philosophy has a lot to say about oppression, but does it adequately address the issue? This project asserts that it does not. The primary goal of this thesis is to redefine how we look at this socio-political problem, and to create a new model for analysis and application. I begin with a discussion of social contract theory and the many ways it has changed in an attempt to properly address the issue of oppression. Following this, the project turns towards an ethico-epistemological analysis of the elements of oppression in the modern social sphere. In this analysis, I look at prejudice, bias, disagreement, virtue, and vice as they pertain to the problem of oppression. Notably, this project considers the epistemic effects/affects of both the oppressed’s and the oppressor’s viewpoint. Finally, the project culminates in the development of the Argument for Self-Skepticism, my alternative to current social contract theory.


2007 ◽  
Vol 69 (4) ◽  
pp. 513-514 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan Tarcov

These two lectures by Leo Strauss, “What Can We Learn from Political Theory?” delivered in July 1942, and “The Re-education of Axis Countries Concerning the Jews,” delivered November 7, 1943, include not only Strauss's most elaborate statement about the relation of political philosophy and political practice (in the first), but what may well be his fullest written public statements about matters of contemporary foreign policy. Both lectures obviously were carefully considered, composed, and corrected, but Strauss did not attempt to publish either. He may have had second thoughts about some of the arguments he advanced in these lectures, or he may simply have chosen to concentrate his literary efforts elsewhere. Other lectures he prepared during this period but did not publish himself have since been published: “The Living Issues of German Postwar Philosophy,” delivered April 1940 at Syracuse University, and “Reason and Revelation,” delivered January 1948 at Hartford Theological Seminary, both in Heinrich Meier, Leo Strauss and the Theologico-Political Problem (Cambridge University Press, 2006); “German Nihilism,” delivered to the New School's General Seminar February 26, 1941, is in Interpretation 26:3 (Spring 1999).


Religions ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. 531
Author(s):  
Richard Cohen

This paper is an ethical exegesis of the biblical story of Gibeah, which concludes the Book of Judges (19–21), to show the catastrophic failure of the anti-political politics of the “community of virtue”, i.e., the rejection of power for the sake of moral society, such as proposed by libertarians, neo-liberals, anarchists and utopians. I consider Kant’s statement of the political problem: given humanity’s unsocial sociality, where each person is tempted to act as an exception to universal law, humans need rulers, but how to obtain rulers who are not themselves ruled by power, and become tyrannical, rather than being ruled by justice? The solution proposed by “the community of virtue” would reject power altogether and replace it with society regulated exclusively according to the moral virtue of its members. The Bible’s story of Gibeah shows graphically and conclusively the failure of any such attempt. Instead, as with normative political philosophy, the Bible endorses the rule of a king, i.e., the rule of the state, and a politics whereby power is disciplined to serve justice because it is rooted in Torah, i.e., a fundamental covenant, charter or constitution, aware and vigilant regarding the ambiguities and temptations of sovereignty, and therefore, ideally, always open to critique. As exemplified by biblical prophets, political protest against injustices perpetrated by the powerful against the least—widow, orphan, stranger—is at once religious obligation and true patriotism.


2012 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 180-189
Author(s):  
Chris Berger

Liberal democracies afford their citizens the opportunity to reflect seriously upon the perennial questions of politics and the fundamental alternatives.  However, an unfortunate trend, indeed observable in both practical politics and the social sciences, has seen political philosophy largely supplanted by ideology, the co-opting of philosophic thought for partisan ends.  Political philosophy is the serious reflection upon and inquiry into the core theme of political thought and practice: the best way to live and the regime that conduces to it.  This paper seeks to demonstrate by example the possibility of preserving the serious study of political questions by challenging the dominant scholarly interpretation of Plato’s political philosophy as presenting the philosopher king as the solution to the political problem.  By offering some cursory remarks on Plato’s Apology and Republic in order to suggest that philosophic rule is not a serious prescription for political action, this paper argues that Plato’s aim is not to propose a doctrine but to compel us to reflect on the nature of politics, the permanent political questions, and the fundamental alternatives available to the human condition.


1982 ◽  
Vol 76 (4) ◽  
pp. 825-836 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Palmer

How the city, the political community, may ask its citizens to sacrifice their lives for the sake of its preservation has plagued us since the birth of political philosophy. This article examines Thucydides' presentation of Pericles' attempt to solve this problem by reconciling the highest good of the individual and the good of the city by means of the love of glory. I contrast the central themes of Pericles' speeches in Thucydides, especially his renowned funeral oration, with other parts of Thucydides' presentation of Periclean Athens, in particular his famous account of the plague, to demonstrate his doubts about the efficacy of the Periclean solution to the political problem.


2013 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 276-306 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Larmore

What is political philosophy’s relation to moral philosophy? Does it simply form part of moral philosophy, focusing on the proper application of certain moral truths to political reality? Or must it instead form a more autonomous discipline, drawing its bearings from the specifically political problem of determining the bounds of legitimate coercion? In this essay I work out an answer to these questions by examining both some of the classical views on the nature of political philosophy and, more particularly, some recently published writings by Bernard Williams and G.A. Cohen.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document