| Leo Strauss |
Article Index for Leo |
Website Links For Leo |
Information AboutLeo Strauss |
|
LIFE Leo Strauss was born in Kirchhain (near Marburg ), Hessen , in Germany to Hugo Strauss (a salesman of farming supplies) and Jennie David. He was enrolled at the famous Gymnasium Philippinum (from which Johannes Althusius and Carl J. Friedrich also graduated) in Easter 1912 and graduated in 1917 . During his student years, his positions towards religion as well as political Zionism changed frequently. He served in the German army during the last stage of World War One from July 5 , 1917 to December 1918 . Strauss subsequently enrolled in the University of Hamburg , where he received his Doctorate in 1921 with a Thesis entitled "On Epistemology in the Philosophical Doctrine of F. H. Jacobi," which was supervised by Ernst Cassirer . He also attended courses at the Universities of Freiburg and Marburg , including some by Edmund Husserl and his pupil Martin Heidegger . In 1932 , Strauss married Marie (Miriam) Bernsohn in Paris , France . In 1934 , he moved to England where, in 1935 , he was able to gain a temporary position at Cambridge University . In 1937 , Strauss moved to the United States , where he became a Research Fellow in the Department of History at Columbia University . Between 1938 and 1948 , he lectured in Political Science at the New School For Social Research . In 1944 , he became a US citizen and from 1949 until 1968 , Strauss served as a member of the faculty of the University Of Chicago , as a professor of Political Philosophy , a term he coined. PHILOSOPHY For Strauss, politics and philosophy were necessarily intertwined at their roots. Like many philosophers in the 20th Century , Stauss felt that Positivism , and more generally, the attempt to distinguish Facts and Values , Science and Morality , etc, had been wrong and also harmful. He considered one of the most important moments in the History Of Philosophy to be the argument by Socrates and his students that philosophers or scientists could not study Nature without considering their own Human Nature , which, in the famous phrase of Aristotle , is "political." Strauss made the distinction between "scholars" and "philosophers" and called himself a scholar, not a philosopher. He wrote that today, most who call themselves philosophers are, at best, mere scholars, who are cautious and methodical, not bold. Still, he argued that while the great thinkers are bold, they also see pitfalls whereas the scholar sees sure ground. Finally, scholars become possible because the great thinkers disagree on fundamental points, and these disagreements create the possibility for scholars to reason. In ''Natural Right and History'', his most famous and most accessible work, Strauss begins with a critique of the had numerous encounters with Heidegger when they were young men. Indeed, Strauss wrote that Heidegger's thinking must be understood and confronted before any complete formulation of modern political theory is possible. For Strauss and Klein, Plato was the definition of what other sort of philosopher could match a Heidegger. Strauss approached the ideas of Friedrich Nietzsche and Søren Kierkegaard from his understanding of the work of Heidegger which he placed under the general rubric of " Existentialism " — a movement with a "flabby periphery" but a "hard center" (see his 1961 essay, ''Relativism and the Study of Man''). He wrote that Nietzsche was the first philosopher to properly understand Relativism , an idea grounded in a general acceptance of Hegelian historicism. Hegel postulated an end of history. Nietzsche, for his part, saw that "our own principles, including the belief in progress, will become as relative as all earlier principles had shown themselves to be." In fine, "the only way out seems to be that one turn one's back on this lesson of history, that one voluntarily choose life-giving delusion instead of deadly truth, that one fabricate a myth." STRAUSS ON READING Strauss and his friend Jacob Klein believed that they had re-discovered a lost type of reading. Strauss believed that philosophers offered both an "exoteric" or salutary teaching, and an "esoteric" or true teaching, which was concealed from the general reader. By maintaining this distinction, Strauss is often accused of having written dishonestly himself. This opinion is perhaps encouraged because of the following: 1. Many of Strauss' works are difficult and sometimes mysterious. 2. The example of Socrates' execution at the hands of a democracy is mentioned by Straussians as important with respect to understanding this exoteric-esoteric distinction; roughly until the time of Kant , philosophers could still be persecuted for their writings, particularly on the subject of religion. While Socrates never wrote anything, he did often come close to criticizing religion in public, if we are to take Plato's depiction seriously. There is no reason to believe Strauss concealed his views on these grounds, although that point is sometimes argued. On the other hand a careful reading of Strauss will show that he also emphasized that writers using this lost form of writing often left contradictions and other excuses to examine the writing more carefully. It was therefore also a teaching tool, and even a filter to help prevent the creation of Alcibiades -like students. One of the political dangers Strauss pointed to was the danger of students leaping to dangerous ideas too quickly. This was indeed also relevant in the trial of Socrates, where his having influenced Alcibiades was used against him. Stemming from his study of Maimonides and Al Farabi , and then extended to his reading of Plato (he mentions particularly the discussion of writing in the Phaedrus ) Strauss thought that an esoteric text was the proper type for philosophic learning. Rather than simply outlining the philosopher's thoughts, the esoteric text forces readers to do their own thinking and learning. As Socrates says in the Phaedrus writing does not respond when questioned, but this type of writing invites a kind of dialogue with the reader, thereby reducing the problems of the written word. There therefore exists a controversy surrounding Strauss' interpretation of the existing philosophical Canon . Strauss believed that the writings of many philosophers contained both an exoteric and esoteric teaching which is often not perceived by modern academics. For instance, in ''Natural Right and History'' he contrasts the views of Locke both from a traditional perspective wherein the idea of Natural Law within a Christian Theological ground is presumed, and another more radical view contrary to this usual interpretation. To support his contention he mentions Lessing 's commentary on Leibniz , and Schleiermacher 's Platonic studies. But, according to Strauss, generally this kind of exoteric/esoteric dichotomy became unused by the time of Kant. STRAUSS ON POLITICS According to Strauss, modern Social Science Positivism (the heir to the traditions of both Auguste Comte and Max Weber), in making purportedly value-free judgements, fails the ultimate test of justifying its own existence (which would require a value-judgement, of sorts) and ultimately leads to Nihilism . Strauss taught that Liberalism , strictly speaking, contained within it an intrinsic tendency towards relativism, which in turn led to a sort of Nihilism — a kind of decadent, value-free aimlessness, and Hedonism which he believed he saw permeating through the fabric of contemporary American society. In the belief that 20th century relativism, Scientism , Historicism , and nihilism were all implicated in the deterioration of Modern Society and philosophy, Strauss sought to revive Classical political philosophy (essentially the Socratic-Platonic-Aristotelian corpus, but one freed from the Scholastic hermeneutic.) While Modern Liberalism had stressed the pursuit of individual liberty as its highest goal, Strauss was interested in governments taking a greater interest in the problem of human excellence and political virtue. Through his writings, Strauss constantly raised the question of how, and to what extent, freedom and excellence can coexist. Without deciding this issue, Strauss refused to make do with any simplistic or one-sided resolutions of the Socratic question, What is the Good for the city and man? Strauss noted that thinkers of the first rank, going back to Plato, had raised the problem of whether good and effective politicians could be completely truthful and still achieve the necessary ends of their society. By implication, Strauss asks his readers to consider whether "noble lies" (Plato) have any role at all to play in uniting and guiding the cities of man. Are certain, unprovable "myths" taught by wise leaders needed to give most people meaning and purpose and to ensure a stable society? Or can society flourish on a foundation of those "deadly truths" (Nietzsche) limited to what we can know absolutely? According to Strauss, Karl Popper's The Open Society And Its Enemies had mistaken the city-in-speech described in Plato's '' Republic '' for a blueprint for regime reform--which it was not. Though very skeptical of "progress," Strauss was equally skeptical about political agendas of "return" (which is the term he used in contrast to progress). In fact, he was consistently suspicious of anything claiming to be a solution to an old political or philosophical problem. He spoke of the danger in trying to ever finally resolve the debate between Rationalism and Traditionalism in politics. In particular, along with many in the pre- World War II German Right, he feared people trying to force a " World State " to come into being in the future, thinking that it would inevitably become a Tyranny . Strauss constantly stressed the importance of two dichotomies in political philosophy: Athens and Jerusalem ( Reason vs. Revelation ) and Ancient versus Modern political philosophy. The "Ancients" were the Socratic philosophers and their intellectual heirs, and the "Moderns" start with Niccolo Machiavelli . The contrast between Ancients and Moderns was understood to be related to the public presentation of the possibly unresolvable tension between Reason and Revelation. The Socratics, reacting to the first Greek philosophers, brought philosophy back to earth, and hence back to the marketplace, making it more political. The Moderns reacted to the dominance of revelation in Medieval society by promoting the possibilities of Reason very strongly — which in turn leads to problems in modern politics and society. In particular, Thomas Hobbes , under the influence of Machiavelli, re-oriented political science to what was most solid, but most low, in man, setting a precedent for John Locke, and the later economic approach to political thought (such as initially in David Hume , Adam Smith etc). STRAUSS IN THE PUBLIC VIEW As mentioned above, Strauss is a controversial and much caricatured figure in some academic and journalistic circles. This has been both for his criticisms of various modern movements and thinkers (including many Conservative s), and because some of his students, such as Allan Bloom and Harry V. Jaffa , and his students' students, are themselves controversial public figures. Paul Wolfowitz was a student of Strauss; Wolfowitz attended two courses which Strauss taught on Plato and Montesquieu 's spirit of the laws. Indeed, James Mann claims that Wolfowitz chose that University because Strauss taught there and believed him to be "a unique figure, an irreplaceable asset." Wolfowitz himself has claimed to be more of a student of Albert Wohlstetter . Thomas DiLorenzo also claims intellectual links to Bloom. Not unlike Winston Churchill , William Shakespeare , Alexis De Tocqueville , and Thomas Jefferson , Strauss believed that the vices of a democratic regime must be known (and not left unquestioned) so that its virtues might triumph. However, insofar as his teaching suggested that the argument for the pre-eminence of democracy is not an apodictic principle (i.e. not self evident or beyond contradiction), he has gained the reputation for being an enemy to democracy. In Saul Bellow 's quasi-biographical novel '' Ravelstein '', ( 2001 ) the minor character, Davarr, is based on Strauss, while the central character of Ravelstein represents Strauss' protégé Allan Bloom. In 2004 the BBC produced a controversial three-part documentary on the threat from organised Terrorism called the '' Power Of Nightmares ''. This documentary attempts to show how Strauss' teachings, among others, influenced the neo-conservatives and thus, United States Foreign Policy , especially following the September 11, 2001 Attacks . The connection to Strauss is established via students such as Wolfowitz. Leading critical scholars of Strauss include Anne Norton and Shadia Drury . QUOTATIONS BIBLIOGRAPHY (OF PUBLISHED TEXTS)
Writings about Maimonides and Jewish philosophy
BIBLIOGRAPHY ON LEO STRAUSS
|
|
|