Misplaced Pages

Leo Strauss: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:06, 30 May 2004 editHerschelkrustofsky (talk | contribs)2,877 edits External links← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:28, 16 December 2024 edit undoOceanflynn (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users55,155 edits template error 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|American political philosopher (1899–1973)}}
'''Leo Strauss''' (], ] - ], ]), the
{{Infobox philosopher
], was born in Kirchhain (near Marburg), Hessen, Germany, to Hugo Strauss and Jennie David, and raised in an
|image = LeoStrauss.jpg
] home. At the age of 17 he became a
|name = Leo Strauss
political ]. Strauss received his higher education within the German
|birth_date = {{birth date|1899|09|20}}
university system, notably at Marburg, Hamburg, Giessen, and Berlin.
|birth_place = ], ], ]
He was influenced by the work of ], ],
|death_date = {{death date and age|1973|10|18|1899|9|20}}
and ].
|death_place = ], ], U.S.
|alma_mater = {{unbulleted list|]|]|]|]}}
|era = ]
|region = ]
|school_tradition = {{unbulleted list|]|] (early)|] (later)|]|]|]}}
|main_interests = {{unbulleted list|]|]|] (especially ], ], ] and ])|]|]}}
|notable_ideas = {{Collapsible list|Noetic heterogeneity|The ends of politics and philosophy as irreducible to one another|The unresolvable tension between ] and ]|Criticism of ], ], ], and ]|The distinction between esoteric and exoteric writing|Reopening the ]|'']''}}
|notable_works={{unbulleted list|'']''|'']''|'']''}}
|institutions={{unbulleted list|]|]|]|]|]|]|]|]}}
|thesis_title=Das Erkenntnisproblem in der philosophischen Lehre Fr. H. Jacobis (On the Problem of Knowledge in the Philosophical Doctrine of F. H. Jacobi)
|thesis_url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-476-00728-5_7
|thesis_year=1921
|doctoral_advisor=]
|spouse=Miriam Bernsohn Strauss
|awards=]
|honorific_suffix=]
}}
'''Leo Strauss'''{{efn|{{IPAc-en|s|t|r|aʊ|s}} {{respell|STROWSS}}; {{IPA|de|ˈleːoː ˈʃtʁaʊs|lang}}}} (September 20, 1899 – October 18, 1973) was an American scholar of ]. Born in ] to ] parents, Strauss later emigrated from Germany to the United States. He spent much of his career as a professor of political science at the ], where he taught several generations of students and published fifteen books.


Trained in the ] tradition with ] and immersed in the work of the ] ] and ], Strauss authored books on ] and ], and articles on ] and ]. In the late 1930s, his research focused on the texts of ] and ], retracing their interpretation through medieval ] and ], and encouraging the application of those ideas to contemporary political theory.
In ], Strauss married Marie Bernsohn in Paris, France. In ]
he moved to England where, in ], he accepted a position at the
]. In ], Strauss moved to the ] where he became a Research Fellow in the Department of History at
]. Between ] and ], he lectured in
] at the ]. In
], he became a US citizen and from ] until ], Strauss served as a member of the faculty of the ], chiefly
as a professor of political philosophy.


== Biography ==
In ]'s quasi-biographical novel ''Ravelstein'', the
=== Early life and education===
minor character Davarr is reputed to have been based on
Strauss was born on September 20, 1899, in the small town of ] in ], a province of the ] (part of the ]), to Hugo Strauss and Jennie Strauss, née David. According to ]'s 1974 obituary in ''Political Theory'', Strauss "was raised as an ]", but the family does not appear to have completely embraced Orthodox practice.<ref>Joachim Lüders and Ariane Wehner, ''Mittelhessen – eine Heimat für Juden? Das Schicksal der Familie Strauss aus Kirchhain'' (Central Hesse – a Homeland for Jews? The Fate of the Strauss Family from Kirchhain) 1989.</ref> Strauss himself noted that he came from a "conservative, even orthodox Jewish home", but one which knew little about Judaism except strict adherence to ceremonial laws. His father and uncle operated a farm supply and livestock business that they inherited from their father, Meyer (1835–1919), a leading member of the local Jewish community.<ref>In "A Giving of Accounts", published in ''The College'' 22 (1) and later reprinted in ''Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity''.</ref>
Strauss.


After attending the Kirchhain Volksschule and the Protestant Rektoratsschule, Leo Strauss was enrolled at the ] (affiliated with the ]) in nearby ] (from which ] and ] also graduated) in 1912, graduating in 1917. He boarded with the Marburg ] Strauss (no relation), whose residence served as a meeting place for followers of the ] philosopher ]. Strauss served in the German army from ] from July 5, 1917, to December 1918.
==Philosophy==


Strauss subsequently enrolled in the ], where he received his ] in 1921; his thesis, ''On the Problem of Knowledge in the Philosophical Doctrine of F. H. Jacobi'' (''Das Erkenntnisproblem in der philosophischen Lehre Fr. H. Jacobis''), was supervised by ]. He also attended courses at the Universities of ] and Marburg, including some taught by ] and ]. Strauss joined a Jewish fraternity and worked for the German Zionist movement, which introduced him to various German Jewish intellectuals, such as ], ], ] and ]. Benjamin was and remained an admirer of Strauss and his work throughout his life.<ref name="Kenneth Hart Green page 55">'' Jewish philosophy and the crisis of modernity'' (SUNY 1997), ''Leo Strauss as a Modern Jewish thinker'', Kenneth Hart Green, Leo Strauss, page 55</ref><ref name="Scholem, Gershom 1981. page 201">Scholem, Gershom. 1981. Walter Benjamin: The Story of a Friendship. Trans. Harry Zohn, p. 201</ref><ref name="Gershom Scholem 1989, page 155-58">''The Correspondence of Walter Benjamin and Gershom Scholem, 1932–40'', New York 1989, pp. 155–58</ref>
'''Straussianism''', as Strauss's philosophy has come to be called,
is predicated on the belief that 20th century ] has
been responsible for the deterioration of
]. According to its advocates, modern ] devalues philosophy by rejecting anything that
cannot be understood by the "common man". Some Straussians believe that "universal principles of right" exist and are knowable through careful study of those philosophers who believed in such principles, especially ]
and ]. They reject the modern tendency to interpret
the ancient philosophers within the context of the era in which
they lived, believing that universal principles transcend
]. However, it is unwise to characterize Straussians, because, they are not unanimous in their interpretation of their mentor's ideas; in a curious "catch-22", Strauss' own ideas are subject (under Strauss' own doctrine) to both an ''exoteric'', and an ''esoteric'' interpretation (see below.)


Strauss's closest friend was ] but he also was intellectually engaged with Gerhard Krüger—and also ], ], ], and ] (to whom Strauss dedicated his first book), as well as ], ], and the Arabist ], who married Strauss's sister Bettina (Strauss and his wife later adopted Paul and Bettina Kraus's child when both parents died in the ]). With several of these friends, Strauss carried on vigorous epistolary exchanges later in life, many of which are published in the ''Gesammelte Schriften'' (''Collected Writings''), some in translation from the German. Strauss had also been engaged in a discourse with ]. However, after Strauss left Germany, he broke off the discourse when Schmitt failed to respond to his letters.


=== Career ===
Straussians also believe that the public is not capable of understanding
After receiving a ] in 1932, Strauss left his position at the ] in ] for ]. He returned to Germany only once, for a few short days twenty years later. In Paris, he married Marie (Miriam) Bernsohn, a widow with a young child, whom he had known previously in Germany. He adopted his wife's son, Thomas, and later his sister's child, ] (later a professor of classics at the University of Virginia); he and Miriam had no biological children of their own. At his death, he was survived by Thomas, Jenny Strauss Clay, and three grandchildren. Strauss became a lifelong friend of ] and was on friendly terms with ] and ]. Because of the Nazis' rise to power, he chose not to return to his native country. Strauss found shelter, after some vicissitudes, in England, where, in 1935 he gained temporary employment at the ] with the help of his in-law ], who was affiliated with ]. While in England, he became a close friend of ] and was on less friendly terms with ].<ref name="books.google.com"> p. 87</ref>
or accepting the universal principles of right. Therefore, they
posit the rectitude of the "noble lie" which shields the uneducated
public from knowledge of unpalatable truth, for which the public
might hold the philosopher to blame (as happened with ]).
This leads to a dichotomy, within Straussianism, between
] and exoteric knowledge. Esoteric knowledge
is reserved for the elite philosopher while exoteric knowledge is
carefully crafted by the philosopher for everyone else, and often
obfuscates the true understanding and intention of the philosopher.
Indeed, Strauss thought that the texts of truly "great" philosophers
contained both an esoteric and an exoteric level and that the
esoteric component was accessible only to the reader willing to
carefully analyze and resolve subtle, inherent contradictions within
the text. ], he believed, was such a philosopher.


], the school with which Strauss is most closely associated]]
Among Strauss's better known prot&eacute;g&eacute;s are ] and ]. Straussianism has been supported and extended to the modern political arena by ], notably ] and ], who pursued his Doctorate in political science at the University of Chicago during Strauss's tenure there. Straussians have little presence in contemporary academic philosophy or classical studies.


Unable to find permanent employment in England, Strauss moved to the United States in 1937, under the patronage of ], who made introductions and helped him obtain a brief lectureship. After a short stint as a ] in the Department of History at ], Strauss secured a position at ], where, between 1938 and 1948, he worked in the political science faculty and also took on adjunct jobs.<ref>{{cite book|author=Eugene Sheppard|title=Leo Strauss and the Politics of Exile: The Making of a Political Philosopher|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XNmPBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT102|year=2014|publisher=Brandeis UP|pages=102–03|isbn=9781611687699}}</ref> In 1939, he served for a short term as a visiting professor at ]. He became a U.S. citizen in 1944, and in 1949 became a professor of political science at the ], holding the Robert Maynard Hutchins Distinguished Service Professorship until he left in 1969.
===External links===


In 1953, Strauss coined the phrase '']'', a play on '']'', suggesting that comparing an argument to one of ]'s, or "playing the Nazi card", is often a fallacy of irrelevance.<ref>Leo Strauss, ''Natural Right and History''. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965 , p. 42.</ref>
*
*
*


In 1954, he met ] and ] in ] and delivered a public speech on ]. He had received a call for a temporary lectureship in ] in 1965 (which he declined for health reasons) and received and accepted an honorary doctorate from the ] and the ] {{Lang|de|Bundesverdienstkreuz}} via the German representative in Chicago. In 1969, Strauss moved to ] (formerly Claremont Men's College) in California for a year, and then to ] in 1970, where he was the Scott Buchanan Distinguished Scholar in Residence until his death from pneumonia in 1973.<ref> preface p. 6.</ref> He was buried in Annapolis Hebrew Cemetery, with his wife Miriam Bernsohn Strauss, who died in 1985. ] was read in the funeral service at the request of family and friends.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://cato1.tripod.com/strauss-bio.htm#_ednref82|title=Leo Strauss|access-date=2020-12-02|archive-date=2021-01-17|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210117180702/https://cato1.tripod.com/strauss-bio.htm#_ednref82|url-status=live}}</ref>
===References===


==Thought==
* ]. 1996. "Revolt Against Modernity : Leo Strauss, Eric Voegelin & the Search for Postliberal Order". Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
Strauss's thought can be characterized by two main themes: the critique of modernity and the recovery of classical political philosophy. He argued that modernity, which emerged among the 15th century Italian city states particularly in the writings of Niccolo Machiavelli, was a radical break from the tradition of ], and that it led to a crisis of ], ], ], and ]. He claimed that modern political and social sciences, which were based on empirical observation and rational analysis, failed to grasp the essential questions of human nature, morality, and justice, and that they reduced human beings to mere objects of manipulation and calculation. He also criticized modern ], which he saw as a product of modernity, for its lack of moral and spiritual foundations, and for its tendency to undermine the authority of religion, tradition, and ].<ref name=Batnizky>], , the ], 9 April 2021.</ref><ref name=Routledge>] (1998). . In The ]. Taylor and Francis. Retrieved 30 Dec. 2023. doi:10.4324/9780415249126-S092-1</ref>
* Leo Strauss. 1958. "Thoughts on Machiavelli". Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

To overcome the crisis of modernity, Strauss proposed a return to the classical political philosophy of the ] and the ], who he believed had a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of human nature and society. He advocated a careful and respectful reading of the classical texts, arguing that their authors wrote in an esoteric manner, which he called "]" and which he practiced in his own works. He suggested that the classical authors hid their true teachings behind a surface layer of conventional opinions, in order to avoid persecution and to educate only the few who were capable of grasping them, and that they engaged in a dialogue with each other across the ages. Strauss called this dialogue "]", and invited his readers to join it.<ref name=Batnizky/><ref name=Routledge/>

Strauss's interpretation of the classical political philosophy was influenced by his own Jewish background and his encounter with Islamic and Jewish medieval philosophy, especially the works of ] and ]. He argued that these philosophers, who lived under the ], faced similar challenges as the ancient Greeks. He also claimed that these philosophers, who were both faithful to their revealed religions and loyal to the rational pursuit of philosophy, offered a model of how to reconcile ] and ], philosophy and theology, Athens and Jerusalem.<ref name=Batnizky/><ref name=Routledge/>

== Views ==
=== Philosophy ===
For Strauss, politics and philosophy were necessarily intertwined. He regarded the trial and death of ] as the moment when political philosophy came into existence. Strauss considered one of the most important moments in the ] Socrates' argument that philosophers could not study ] without considering their own ],<ref>Laurence Lampert, ''The Enduring Importance of Leo Strauss'', University of Chicago Press, 2013, p. 126.</ref> which, in the words of ], is that of "a political animal."<ref>"From these things it is evident, that the city belongs among the things that exist by nature, and that man is by nature a political animal" (Aristotle, ''The Politics'', 1253a1–3).</ref> However, he also held that the ends of politics and philosophy were inherently irreconcilable and irreducible to one another.<ref>Steven B. Smith, ''Reading Leo Strauss: Politics, Philosophy, Judaism'', University of Chicago Press, 2007, p. 13.</ref><ref>], ''Leo Strauss: An Introduction to His Thought and Intellectual Legacy''. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2006, p. 51: "Classical political philosophy is not concerned to rule, but it is concerned to understand, political society—and to share its understanding, in a constructive fashion, with the various political societies and their citizens and rulers."

Cf. also his "Fundamental Tension" (ibid., p.54f) </ref>

Strauss distinguished "scholars" from "great thinkers," identifying himself as a scholar. He wrote that most self-described philosophers are in actuality scholars, cautious and methodical. Great thinkers, in contrast, boldly and creatively address big problems. Scholars deal with these problems only indirectly by reasoning about the great thinkers' differences.<ref>Leo Strauss, "An Introduction to Heideggerian Existentialism," 27–46 in ''The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism,'' ed. Thomas L. Pangle (Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1989) 29–30.</ref>

In ''Natural Right and History'', Strauss begins with a critique of ]'s ], briefly engages the ] of ] (who goes unnamed) and continues with a discussion of the evolution of ]s via an analysis of the thought of ] and ]. He concludes by critiquing ] and ]. At the heart of the book are excerpts from ], ], and ]. Much of his philosophy is a reaction to the works of ]. Indeed, Strauss wrote that Heidegger's thinking must be understood and confronted before any complete formulation of modern political theory is possible, and this means that political thought has to engage with issues of ontology and the history of metaphysics.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Velkley |first1=Richard L. |title=] |date=2015 |publisher=] |location=Chicago |isbn=9780226214948 |edition=Paperback 2015}}</ref>

Strauss wrote that ] was the first philosopher to properly understand ], an idea grounded in a general acceptance of Hegelian ]. Heidegger, in Strauss's view, sanitized and politicized Nietzsche, whereas Nietzsche believed "our own principles, including the belief in progress, will become as unconvincing and alien as all earlier principles (essences) had shown themselves to be" and "the only way out seems to be ... that one voluntarily choose life-giving delusion instead of deadly truth, that one fabricate a myth."<ref>Leo Strauss, "Relativism", 13–26 in ''The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism'', ed. Thomas L. Pangle (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 25.</ref> Heidegger believed that the tragic ] of Nietzsche was itself a "myth" guided by a defective Western conception of ] that Heidegger traced to Plato. In his published correspondence with ], Strauss wrote that ] was correct when he postulated that an end of history implies an end to philosophy as understood by classical political philosophy.<ref>{{cite journal | url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/191204 | jstor=191204 | title=Leo Strauss's Classic Natural Right Teaching | last1=Drury | first1=S. B. | journal=] | date=1987 | volume=15 | issue=3 | pages=299–315 | doi=10.1177/0090591787015003001 | s2cid=143546488 }}</ref>

=== On reading ===
]—especially those of ] (shown here) and ]—was instrumental in the development of his theory of reading.]]

In the late 1930s, Strauss called for the first time for a reconsideration of the "distinction between exoteric (or public) and esoteric (or secret) teaching."<ref>"Exoteric Teaching" (Critical Edition by Hannes Kerber). In ''Reorientation: Leo Strauss in the 1930s''. Edited by Martin D. Yaffe and Richard S. Ruderman. New York: Palgrave, 2014, p. 275.</ref> In 1952 he published '']'', arguing that serious writers write esoterically, that is, with multiple or layered meanings, often disguised within irony or paradox, obscure references, even deliberate self-contradiction. Esoteric writing serves several purposes: protecting the philosopher from the retribution of the regime, and protecting the regime from the corrosion of philosophy; it attracts the right kind of reader and repels the wrong kind; and ferreting out the interior message is in itself an exercise of philosophic reasoning.<ref>{{cite book |author=Smith, Steven |title=Reading Leo Strauss |year=2007 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |quote=excerpt entitled "Why Strauss, Why Now?" |url=http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/764028.html |isbn=978-0226763897 |access-date=2006-09-20 |archive-date=2020-11-09 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201109031348/http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/764028.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |author=Mansfield, Harvey |title=Strauss's Machiavelli |quote= ... a book containing much that is appreciably esoteric to any reader stated in a manner either so elusive or so challenging as to cause him to give up trying to understand it. |work=] |year=1975 |jstor= 190834}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |author=Damon Linker |title=What if Leo Strauss was Right? |url=http://theweek.com/article/index/271006/what-if-leo-strauss-was-right |work=] |date=October 31, 2014 |access-date=2014-11-04 |archive-date=2014-11-03 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141103102531/http://theweek.com/article/index/271006/what-if-leo-strauss-was-right |url-status=live }}</ref>

Taking his bearings from his study of ] and ], and pointing further back to Plato's discussion of writing as contained in the '']'', Strauss proposed that the classical and medieval art of ''esoteric'' writing is the proper medium for philosophic learning: rather than displaying philosophers' thoughts superficially, classical and medieval philosophical texts guide their readers in thinking and learning independently of imparted knowledge. Thus, Strauss agrees with the Socrates of the ''Phaedrus'', where the Greek indicates that, insofar as writing does not respond when questioned, good writing provokes questions in the reader—questions that orient the reader towards an understanding of problems the author thought about with utmost seriousness. Strauss thus, in ''Persecution and the Art of Writing'', presents Maimonides "as a closet nonbeliever obfuscating his message for political reasons".<ref>Michael Paley and Jacob J. Staub in ''Jewish Philosophy: Medieval and Modern'', printed in ''The Schocken Guide to Jewish Books'' (1992) p. 215.</ref>

] argument<ref name="Schröder">Winfried Schröder (ed.), ''Reading between the lines – Leo Strauss and the history of early modern philosophy'', Walter de Gruyter, 2015, p. 39, "According to Robert Hunt, 'he Straussian hermeneutic ... sees the course of intellectual history as an ongoing conversation about important philosophical questions'."</ref>—rearticulated throughout his subsequent writings (most notably in ''The City and Man'' )—is that, before the 19th century, Western scholars commonly understood that philosophical writing is not at home in any polity, no matter how liberal. Insofar as it questions conventional wisdom at its roots, philosophy must guard itself especially against those readers who believe themselves authoritative, wise, and liberal defenders of the status quo. In questioning established opinions, or in investigating the principles of morality, philosophers of old found it necessary to convey their messages in an oblique manner. Their "art of writing" was the art of esoteric communication. This was especially apparent in medieval times when heterodox political thinkers wrote under the threat of the ] or comparably obtuse tribunals.

Strauss's argument is not that the medieval writers he studies reserved one exoteric meaning for the many (]) and an esoteric, hidden one for the few (hoi oligoi), but that, through rhetorical stratagems including self-contradiction and hyperboles, these writers succeeded in conveying their proper meaning at the tacit heart of their writings—a heart or message irreducible to "the letter" or historical dimension of texts.

Explicitly following ]'s lead, Strauss indicates that medieval political philosophers, no less than their ancient counterparts, carefully adapted their wording to the dominant moral views of their time, lest their writings be condemned as heretical or unjust, not by "the many" (who did not read), but by those "few" whom the many regarded as the most righteous guardians of morality. It was precisely these righteous personalities who would be most inclined to persecute/ostracize anyone who was in the business of exposing the noble or great lie upon which the authority of the few over the many stands or falls.<ref> p. 25</ref>

=== On politics ===
{{conservatism sidebar|philosophers}}
{{Conservatism US|schools}}
According to Strauss, modern ] is flawed because it assumes the ], a concept which Strauss found dubious. He traced its roots in ] philosophy to ], a thinker whom Strauss described as a "serious and noble mind". Weber wanted to separate values from science but, according to Strauss, was really a derivative thinker, deeply influenced by Nietzsche's ].<ref>], "Leo Strauss", 235–55 in ''Giants and Dwarfs: Essays 1960–1990'' (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990) 238–39.</ref> Strauss treated politics as something that could not be studied from afar. A political scientist examining politics with a value-free scientific eye, for Strauss, was self-deluded. ], the heir to both ] and Max Weber in the quest to make purportedly value-free judgments, failed to justify its own existence, which would require a value judgment.<ref>, p. 193</ref>

While modern-era ] had stressed the pursuit of individual liberty as its highest goal, Strauss felt that there should be 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. Strauss refused to make do with any simplistic or one-sided resolutions of the Socratic question: ''What is the ] for the city and man?''<ref>, p. 3</ref>

=== Encounters with Carl Schmitt and Alexandre Kojève ===
Two significant political-philosophical dialogues Strauss had with living thinkers were those he held with ] and ]. Schmitt, who would later become, for a short time, the chief jurist of Nazi Germany, was one of the first important German academics to review Strauss's early work positively. Schmitt's positive reference for, and approval of, Strauss's work on ] was instrumental in winning Strauss the scholarship funding that allowed him to leave Germany.<ref>''Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss: the hidden dialogue'', ], University of Chicago Press 1995, 123</ref>

Strauss's critique and clarifications of '']'' led Schmitt to make significant emendations in its second edition. Writing to Schmitt in 1932, Strauss summarised Schmitt's ] that "because man is by nature evil, he, therefore, needs '' dominion''. But dominion can be established, that is, men can be unified only in a unity against—against other men. Every association of men is necessarily a separation from other men ... the political thus understood is not the constitutive principle of the state, of order, but a condition of the state."<ref>''Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss: the hidden dialogue'', Heinrich Meier, University of Chicago Press 1995, 125</ref>

Strauss, however, directly opposed Schmitt's position. For Strauss, Schmitt and his return to ] helpfully clarified the nature of our political existence and our modern self-understanding. Schmitt's position was therefore symptomatic of the modern-era ] self-understanding. Strauss believed that such an analysis, as in Hobbes's time, served as a useful "preparatory action," revealing our contemporary orientation towards the eternal problems of politics (social existence). However, Strauss believed that Schmitt's reification of our modern self-understanding of the problem of politics into a political theology was not an adequate solution. Strauss instead advocated a return to a broader classical understanding of human nature and a tentative return to political philosophy, in the tradition of the ancient philosophers.<ref>''Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss: the hidden dialogue'', Heinrich Meier, University of Chicago Press 1995</ref>

With Kojève, Strauss had a close and lifelong philosophical friendship. They had first met as students in Berlin. The two thinkers shared boundless philosophical respect for each other. Kojève would later write that, without befriending Strauss, "I never would have known ... what philosophy is".<ref>{{citation |last=Lilla |first=Mark |author-link=Mark Lilla |chapter=Alexandre Kojève |title=The Reckless Mind. Intellectuals in Politics |year=2001 |publisher=New York Review Books |location=New York |page= |isbn=978-0-940322-76-9 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780940322769/page/131 }}.</ref> The political-philosophical dispute between Kojève and Strauss centered on the role that philosophy should and can be allowed to play in politics.

Kojève, a senior civil servant in the French government, was instrumental in the creation of the ]. He argued that philosophers should have an active role in shaping political events. Strauss, on the contrary, believed that philosophers should play a role in politics only to the extent that they can ensure that philosophy, which he saw as mankind's highest activity, can be free from political intervention.<ref>{{citation | last = Strauss | first = Leo | title = On Tyranny | editor-last = Gourevitch | editor-first = Victor | editor2-last = Roth | editor2-first = Michael S.}}</ref>

=== Liberalism and nihilism ===
Strauss argued that ] in its modern form (which is oriented toward ] as opposed to "ancient liberalism" which is oriented toward ]), contained within it an intrinsic tendency towards extreme ], which in turn led to two types of ]:<ref>Thomas L. Pangle, "Epilogue", 907–38 in ''History of Political Philosophy'', ed. Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987) 907–8.</ref>

* The first was a "brutal" nihilism, expressed in ] and ] regimes. In ''On Tyranny'', he wrote that these ], both descendants of ] thought, tried to destroy all traditions, history, ethics, and moral standards and replace them by force under which nature and mankind are subjugated and conquered.<ref>Leo Strauss, ''On Tyranny'' (New York: Free Press, 1991) 22–23, 178.</ref>
* The second type—the "gentle" nihilism expressed in Western ]—was a kind of value-free aimlessness and a ] "permissive ]," which he saw as permeating the fabric of contemporary American society.<ref>Leo Strauss, "The Crisis of Our Time", 41–54 in Howard Spaeth, ed., ''The Predicament of Modern Politics'' (Detroit: University of Detroit Press, 1964) 47–48.</ref><ref>Leo Strauss, "What Is Political Philosophy?" 9–55 in Leo Strauss, ''What Is Political Philosophy? and Other Studies'' (Glencoe, IL: The Free Press, 1959) 18–19.</ref>

In the belief that 20th-century relativism, ], ], and nihilism were all implicated in the deterioration of ] and philosophy, Strauss sought to uncover the philosophical pathways that had led to this situation. The resultant study led him to advocate a tentative return to classical political philosophy as a starting point for judging political action.<ref>Leo Strauss, ''The City and Man'' (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1964) 10–11.</ref>

=== Strauss's interpretation of Plato's ''Republic'' ===
According to Strauss, the '']'' by ] is not "a blueprint for regime reform" (a play on words from ]'s '']'', which attacks ''The Republic'' for being just that). Strauss quotes ]: "''The Republic'' does not bring to light the best possible regime but rather the nature of political things—the nature of the city."<ref>Leo Strauss, "Plato", 33–89 in ''History of Political Philosophy'', ed. Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987) 68.</ref>

Strauss argued that the city-in-speech was unnatural, precisely because "it is rendered possible by the abstraction from ''eros''".<ref>Leo Strauss, "Plato", 33–89 in ''History of Political Philosophy'', ed. Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987) 60.</ref> Though skeptical of "progress," Strauss was equally skeptical about political agendas of "return"—that is, going backward instead of forward.

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 finally to resolve the debate between ] and ]alism in politics. In particular, along with many in the ] German Right, he feared people trying to force a ] to come into being in the future, thinking that it would inevitably become a ].<ref>, p. 143</ref> Hence he kept his distance from the two totalitarianisms that he denounced in his century, both fascists and communists.

=== Strauss and Karl Popper ===
Strauss actively rejected ]'s views as illogical. He agreed with a letter of response to his request of ] to look into the issue. In the response, Voegelin wrote that studying Popper's views was a waste of precious time, and "an annoyance". Specifically about '']'' and Popper's understanding of Plato's ''The Republic'', after giving some examples, Voegelin wrote:

{{blockquote|Popper is philosophically so uncultured, so fully a primitive ideological brawler, that he is not able even approximately to reproduce correctly the contents of one page of Plato. Reading is of no use to him; he is too lacking in knowledge to understand what the author says.<ref>{{cite book |author1=Voegelin, Eric |author2=Strauss, Leo |editor1-last=Emberley |editor1-first=Peter |editor2-last=Cooper |editor2-first=Barry |title=Faith and Political Philosophy: The Correspondence between Leo Strauss and Eric Voegelin, 1934-1964 |date=20 August 2004 |publisher=University of Missouri |isbn=978-0826215512 |page=68 |chapter=Letter 30: April 18, 1950}}</ref>}}

Strauss proceeded to show this letter to ], who used his influence in order to oppose Popper's appointment at the ].<ref>{{cite web |author1=Anonymous |title=Strauss and Voegelin on Popper |url=http://thephilosophyofscience.wordpress.com/2011/07/15/strauss-and-voegelin-on-popper/ |website=Philosophy of Science |access-date=4 February 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130728053558/http://thephilosophyofscience.wordpress.com/2011/07/15/strauss-and-voegelin-on-popper/ |archive-date=2013-07-28 |date=2011-07-15}}</ref>

=== Ancients and Moderns ===
Strauss constantly stressed the importance of two dichotomies in political philosophy, namely ] and ] (] and ]) and Ancient versus Modern. The "Ancients" were the Socratic philosophers and their intellectual heirs; the "Moderns" start with ]. The contrast between Ancients and Moderns was understood to be related to the unresolvable tension between Reason and Revelation. The Socratics, reacting to the first ] philosophers, brought philosophy back to earth, and hence back to the marketplace, making it more political.<ref>'''' by Kenneth Deutch (1999), p. 104</ref>

The Moderns reacted to the dominance of revelation in ] society by promoting the possibilities of Reason. They objected to Aquinas's merger of natural right and ], for it made natural right vulnerable to sideshow theological disputes.<ref>Strauss, Leo, ''Natural Right and History'' (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953) p. 164</ref> ], under the influence of ], re-oriented political thought to what was most solid but also most low in man—his physical hopes and fears—setting a precedent for ] and the later economic approach to political thought, as in ] and ].<ref> By Jerry Z. Müller</ref>

=== Strauss and Zionism ===
As a youth, Strauss belonged to the German ] youth group, along with his friends ] and ]. Both were admirers of Strauss and would continue to be throughout their lives.<ref name="Kenneth Hart Green p. 55">''Jewish philosophy and the crisis of modernity'' (SUNY 1997), ''Leo Strauss as a Modern Jewish thinker'', Kenneth Hart Green, Leo Strauss, p. 55</ref> When he was 17, as he said, he was "converted" to political Zionism as a follower of ]. He wrote several essays about its controversies but left these activities behind by his early twenties.<ref>Green, K. H. (editor), Strauss, Leo, ''Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity : Essays and Lectures in Modern Jewish Thought'', 1997, State University of New York Press, p. 3</ref>

While Strauss maintained a sympathetic interest in Zionism, he later came to refer to Zionism as "problematic" and became disillusioned with some of its aims.

He taught at the ] during the 1954–55 ]. In his letter to a '']'' editor, Strauss asked why ] had been called a ] state by one of their writers. He argued that the author did not provide enough proof for his argument. He ended his essay with this statement: "Political Zionism is problematic for obvious reasons. But I can never forget what it achieved as a moral force in an era of complete dissolution. It helped to stem the tide of 'progressive' leveling of venerable, ancestral differences; it fulfilled a conservative function."<ref>Green, K. H. (editor), Strauss, L., ''Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity : Essays and Lectures in Modern Jewish Thought'', 1997, State University of New York Press, pp. 413–14</ref>

=== Religious belief ===
Although Strauss accepted the utility of religious belief, there is some question about his religious views. He was openly disdainful of atheism<ref>see his writings on Max Weber</ref>{{better source needed|date=August 2021}} and disapproved of contemporary ]tic disbelief, which he considered intemperate and irrational.<ref>Strauss felt that one should either be "the philosopher open to the challenge of theology or the theologian open to the challenge of philosophy." see Deutsch, Kenneth L. and Walter Nicgorski pp. 11–12, 1994 Rowman & Littlefield</ref> However, like ], he felt that revelation must be subject to examination by reason.<ref>but where Aquinas saw an amicable interplay between reason and revelation, Strauss saw two impregnable fortresses. per Schall S.J., James V. ''A Latitude for Statesmanship: Strauss on St. Thomas'' in , ed. Kenneth L. Deutsch and Walter Nicgorski, pp. 212–15, 1994 Rowman & Littlefield. For an early treatment of Aquinas' understanding of the relation between philosophy and sacred, revealed law, see Strauss's early ''Philosophy and Law'' (''Philosophie und Gesetz''), where Christian medieval theology testifies to a less than amicable opposition between pagan (though not necessarily Platonic or political) philosophy and Biblical morality.</ref> At the end of ''The City and Man'', Strauss invites us to "be open to ... the question ''quid sit deus'' " (p.&nbsp;241). ] writes that "Strauss was not himself an orthodox believer, neither was he a convinced ]. Since whether or not to accept a purported divine revelation is itself one of the 'permanent' questions, orthodoxy must always remain an option equally as defensible as unbelief."<ref>Feser, Edward, (a review of Steven B. Smith's ''Reading Leo Strauss: Politics, Philosophy, Judaism''), ''National Review Online,'' May 22, 2006. {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061115105641/http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=NzE5MTRlZGY5YmY1MTUyOTZkYWY5NThmZGQ2NTNjOTU= |date=November 15, 2006 }}</ref>

In ''Natural Right and History'', Strauss distinguishes a Socratic (Platonic, Ciceronian, Aristotelian) from a conventionalist (materialistic, Epicurean) reading of divinity, and argues that "the question of religion" (what is religion?) is inseparable from the question of the nature of civil society and civil authority. Throughout the volume he argues for the Socratic reading of civil authority and rejects the conventionalist reading (of which atheism is an essential component).<ref>See ''Natural Right and History'', especially p. 119A and Chapter III: "The Origin of the Idea of Natural Right"</ref> This is incompatible with interpretations by Shadia Drury and other scholars who argue that Strauss viewed religion purely instrumentally.<ref>Shadia B. Drury, ''Leo Strauss and the American Right'' (Palgrave Macmillan; 1999)</ref><ref>Peter Minowitz, ''Straussophobia: Defending Leo Strauss and Straussians against Shadia Drury and Other Accusers'' (Lexington Books; 2009)</ref>

== Reception and legacy ==
=== Reception by contemporaries ===
Strauss's works were read and admired by thinkers as diverse as the philosophers ], ],<ref name="Kenneth Hart Green p. 55"/> ],<ref name="Political Thought 2009 page 56"/> and ],<ref name="Political Thought 2009 page 56"/> and the psychoanalyst ].<ref name="Political Thought 2009 page 56">''Approaches to Political Thought'', edited by William L. Richter, (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 16 Mar 2009), p. 56</ref> Benjamin had become acquainted with Strauss as a student in Berlin, and expressed admiration for Strauss throughout his life.<ref name="Kenneth Hart Green page 55"/><ref name="Scholem, Gershom 1981. page 201"/><ref name="Gershom Scholem 1989, page 155-58"/> Gadamer stated that he 'largely agreed' with Strauss's interpretations.<ref name="Political Thought 2009 page 56"/>

=== The Straussian school ===
Straussianism is the name given "to denote the research methods, common concepts, theoretical presuppositions, central questions, and pedagogic style (teaching style<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedagogic|title=Definition of PEDAGOGIC|access-date=2020-12-26|archive-date=2020-10-22|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201022033042/https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedagogic|url-status=live}}</ref>) characteristic of the large number of conservatives who have been influenced by the thought and teaching of Leo Strauss".<ref name=First>{{cite web|url=http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=871|title=Straussianism|author=Mark C. Henrie|date=May 5, 2011|publisher=First Principles – ISI Web Journal|access-date=November 24, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181221125446/http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=871|archive-date=December 21, 2018|url-status=dead}}</ref> While it "is particularly influential among university professors of historical political theory ... it also sometimes serves as a common intellectual framework more generally among conservative activists, think tank professionals, and public intellectuals".<ref name=First/> ], ] and Steven Berg, though never students of Strauss, are "Straussians" (as some followers of Strauss identify themselves). Mansfield has argued that there is no such thing as "Straussianism" yet there are Straussians and a school of Straussians. Mansfield describes the school as "open to the whole of philosophy" and without any definite doctrines that one has to believe in order to belong to it.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://conversationswithbillkristol.org/transcript/harvey-mansfield-iv-transcript/|title=Transcript of Harvey Mansfield (IV)|website=conversationswithbillkristol.org|access-date=14 March 2018|archive-date=15 March 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180315134211/http://conversationswithbillkristol.org/transcript/harvey-mansfield-iv-transcript/|url-status=live}}</ref>

Within the discipline of political theory, the method calls for its practitioners to use "a 'close reading' of the 'Great Books' of political thought; they strive to understand a thinker 'as he understood himself'; they are unconcerned with questions about the historical context of, or historical influences on, a given author"<ref name=First/> and strive to be open to the idea that they may find something timelessly true in a ]. The approach "resembles in important ways the old ] in literary studies."<ref name=First/>

There is some controversy in the approach over what distinguishes a great book from lesser works. Great books are held to be written by authors/philosophers "of such sovereign critical self-knowledge and intellectual power that they can in no way be reduced to the general thought of their time and place,"<ref name=First/> with other works "understood as epiphenomenal to the original insights of a thinker of the first rank."<ref name=First/> This approach is seen as a counter "to the historicist presuppositions of the mid-twentieth century, which read the history of political thought in a progressivist way, with past philosophies forever cut off from us in a superseded past."<ref name=First/> Straussianism puts forward the possibility that past thinkers may have "hold of ''the truth''{{mdash}}and that more recent thinkers are therefore wrong."<ref name=First/>

=== The Chinese Straussians ===
Almost the entirety of Strauss's writings has been translated into Chinese. There even is a school of Straussians in China, the most prominent being ] (Renmin University) and ]. "Chinese Straussians" (who often are also fascinated by Carl Schmitt) represent an example of the hybridization of Western political theory in a non-Western context. As the editors of a recent volume write, "the reception of Schmitt and Strauss in the Chinese-speaking world (and especially in the People's Republic of China) not only says much about how Schmitt and Strauss can be read today, but also provides important clues about the deeper contradictions of Western modernity and the dilemmas of non-liberal societies in our increasingly contentious world."<ref>{{cite book|last=Marchal|first=Kai|title=Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss in the Chinese-speaking World: Reorienting the Political|year=2017|publisher=Lexington Books|location=Lanham, Maryland|isbn=978-1498536264|page=7}}.</ref>

== Criticism ==

=== Basis for esotericism ===
In the essay, ''Persecution and the Art of Writing'', Strauss posits that information needs to be kept secret from the masses by "writing between the lines". However, this seems like a false premise, as most authors Strauss refers to in his work lived in times when only the social elites were literate enough to understand works of philosophy.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Bekesi |first=Aron B |date=2019-12-31 |title=Esoteric philosophy: Leo Strauss and sociolinguistics |url=https://doi.org/10.23756/sp.v7i2.481 |journal=Science & Philosophy |volume=7 |issue=2 |doi=10.23756/sp.v7i2.481}}</ref>

=== Conservatism ===
Some critics of Strauss have accused him of being ], ] and anti-democratic. Journalists such as ] have opined that Strauss endorsed ]s, "myths used by political leaders seeking to maintain a cohesive society".<ref name=Hersh>], {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140717100914/http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/05/12/030512fa_fact |date=2014-07-17 }}, '']'', May 12, 2003. Retrieved June 1, 2007.</ref><ref>Brian Doherty, {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160731211707/http://reason.com/archives/1997/07/01/origin-of-the-specious |date=2016-07-31 }}, '']'', July 1997. Retrieved February 16, 2007.</ref> In ''The City and Man'', Strauss discusses the myths outlined in Plato's '']'' that are required for all governments. These include a belief that the state's land belongs to it even though it may have been acquired illegitimately and that citizenship is rooted in something more than accidents of birth.<ref>, p. 104</ref>

], in ''Leo Strauss and the American Right'' (1999), claimed that Strauss ] an elitist strain in American political leaders linked to ] ], ] and ]. Drury argues that Strauss teaches that "], and they need strong rulers to tell them what's good for them". Nicholas Xenos similarly argues that Strauss was "an anti-democrat in a fundamental sense, a true ]". Xenos says: "Strauss was somebody who wanted to go back to a previous, pre-liberal, pre-] era of blood and guts, of imperial domination, of authoritarian rule, of pure ]."<ref name="Xenos_Logos">Nicholas Xenos, {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210126074218/http://www.logosjournal.com/xenos.htm |date=2021-01-26 }} ''Logosjournal.com''</ref>

=== Anti-historicism ===
Strauss has also been criticized by some ]. According to ], Strauss's anti-historicist thinking creates an artificial contrast between moral universality and "the conventional", "the ancestral", and "the historical". Strauss, Ryn argues, wrongly and reductively assumes that respect for tradition must undermine reason and universality. Contrary to Strauss's criticism of Edmund Burke, the historical sense may be indispensable to an adequate apprehension of universality. Strauss's abstract, ahistorical conception of natural right distorts genuine universality, Ryn contends. Strauss does not consider the possibility that real universality becomes known to human beings in a concretized, particular form. Strauss and the Straussians have paradoxically taught philosophically unsuspecting American conservatives, not least Roman Catholic intellectuals, to reject tradition in favor of ahistorical theorizing, a bias that flies in the face of the central Christian notion of the Incarnation, which represents a synthesis of the universal and the historical. According to Ryn, the propagation of a purely abstract idea of universality has contributed to the neoconservative advocacy of allegedly universal American principles, which neoconservatives see as justification for American intervention around the world—bringing the blessings of the "West" to the benighted "rest". Strauss's anti-historical thinking connects him and his followers with the French ], who also regarded tradition as incompatible with virtue and rationality.<ref>Claes G. Ryn, "Leo Strauss and History: The Philosopher as Conspirator", ''Humanitas'', Vol. XVIII, Nos. 1 & 2 (2005).</ref>

What Ryn calls the "new Jacobinism" of the "neoconservative" philosophy is, writes ], also the rhetoric of ] and ], which the philosophically impoverished American Right has taken over with mindless alacrity; ] operators and ]s apparently believe they can carry the electorate by appealing to yesterday's ] clichés.<ref name=Gottfried>Paul Gottfried, {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150618055415/http://archive.lewrockwell.com/gottfried/gottfried90.html |date=2015-06-18 }}, ''LewRockwell.com'', April 17, 2006. Retrieved February 16, 2007.</ref><ref name=Gottfriedarch>Cf. Paul Gottfried, {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150618045051/http://archive.lewrockwell.com/gottfried/gottfried-arch.html |date=2015-06-18 }}, ''Lewrockwell.com''. Retrieved February 16, 2007.</ref>

=== Response to criticism ===
In his 2009 book ''Straussophobia'', Peter Minowitz provides a detailed critique of Drury, Xenos, and other critics of Strauss whom he accuses of "bigotry and buffoonery".<ref>Peter Minowitz, ''Straussophobia: Defending Leo Strauss and Straussians against Shadia Drury and Other Accusers'' (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2009). Also see "''Straussophobia: Six Questions for Peter Minowitz''," ''Harper's Magazine'', 9/29/09 {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121019170404/http://harpers.org/archive/2009/09/hbc-90005789|date=2012-10-19}}</ref>

In ''Reading Leo Strauss'', ] rejects the link between Strauss and ] thought, arguing that Strauss was never personally active in politics, never endorsed imperialism, and questioned the utility of political philosophy for the practice of politics. In particular, Strauss argued that Plato's myth of the ] should be read as a ], and that philosophers should understand politics not in order to influence policy but to ensure philosophy's autonomy from politics.<ref name=SSmith>], excerpt from {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201109031348/http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/764028.html |date=2020-11-09 }}, 1–15 in ''Reading Leo Strauss: Politics, Philosophy, Judaism'' (Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2006), online posting, ''press.uchicago.edu''. Retrieved June 1, 2007.</ref> In his review of ''Reading Leo Strauss'', ] writes that Smith "persuasively sets the record straight on Strauss's political views and on what his writing is really about".<ref name=Alter>], {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170826033915/http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/books/review/25alter.html?ex=1308888000&en=56a0c2b38e767e6f&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss |date=2017-08-26 }}, '']'', June 25, 2006, accessed February 16, 2007, citing Yale scholar ], ''Reading Leo Strauss: Politics, Philosophy, Judaism'' (Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2006).</ref>

Strauss's daughter, ], defended Strauss against the charge that he was the "mastermind behind the neoconservative ideologues who control United States foreign policy." "He was a conservative", she says, "insofar as he did not think change is necessarily change for the better." Since contemporary academia "leaned to the left", with its "unquestioned faith in progress and science combined with a queasiness regarding any kind of moral judgment", Strauss stood outside of the academic consensus. Had academia leaned to the right, he would have questioned it, too{{mdash}}and on certain occasions ''did'' question the tenets of the right.<ref name="MyUser_The_New_York_Times_March_30_2015c">{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/07/opinion/07CLAY.html |title=The Real Leo Strauss |newspaper=The New York Times |date=June 7, 2003 |author=Jenny Strauss Clay |access-date=March 30, 2015 |archive-date=April 2, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150402121914/http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/07/opinion/07CLAY.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

] has argued that the attribution to Strauss of neoconservative views contradicts a careful reading of Strauss' actual texts, in particular ''On Tyranny''. Lilla summarizes Strauss as follows:

<blockquote>Philosophy must always be aware of the dangers of tyranny, as a threat to both political decency and the philosophical life. It must understand enough about politics to defend its own autonomy, without falling into the error of thinking that philosophy can shape the political world according to its own lights.<ref>Mark Lilla, ''The Reckless Mind'' (New York: NY Review of Books, 2001) 133.</ref></blockquote>

Responding to charges that Strauss's teachings fostered the neoconservative foreign policy of the ] administration, such as "unrealistic hopes for the spread of liberal democracy through military conquest", Nathan Tarcov, director of the Leo Strauss Center at the University of Chicago, asserts that Strauss as a political philosopher was essentially non-political. After an exegesis of the very limited practical political views to be gleaned from Strauss's writings, Tarcov concludes that "Strauss can remind us of the permanent problems, but we have only ourselves to blame for our faulty solutions to the problems of today."<ref>Nathan Tarcov, "Will the Real Leo Strauss Please Stand Up" in ''The American Interest'' September–October 1986, at {{cite web |url=http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=166 |title=Will the Real Leo Strauss Please Stand Up? - Nathan Tarcov - the American Interest Magazine |access-date=2009-06-28 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101130050901/http://the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=166 |archive-date=2010-11-30 }}</ref>

== Bibliography ==
; Books and articles
* ''Gesammelte Schriften''. Ed. ]. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1996. Four vols. published to date: Vol. 1, ''Die Religionskritik Spinozas und zugehörige Schriften'' (rev. ed. 2001); vol. 2, ''Philosophie und Gesetz, Frühe Schriften'' (1997); Vol. 3, ''Hobbes' politische Wissenschaft und zugehörige Schrifte – Briefe'' (2001); Vol. 4, ''Politische Philosophie. Studien zum theologisch-politischen Problem'' (2010). The full series will also include Vol. 5, ''Über Tyrannis'' (2013) and Vol. 6, ''Gedanken über Machiavelli. Deutsche Erstübersetzung'' (2014).
* ''Leo Strauss: The Early Writings (1921–1932)''. (Trans. from parts of ''Gesammelte Schriften''). Trans. Michael Zank. Albany: SUNY Press, 2002.
* ''Die Religionskritik Spinozas als Grundlage seiner Bibelwissenschaft: Untersuchungen zu Spinozas Theologisch-politischem Traktat''. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1930.
** ''Spinoza's Critique of Religion''. (English trans. by Elsa M. Sinclair of ''Die Religionskritik Spinozas'', 1930.) With a new English preface and a trans. of Strauss's 1932 German essay on Carl Schmitt. New York: Schocken, 1965. Reissued without that essay, Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1997.
* "Anmerkungen zu Carl Schmitt, ''Der Begriff des Politischen''". ''Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik'' 67, no. 6 (August–September 1932): 732–49.
** "Comments on Carl Schmitt's ''Begriff des Politischen''". (English trans. by Elsa M. Sinclair of "Anmerkungen zu Carl Schmitt", 1932.) 331–51 in ''Spinoza's Critique of Religion'', 1965. Reprinted in Carl Schmitt, ''The Concept of the Political'', ed. and trans. George Schwab. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers U Press, 1976.
** "Notes on Carl Schmitt, ''The Concept of the Political''". (English trans. by J. Harvey Lomax of "Anmerkungen zu Carl Schmitt", 1932.) In Heinrich Meier, ''Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss: The Hidden Dialogue'', trans. J. Harvey Lomax. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1995. Reprinted in Carl Schmitt, ''The Concept of the Political'', ed. and trans. George Schwab. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1996, 2007.
* ''Philosophie und Gesetz: Beiträge zum Verständnis Maimunis und seiner Vorläufer''. Berlin: Schocken, 1935.
** ''''. (English trans. by ] of ''Philosophie und Gesetz'', 1935.) Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1987.
** ''Philosophy and Law: Contributions to the Understanding of Maimonides and His Predecessors''. (English trans. with introd. by ] of ''Philosophie und Gesetz'', 1935.) Albany: SUNY Press, 1995.
* ''''. (English trans. by Elsa M. Sinclair from German manuscript.) Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1936. Reissued with new preface, Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1952.
** ''Hobbes' politische Wissenschaft in ihrer Genesis''. (1935 German original of ''The Political Philosophy of Hobbes'', 1936.) Neuwied am Rhein: Hermann ], 1965.
* " '']'' 6, no. 4 (Winter 1939): 502–36.
* " (1999, originally a 1941 lecture), ''Interpretation'' 26, no. 3 edited by David Janssens and Daniel Tanguay.
* " ''American Academy for Jewish Research'', Louis Ginzberg Jubilee Volume, 1945. 45 pp.
* "On a New Interpretation of Plato's Political Philosophy". '']'' 13, no. 3 (Fall 1946): 326–67.
* ". '']'' 14, no. 4 (Winter 1947): 455–87.
* ''On Tyranny: An Interpretation of Xenophon's Hiero''. Foreword by Alvin Johnson. New York: Political Science Classics, 1948. Reissued Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1950.
** ''De la tyrannie''. (French trans. of ''On Tyranny'', 1948, with "Restatement on Xenophon's ''Hiero''" and Alexandre Kojève's "Tyranny and Wisdom".) Paris: Librairie Gallimard, 1954.
** ''On Tyranny''. (English edition of ''De la tyrannie'', 1954.) Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1963.
** ''''. (Revised and expanded edition of ''On Tyranny'', 1963.) Includes Strauss–Kojève correspondence. Ed. Victor Gourevitch and Michael S. Roth. New York: The Free Press, 1991.
* "". '']'' 5, no. 4 (June 1952): 559–86.
* '']''. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1952. .
* ''''. (Based on the 1949 Walgreen lectures.) Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1953. Reprinted with new preface, 1971. {{ISBN|978-0-226-77694-1}}.
* "" (1956), a public lecture on Martin Heidegger's thought, published in ''Interpretation'', Spring 1995, Vol.22 No. 3: 303–18.
*''Seminar on Plato's Republic'', (), (). University of Chicago.
* '']''. Glencoe, Ill.: . Reissued Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1978.
* ''''. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1959. Reissued Chicago: U of Chicago Press, 1988.
* ''On Plato's Symposium'' . Ed. Seth Benardete. (Edited transcript of 1959 lectures.) Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2001.
* ". 135–57 in Helmut Schoeck and James W. Wiggins, eds., ''Relativism and the Study of Man''. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand, 1961. Partial reprint, 13–26 in ''The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism'', 1989.
* '']''. Co-editor with ]. Chicago: U of Chicago P, , 1972 (2nd ed.), 1987 (3rd ed.).
* ", 41–54, and "", 91–103, in Howard Spaeth, ed., ''The Predicament of Modern Politics''. Detroit: U of Detroit P, 1964.
** "Political Philosophy and the Crisis of Our Time". (Adaptation of the two essays in Howard Spaeth, ed., ''The Predicament of Modern Politics'', 1964.) 217–42 in George J. Graham, Jr., and George W. Carey, eds., ''The Post-Behavioral Era: Perspectives on Political Science''. New York: David McKay, 1972.
* ''''. (Based on the 1962 Page-Barbour lectures.) Chicago: Rand McNally, 1964.
* ''''. New York: Basic Books, 1966. Reissued Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1980.
* ''''. New York: Basic Books, 1968. Reissued with foreword by Allan Bloom, 1989. Reissued Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1995.
* ''''. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1970.
* ''''. St. John's College, 1971.
* ''''. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1972.
* ''''. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1975.
* ''Political Philosophy: Six Essays by Leo Strauss''. Ed. Hilail Gilden. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1975.
** '''' (Expanded version of ''Political Philosophy: Six Essays by Leo Strauss'', 1975.) Ed. Hilail Gilden. Detroit: Wayne State UP, 1989.
* ''''. Introd. by Thomas L. Pangle. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1983.
* ''''. Ed. Thomas L. Pangle. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1989.
* ''Faith and Political Philosophy: the Correspondence Between Leo Strauss and Eric Voegelin, 1934–1964''. Ed. Peter Emberley and Barry Cooper. Introd. by Thomas L. Pangle. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State UP, 1993.
* ''Hobbes's Critique of Religion and Related Writings''. Ed. and trans. Gabriel Bartlett and Svetozar Minkov. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2011. (Trans. of materials first published in the ''Gesammelte Schriften'', Vol. 3, including an unfinished manuscript by Leo Strauss of a book on Hobbes, written in 1933–1934, and some shorter related writings.)
* ''Leo Strauss on Moses Mendelssohn''. Edited and translated by Martin D. Yaffe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012. (Annotated translation of ten introductions written by Strauss to a multi-volume critical edition of Mendelssohn's work.)
* "" (Critical Edition by Hannes Kerber). In ''Reorientation: Leo Strauss in the 1930s''. Edited by Martin D. Yaffe and Richard S. Ruderman. New York: Palgrave, 2014, pp.&nbsp;275–86.
* "Lecture Notes for 'Persecution and the Art of Writing'" (Critical Edition by Hannes Kerber). In ''Reorientation: Leo Strauss in the 1930s''. Edited by Martin D. Yaffe and Richard S. Ruderman. New York: Palgrave, 2014, pp.&nbsp;293–304.
* ''Leo Strauss on Nietzsche’s “Thus Spoke Zarathustra”''. Edited by Richard L. Velkley. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2017.
* ''Leo Strauss on Political Philosophy: Responding to the Challenge of Positivism and Historicism''. Edited by Catherine H. Zuckert. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2018.
*''Leo Strauss on Hegel''. Edited by Paul Franco. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2019.

; Writings about Maimonides and Jewish philosophy
* '''' (see above, 1930).
* ''Philosophy and Law'' (see above, 1935).
* "Quelques remarques sur la science politique de Maïmonide et de Farabi". ''Revue des études juives'' 100 (1936): 1–37.
* "Der Ort der Vorsehungslehre nach der Ansicht Maimunis". ''Monatschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums'' 81 (1936): 448–56.
* "The Literary Character of The Guide for the Perplexed" . 38–94 in ''Persecution and the Art of Writing''. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1952.
* "How to Study Medieval Philosophy" [. ''Interpretation'' 23, no. 3 (Spring 1996): 319–338. Previously published, less annotations and fifth paragraph, as "How to Begin to Study Medieval Philosophy" in Pangle (ed.), ''The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism'', 1989 (see above).
* . ''Modern Judaism'' 1, no. 1 (May 1981): 17–45. Reprinted Chap. 1 (I–II) in ''Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity'', 1997 (see below).
* . ''Independent Journal of Philosophy'' 3 (1979), 111–18. Reprinted Chap. 1 (III) in ''Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity'', 1997 (see below).
* "Maimonides' Statement on Political Science". ''Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research'' 22 (1953): 115–30.
* . ''L'Homme'' 21, n° 1 (janvier–mars 1981): 5–20. Reprinted Chap. 8 in ''Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity'', 1997 (see below).
* "How to Begin to Study The Guide of the Perplexed". In ''The Guide of the Perplexed, Volume One''. Trans. Shlomo Pines. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1963.
* "On the Plan of the Guide of the Perplexed" . ''Harry Austryn Wolfson Jubilee''. Volume (Jerusalem: American Academy for Jewish Research), pp.&nbsp;775–91.
* "Notes on Maimonides' Book of Knowledge". 269–83 in ''Studies in Mysticism and Religion Presented to G. G. Scholem''. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1967.
* ''Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity: Essays and Lectures in Modern Jewish Thought''. Ed. Kenneth Hart Green. Albany: SUNY P, 1997.
* ''Leo Strauss on Maimonides: The Complete Writings''. Edited by Kenneth Hart Green. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013.

== See also ==
* ]
* ]
* ], often referred to as inspired by the work of Strauss
*]
*]
*]
*]

== Notes ==
{{notelist}}

== References ==
{{reflist}}

== Further reading ==
* Altman, William H. F., ''The German Stranger: Leo Strauss and National Socialism''. Lexington Books, 2011
* Andreacchio, Marco. "". ''Interpretation: A Journal of Political Philosophy'' 46, no. 2 (Spring 2020): 383–98.
* ], ''Leo Strauss, Max Weber, And The Scientific Study Of Politics''. University of Chicago Press, 2005.
* Benardete, Seth. ''Encounters and Reflections: Conversations with Seth Benardete''. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2002.
* Bloom, Allan. "Leo Strauss". 235–55 in ''Giants and Dwarfs: Essays 1960–1990''. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990.
* Bluhm, Harald. ''Die Ordnung der Ordnung : das politische Philosophieren von Leo Strauss''. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 2002.
* Brague, Rémi. "Leo Strauss and Maimonides". 93–114 in ''Leo Strauss's Thought''. Ed. Alan Udoff. Boulder: Lynne Reiner, 1991.
* Brittain, Christopher Craig. "Leo Strauss and Resourceful Odysseus: Rhetorical Violence and the Holy Middle". ''Canadian Review of American Studies'' 38, no. 1 (2008): 147–63.
* Bruell, Christopher. "A Return to Classical Political Philosophy and the Understanding of the American Founding". ''Review of Politics'' 53, no. 1 (Winter 1991): 173–86.
* Chivilò, Giampiero and Menon, Marco (eds). Tirannide e filosofia: Con un saggio di Leo Strauss ed un inedito di Gaston Fessard sj. Venezia: Edizioni Ca' Foscari, 2015. {{ISBN|978-88-6969-032-7}}.
* Colen, Jose. Facts and values. London: Plusprint, 2012.
* Deutsch, Kenneth L. and John A. Murley, eds. ''''. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999. {{ISBN|978-0-8476-8692-6}}.
* ] '''' London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1999.
* Drury, Shadia B. ''''. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1988.
* Gottfried, Paul. ''Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America: A Critical Appraisal'' (Cambridge University Press; 2011)
* Gourevitch, Victor. "Philosophy and Politics I–II". ''Review of Metaphysics'' 22, nos. 1–2 (September–December 1968): 58–84, 281–328.
* Green, Kenneth. ''Jew and Philosopher: The Return to Maimonides in the Jewish Thought of Leo Strauss''. Albany: SUNY Press, 1993.
* "A Giving of Accounts: Jacob Kelin and Leo Strauss". In ''Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity: Essays and Lectures in Modern Jewish Thought''. Ed. Kenneth H. Green. Albany: SUNY Press, 1997.
* Havers, Grant N. ''Leo Strauss and Anglo-American Democracy: A Conservative Critique''. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 2013.
* Holmes, Stephen. ''The Anatomy of Antiliberalism''. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1996. {{ISBN|978-0-674-03185-2}}.
* Howse, Robert. ''Leo Strauss, Man of Peace'', Cambridge University Press, 2014]
* Ivry, Alfred L. "Leo Strauss on Maimonides". 75–91 in ''Leo Strauss's Thought''. Ed. Alan Udoff. Boulder: Lynne Reiner, 1991.
* Janssens, David. ''Between Athens and Jerusalem. Philosophy, Prophecy, and Politics in Leo Strauss's Early Thought''. Albany: SUNY Press, 2008.
* Kartheininger, Markus. "Heterogenität. Politische Philosophie im Frühwerk von Leo Strauss". München: Fink, 2006. {{ISBN|978-3-7705-4378-6}}.
* Kartheininger, Markus. "Aristokratisierung des Geistes". In: Kartheininger, Markus/ Hutter, Axel (ed.). "Bildung als Mittel und Selbstzweck". Freiburg: Alber, 2009, pp.&nbsp;157–208. {{ISBN|978-3-495-48393-0}}.
* Kerber, Hannes. "Strauss and Schleiermacher. An Introduction to 'Exoteric Teaching". In ''Reorientation: Leo Strauss in the 1930s''. Ed. Yaffe/Ruderman. New York: Palgrave, 2014, pp.&nbsp;203–14.
* Kerber, Hannes. . ''Interpretation''. 46, no. 1 (2019): 3–25.
* Kinzel, Till. ''Platonische Kulturkritik in Amerika. Studien zu Allan Blooms The Closing of the American Mind''. Berlin: Duncker und Humblot, 2002.
* Kochin, Michael S. "Morality, Nature, and Esotericism in Leo Strauss's ''Persecution and the Art of Writing''". ''Review of Politics'' 64, no. 2 (Spring 2002): 261–83.
* Lampert, Laurence. ''Leo Strauss and Nietzsche''. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1996.
* Lutz, Mark J. “Living the Theologico-Political Problem: Leo Strauss on the Common Ground of Philosophy and Theology.” ''The European Legacy.'' 2018. Vol. 23. No. 8. pp.&nbsp;1–25.
* Macpherson, C. B. "Hobbes's Bourgeois Man". In ''Democratic Theory: Essays in Retrieval''. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972.
* Major, Rafael (ed.). ''''. University of Chicago Press, 2013. {{ISBN|978-0-226-92420-5}} (cloth)
* Marchal, Kai, Shaw, Carl K.Y. ''Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss in the Chinese-speaking World: Reorienting the Political''. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2017.
* McAllister, Ted V. ''''. Lawrence, KS: UP of Kansas. 1996.
* McWilliams, Wilson Carey. "Leo Strauss and the Dignity of American Political Thought". ''Review of Politics'' 60, no. 2 (Spring 1998): 231–46.
* Meier, Heinrich. ''Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss: The Hidden Dialogue'', Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1995.
* Meier, Heinrich. "Editor's Introduction". ''Gesammelte Schriften''. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1996. 3 vols.
* Meier, Heinrich. ''''. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006.
* Meier, Heinrich. How Strauss Became Strauss". 363–82 in ''Enlightening Revolutions: Essays in Honor of ]''. Ed. Svetozar Minkov. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2006.
* Melzer, Arthur. "Esotericism and the Critique of Historicism". '']'' 100 (2006): 279–95.
* Minowitz, Peter. "Machiavellianism Come of Age? Leo Strauss on Modernity and Economics". ''The Political Science Reviewer'' 22 (1993): 157–97.
* Minowitz, Peter. ''Straussophobia: Defending Leo Strauss and Straussians against Shadia Drury and Other Accusers''. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2009.
* Momigliano, Arnaldo. "Hermeneutics and Classical Political Thought in Leo Strauss", 178–89 in ''Essays on Ancient and Modern Judaism''. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1994.
* Moyn, Samuel. "From experience to law: Leo Strauss and the Weimar crisis of the philosophy of religion." ''History of European Ideas'' 33, (2007): 174–94.
* Neumann, Harry. ''Liberalism''. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic P, 1991.
* Norton, Anne. ''Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire''. New Haven & London: Yale UP, 2004.
* Pangle, Thomas L. "The Epistolary Dialogue Between Leo Strauss and Eric Voegelin". ''Review of Politics'' 53, no. 1 (Winter 1991): 100–25.
* Minowitz, Peter. "Leo Strauss's Perspective on Modern Politics". ''Perspectives on Political Science'' 33, no. 4 (Fall 2004): 197–203.
* Minowitz, Peter. ''Leo Strauss: An Introduction to His Thought and Intellectual Legacy''. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2006.
* ]. Leo Strauss and the Crisis of Rationalism: Another Reason, Another Enlightenment, Robert Howse (tr.), SUNY Press, 2014.
* Piccinini, Irene Abigail. ''Una guida fedele. L'influenza di Hermann Cohen sul pensiero di Leo Strauss''. Torino: Trauben, 2007. {{ISBN|978-88-89909-31-7}}.
* Rosen, Stanley. "Hermeneutics as Politics". 87–140 in ''Hermeneutics as Politics,'' New York: Oxford UP, 1987.
* Sheppard, Eugene R. ''Leo Strauss and the Politics of Exile: The Making of a Political Philosopher''. Waltham, MA: Brandeis UP, 2006. {{ISBN|978-1-58465-600-5}}.
* Shorris, Earl. "Ignoble Liars: Leo Strauss, George Bush, and the Philosophy of Mass Deception". ''Harper's Magazine'' 308, issue 1849 (June 2004): 65–71.
* Smith, Steven B. ''''. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2006. {{ISBN|978-0-226-76402-3}}. (Introd: , online posting, ''press.uchicago.edu''.)
* Smith, Steven B. (editor). ''The Cambridge Companion to Leo Strauss''. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2009. {{ISBN|978-0-521-70399-4}}.
* Steiner, Stephan: ''Weimar in Amerika. Leo Strauss' Politische Philosophie,'' Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2013.
* Strong, Tracy B. "Leo Strauss and the Demos," The European Legacy (October, 2012)
* Tanguay, Daniel. ''Leo Strauss: une biographie intellectuelle''. Paris, 2005. {{ISBN|978-2-253-13067-3}}.
* Tarcov, Nathan. "On a Certain Critique of 'Straussianism' ". ''Review of Politics'' 53, no. 1 (Winter 1991): 3–18.
* Tarcov, Nathan. "Philosophy and History: Tradition and Interpretation in the Work of Leo Strauss". ''Polity'' 16, no. 1 (Autumn 1983): 5–29.
* Tarcov, Nathan and Thomas L. Pangle, "Epilogue: Leo Strauss and the History of Political Philosophy". 907–38 in ''History of Political Philosophy''. Ed. Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey. 3rd ed. 1963; Chicago and London, U of Chicago P, 1987.
* Tepper, Aryeh. "Progressive Minds, Conservative Politics: Leo Strauss' Later Writings on Maimonides." SUNY: 2013.
* Thompson, Bradley C. (with Yaron Brook). ''Neoconservatism. An Obituary for an Idea''. Boulder/London: Paradigm Publishers, 2010. pp.&nbsp;55–131. {{ISBN|978-1-59451-831-7}}.
* Velkley, Richard. '']''. University of Chicago Press, 2011.
* West, Thomas G. "Jaffa Versus Mansfield: Does America Have a Constitutional or a "Declaration of Independence" Soul?" ''Perspectives on Political Science'' 31, no. 4 (Fall 2002): 35–46.
* Xenos, Nicholas. ''Cloaked in virtue: Unveiling Leo Strauss and the Rhetoric of American Foreign Policy''. New York, Routledge Press, 2008.
* Zuckert, Catherine H. ''Postmodern Platos''. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1996.
* Zuckert, Catherine H., and Michael Zuckert. ''The Truth about Leo Strauss''. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2006.

=== Strauss family ===
* Lüders, Joachim and Ariane Wehner. ''Mittelhessen – eine Heimat für Juden? Das Schicksal der Familie Strauss aus Kirchhain''. Marburg: Gymnasium Philippinum, 1989. (In German; English translation: ''Central Hesse – a Homeland for Jews? The Fate of the Strauss Family from Kirchhain''.)

== External links ==
{{Sister project links|s=no|wikt=no|v=no|n=no}}
{{Library resources box|by=yes|onlinebooks=no|about=yes|wikititle=Leo Strauss}}
*
*
* at the University of Chicago Special Collections Research Center
* {{Internet Archive author |sname=Leo Strauss}}
* {{sep entry|strauss-leo|Leo Strauss|Leora Batnitzky}}

{{Leo Strauss}}
{{navboxes
|list=
{{Continental philosophy}}
{{Political philosophy}}
{{Neoconservatism}}
{{Platonists}}
}}
{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Strauss, Leo}}
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 17:28, 16 December 2024

American political philosopher (1899–1973)
Leo StraussBVO
Born(1899-09-20)September 20, 1899
Kirchhain, Kingdom of Prussia, German Empire
DiedOctober 18, 1973(1973-10-18) (aged 74)
Annapolis, Maryland, U.S.
Alma mater
Notable work
SpouseMiriam Bernsohn Strauss
AwardsOrder of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany
Era20th-century philosophy
RegionWestern philosophy
School
Institutions
ThesisDas Erkenntnisproblem in der philosophischen Lehre Fr. H. Jacobis (On the Problem of Knowledge in the Philosophical Doctrine of F. H. Jacobi) (1921)
Doctoral advisorErnst Cassirer
Main interests
Notable ideas List

Leo Strauss (September 20, 1899 – October 18, 1973) was an American scholar of political philosophy. Born in Germany to Jewish parents, Strauss later emigrated from Germany to the United States. He spent much of his career as a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, where he taught several generations of students and published fifteen books.

Trained in the neo-Kantian tradition with Ernst Cassirer and immersed in the work of the phenomenologists Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger, Strauss authored books on Spinoza and Hobbes, and articles on Maimonides and Al-Farabi. In the late 1930s, his research focused on the texts of Plato and Aristotle, retracing their interpretation through medieval Islamic and Jewish philosophy, and encouraging the application of those ideas to contemporary political theory.

Biography

Early life and education

Strauss was born on September 20, 1899, in the small town of Kirchhain in Hesse-Nassau, a province of the Kingdom of Prussia (part of the German Empire), to Hugo Strauss and Jennie Strauss, née David. According to Allan Bloom's 1974 obituary in Political Theory, Strauss "was raised as an Orthodox Jew", but the family does not appear to have completely embraced Orthodox practice. Strauss himself noted that he came from a "conservative, even orthodox Jewish home", but one which knew little about Judaism except strict adherence to ceremonial laws. His father and uncle operated a farm supply and livestock business that they inherited from their father, Meyer (1835–1919), a leading member of the local Jewish community.

After attending the Kirchhain Volksschule and the Protestant Rektoratsschule, Leo Strauss was enrolled at the Gymnasium Philippinum (affiliated with the University of Marburg) in nearby Marburg (from which Johannes Althusius and Carl Joachim Friedrich also graduated) in 1912, graduating in 1917. He boarded with the Marburg cantor Strauss (no relation), whose residence served as a meeting place for followers of the neo-Kantian philosopher Hermann Cohen. Strauss served in the German army from World War I from July 5, 1917, to December 1918.

Strauss subsequently enrolled in the University of Hamburg, where he received his doctorate in 1921; his thesis, On the Problem of Knowledge in the Philosophical Doctrine of F. H. Jacobi (Das Erkenntnisproblem in der philosophischen Lehre Fr. H. Jacobis), was supervised by Ernst Cassirer. He also attended courses at the Universities of Freiburg and Marburg, including some taught by Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger. Strauss joined a Jewish fraternity and worked for the German Zionist movement, which introduced him to various German Jewish intellectuals, such as Norbert Elias, Leo Löwenthal, Hannah Arendt and Walter Benjamin. Benjamin was and remained an admirer of Strauss and his work throughout his life.

Strauss's closest friend was Jacob Klein but he also was intellectually engaged with Gerhard Krüger—and also Karl Löwith, Julius Guttmann, Hans-Georg Gadamer, and Franz Rosenzweig (to whom Strauss dedicated his first book), as well as Gershom Scholem, Alexander Altmann, and the Arabist Paul Kraus, who married Strauss's sister Bettina (Strauss and his wife later adopted Paul and Bettina Kraus's child when both parents died in the Middle East). With several of these friends, Strauss carried on vigorous epistolary exchanges later in life, many of which are published in the Gesammelte Schriften (Collected Writings), some in translation from the German. Strauss had also been engaged in a discourse with Carl Schmitt. However, after Strauss left Germany, he broke off the discourse when Schmitt failed to respond to his letters.

Career

After receiving a Rockefeller Fellowship in 1932, Strauss left his position at the Higher Institute for Jewish Studies in Berlin for Paris. He returned to Germany only once, for a few short days twenty years later. In Paris, he married Marie (Miriam) Bernsohn, a widow with a young child, whom he had known previously in Germany. He adopted his wife's son, Thomas, and later his sister's child, Jenny Strauss Clay (later a professor of classics at the University of Virginia); he and Miriam had no biological children of their own. At his death, he was survived by Thomas, Jenny Strauss Clay, and three grandchildren. Strauss became a lifelong friend of Alexandre Kojève and was on friendly terms with Raymond Aron and Étienne Gilson. Because of the Nazis' rise to power, he chose not to return to his native country. Strauss found shelter, after some vicissitudes, in England, where, in 1935 he gained temporary employment at the University of Cambridge with the help of his in-law David Daube, who was affiliated with Gonville and Caius College. While in England, he became a close friend of R. H. Tawney and was on less friendly terms with Isaiah Berlin.

The University of Chicago, the school with which Strauss is most closely associated

Unable to find permanent employment in England, Strauss moved to the United States in 1937, under the patronage of Harold Laski, who made introductions and helped him obtain a brief lectureship. After a short stint as a research fellow in the Department of History at Columbia University, Strauss secured a position at The New School, where, between 1938 and 1948, he worked in the political science faculty and also took on adjunct jobs. In 1939, he served for a short term as a visiting professor at Hamilton College. He became a U.S. citizen in 1944, and in 1949 became a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, holding the Robert Maynard Hutchins Distinguished Service Professorship until he left in 1969.

In 1953, Strauss coined the phrase reductio ad Hitlerum, a play on reductio ad absurdum, suggesting that comparing an argument to one of Hitler's, or "playing the Nazi card", is often a fallacy of irrelevance.

In 1954, he met Karl Löwith and Hans-Georg Gadamer in Heidelberg and delivered a public speech on Socrates. He had received a call for a temporary lectureship in Hamburg in 1965 (which he declined for health reasons) and received and accepted an honorary doctorate from the University of Hamburg and the German Order of Merit Bundesverdienstkreuz via the German representative in Chicago. In 1969, Strauss moved to Claremont McKenna College (formerly Claremont Men's College) in California for a year, and then to St. John's College, Annapolis in 1970, where he was the Scott Buchanan Distinguished Scholar in Residence until his death from pneumonia in 1973. He was buried in Annapolis Hebrew Cemetery, with his wife Miriam Bernsohn Strauss, who died in 1985. Psalm 114 was read in the funeral service at the request of family and friends.

Thought

Strauss's thought can be characterized by two main themes: the critique of modernity and the recovery of classical political philosophy. He argued that modernity, which emerged among the 15th century Italian city states particularly in the writings of Niccolo Machiavelli, was a radical break from the tradition of Western civilization, and that it led to a crisis of nihilism, relativism, historicism, and scientism. He claimed that modern political and social sciences, which were based on empirical observation and rational analysis, failed to grasp the essential questions of human nature, morality, and justice, and that they reduced human beings to mere objects of manipulation and calculation. He also criticized modern liberalism, which he saw as a product of modernity, for its lack of moral and spiritual foundations, and for its tendency to undermine the authority of religion, tradition, and natural law.

To overcome the crisis of modernity, Strauss proposed a return to the classical political philosophy of the ancient Greeks and the medieval thinkers, who he believed had a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of human nature and society. He advocated a careful and respectful reading of the classical texts, arguing that their authors wrote in an esoteric manner, which he called "the art of writing" and which he practiced in his own works. He suggested that the classical authors hid their true teachings behind a surface layer of conventional opinions, in order to avoid persecution and to educate only the few who were capable of grasping them, and that they engaged in a dialogue with each other across the ages. Strauss called this dialogue "the great conversation", and invited his readers to join it.

Strauss's interpretation of the classical political philosophy was influenced by his own Jewish background and his encounter with Islamic and Jewish medieval philosophy, especially the works of Al-Farabi and Maimonides. He argued that these philosophers, who lived under the rule of Islam, faced similar challenges as the ancient Greeks. He also claimed that these philosophers, who were both faithful to their revealed religions and loyal to the rational pursuit of philosophy, offered a model of how to reconcile reason and revelation, philosophy and theology, Athens and Jerusalem.

Views

Philosophy

For Strauss, politics and philosophy were necessarily intertwined. He regarded the trial and death of Socrates as the moment when political philosophy came into existence. Strauss considered one of the most important moments in the history of philosophy Socrates' argument that philosophers could not study nature without considering their own human nature, which, in the words of Aristotle, is that of "a political animal." However, he also held that the ends of politics and philosophy were inherently irreconcilable and irreducible to one another.

Strauss distinguished "scholars" from "great thinkers," identifying himself as a scholar. He wrote that most self-described philosophers are in actuality scholars, cautious and methodical. Great thinkers, in contrast, boldly and creatively address big problems. Scholars deal with these problems only indirectly by reasoning about the great thinkers' differences.

In Natural Right and History, Strauss begins with a critique of Max Weber's epistemology, briefly engages the relativism of Martin Heidegger (who goes unnamed) and continues with a discussion of the evolution of natural rights via an analysis of the thought of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. He concludes by critiquing Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Edmund Burke. At the heart of the book are excerpts from Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero. Much of his philosophy is a reaction to the works of Heidegger. Indeed, Strauss wrote that Heidegger's thinking must be understood and confronted before any complete formulation of modern political theory is possible, and this means that political thought has to engage with issues of ontology and the history of metaphysics.

Strauss wrote that Friedrich Nietzsche was the first philosopher to properly understand historicism, an idea grounded in a general acceptance of Hegelian philosophy of history. Heidegger, in Strauss's view, sanitized and politicized Nietzsche, whereas Nietzsche believed "our own principles, including the belief in progress, will become as unconvincing and alien as all earlier principles (essences) had shown themselves to be" and "the only way out seems to be ... that one voluntarily choose life-giving delusion instead of deadly truth, that one fabricate a myth." Heidegger believed that the tragic nihilism of Nietzsche was itself a "myth" guided by a defective Western conception of Being that Heidegger traced to Plato. In his published correspondence with Alexandre Kojève, Strauss wrote that Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was correct when he postulated that an end of history implies an end to philosophy as understood by classical political philosophy.

On reading

Strauss's study of philosophy and political discourses produced by the Islamic civilization—especially those of Al-Farabi (shown here) and Maimonides—was instrumental in the development of his theory of reading.

In the late 1930s, Strauss called for the first time for a reconsideration of the "distinction between exoteric (or public) and esoteric (or secret) teaching." In 1952 he published Persecution and the Art of Writing, arguing that serious writers write esoterically, that is, with multiple or layered meanings, often disguised within irony or paradox, obscure references, even deliberate self-contradiction. Esoteric writing serves several purposes: protecting the philosopher from the retribution of the regime, and protecting the regime from the corrosion of philosophy; it attracts the right kind of reader and repels the wrong kind; and ferreting out the interior message is in itself an exercise of philosophic reasoning.

Taking his bearings from his study of Maimonides and Al-Farabi, and pointing further back to Plato's discussion of writing as contained in the Phaedrus, Strauss proposed that the classical and medieval art of esoteric writing is the proper medium for philosophic learning: rather than displaying philosophers' thoughts superficially, classical and medieval philosophical texts guide their readers in thinking and learning independently of imparted knowledge. Thus, Strauss agrees with the Socrates of the Phaedrus, where the Greek indicates that, insofar as writing does not respond when questioned, good writing provokes questions in the reader—questions that orient the reader towards an understanding of problems the author thought about with utmost seriousness. Strauss thus, in Persecution and the Art of Writing, presents Maimonides "as a closet nonbeliever obfuscating his message for political reasons".

Strauss's hermeneutical argument—rearticulated throughout his subsequent writings (most notably in The City and Man )—is that, before the 19th century, Western scholars commonly understood that philosophical writing is not at home in any polity, no matter how liberal. Insofar as it questions conventional wisdom at its roots, philosophy must guard itself especially against those readers who believe themselves authoritative, wise, and liberal defenders of the status quo. In questioning established opinions, or in investigating the principles of morality, philosophers of old found it necessary to convey their messages in an oblique manner. Their "art of writing" was the art of esoteric communication. This was especially apparent in medieval times when heterodox political thinkers wrote under the threat of the Inquisition or comparably obtuse tribunals.

Strauss's argument is not that the medieval writers he studies reserved one exoteric meaning for the many (hoi polloi) and an esoteric, hidden one for the few (hoi oligoi), but that, through rhetorical stratagems including self-contradiction and hyperboles, these writers succeeded in conveying their proper meaning at the tacit heart of their writings—a heart or message irreducible to "the letter" or historical dimension of texts.

Explicitly following Gotthold Ephraim Lessing's lead, Strauss indicates that medieval political philosophers, no less than their ancient counterparts, carefully adapted their wording to the dominant moral views of their time, lest their writings be condemned as heretical or unjust, not by "the many" (who did not read), but by those "few" whom the many regarded as the most righteous guardians of morality. It was precisely these righteous personalities who would be most inclined to persecute/ostracize anyone who was in the business of exposing the noble or great lie upon which the authority of the few over the many stands or falls.

On politics

Part of a series on
Conservatism
Variants
Principles
Intellectuals
Politicians
Religion
Personal variants
National variants
Related ideologies
Related topics
This article is part of a series on
Conservatism
in the United States
Schools
Principles
History
Intellectuals
Politicians
Jurists
Commentators
Activists
Literature
Concerns
PartiesActive

Defunct

Think tanks
Media

Newspapers

Journals

TV channels

Websites

Other

Other organizations

Economics

Gun rights

Identity politics

Nativist

Religion

Watchdog groups

Youth/student groups

Miscellaneous

Other

Movements
Related

According to Strauss, modern social science is flawed because it assumes the fact–value distinction, a concept which Strauss found dubious. He traced its roots in Enlightenment philosophy to Max Weber, a thinker whom Strauss described as a "serious and noble mind". Weber wanted to separate values from science but, according to Strauss, was really a derivative thinker, deeply influenced by Nietzsche's relativism. Strauss treated politics as something that could not be studied from afar. A political scientist examining politics with a value-free scientific eye, for Strauss, was self-deluded. Positivism, the heir to both Auguste Comte and Max Weber in the quest to make purportedly value-free judgments, failed to justify its own existence, which would require a value judgment.

While modern-era liberalism had stressed the pursuit of individual liberty as its highest goal, Strauss felt that there should be 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. 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?

Encounters with Carl Schmitt and Alexandre Kojève

Two significant political-philosophical dialogues Strauss had with living thinkers were those he held with Carl Schmitt and Alexandre Kojève. Schmitt, who would later become, for a short time, the chief jurist of Nazi Germany, was one of the first important German academics to review Strauss's early work positively. Schmitt's positive reference for, and approval of, Strauss's work on Hobbes was instrumental in winning Strauss the scholarship funding that allowed him to leave Germany.

Strauss's critique and clarifications of The Concept of the Political led Schmitt to make significant emendations in its second edition. Writing to Schmitt in 1932, Strauss summarised Schmitt's political theology that "because man is by nature evil, he, therefore, needs dominion. But dominion can be established, that is, men can be unified only in a unity against—against other men. Every association of men is necessarily a separation from other men ... the political thus understood is not the constitutive principle of the state, of order, but a condition of the state."

Strauss, however, directly opposed Schmitt's position. For Strauss, Schmitt and his return to Thomas Hobbes helpfully clarified the nature of our political existence and our modern self-understanding. Schmitt's position was therefore symptomatic of the modern-era liberal self-understanding. Strauss believed that such an analysis, as in Hobbes's time, served as a useful "preparatory action," revealing our contemporary orientation towards the eternal problems of politics (social existence). However, Strauss believed that Schmitt's reification of our modern self-understanding of the problem of politics into a political theology was not an adequate solution. Strauss instead advocated a return to a broader classical understanding of human nature and a tentative return to political philosophy, in the tradition of the ancient philosophers.

With Kojève, Strauss had a close and lifelong philosophical friendship. They had first met as students in Berlin. The two thinkers shared boundless philosophical respect for each other. Kojève would later write that, without befriending Strauss, "I never would have known ... what philosophy is". The political-philosophical dispute between Kojève and Strauss centered on the role that philosophy should and can be allowed to play in politics.

Kojève, a senior civil servant in the French government, was instrumental in the creation of the European Economic Community. He argued that philosophers should have an active role in shaping political events. Strauss, on the contrary, believed that philosophers should play a role in politics only to the extent that they can ensure that philosophy, which he saw as mankind's highest activity, can be free from political intervention.

Liberalism and nihilism

Strauss argued that liberalism in its modern form (which is oriented toward universal freedom as opposed to "ancient liberalism" which is oriented toward human excellence), contained within it an intrinsic tendency towards extreme relativism, which in turn led to two types of nihilism:

  • The first was a "brutal" nihilism, expressed in Nazi and Bolshevik regimes. In On Tyranny, he wrote that these ideologies, both descendants of Enlightenment thought, tried to destroy all traditions, history, ethics, and moral standards and replace them by force under which nature and mankind are subjugated and conquered.
  • The second type—the "gentle" nihilism expressed in Western liberal democracies—was a kind of value-free aimlessness and a hedonistic "permissive egalitarianism," which he saw as permeating 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 uncover the philosophical pathways that had led to this situation. The resultant study led him to advocate a tentative return to classical political philosophy as a starting point for judging political action.

Strauss's interpretation of Plato's Republic

According to Strauss, the Republic by Plato is not "a blueprint for regime reform" (a play on words from Karl Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies, which attacks The Republic for being just that). Strauss quotes Cicero: "The Republic does not bring to light the best possible regime but rather the nature of political things—the nature of the city."

Strauss argued that the city-in-speech was unnatural, precisely because "it is rendered possible by the abstraction from eros". Though skeptical of "progress," Strauss was equally skeptical about political agendas of "return"—that is, going backward instead of forward.

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 finally to 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. Hence he kept his distance from the two totalitarianisms that he denounced in his century, both fascists and communists.

Strauss and Karl Popper

Strauss actively rejected Karl Popper's views as illogical. He agreed with a letter of response to his request of Eric Voegelin to look into the issue. In the response, Voegelin wrote that studying Popper's views was a waste of precious time, and "an annoyance". Specifically about The Open Society and Its Enemies and Popper's understanding of Plato's The Republic, after giving some examples, Voegelin wrote:

Popper is philosophically so uncultured, so fully a primitive ideological brawler, that he is not able even approximately to reproduce correctly the contents of one page of Plato. Reading is of no use to him; he is too lacking in knowledge to understand what the author says.

Strauss proceeded to show this letter to Kurt Riezler, who used his influence in order to oppose Popper's appointment at the University of Chicago.

Ancients and Moderns

Strauss constantly stressed the importance of two dichotomies in political philosophy, namely Athens and Jerusalem (reason and revelation) and Ancient versus Modern. The "Ancients" were the Socratic philosophers and their intellectual heirs; the "Moderns" start with Niccolò Machiavelli. The contrast between Ancients and Moderns was understood to be related to the 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. They objected to Aquinas's merger of natural right and natural theology, for it made natural right vulnerable to sideshow theological disputes. Thomas Hobbes, under the influence of Francis Bacon, re-oriented political thought to what was most solid but also most low in man—his physical hopes and fears—setting a precedent for John Locke and the later economic approach to political thought, as in David Hume and Adam Smith.

Strauss and Zionism

As a youth, Strauss belonged to the German Zionist youth group, along with his friends Gershom Scholem and Walter Benjamin. Both were admirers of Strauss and would continue to be throughout their lives. When he was 17, as he said, he was "converted" to political Zionism as a follower of Ze'ev Jabotinsky. He wrote several essays about its controversies but left these activities behind by his early twenties.

While Strauss maintained a sympathetic interest in Zionism, he later came to refer to Zionism as "problematic" and became disillusioned with some of its aims.

He taught at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem during the 1954–55 academic year. In his letter to a National Review editor, Strauss asked why Israel had been called a racist state by one of their writers. He argued that the author did not provide enough proof for his argument. He ended his essay with this statement: "Political Zionism is problematic for obvious reasons. But I can never forget what it achieved as a moral force in an era of complete dissolution. It helped to stem the tide of 'progressive' leveling of venerable, ancestral differences; it fulfilled a conservative function."

Religious belief

Although Strauss accepted the utility of religious belief, there is some question about his religious views. He was openly disdainful of atheism and disapproved of contemporary dogmatic disbelief, which he considered intemperate and irrational. However, like Thomas Aquinas, he felt that revelation must be subject to examination by reason. At the end of The City and Man, Strauss invites us to "be open to ... the question quid sit deus " (p. 241). Edward Feser writes that "Strauss was not himself an orthodox believer, neither was he a convinced atheist. Since whether or not to accept a purported divine revelation is itself one of the 'permanent' questions, orthodoxy must always remain an option equally as defensible as unbelief."

In Natural Right and History, Strauss distinguishes a Socratic (Platonic, Ciceronian, Aristotelian) from a conventionalist (materialistic, Epicurean) reading of divinity, and argues that "the question of religion" (what is religion?) is inseparable from the question of the nature of civil society and civil authority. Throughout the volume he argues for the Socratic reading of civil authority and rejects the conventionalist reading (of which atheism is an essential component). This is incompatible with interpretations by Shadia Drury and other scholars who argue that Strauss viewed religion purely instrumentally.

Reception and legacy

Reception by contemporaries

Strauss's works were read and admired by thinkers as diverse as the philosophers Gershom Scholem, Walter Benjamin, Hans-Georg Gadamer, and Alexandre Kojève, and the psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan. Benjamin had become acquainted with Strauss as a student in Berlin, and expressed admiration for Strauss throughout his life. Gadamer stated that he 'largely agreed' with Strauss's interpretations.

The Straussian school

Straussianism is the name given "to denote the research methods, common concepts, theoretical presuppositions, central questions, and pedagogic style (teaching style) characteristic of the large number of conservatives who have been influenced by the thought and teaching of Leo Strauss". While it "is particularly influential among university professors of historical political theory ... it also sometimes serves as a common intellectual framework more generally among conservative activists, think tank professionals, and public intellectuals". Harvey C. Mansfield, Steven B. Smith and Steven Berg, though never students of Strauss, are "Straussians" (as some followers of Strauss identify themselves). Mansfield has argued that there is no such thing as "Straussianism" yet there are Straussians and a school of Straussians. Mansfield describes the school as "open to the whole of philosophy" and without any definite doctrines that one has to believe in order to belong to it.

Within the discipline of political theory, the method calls for its practitioners to use "a 'close reading' of the 'Great Books' of political thought; they strive to understand a thinker 'as he understood himself'; they are unconcerned with questions about the historical context of, or historical influences on, a given author" and strive to be open to the idea that they may find something timelessly true in a great book. The approach "resembles in important ways the old New Criticism in literary studies."

There is some controversy in the approach over what distinguishes a great book from lesser works. Great books are held to be written by authors/philosophers "of such sovereign critical self-knowledge and intellectual power that they can in no way be reduced to the general thought of their time and place," with other works "understood as epiphenomenal to the original insights of a thinker of the first rank." This approach is seen as a counter "to the historicist presuppositions of the mid-twentieth century, which read the history of political thought in a progressivist way, with past philosophies forever cut off from us in a superseded past." Straussianism puts forward the possibility that past thinkers may have "hold of the truth—and that more recent thinkers are therefore wrong."

The Chinese Straussians

Almost the entirety of Strauss's writings has been translated into Chinese. There even is a school of Straussians in China, the most prominent being Liu Xiaofeng (Renmin University) and Gan Yang. "Chinese Straussians" (who often are also fascinated by Carl Schmitt) represent an example of the hybridization of Western political theory in a non-Western context. As the editors of a recent volume write, "the reception of Schmitt and Strauss in the Chinese-speaking world (and especially in the People's Republic of China) not only says much about how Schmitt and Strauss can be read today, but also provides important clues about the deeper contradictions of Western modernity and the dilemmas of non-liberal societies in our increasingly contentious world."

Criticism

Basis for esotericism

In the essay, Persecution and the Art of Writing, Strauss posits that information needs to be kept secret from the masses by "writing between the lines". However, this seems like a false premise, as most authors Strauss refers to in his work lived in times when only the social elites were literate enough to understand works of philosophy.

Conservatism

Some critics of Strauss have accused him of being elitist, illiberal and anti-democratic. Journalists such as Seymour Hersh have opined that Strauss endorsed noble lies, "myths used by political leaders seeking to maintain a cohesive society". In The City and Man, Strauss discusses the myths outlined in Plato's Republic that are required for all governments. These include a belief that the state's land belongs to it even though it may have been acquired illegitimately and that citizenship is rooted in something more than accidents of birth.

Shadia Drury, in Leo Strauss and the American Right (1999), claimed that Strauss inculcated an elitist strain in American political leaders linked to imperialist militarism, neoconservatism and Christian fundamentalism. Drury argues that Strauss teaches that "perpetual deception of the citizens by those in power is critical because they need to be led, and they need strong rulers to tell them what's good for them". Nicholas Xenos similarly argues that Strauss was "an anti-democrat in a fundamental sense, a true reactionary". Xenos says: "Strauss was somebody who wanted to go back to a previous, pre-liberal, pre-bourgeois era of blood and guts, of imperial domination, of authoritarian rule, of pure fascism."

Anti-historicism

Strauss has also been criticized by some conservatives. According to Claes G. Ryn, Strauss's anti-historicist thinking creates an artificial contrast between moral universality and "the conventional", "the ancestral", and "the historical". Strauss, Ryn argues, wrongly and reductively assumes that respect for tradition must undermine reason and universality. Contrary to Strauss's criticism of Edmund Burke, the historical sense may be indispensable to an adequate apprehension of universality. Strauss's abstract, ahistorical conception of natural right distorts genuine universality, Ryn contends. Strauss does not consider the possibility that real universality becomes known to human beings in a concretized, particular form. Strauss and the Straussians have paradoxically taught philosophically unsuspecting American conservatives, not least Roman Catholic intellectuals, to reject tradition in favor of ahistorical theorizing, a bias that flies in the face of the central Christian notion of the Incarnation, which represents a synthesis of the universal and the historical. According to Ryn, the propagation of a purely abstract idea of universality has contributed to the neoconservative advocacy of allegedly universal American principles, which neoconservatives see as justification for American intervention around the world—bringing the blessings of the "West" to the benighted "rest". Strauss's anti-historical thinking connects him and his followers with the French Jacobins, who also regarded tradition as incompatible with virtue and rationality.

What Ryn calls the "new Jacobinism" of the "neoconservative" philosophy is, writes Paul Gottfried, also the rhetoric of Saint-Just and Leon Trotsky, which the philosophically impoverished American Right has taken over with mindless alacrity; Republican operators and think tanks apparently believe they can carry the electorate by appealing to yesterday's leftist clichés.

Response to criticism

In his 2009 book Straussophobia, Peter Minowitz provides a detailed critique of Drury, Xenos, and other critics of Strauss whom he accuses of "bigotry and buffoonery".

In Reading Leo Strauss, Steven B. Smith rejects the link between Strauss and neoconservative thought, arguing that Strauss was never personally active in politics, never endorsed imperialism, and questioned the utility of political philosophy for the practice of politics. In particular, Strauss argued that Plato's myth of the philosopher king should be read as a reductio ad absurdum, and that philosophers should understand politics not in order to influence policy but to ensure philosophy's autonomy from politics. In his review of Reading Leo Strauss, Robert Alter writes that Smith "persuasively sets the record straight on Strauss's political views and on what his writing is really about".

Strauss's daughter, Jenny Strauss Clay, defended Strauss against the charge that he was the "mastermind behind the neoconservative ideologues who control United States foreign policy." "He was a conservative", she says, "insofar as he did not think change is necessarily change for the better." Since contemporary academia "leaned to the left", with its "unquestioned faith in progress and science combined with a queasiness regarding any kind of moral judgment", Strauss stood outside of the academic consensus. Had academia leaned to the right, he would have questioned it, too—and on certain occasions did question the tenets of the right.

Mark Lilla has argued that the attribution to Strauss of neoconservative views contradicts a careful reading of Strauss' actual texts, in particular On Tyranny. Lilla summarizes Strauss as follows:

Philosophy must always be aware of the dangers of tyranny, as a threat to both political decency and the philosophical life. It must understand enough about politics to defend its own autonomy, without falling into the error of thinking that philosophy can shape the political world according to its own lights.

Responding to charges that Strauss's teachings fostered the neoconservative foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration, such as "unrealistic hopes for the spread of liberal democracy through military conquest", Nathan Tarcov, director of the Leo Strauss Center at the University of Chicago, asserts that Strauss as a political philosopher was essentially non-political. After an exegesis of the very limited practical political views to be gleaned from Strauss's writings, Tarcov concludes that "Strauss can remind us of the permanent problems, but we have only ourselves to blame for our faulty solutions to the problems of today."

Bibliography

Books and articles
  • Gesammelte Schriften. Ed. Heinrich Meier. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1996. Four vols. published to date: Vol. 1, Die Religionskritik Spinozas und zugehörige Schriften (rev. ed. 2001); vol. 2, Philosophie und Gesetz, Frühe Schriften (1997); Vol. 3, Hobbes' politische Wissenschaft und zugehörige Schrifte – Briefe (2001); Vol. 4, Politische Philosophie. Studien zum theologisch-politischen Problem (2010). The full series will also include Vol. 5, Über Tyrannis (2013) and Vol. 6, Gedanken über Machiavelli. Deutsche Erstübersetzung (2014).
  • Leo Strauss: The Early Writings (1921–1932). (Trans. from parts of Gesammelte Schriften). Trans. Michael Zank. Albany: SUNY Press, 2002.
  • Die Religionskritik Spinozas als Grundlage seiner Bibelwissenschaft: Untersuchungen zu Spinozas Theologisch-politischem Traktat. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1930.
    • Spinoza's Critique of Religion. (English trans. by Elsa M. Sinclair of Die Religionskritik Spinozas, 1930.) With a new English preface and a trans. of Strauss's 1932 German essay on Carl Schmitt. New York: Schocken, 1965. Reissued without that essay, Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1997.
  • "Anmerkungen zu Carl Schmitt, Der Begriff des Politischen". Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik 67, no. 6 (August–September 1932): 732–49.
    • "Comments on Carl Schmitt's Begriff des Politischen". (English trans. by Elsa M. Sinclair of "Anmerkungen zu Carl Schmitt", 1932.) 331–51 in Spinoza's Critique of Religion, 1965. Reprinted in Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political, ed. and trans. George Schwab. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers U Press, 1976.
    • "Notes on Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political". (English trans. by J. Harvey Lomax of "Anmerkungen zu Carl Schmitt", 1932.) In Heinrich Meier, Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss: The Hidden Dialogue, trans. J. Harvey Lomax. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1995. Reprinted in Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political, ed. and trans. George Schwab. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1996, 2007.
  • Philosophie und Gesetz: Beiträge zum Verständnis Maimunis und seiner Vorläufer. Berlin: Schocken, 1935.
  • The Political Philosophy of Hobbes: Its Basis and Its Genesis. (English trans. by Elsa M. Sinclair from German manuscript.) Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1936. Reissued with new preface, Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1952.
    • Hobbes' politische Wissenschaft in ihrer Genesis. (1935 German original of The Political Philosophy of Hobbes, 1936.) Neuwied am Rhein: Hermann Luchterhand, 1965.
  • "The Spirit of Sparta or the Taste of Xenophon". Social Research 6, no. 4 (Winter 1939): 502–36.
  • "On German Nihilism" (1999, originally a 1941 lecture), Interpretation 26, no. 3 edited by David Janssens and Daniel Tanguay.
  • "Farabi's Plato" American Academy for Jewish Research, Louis Ginzberg Jubilee Volume, 1945. 45 pp.
  • "On a New Interpretation of Plato's Political Philosophy". Social Research 13, no. 3 (Fall 1946): 326–67.
  • "On the Intention of Rousseau". Social Research 14, no. 4 (Winter 1947): 455–87.
  • On Tyranny: An Interpretation of Xenophon's Hiero. Foreword by Alvin Johnson. New York: Political Science Classics, 1948. Reissued Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1950.
    • De la tyrannie. (French trans. of On Tyranny, 1948, with "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero" and Alexandre Kojève's "Tyranny and Wisdom".) Paris: Librairie Gallimard, 1954.
    • On Tyranny. (English edition of De la tyrannie, 1954.) Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1963.
    • On Tyranny. (Revised and expanded edition of On Tyranny, 1963.) Includes Strauss–Kojève correspondence. Ed. Victor Gourevitch and Michael S. Roth. New York: The Free Press, 1991.
  • "On Collingwood’s Philosophy of History". Review of Metaphysics 5, no. 4 (June 1952): 559–86.
  • Persecution and the Art of Writing. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1952. Reissued Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1988.
  • Natural Right and History. (Based on the 1949 Walgreen lectures.) Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1953. Reprinted with new preface, 1971. ISBN 978-0-226-77694-1.
  • "Existentialism" (1956), a public lecture on Martin Heidegger's thought, published in Interpretation, Spring 1995, Vol.22 No. 3: 303–18.
  • Seminar on Plato's Republic, (1957 Lecture), (1961 Lecture). University of Chicago.
  • Thoughts on Machiavelli. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1958. Reissued Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1978.
  • What Is Political Philosophy? and Other Studies. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1959. Reissued Chicago: U of Chicago Press, 1988.
  • On Plato's Symposium . Ed. Seth Benardete. (Edited transcript of 1959 lectures.) Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2001.
  • "'Relativism'". 135–57 in Helmut Schoeck and James W. Wiggins, eds., Relativism and the Study of Man. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand, 1961. Partial reprint, 13–26 in The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism, 1989.
  • History of Political Philosophy. Co-editor with Joseph Cropsey. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1963 (1st ed.), 1972 (2nd ed.), 1987 (3rd ed.).
  • "The Crisis of Our Time", 41–54, and "The Crisis of Political Philosophy", 91–103, in Howard Spaeth, ed., The Predicament of Modern Politics. Detroit: U of Detroit P, 1964.
    • "Political Philosophy and the Crisis of Our Time". (Adaptation of the two essays in Howard Spaeth, ed., The Predicament of Modern Politics, 1964.) 217–42 in George J. Graham, Jr., and George W. Carey, eds., The Post-Behavioral Era: Perspectives on Political Science. New York: David McKay, 1972.
  • The City and Man. (Based on the 1962 Page-Barbour lectures.) Chicago: Rand McNally, 1964.
  • Socrates and Aristophanes. New York: Basic Books, 1966. Reissued Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1980.
  • Liberalism Ancient and Modern. New York: Basic Books, 1968. Reissued with foreword by Allan Bloom, 1989. Reissued Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1995.
  • Xenophon's Socratic Discourse: An Interpretation of the Oeconomicus. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1970.
  • Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's "Beyond Good & Evil". St. John's College, 1971.
  • Xenophon's Socrates. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1972.
  • The Argument and the Action of Plato's Laws. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1975.
  • Political Philosophy: Six Essays by Leo Strauss. Ed. Hilail Gilden. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1975.
  • Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy. Introd. by Thomas L. Pangle. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1983.
  • The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism: An Introduction to the Thought of Leo Strauss – Essays and Lectures by Leo Strauss. Ed. Thomas L. Pangle. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1989.
  • Faith and Political Philosophy: the Correspondence Between Leo Strauss and Eric Voegelin, 1934–1964. Ed. Peter Emberley and Barry Cooper. Introd. by Thomas L. Pangle. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State UP, 1993.
  • Hobbes's Critique of Religion and Related Writings. Ed. and trans. Gabriel Bartlett and Svetozar Minkov. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2011. (Trans. of materials first published in the Gesammelte Schriften, Vol. 3, including an unfinished manuscript by Leo Strauss of a book on Hobbes, written in 1933–1934, and some shorter related writings.)
  • Leo Strauss on Moses Mendelssohn. Edited and translated by Martin D. Yaffe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012. (Annotated translation of ten introductions written by Strauss to a multi-volume critical edition of Mendelssohn's work.)
  • "Exoteric Teaching" (Critical Edition by Hannes Kerber). In Reorientation: Leo Strauss in the 1930s. Edited by Martin D. Yaffe and Richard S. Ruderman. New York: Palgrave, 2014, pp. 275–86.
  • "Lecture Notes for 'Persecution and the Art of Writing'" (Critical Edition by Hannes Kerber). In Reorientation: Leo Strauss in the 1930s. Edited by Martin D. Yaffe and Richard S. Ruderman. New York: Palgrave, 2014, pp. 293–304.
  • Leo Strauss on Nietzsche’s “Thus Spoke Zarathustra”. Edited by Richard L. Velkley. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2017.
  • Leo Strauss on Political Philosophy: Responding to the Challenge of Positivism and Historicism. Edited by Catherine H. Zuckert. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2018.
  • Leo Strauss on Hegel. Edited by Paul Franco. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2019.
Writings about Maimonides and Jewish philosophy
  • Spinoza's Critique of Religion (see above, 1930).
  • Philosophy and Law (see above, 1935).
  • "Quelques remarques sur la science politique de Maïmonide et de Farabi". Revue des études juives 100 (1936): 1–37.
  • "Der Ort der Vorsehungslehre nach der Ansicht Maimunis". Monatschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 81 (1936): 448–56.
  • "The Literary Character of The Guide for the Perplexed" . 38–94 in Persecution and the Art of Writing. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1952.
  • "How to Study Medieval Philosophy" [. Interpretation 23, no. 3 (Spring 1996): 319–338. Previously published, less annotations and fifth paragraph, as "How to Begin to Study Medieval Philosophy" in Pangle (ed.), The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism, 1989 (see above).
  • . Modern Judaism 1, no. 1 (May 1981): 17–45. Reprinted Chap. 1 (I–II) in Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity, 1997 (see below).
  • . Independent Journal of Philosophy 3 (1979), 111–18. Reprinted Chap. 1 (III) in Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity, 1997 (see below).
  • "Maimonides' Statement on Political Science". Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 22 (1953): 115–30.
  • . L'Homme 21, n° 1 (janvier–mars 1981): 5–20. Reprinted Chap. 8 in Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity, 1997 (see below).
  • "How to Begin to Study The Guide of the Perplexed". In The Guide of the Perplexed, Volume One. Trans. Shlomo Pines. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1963.
  • "On the Plan of the Guide of the Perplexed" . Harry Austryn Wolfson Jubilee. Volume (Jerusalem: American Academy for Jewish Research), pp. 775–91.
  • "Notes on Maimonides' Book of Knowledge". 269–83 in Studies in Mysticism and Religion Presented to G. G. Scholem. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1967.
  • Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity: Essays and Lectures in Modern Jewish Thought. Ed. Kenneth Hart Green. Albany: SUNY P, 1997.
  • Leo Strauss on Maimonides: The Complete Writings. Edited by Kenneth Hart Green. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013.

See also

Notes

  1. /straʊs/ STROWSS; German: [ˈleːoː ˈʃtʁaʊs]

References

  1. Joachim Lüders and Ariane Wehner, Mittelhessen – eine Heimat für Juden? Das Schicksal der Familie Strauss aus Kirchhain (Central Hesse – a Homeland for Jews? The Fate of the Strauss Family from Kirchhain) 1989.
  2. In "A Giving of Accounts", published in The College 22 (1) and later reprinted in Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity.
  3. ^ Jewish philosophy and the crisis of modernity (SUNY 1997), Leo Strauss as a Modern Jewish thinker, Kenneth Hart Green, Leo Strauss, page 55
  4. ^ Scholem, Gershom. 1981. Walter Benjamin: The Story of a Friendship. Trans. Harry Zohn, p. 201
  5. ^ The Correspondence of Walter Benjamin and Gershom Scholem, 1932–40, New York 1989, pp. 155–58
  6. Leo Strauss And the Politics of Exile: The Making of a Political Philosopher p. 87
  7. Eugene Sheppard (2014). Leo Strauss and the Politics of Exile: The Making of a Political Philosopher. Brandeis UP. pp. 102–03. ISBN 9781611687699.
  8. Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965 , p. 42.
  9. Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity: Essays and Lectures in Modernity preface p. 6.
  10. "Leo Strauss". Archived from the original on 2021-01-17. Retrieved 2020-12-02.
  11. ^ Leora Batnitzky, Leo Strauss, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 9 April 2021.
  12. ^ Shadia Drury (1998). Strauss, Leo (1899–1973). In The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Taylor and Francis. Retrieved 30 Dec. 2023. doi:10.4324/9780415249126-S092-1
  13. Laurence Lampert, The Enduring Importance of Leo Strauss, University of Chicago Press, 2013, p. 126.
  14. "From these things it is evident, that the city belongs among the things that exist by nature, and that man is by nature a political animal" (Aristotle, The Politics, 1253a1–3).
  15. Steven B. Smith, Reading Leo Strauss: Politics, Philosophy, Judaism, University of Chicago Press, 2007, p. 13.
  16. Pangle, Thomas L., Leo Strauss: An Introduction to His Thought and Intellectual Legacy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2006, p. 51: "Classical political philosophy is not concerned to rule, but it is concerned to understand, political society—and to share its understanding, in a constructive fashion, with the various political societies and their citizens and rulers." Cf. also his "Fundamental Tension" (ibid., p.54f)
  17. Leo Strauss, "An Introduction to Heideggerian Existentialism," 27–46 in The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism, ed. Thomas L. Pangle (Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1989) 29–30.
  18. Velkley, Richard L. (2015). Heidegger, Strauss, and the premises of philosophy : on original forgetting (Paperback 2015 ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226214948.
  19. Leo Strauss, "Relativism", 13–26 in The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism, ed. Thomas L. Pangle (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 25.
  20. Drury, S. B. (1987). "Leo Strauss's Classic Natural Right Teaching". Political Theory. 15 (3): 299–315. doi:10.1177/0090591787015003001. JSTOR 191204. S2CID 143546488.
  21. "Exoteric Teaching" (Critical Edition by Hannes Kerber). In Reorientation: Leo Strauss in the 1930s. Edited by Martin D. Yaffe and Richard S. Ruderman. New York: Palgrave, 2014, p. 275.
  22. Smith, Steven (2007). Reading Leo Strauss. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0226763897. Archived from the original on 2020-11-09. Retrieved 2006-09-20. excerpt entitled "Why Strauss, Why Now?"
  23. Mansfield, Harvey (1975). "Strauss's Machiavelli". Political Theory. JSTOR 190834. ... a book containing much that is appreciably esoteric to any reader stated in a manner either so elusive or so challenging as to cause him to give up trying to understand it.
  24. Damon Linker (October 31, 2014). "What if Leo Strauss was Right?". The Week. Archived from the original on 2014-11-03. Retrieved 2014-11-04.
  25. Michael Paley and Jacob J. Staub in Jewish Philosophy: Medieval and Modern, printed in The Schocken Guide to Jewish Books (1992) p. 215.
  26. Winfried Schröder (ed.), Reading between the lines – Leo Strauss and the history of early modern philosophy, Walter de Gruyter, 2015, p. 39, "According to Robert Hunt, 'he Straussian hermeneutic ... sees the course of intellectual history as an ongoing conversation about important philosophical questions'."
  27. Jew and Philosopher: The Return to Maimonides in the Jewish Thought of Leo Strauss p. 25
  28. Allan Bloom, "Leo Strauss", 235–55 in Giants and Dwarfs: Essays 1960–1990 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990) 238–39.
  29. Faith and Political Philosophy: The Correspondence Between Leo Strauss and Eric Voegelin, 1934–1964, p. 193
  30. Political Philosopher and Jewish Thinker, p. 3
  31. Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss: the hidden dialogue, Heinrich Meier, University of Chicago Press 1995, 123
  32. Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss: the hidden dialogue, Heinrich Meier, University of Chicago Press 1995, 125
  33. Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss: the hidden dialogue, Heinrich Meier, University of Chicago Press 1995
  34. Lilla, Mark (2001), "Alexandre Kojève", The Reckless Mind. Intellectuals in Politics, New York: New York Review Books, p. 131, ISBN 978-0-940322-76-9.
  35. Strauss, Leo, Gourevitch, Victor; Roth, Michael S. (eds.), On Tyranny
  36. Thomas L. Pangle, "Epilogue", 907–38 in History of Political Philosophy, ed. Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987) 907–8.
  37. Leo Strauss, On Tyranny (New York: Free Press, 1991) 22–23, 178.
  38. Leo Strauss, "The Crisis of Our Time", 41–54 in Howard Spaeth, ed., The Predicament of Modern Politics (Detroit: University of Detroit Press, 1964) 47–48.
  39. Leo Strauss, "What Is Political Philosophy?" 9–55 in Leo Strauss, What Is Political Philosophy? and Other Studies (Glencoe, IL: The Free Press, 1959) 18–19.
  40. Leo Strauss, The City and Man (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1964) 10–11.
  41. Leo Strauss, "Plato", 33–89 in History of Political Philosophy, ed. Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987) 68.
  42. Leo Strauss, "Plato", 33–89 in History of Political Philosophy, ed. Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987) 60.
  43. On Tyranny, p. 143
  44. Voegelin, Eric; Strauss, Leo (20 August 2004). "Letter 30: April 18, 1950". In Emberley, Peter; Cooper, Barry (eds.). Faith and Political Philosophy: The Correspondence between Leo Strauss and Eric Voegelin, 1934-1964. University of Missouri. p. 68. ISBN 978-0826215512.
  45. Anonymous (2011-07-15). "Strauss and Voegelin on Popper". Philosophy of Science. Archived from the original on 2013-07-28. Retrieved 4 February 2019.
  46. Leo Strauss, the Straussians, and the American Regime by Kenneth Deutch (1999), p. 104
  47. Strauss, Leo, Natural Right and History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953) p. 164
  48. Adam Smith in His Time and Ours: Designing the Decent Society By Jerry Z. Müller
  49. ^ Jewish philosophy and the crisis of modernity (SUNY 1997), Leo Strauss as a Modern Jewish thinker, Kenneth Hart Green, Leo Strauss, p. 55
  50. Green, K. H. (editor), Strauss, Leo, Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity : Essays and Lectures in Modern Jewish Thought, 1997, State University of New York Press, p. 3
  51. Green, K. H. (editor), Strauss, L., Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity : Essays and Lectures in Modern Jewish Thought, 1997, State University of New York Press, pp. 413–14
  52. see his writings on Max Weber
  53. Strauss felt that one should either be "the philosopher open to the challenge of theology or the theologian open to the challenge of philosophy." see Deutsch, Kenneth L. and Walter Nicgorski Leo Strauss: Political Philosopher and Jewish Thinker pp. 11–12, 1994 Rowman & Littlefield
  54. but where Aquinas saw an amicable interplay between reason and revelation, Strauss saw two impregnable fortresses. per Schall S.J., James V. A Latitude for Statesmanship: Strauss on St. Thomas in Leo Strauss: Political Philosopher and Jewish Thinker, ed. Kenneth L. Deutsch and Walter Nicgorski, pp. 212–15, 1994 Rowman & Littlefield. For an early treatment of Aquinas' understanding of the relation between philosophy and sacred, revealed law, see Strauss's early Philosophy and Law (Philosophie und Gesetz), where Christian medieval theology testifies to a less than amicable opposition between pagan (though not necessarily Platonic or political) philosophy and Biblical morality.
  55. Feser, Edward, "Leo Strauss 101" (a review of Steven B. Smith's Reading Leo Strauss: Politics, Philosophy, Judaism), National Review Online, May 22, 2006. Archived November 15, 2006, at the Wayback Machine
  56. See Natural Right and History, especially p. 119A and Chapter III: "The Origin of the Idea of Natural Right"
  57. Shadia B. Drury, Leo Strauss and the American Right (Palgrave Macmillan; 1999)
  58. Peter Minowitz, Straussophobia: Defending Leo Strauss and Straussians against Shadia Drury and Other Accusers (Lexington Books; 2009)
  59. ^ Approaches to Political Thought, edited by William L. Richter, (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 16 Mar 2009), p. 56
  60. "Definition of PEDAGOGIC". Archived from the original on 2020-10-22. Retrieved 2020-12-26.
  61. ^ Mark C. Henrie (May 5, 2011). "Straussianism". First Principles – ISI Web Journal. Archived from the original on December 21, 2018. Retrieved November 24, 2014.
  62. "Transcript of Harvey Mansfield (IV)". conversationswithbillkristol.org. Archived from the original on 15 March 2018. Retrieved 14 March 2018.
  63. Marchal, Kai (2017). Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss in the Chinese-speaking World: Reorienting the Political. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. p. 7. ISBN 978-1498536264..
  64. Bekesi, Aron B (2019-12-31). "Esoteric philosophy: Leo Strauss and sociolinguistics". Science & Philosophy. 7 (2). doi:10.23756/sp.v7i2.481.
  65. Seymour M. Hersh, "Selective Intelligence" Archived 2014-07-17 at the Wayback Machine, The New Yorker, May 12, 2003. Retrieved June 1, 2007.
  66. Brian Doherty, "Origin of the Specious: Why Do Neoconservatives Doubt Darwin?" Archived 2016-07-31 at the Wayback Machine, Reason Online, July 1997. Retrieved February 16, 2007.
  67. The City and Man, p. 104
  68. Nicholas Xenos, "Leo Strauss and the Rhetoric of the War on Terror," Archived 2021-01-26 at the Wayback Machine Logosjournal.com
  69. Claes G. Ryn, "Leo Strauss and History: The Philosopher as Conspirator", Humanitas, Vol. XVIII, Nos. 1 & 2 (2005).
  70. Paul Gottfried, "Strauss and the Straussians" Archived 2015-06-18 at the Wayback Machine, LewRockwell.com, April 17, 2006. Retrieved February 16, 2007.
  71. Cf. Paul Gottfried, "Paul Gottfried: Archives" Archived 2015-06-18 at the Wayback Machine, Lewrockwell.com. Retrieved February 16, 2007.
  72. Peter Minowitz, Straussophobia: Defending Leo Strauss and Straussians against Shadia Drury and Other Accusers (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2009). Also see "Straussophobia: Six Questions for Peter Minowitz," Harper's Magazine, 9/29/09 Archived 2012-10-19 at the Wayback Machine
  73. Steven B. Smith, excerpt from "Why Strauss, Why Now?" Archived 2020-11-09 at the Wayback Machine, 1–15 in Reading Leo Strauss: Politics, Philosophy, Judaism (Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2006), online posting, press.uchicago.edu. Retrieved June 1, 2007.
  74. Robert Alter, "Neocon or Not?" Archived 2017-08-26 at the Wayback Machine, The New York Times Book Review, June 25, 2006, accessed February 16, 2007, citing Yale scholar Steven B. Smith, Reading Leo Strauss: Politics, Philosophy, Judaism (Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2006).
  75. Jenny Strauss Clay (June 7, 2003). "The Real Leo Strauss". The New York Times. Archived from the original on April 2, 2015. Retrieved March 30, 2015.
  76. Mark Lilla, The Reckless Mind (New York: NY Review of Books, 2001) 133.
  77. Nathan Tarcov, "Will the Real Leo Strauss Please Stand Up" in The American Interest September–October 1986, at "Will the Real Leo Strauss Please Stand Up? - Nathan Tarcov - the American Interest Magazine". Archived from the original on 2010-11-30. Retrieved 2009-06-28.

Further reading

  • Altman, William H. F., The German Stranger: Leo Strauss and National Socialism. Lexington Books, 2011
  • Andreacchio, Marco. "Philosophy and Religion in Leo Strauss : Critical Review of Menon's Interpretation". Interpretation: A Journal of Political Philosophy 46, no. 2 (Spring 2020): 383–98.
  • Behnegar, Nasser, Leo Strauss, Max Weber, And The Scientific Study Of Politics. University of Chicago Press, 2005.
  • Benardete, Seth. Encounters and Reflections: Conversations with Seth Benardete. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2002.
  • Bloom, Allan. "Leo Strauss". 235–55 in Giants and Dwarfs: Essays 1960–1990. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990.
  • Bluhm, Harald. Die Ordnung der Ordnung : das politische Philosophieren von Leo Strauss. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 2002.
  • Brague, Rémi. "Leo Strauss and Maimonides". 93–114 in Leo Strauss's Thought. Ed. Alan Udoff. Boulder: Lynne Reiner, 1991.
  • Brittain, Christopher Craig. "Leo Strauss and Resourceful Odysseus: Rhetorical Violence and the Holy Middle". Canadian Review of American Studies 38, no. 1 (2008): 147–63.
  • Bruell, Christopher. "A Return to Classical Political Philosophy and the Understanding of the American Founding". Review of Politics 53, no. 1 (Winter 1991): 173–86.
  • Chivilò, Giampiero and Menon, Marco (eds). Tirannide e filosofia: Con un saggio di Leo Strauss ed un inedito di Gaston Fessard sj. Venezia: Edizioni Ca' Foscari, 2015. ISBN 978-88-6969-032-7.
  • Colen, Jose. Facts and values. London: Plusprint, 2012.
  • Deutsch, Kenneth L. and John A. Murley, eds. Leo Strauss, the Straussians, and the American Regime. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999. ISBN 978-0-8476-8692-6.
  • Drury, Shadia B. Leo Strauss and the American Right. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1999.
  • Drury, Shadia B. The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1988.
  • Gottfried, Paul. Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America: A Critical Appraisal (Cambridge University Press; 2011)
  • Gourevitch, Victor. "Philosophy and Politics I–II". Review of Metaphysics 22, nos. 1–2 (September–December 1968): 58–84, 281–328.
  • Green, Kenneth. Jew and Philosopher: The Return to Maimonides in the Jewish Thought of Leo Strauss. Albany: SUNY Press, 1993.
  • "A Giving of Accounts: Jacob Kelin and Leo Strauss". In Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity: Essays and Lectures in Modern Jewish Thought. Ed. Kenneth H. Green. Albany: SUNY Press, 1997.
  • Havers, Grant N. Leo Strauss and Anglo-American Democracy: A Conservative Critique. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 2013.
  • Holmes, Stephen. The Anatomy of Antiliberalism. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1996. ISBN 978-0-674-03185-2.
  • Howse, Robert. Leo Strauss, Man of Peace, Cambridge University Press, 2014]
  • Ivry, Alfred L. "Leo Strauss on Maimonides". 75–91 in Leo Strauss's Thought. Ed. Alan Udoff. Boulder: Lynne Reiner, 1991.
  • Janssens, David. Between Athens and Jerusalem. Philosophy, Prophecy, and Politics in Leo Strauss's Early Thought. Albany: SUNY Press, 2008.
  • Kartheininger, Markus. "Heterogenität. Politische Philosophie im Frühwerk von Leo Strauss". München: Fink, 2006. ISBN 978-3-7705-4378-6.
  • Kartheininger, Markus. "Aristokratisierung des Geistes". In: Kartheininger, Markus/ Hutter, Axel (ed.). "Bildung als Mittel und Selbstzweck". Freiburg: Alber, 2009, pp. 157–208. ISBN 978-3-495-48393-0.
  • Kerber, Hannes. "Strauss and Schleiermacher. An Introduction to 'Exoteric Teaching". In Reorientation: Leo Strauss in the 1930s. Ed. Yaffe/Ruderman. New York: Palgrave, 2014, pp. 203–14.
  • Kerber, Hannes. "Leo Strauss on Exoteric Writing". Interpretation. 46, no. 1 (2019): 3–25.
  • Kinzel, Till. Platonische Kulturkritik in Amerika. Studien zu Allan Blooms The Closing of the American Mind. Berlin: Duncker und Humblot, 2002.
  • Kochin, Michael S. "Morality, Nature, and Esotericism in Leo Strauss's Persecution and the Art of Writing". Review of Politics 64, no. 2 (Spring 2002): 261–83.
  • Lampert, Laurence. Leo Strauss and Nietzsche. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1996.
  • Lutz, Mark J. “Living the Theologico-Political Problem: Leo Strauss on the Common Ground of Philosophy and Theology.” The European Legacy. 2018. Vol. 23. No. 8. pp. 1–25.
  • Macpherson, C. B. "Hobbes's Bourgeois Man". In Democratic Theory: Essays in Retrieval. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972.
  • Major, Rafael (ed.). Leo Strauss's Defense of the Philosophic Life: Reading "What is Political Philosophy?". University of Chicago Press, 2013. ISBN 978-0-226-92420-5 (cloth)
  • Marchal, Kai, Shaw, Carl K.Y. Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss in the Chinese-speaking World: Reorienting the Political. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2017.
  • McAllister, Ted V. Revolt Against Modernity: Leo Strauss, Eric Voegelin & the Search for Postliberal Order. Lawrence, KS: UP of Kansas. 1996.
  • McWilliams, Wilson Carey. "Leo Strauss and the Dignity of American Political Thought". Review of Politics 60, no. 2 (Spring 1998): 231–46.
  • Meier, Heinrich. Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss: The Hidden Dialogue, Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1995.
  • Meier, Heinrich. "Editor's Introduction". Gesammelte Schriften. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1996. 3 vols.
  • Meier, Heinrich. Leo Strauss and the Theologico-Political Problem. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006.
  • Meier, Heinrich. How Strauss Became Strauss". 363–82 in Enlightening Revolutions: Essays in Honor of Ralph Lerner. Ed. Svetozar Minkov. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2006.
  • Melzer, Arthur. "Esotericism and the Critique of Historicism". American Political Science Review 100 (2006): 279–95.
  • Minowitz, Peter. "Machiavellianism Come of Age? Leo Strauss on Modernity and Economics". The Political Science Reviewer 22 (1993): 157–97.
  • Minowitz, Peter. Straussophobia: Defending Leo Strauss and Straussians against Shadia Drury and Other Accusers. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2009.
  • Momigliano, Arnaldo. "Hermeneutics and Classical Political Thought in Leo Strauss", 178–89 in Essays on Ancient and Modern Judaism. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1994.
  • Moyn, Samuel. "From experience to law: Leo Strauss and the Weimar crisis of the philosophy of religion." History of European Ideas 33, (2007): 174–94.
  • Neumann, Harry. Liberalism. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic P, 1991.
  • Norton, Anne. Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire. New Haven & London: Yale UP, 2004.
  • Pangle, Thomas L. "The Epistolary Dialogue Between Leo Strauss and Eric Voegelin". Review of Politics 53, no. 1 (Winter 1991): 100–25.
  • Minowitz, Peter. "Leo Strauss's Perspective on Modern Politics". Perspectives on Political Science 33, no. 4 (Fall 2004): 197–203.
  • Minowitz, Peter. Leo Strauss: An Introduction to His Thought and Intellectual Legacy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2006.
  • Pelluchon, Corine. Leo Strauss and the Crisis of Rationalism: Another Reason, Another Enlightenment, Robert Howse (tr.), SUNY Press, 2014.
  • Piccinini, Irene Abigail. Una guida fedele. L'influenza di Hermann Cohen sul pensiero di Leo Strauss. Torino: Trauben, 2007. ISBN 978-88-89909-31-7.
  • Rosen, Stanley. "Hermeneutics as Politics". 87–140 in Hermeneutics as Politics, New York: Oxford UP, 1987.
  • Sheppard, Eugene R. Leo Strauss and the Politics of Exile: The Making of a Political Philosopher. Waltham, MA: Brandeis UP, 2006. ISBN 978-1-58465-600-5.
  • Shorris, Earl. "Ignoble Liars: Leo Strauss, George Bush, and the Philosophy of Mass Deception". Harper's Magazine 308, issue 1849 (June 2004): 65–71.
  • Smith, Steven B. Reading Leo Strauss: Politics, Philosophy, Judaism. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2006. ISBN 978-0-226-76402-3. (Introd: "Why Strauss, Why Now?", online posting, press.uchicago.edu.)
  • Smith, Steven B. (editor). The Cambridge Companion to Leo Strauss. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2009. ISBN 978-0-521-70399-4.
  • Steiner, Stephan: Weimar in Amerika. Leo Strauss' Politische Philosophie, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2013.
  • Strong, Tracy B. "Leo Strauss and the Demos," The European Legacy (October, 2012)
  • Tanguay, Daniel. Leo Strauss: une biographie intellectuelle. Paris, 2005. ISBN 978-2-253-13067-3.
  • Tarcov, Nathan. "On a Certain Critique of 'Straussianism' ". Review of Politics 53, no. 1 (Winter 1991): 3–18.
  • Tarcov, Nathan. "Philosophy and History: Tradition and Interpretation in the Work of Leo Strauss". Polity 16, no. 1 (Autumn 1983): 5–29.
  • Tarcov, Nathan and Thomas L. Pangle, "Epilogue: Leo Strauss and the History of Political Philosophy". 907–38 in History of Political Philosophy. Ed. Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey. 3rd ed. 1963; Chicago and London, U of Chicago P, 1987.
  • Tepper, Aryeh. "Progressive Minds, Conservative Politics: Leo Strauss' Later Writings on Maimonides." SUNY: 2013.
  • Thompson, Bradley C. (with Yaron Brook). Neoconservatism. An Obituary for an Idea. Boulder/London: Paradigm Publishers, 2010. pp. 55–131. ISBN 978-1-59451-831-7.
  • Velkley, Richard. Heidegger, Strauss, and the Premises of Philosophy: On Original Forgetting. University of Chicago Press, 2011.
  • West, Thomas G. "Jaffa Versus Mansfield: Does America Have a Constitutional or a "Declaration of Independence" Soul?" Perspectives on Political Science 31, no. 4 (Fall 2002): 35–46.
  • Xenos, Nicholas. Cloaked in virtue: Unveiling Leo Strauss and the Rhetoric of American Foreign Policy. New York, Routledge Press, 2008.
  • Zuckert, Catherine H. Postmodern Platos. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1996.
  • Zuckert, Catherine H., and Michael Zuckert. The Truth about Leo Strauss. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2006.

Strauss family

  • Lüders, Joachim and Ariane Wehner. Mittelhessen – eine Heimat für Juden? Das Schicksal der Familie Strauss aus Kirchhain. Marburg: Gymnasium Philippinum, 1989. (In German; English translation: Central Hesse – a Homeland for Jews? The Fate of the Strauss Family from Kirchhain.)

External links

Library resources about
Leo Strauss
By Leo Strauss
Leo Strauss
Books
Miscellaneous
Links to related articles
Continental philosophy
Philosophers
Theories
Concepts
Political philosophy
Terms
Government
Ideologies
Concepts
Philosophers
Antiquity
Middle Ages
Early modern
period
18th and 19th
centuries
20th and 21st
centuries
Works
Related
Neoconservatism
General
Figures
Major influences
Organisations
Publications
Related articles
Platonists
Ancient
Academics
Old
Skeptics
Middle
New
Middle Platonists
Neoplatonists
Academy
Medieval
Modern
Renaissance
Florentine Academy
Cambridge
  • Ralph Cudworth
  • Henry More
  • Anne Conway
  • Contemporary
    Analytic
  • Gottlob Frege
  • G. E. Moore
  • Kurt Gödel
  • Alonzo Church
  • Roderick Chisholm
  • Michael Dummett
  • W. V. O. Quine
  • David Kaplan
  • Saul Kripke
  • Jan Łukasiewicz
  • Alvin Plantinga
  • Peter van Inwagen
  • Nicholas Wolterstorff
  • Crispin Wright
  • Edward N. Zalta
  • Continental
    Categories: