Leo Strauss and the Problem of Political Philosophy by Michael P. Zuckert (PDF)

Description

Leo Strauss and his alleged political influence regarding the Iraq War have in recent years been the subject of significant media attention, including stories in the Wall Street Journal and New York Times.Time magazine even called him “one of the most influential men in American politics.” With The Truth about Leo Strauss, Michael and Catherine Zuckert challenged the many claims and speculations about this notoriously complex thinker. Now, with Leo Strauss and the Problem of Political Philosophy, they turn their attention to a searching and more comprehensive interpretation of Strauss’s thought as a whole, using the many manifestations of the “problem of political philosophy” as their touchstone. For Strauss, political philosophy presented a “problem” to which there have been a variety of solutions proposed over the course of Western history. Strauss’s work, they show, revolved around recovering—and restoring—political philosophy to its original Socratic form. Since positivism and historicism represented two intellectual currents that undermined the possibility of a Socratic political philosophy, the first part of the book is devoted to Strauss’s critique of these two positions. Then, the authors explore Strauss’s interpretation of the history of philosophy and both ancient and modern canonical political philosophers, including Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, and Locke. Strauss’s often-unconventional readings of these philosophers, they argue, pointed to solutions to the problem of political philosophy. Finally, the authors examine Strauss’s thought in the context of the twentieth century, when his chief interlocutors were Schmitt, Husserl, Heidegger, and Nietzsche. The most penetrating and capacious treatment of the political philosophy of this complex and often misunderstood thinker, from his early years to his last works, Leo Strauss and the Problem of Political Philosophy reveals Strauss’s writings as an attempt to show that the distinctive characteristics of ancient and modern thought derive from different modes of solving the problem of political philosophy and reveal why he considered the ancient solution both philosophically and politically superior.

User’s Reviews

Reviews from Amazon users which were colected at the time this book was published on the website:

⭐Divides Strauss followers into four groups and gives examples of them. People misinterpret Strauss causing more division. The author was a student of Strauss who was a student of Heidegger.

⭐If you see through what is written you discover Thucydides and Lucretius—“a wise human does not have to repeat himself” and what Strauss wrote regarding T&L is well worth reading

⭐Will allow a close reader of philosophy and Strauss new insights into his paradigm.

⭐OK

⭐In Leo Strauss and the Problem of Political Philosophy, Michael and Catherine Zuckert have produced a trustworthy, “mainstream” Straussian overview of Strauss’s thought that also brings to light different trends in Straussian interpretation. The book is very accessible to the generally educated lay reader (like myself) who simply wants to know more about Strauss. In fact, this book is clear and straightforward enough to serve as a great introduction to this elusive thinker prior to reading his actual texts. At the same time, the book is also highly sophisticated and erudite, and one gets the sense here that the authors are trying to produce an enduring book. (By way of comparison, this is a much less polemical effort than their earlier, though still valuable, The Truth About Leo Strauss.) I think the Zuckerts manage to be both scholarly and accessible by taking great care to build their complex book “from the ground up.” Though they place fairly heavy demands upon the reader, they do not assume their audience begins with much by way of Straussian background knowledge. Since the 2 authors were obviously attentive and appreciative students of Strauss, it might seem surprising that after ably articulating Strauss’s views they end this book by raising some serious questions regarding Strauss’s work. I would not wish to overstate this aspect of the text, since the book in general is far more appreciative than critical. Nevertheless, the criticism is there. However, perhaps the Zuckerts’ criticism (to the extent that it is present) is not surprising at all. The Zuckerts treat Strauss as a Socratic skeptic, and if Strauss helped teach students to be skeptics, it is only natural that such skepticism would ultimately turn a critical eye to Strauss’s own history of political philosophy.The prologue is very useful, discussing and offering productive ways to think about different controversial aspects of Strauss’s work that sometimes serve as a barrier to understanding. These include the complicated relationship between political philosophy and historical studies, the question of esoteric writing (especially as applied to Strauss himself), and the multifarious yet related meanings attached to the term political philosophy. By articulating the various meanings Strauss gives to political philosophy, the Zuckerts bring to light the multiple problems of political philosophy, thereby laying the foundation for serious engagement with their text.The book is divided into three sections. The first deals with Strauss’s treatment of positivism and historicism, which Strauss saw as obstacles to the recovery of political philosophy. (Historicism is the more worthy foe, positivism is seen as an untenable halfway house between science and historicism.) The second, middle section is the heart of the book. It deals with Strauss’s reading of the history of political philosophy, the conflict between Athens & Jerusalem, and Strauss’s call for the West to “return” to the lived tension between the irreducible alternatives represented by these two cities. This section also has wonderful chapters on Strauss’s treatment of different key philosophers. Strauss is of course linked with Platonic political philosophy, though here his highly unorthodox reading of Plato is brought to light. The Zuckerts also make a point of arguing that Strauss is not an Aristotelian, and show how in The City and Man Strauss brought attention to a usually overlooked connection between Aristotelianism and the coming of modernity. Speaking of modernity, the Zuckerts examine 4 of Strauss’s texts (three on Machiavelli and one on Marsilius of Padua) in order to show how Strauss over time refined his views on Machiavelli’s break with classical political philosophy. Similarly, the Zuckerts contend that Strauss’s interpretation of Locke, the most successful of modern political philosophers, improved over time. The essay on Locke in What Is Political Philosophy? is treated as superior to Strauss’s earlier handling of Locke in Natural Right And History: the later essay offered a philosophical critique of natural law that remained merely hypothetical in the earlier work.The third section of the book deals with Strauss in the 20th century. There is a defense against extreme critics of Strauss who view him as some sort of radical right- winger. There is an exploration of Strauss as a Jewish thinker, and an examination of Strauss as a champion of liberal education. The most valuable chapter in section 3-and possibly my favorite chapter in the whole book-deals with Straussians. In an earlier work the Zuckerts spent time distinguishing between East coast and West Coast Straussianism. In this book, the Zuckerts take a different approach, grouping Straussian communities based on the handling of 2 basic issues. As to the issue of Strauss’s reason vs. revelation theme and its import for the status of philosophical activity, the Zuckerts distinguish Rationalists, Decisionists, Faith-based Straussians and Zetetics. This classification seems sound, as does the Zuckerts’ commentary on these positions. The authors see rationalism as the least defensible position with regards to Strauss’s body of work, because the rationalists deny the tension between Athens and Jerusalem that lies at the heart of Strauss’s work. In contrast, The Zuckerts see the Decisionists and Faith-based Straussians as seriously engaged with Strauss’s reason vs. revelation problematic, yet their positions and arguments mark them as Straussian outliers. The Zuckerts view the zetetics as most clearly aligned with Strauss, who defended philosophy as a distinctive way of life even in the face of the Athens/Jerusalem tension and the challenge this tension presents to philosophy. The second great issue the Zuckerts think Straussians divide on is the question of Plato vs. Aristotle, which is actually a question concerning the status of morality. It becomes clearer by reading the entire book than by reading just this chapter where the Zuckerts stand on this question. The Zuckerts affirm Strauss’s Platonism.The conclusion traverses ground that has been covered and raises some basic objections to Strauss’s work. Though these objections are not really explored in great detail, they are very important objections, and, if taken seriously, cast doubt on Strauss’s whole reading of the history of political philosophy. (To take just one “for instance,” the Zuckerts entertain the notion that Strauss distorts the thought of the classical philosophers by interpreting them in light of his reading of Maimonides and Al Farabi. And Strauss’s reading of the classics is obviously essential to his whole system.) However, the Zuckerts’ criticism is but a small part of what is clearly a “pro Strauss” book. It may whet the appetite of some curious readers, but such readers clearly cannot rest satisfied with the Zuckerts. If one wants to experience a full scale assault on the Straussian hermeneutic that the Zuckerts begin to question, one would do well to read Paul Gottfried’s book on Leo Strauss, a book that seems to me as important a text for understanding Strauss and the Straussians as the Zuckerts’ impressive text.

⭐This is a well-written thoughtful treatment of a number of Strauss’s key ideas and texts by two of his former students. A balanced and sober view is provided of some of the controversies and divisions within the world of Straussianism. The critique of Heinrich Meier’s notion that Strauss had a refutation of revelation is particularly well-taken and much needed.The book does not convey however the intensity and complexity of Strauss’s intellectual journey, for example wrongly considering that Strauss had little concern with Schmitt and Schmitteanism after the 1930s, and devoting but a few pages in a long book to the fascinating and central work, Thoughts on Machiavelli.

Keywords

Free Download Leo Strauss and the Problem of Political Philosophy in PDF format
Leo Strauss and the Problem of Political Philosophy PDF Free Download
Download Leo Strauss and the Problem of Political Philosophy 2014 PDF Free
Leo Strauss and the Problem of Political Philosophy 2014 PDF Free Download
Download Leo Strauss and the Problem of Political Philosophy PDF
Free Download Ebook Leo Strauss and the Problem of Political Philosophy