Leo Strauss (September 20, 1899 - October 18, 1973), was an influential political philosopher, born in Kirchhain (near Marburg), Hessen, Germany, to Hugo Strauss and Jennie David.

At the age of 17, when a student at the famous Gymnasium Philippinum (from which also Johannes Althusius and Carl J. Friedrich graduated), he became a political Zionist, although this - as well as his religious beliefs - changed frequently during his youth and early adulthood. Strauss received his higher education within the German university system, notably at Marburg, Freiburg, and Hamburg, where he took his PhD under Ernst Cassirer.

In 1932, Strauss married Marie Bernsohn in Paris, France. In 1934, he moved to England where, in 1935, he accepted a position at Cambridge University. In 1937, Strauss moved to the United States, where he became a Research Fellow in the Department of History at Columbia University. Between 1938 and 1948, he lectured in political science at the New School for Social Research. In 1944, he became a US citizen and from 1949 until 1968, Strauss served as a member of the faculty of the University of Chicago, chiefly as a professor of political philosophy. His primary influence in academia remains confined to political science departments.

In Saul Bellow's quasi-biographical novel Ravelstein, (2001) the minor character Davarr is based on Strauss, while the central character of Ravelstein represents Strauss' protegé Allan Bloom.

Contents

1 Philosophy 1.1 Characterization of Straussianism 1.2 Straussian Schools 2 Straussian Sources 3 Criticism 4 Bibliography 5 References

Philosophy

Straussianism, as Strauss's philosophy has come to be called, is predicated on the belief that 20th century relativism, scientism, historicism, and nihilism have been responsible for the deterioration of modern society and philosophy. Some Straussians believe that "universal principles of right" exist and are knowable through careful study of those philosophers who believed in such principles, especially Plato and Aristotle. 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 historicity.

In "Natural Right and History" Strauss begins with a critique of the epistemology of Max Weber, and then goes on to discuss the evolution of Natural Right and Natural Law with an analysis of the thought of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. He ends with a critique of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Edmund Burke. Throughout the work Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, and Montesquieu are referenced and discussed. A selection of Strauss's essays published under the title, "The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism" offers an introduction to his thinking: "Social Science and Humanism", "An Introduction to Heideggerian Existentialism", "On Classical Political Philosophy", "Thucydides and the Meaning of Political History", and "How to Begin to Study Medieval Philosophy" are topics discussed. Certainly much of his philosophy is a reaction to the works of Martin Heidegger, as Strauss and his lifelong friend Jacob Klein had numerous encounters with Heidegger when they were young men. Indeed, Strauss wrote that Heidegger's thinking must be understood and confronted before any complete formulation of modern political theory is possible.

Strauss approached the ideas of Nietzsche (and Kierkegaard) from his understanding of the work of Hiedegger which he placed under the general rubric of "existentialism"-a movement with a "flabby periphery" but a "hard center" (see his 1961 essay, Relativism and the Study of Man). He wrote that Nietzsche was the first philosopher to properly understand relativism, an idea grounded in a general acceptance of Hegelian historicism. Hegel postulated an end of history. Nietzsche, for his part, saw that "our own principles, including the belief in progress, will become as relative as all earlier principles had shown themselves to be." In fine, "the only way out seems to be that one turn one's back on this lesson of history, that one voluntarily choose life-giving delusion instead of deadly truth, that one fabricate a myth." It was Strauss's work to show a way out of relativism.

There exists a controversy surrounding Strauss's interpretation of the existing philosophical canon. Strauss believed that the writings of many philosophers contained both an exoteric (public) and esoteric (private or hidden) teaching. For instance, in "Natural Right and History" he contrasts the views of Locke both from a traditional perspective wherein the idea of Natural Law within a Christian theological ground is presumed, and another more radical view contrary to this usual interpretation. To support his contention he mentions Lessing's commentary on Leibniz, and Schleiermacher's Platonic studies. But, according to Strauss, generally this kind of exoteric/esoteric dichotomy became unused by the time of Kant.

Strauss believed that in Plato's Republic, the representative of Plato's true thinking on politics and society was not Socrates, as is generally thought, but Thrasymachus. Strauss believed that Plato used Socrates (who argued that justice was the implementation of goals that led to the greatest harmony, and thus to happiness) to display skill in making the weaker argument appear better, whereas Thrasymachus' argument that justice was the exercise of power was the argument that Plato actually believed to be the stronger one.

Characterization of Straussianism

Straussianism is difficult to characterize, as it is more a loose group of scholars who analyze texts in the same manner and keep the same questions in mind while doing so. Primarily, Strauss is recognized for his rediscovery of a manner of writing employed by philosophers. In Persecution and the Art of Writing Strauss recognized that philosophy is ultimately political and that philosophers wrote with political intent. Given that philosophy is necessarily radical relative to common opinion it was necessary for a philosopher to conceal his intent from the majority of the populace, both for their sake (i.e. philosophical challenges to convention have led to many deadly social experiments) and for the philosopher's own sake (i.e. Socrates was put to death by the many for his radical criticism of public opinion).

In addition to what has been discussed above, Strauss constantly stressed the importance of two dichotomies in political philosophy: Athens and Jerusalem (reason vs. revelation) and ancient versus modern political philosophy. Strauss believed that the divide between modern and ancient philosophy, and the dilemma that permeates the modern era, is the relative weight given to the roles of reason and faith in human affairs. Strauss believed that the heavy stress on reason in the works of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, which form the foundation of much of modern political philosophy inasmuch as they serve as the foreground for the notion that human beings more often than not act in rational self-interest, were inadequate bases on which to ground social interaction. Indeed, he believed that an overemphasis on reason led to the deterioration of society.

Straussian Schools

Straussianism is generally divided into two schools: The East-coast and West-coast (the East-coast being represented by the late Allan Bloom and the West-coast by Harry V. Jaffa), but this distinction is overformal, as it is an outgrowth of a personal debate between two individuals, rather than two formalized sets of beliefs. Jaffa has criticized the interpretation of Strauss given by Bloom and the so-called "East-coast" school, as in Jaffa's view this school saw Strauss's esoteric teachings as being similar to Strauss's interpretation of Friedrich Nietzsche.

Notable Straussians include: Allan Bloom, Thomas Pangle, Leon Kass, Harry V. Jaffa, Martin Diamond, Ralph Lerner, and George Anastaplo. Leo Strauss saw himself as a conservative, and for the most part, "Straussians" have become closely associated with certain factions within the U.S. Republican Party. There are, however, Straussians of all stripes: liberals, conservatives, philosophers, metaphysicians, and students of jurisprudence.

Straussian Sources

For a good introduction to Strauss read What is Political Philosophy from University of Chicago Press, and a good introduction to the Straussian approach to political philosophy read History of Political Philosophy edited by Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey (an anthology with contributions by various Straussian academics).

Criticism

Strausshas (http://www.straussian.net/) been criticised for his influence on the modern neo-conservative movement (See for example, Irving Kristol). Strauss was a teacher and a philosopher. Strauss's written work is complex, and offers many interpretations, perhaps deliberately so. His primary method of writing was exegetical analysis of major philosophical works.

Bibliography

• The Political Philosophy of Hobbes: Its Basis and Genesis
• On Tyranny: An Interpretation of Xenophon's Hiero
• Persecution and the Art of Writing
• Natural Right and History
• Thoughts on Machiavelli
• What is Political Philosophy?
• History of Political Philosophy, co-editor
• The City and Man
• Socrates and Aristophanes
• Liberalism Ancient and Modern
• Xenophon's Socratic Discourse: An Interpretation of the "Oeconomicus"
• Xenophon's Socrates
• The Argument and the Action of Plato's Laws
• Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy
• Philosophy and Law
• Spinoza's Critique of Religion
• The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism

References

• Ted V. McAllister. 1996. "Revolt Against Modernity : Leo Strauss, Eric Voegelin & the Search for Postliberal Order". Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
• Leo Strauss. 1958. "Thoughts on Machiavelli". Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

de:Leo Strauss fr:Leo Strauss