Leo
Strauss
(1899 - 1973)
Leo Strauss (September 20, 1899 – October 18, 1973), was a German born Jew and naturalized American political philosopher, who specialized in the study of classical philosophy. He spent most of his career as a Political Science Professor at the University of Chicago, where he taught several generations of devoted students, as well as publishing fifteen books. He is considered to be one of the leading intellectual sources of neoconservatism in the United States.
Biography
Leo Strauss was born an Orthodox Jew in the small town of Kirchhain, (near Marburg), Hessen, in Germany on September 20, 1899, to Hugo and Jennie Strauss née David. His father owned and ran, together with a brother, a farming supplies and livestock business that they inherited from their father, Meyer (b. 1835)—a prominent and outspoken leader of the Jewish community, to whom Leo Strauss dedicated his second book.
Leo Strauss was enrolled at the famous Gymnasium Philippinum in nearby Marburg (from which Johannes Althusius and Carl J. Friedrich also graduated) in Easter 1912 and graduated in 1917. During that time, he boarded with the family of the Marburg Cantor Strauss (no relation), a home that had been a meeting place for the followers of the neo-Kantian philosopher, Herman Cohen. He served in the German army during the last stage of World War One from July 5, 1917 to December 1918.
Strauss subsequently enrolled in the University of Hamburg, where he received his doctorate in 1921 with a thesis entitled "On the Problem of Knowledge in the Philosophical Doctrine of F. H. Jacobi," which was supervised by Ernst Cassirer. He also attended courses at the Universities of Freiburg and Marburg, including some by Edmund Husserl and his pupil Martin Heidegger. Strauss kept some distance from Heidegger. Strauss's closest friend was Jacob Klein, but he also was on friendly and engaged intellectual terms with Karl Löwith, Gerhard Krüger, Julius Guttman, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Franz Rosenzweig (to whom Strauss dedicated his first book), Gershom Scholem, Alexander Altmann, and the great Arabist Paul Kraus, who married Strauss's sister Bettina (Strauss and his wife later adopted their baby child, after both parents had died in the Near East). With several of these old friends, Strauss carried on vigorous epistolary exchanges later in life; and many of these letters are now being published in the Gesammelte Schriften as well as elsewhere, some in translation from the German. Strauss had also been engaged in an important discourse with Carl Schmitt, who was instrumental in Strauss' receiving a Rockefeller Fellowship, but after Strauss had left Germany, he ceased communication with Schmitt and would not reply to overtures by the latter after the end of the War, either.
After receiving a Rockefeller Fellowship in 1932, Strauss left his position at the Academy of Jewish Research in Berlin for Paris. He never returned to Germany, except for a few short days twenty years later. There he married Marie (Miriam) Bernsohn, a widow with a young child whom he had known previously in Germany. He adopted his wife's son and never did have a biological child of his own. In Paris, Strauss became a close and lifelong friend of Alexandre Kojeve, and was on friendly terms with Raymond Aron, Alexandre Koyre, and Etienne Gilson. Refusing, because of the coming to power of the Nazis, to return to live in Germany, Strauss found shelter, after some vicissitudes, in England where, in 1935, he was able to gain a temporary and lowly position at University of Cambridge. While in England, he became a close friend of R. H. Tawney.
Unable to find permanent employment in England, Strauss moved in 1937 to the United States, under the patronage of Harold Laski, who generously bestowed on Strauss a lectureship for a few weeks that was at his disposal. After a short and precarious stint as a Research Fellow in the Department of History at Columbia University, Strauss secured a tenuous position at the New School for Social Research in New York City, where, between 1938 and 1948, he eeked out a hand-to-mouth living on the political science faculty. In 1944, he became a US citizen and in 1949 he was hired as a professor of political science at the University of Chicago and received for the first time in his life a decent living wage. Strauss held the Robert Maynard Hutchins Distinguished Service Professorship there until 1969 when he moved to Claremont Graduate School in California for a year and then to St. John's College in 1970, where he was the Scott Buchanan Distinguished Scholar in Residence until his death in 1973.
Philosophy
For Strauss, politics and philosophy were necessarily intertwined at their roots. He regarded the trial and death of Socrates as the moment in which political philosophy, as understood by Strauss, came to light. Until Socrates' life and death in Athens, philosophers were relatively free to pursue the study of nature and politics. Strauss mentions in The City and Man that Aristotle traces the first philosopher concerned with politics to have been a city planner many generations before Socrates. Yet Socrates was not a political philosopher in this sense- the sense that is generally understood today- a man or women who philosophically studies political phenomena. Rather, Socrates was the first philosopher who was forced by the polis, or city, to treat philosophy politically. Thus Strauss considered one of the most important moments in the history of philosophy to be the argument by Socrates and his students that philosophers or scientists could not study nature without considering their own human nature, which, in the famous phrase of Aristotle, is "political." The trial of Socrates was the first act of a "political" philosophy, and Plato’s dialogues were the purest form of the political treatment of philosophy, their sole comprehensive theme being the life and death of Socrates, the philosopher par excellence for Strauss and many of his students.
Strauss made the distinction between "scholars" and "philosophers" and called himself a scholar, not a philosopher. He wrote that today, most who call themselves philosophers are, at best, mere scholars, who are cautious and methodical, not bold. Still, he argued that while the great thinkers are bold, they also see pitfalls whereas the scholar sees sure ground. Finally, scholars become possible because the great thinkers disagree on fundamental points, and these disagreements create the possibility for scholars to reason.
In Natural Right and History Strauss begins with a critique of the epistemology of Max Weber, follows with a brief engagement with the relativism of Martin Heidegger (who goes unnamed), and continues with a discussion of the evolution of Natural Right with an analysis of the thought of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. He ends with a critique of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Edmund Burke. At the heart of the book are the sections of classical political philosophy, the work of Plato, Aristotle and Cicero. 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 among his topics. 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. For Strauss, Plato was the philosopher who could match Heidegger.
Strauss partially approached the ideas of Friedrich Nietzsche and Søren Kierkegaard through his understanding of Heidegger which he placed under the general rubric of "existentialism", a movement with a "flabby periphery" but a "hard center" (see his 1961 essay, Relativism and the Study of Man). He wrote that Nietzsche was the first philosopher to properly understand relativism, an idea grounded in a general acceptance of Hegelian historicism. Yet Martin Heidegger sanitized and politicized Nietzsche. Where Nietzsche saw that "our own principles, including the belief in progress, will become as relative as all earlier principles had shown themselves to be" and "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." Heidegger saw this- the nihilism that Nietzsche regarded as unmitigated tragedy- as an opening or opportunity for a new horizon of human existence- a "myth" formed by mankind and not guided by a defective Western conception of Being Heidegger traced to Plato. For Strauss, as evidenced in his published correspondence with Alexandre Kojève, the possibility that Hegel was correct when he postulated an end of history meant an end to philosophy, and an end to nature as understood by classical political philosophy. Strauss was much more sympathetic to Nietzsche's terror at this prospect compared to Heidegger's belief that nihilism, properly understood, contained the possibility of mankind's salvation.
Strauss on reading
In 1952 Strauss published Persecution and the Art of Writing; a work that advanced the possibility that philosophers wrote esoterically to avoid persecution by the state or religious authority, while also being able to reach potential philosophers within the pious faithful. From this point on in his scholarship, Strauss deepened his conception of this means of communication between philosophers and “potential knowers”. Stemming from his study of Maimonides and Al Farabi, and then extended to his reading of Plato (he mentions particularly the discussion of writing in the Phaedrus) Strauss thought that an esoteric text was the proper type for philosophic learning. Rather than simply outlining the philosopher's thoughts, the esoteric text forces readers to do their own thinking and learning. As Socrates says in the Phaedrus writing does not respond when questioned, but this type of writing invites a kind of dialogue with the reader, thereby reducing the problems of the written word. It was therefore also a teaching tool, and even a filter to help prevent the creation of Alcibiades-like students. One of the political dangers Strauss pointed to was the danger of students' too quickly accepting dangerous ideas. This was indeed also relevant in the trial of Socrates, where his relationship with Alcibiades was used against him.
Ultimately, Strauss believed that philosophers offered both an "exoteric" or salutary teaching, and an "esoteric" or true teaching, which was concealed from the general reader. By maintaining this distinction, Strauss is often accused of having written esoterically himself. This opinion is perhaps encouraged because many of Strauss' works are difficult and sometimes mysterious. Moreover, a careful reading of Strauss will show that he also emphasized that writers using this lost form of writing often left contradictions and other excuses to examine the writing more carefully. There are many examples of this in Strauss own published works, and thus is a source for much debate surrounding Strauss.
There therefore exists a controversy surrounding Strauss' interpretation of the existing philosophical canon. Strauss believed that the writings of many philosophers contained both an exoteric and esoteric teaching which is often not perceived by modern academics. Most famously, he believed that Plato's Republic should never have been read as a proposal for a real regime (as it is in the works of Karl Popper for example). But, according to Strauss, generally this kind of exoteric/esoteric dichotomy became unused by the time of Kant. Similarly well known are his espousals of the philosophical credentials of Machiavelli and Xenophon.
Arthur Melzer has recently published an article discussing some of Strauss' thoughts on esoteric writing and its relation to historicism (American Political Science Review Vol. 100, 2006, 279-295)
Strauss on politics
According to Strauss, modern Social Science was flawed. It claimed the ground by which truth could be discovered on an unexamined acceptance of the fact-value distinction. Strauss doubted the fact-value distinction was a fundamental category of the mind and studied the evolution of the concept from its roots in Enlightenment philosophy to Max Weber, a thinker Strauss credited with 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. Therefore, Strauss treated politics not as something that could be studied from afar. A political scientist examining politics with a value-free scientific eye, for Strauss, was impossible, not just a tragic self-delusion. Positivism, the heir to the traditions of both Auguste Comte and Max Weber, in making purportedly value-free judgments, failed the ultimate test of justifying its own existence, which would require a value-judgment.
While modern 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. Without deciding this issue, Strauss refused to make do with any simplistic or one-sided resolutions of the Socratic question: What is the good for the city and man?
Liberalism and nihilism
Strauss taught that liberalism, strictly speaking, contained within it an intrinsic tendency towards relativism, which in turn led to two types of nihilism. The first was a “brutal” nihilism, expressed in Nazi and Marxist regimes. These ideologies, both descendents of Enlightenment thought, tried to destroy all traditions, history, ethics and moral standards and replace it by force with a supreme authority from 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 hedonism, which he saw 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 state. The resultant study lead him to revive classical political philosophy as a source by which political action could be judged.
Noble lies and deadly truths
Strauss noted that thinkers of the first rank, going back to Plato, had raised the problem of whether good and effective politicians could be completely truthful and still achieve the necessary ends of their society. By implication, Strauss asks his readers to consider whether "noble lies" have any role at all to play in uniting and guiding the polis. Are "myths" needed to give people meaning and purpose and to ensure a stable society? Or can men and women dedicated to relentlessly examining, in Nietzsche's language, those "deadly truths", flourish freely? Thus, is there a limit to the political, and what can be known absolutely? In The City and Man, Strauss discusses the myths outlined in Plato's Republic that are required for all governments. These include a state must believe its land belongs to it even though it was likely acquired illegitimately, and that citizenship is rooted in something more than the accidents of birth.
According to Strauss, Karl Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies had mistaken the city-in-speech described in Plato's Republic for a blueprint for regime reform--which it was not. 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." (History of Political Philosophy, p.68). Strauss himself argued in many publications that the city-in-speech was unnatural, percisely because "it is rendered possible by the abstraction from eros (Strauss' italics). (HPP, p.60). The city-in-speech abstracted from eros, or bodily needs, thus it could never guide politics in the manner Popper claimed. Though very skeptical of "progress," Strauss was equally skeptical about political agendas of "return" (which is the term he used in contrast to progress). In fact, he was consistently suspicious of anything claiming to be a solution to an old political or philosophical problem. He spoke of the danger in trying to ever finally resolve the debate between rationalism and traditionalism in politics. In particular, along with many in the pre-World War II German Right, he feared people trying to force a "world state" to come into being in the future, thinking that it would inevitably become a tyranny.
Ancients and Moderns
Strauss constantly stressed the importance of two dichotomies in political philosophy: Athens and Jerusalem (Reason vs. Revelation) and Ancient versus Modern political philosophy. The "Ancients" were the Socratic philosophers and their intellectual heirs, and the "Moderns" start with Niccolo Machiavelli. The contrast between Ancients and Moderns was understood to be related to the public presentation of the possibly unresolvable tension between Reason and Revelation. The Socratics, reacting to the first Greek philosophers, brought philosophy back to earth, and hence back to the marketplace, making it more political. The Moderns reacted to the dominance of revelation in medieval society by promoting the possibilities of Reason very strongly — which in turn leads to problems in modern politics and society. In particular, Thomas Hobbes, under the influence of Bacon, re-oriented political science to what was most solid, but most low in man, setting a precedent for John Locke, and the later economic approach to political thought, such as initially in David Hume, and Adam Smith.
Not unlike Winston Churchill, William Shakespeare, Alexis de Tocqueville, and Thomas Jefferson, Strauss believed that the vices of a democratic regime must be known (and not left unquestioned) so that its virtues might triumph. However, insofar as his teaching suggested that the argument for the pre-eminence of democracy is not an apodictic principle (i.e. not self evident or beyond contradiction), he has gained the reputation for being an enemy to democracy.
Strauss in the Public View
Strauss is a controversial and much caricatured figure in some academic and journalistic circles. This has been both for his criticisms of various modern movements and thinkers (including many conservatives), and because some of his students, such as Allan Bloom, Harry V. Jaffa, Joseph Cropsey, Paul Wolfowitz, and Thomas Pangle, are themselves controversial public figures. Many of these people are now frequently referred to as Straussians.
Yet Shadia Drury of the University of Regina, author of 1999's Leo Strauss and the American Right, claims Strauss' thought itself is dangerous and anti-democratic. She writes that Strauss taught different things to different students, and inculcated an elitist strain in American political leaders which is linked to imperialist militarism and Christian fundementalism. Drury believes that Strauss taught some of his students to believe "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. .. The Weimar Republic was his model of liberal democracy for which he had huge contempt." Drury adds, "Liberalism in Weimar, in Strauss's view, led ultimately to the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews." Another well known critic of Strauss is Anne Norton, although she is primarily an antagonist of straussians rather than Strauss himself.
Paul Wolfowitz was a student of Strauss; Wolfowitz attended two courses which Strauss taught on Plato and Montesquieu's spirit of the laws. Indeed, James Mann claims that Wolfowitz chose that University because Strauss taught there and believed him to be "a unique figure, an irreplaceable asset." Wolfowitz himself has claimed to be more of a student of Albert Wohlstetter. Thomas DiLorenzo also claims intellectual links to Bloom.
In Saul Bellow's quasi-biographical novel Ravelstein, (2001) the minor character, Davarr, is based on Strauss, while the central character of Ravelstein represents Strauss' protégé Allan Bloom. In 2004 the BBC produced a controversial three-part documentary on the threat from organised terrorism called the Power of Nightmares. This documentary attempts to show how Strauss' teachings, among others, influenced the neo-conservatives and thus, United States foreign policy, especially following the September 11, 2001 attacks. The connection to Strauss is established via students such as Wolfowitz.
Courtesy of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss