the philosophical enterprise from being corrupted by accommodations with religious authorities (22-29). If even the Philosopher himself can be convicted of incipient religiosity, however, does the path that Strauss indicated at the end of his preface to the Spinoza book remain open? Is a recovery of premodern rationalism available? If even Aristotle could not avoid at least a rhetorical concession to superstition, a concession that has had dire consequences for philosophy, could any version of Aristotle's project that we generate hope to do better? The final sentence of this book remarks that the "costs" of Hobbes's tremendous influence include "the discontent of modern men, whose political communities ask of them too little" and "the disappointment with reason, of which Hobbes taught the modern world to ask too much" (276). To simultaneously wish for more political engagement and caution against asking too much from reason is a provocative note on which to end-especially at a moment in our politics featuring engaged irrationalism. If it is dangerous to ask too much of reason, it also remains, as Strauss put it, "unwise to say farewell to reason." The crucial question of precisely what is appropriate to ask of reason demands to be treated more directly.
Although it is only one chapter in a long and wide-ranging work, Chapter Four of Natural Right and History is one of Leo Strauss' most illuminating statements on classical political philosophy, especially in its Socratic form.1 The chapter, titled "Classic Natural Right," has three main sections of widely varying length, each of them important both in its own right and in connection with the others. The first and by far the briefest of the three sections is a remarkable statement-the most direct Strauss ever offered-on the Socratic Turn, that is, on Socrates' turn from his youthful study of natural science to a new philosophic approach that entailed, among other things, a greater emphasis on moral and political questions. The second section presents a memorable-in its own way "classic"-sketch of the most prominent classic natural right teaching as it differed from the classical conventionalist position that denied the existence of natural right. Finally, the third section is a dense and multi-layered consideration of various types of classic natural right teachings, but with special attention given to the teaching that emerged from Socrates' dialectical approach to the problem of justice. In this essay, I will consider each of these three sections, with an eye also on the connections between them. Doing so will require that I highlight only some of the many twists and turns in Strauss' difficult text. Before I turn to my main task some words are in order about the book of which "Classic Natural Right" is a part and especially about the immediately preceding chapter, "The Origin of the Idea of Natural Right," with which Chapter Four is closely connected. Now, the central question of Natural Right and History, despite what the title suggests, is not the question of natural right so much as it is the question of the possibility of philosophy. These are not two versions of the same question, however much Strauss may sometimes blur the distinction between them. The blurring of the distinction is a result, not only of intentional obfuscation on Strauss' part, but also of the fact that historicism,
Only recently have students of political theory begun to pay attention to Plato's Menexenus, and it deserves this closer study. In this article, it is argued that the dialogue is best read as Plato's at least quasi—serious critique of Pericle' famous Funeral Oration, and that a comparison of these two works leads to a paradoxical discovery. For by presenting Socrates in the Menexenus as a defender of a restrained and traditional politics against the bold imperialism of Pericles, Plato presents a figure who is hard to square with the dialectical critic of the city found in dialogues like the Apology. Whether there is nonetheless some thread tying Socrates' venture at political rhetoric to his signature form of philosophy is the deepest question posed by the Menexenus and one which offers new insight on Plato's complex view of the relation between politics and philosophy.
The early modern revolution in political philosophy not only transformed political philosophy itself; it also played a crucial role in shaping the character of modern politics. This article contributes to our understanding of that revolution through an examination of Thomas Hobbes's critique of the classical tradition. Although it is well known that Hobbes was a critic of that tradition, the details of his critique have not been sufficiently uncovered. Hobbes's key target was Aristotle, whom he regarded as the most important source of the tradition he opposed. Hobbes's critique of Aristotle consists of two main lines of argument—one moral-political, the other metaphysical—that ultimately prove to be connected. An examination of Hobbes's twofold critique can help us understand what was at stake in the reorientation of political philosophy that eventually gave rise to modern liberalism.
Leo Strauss's greatest project was his attempt to resurrect classical political philosophy by reawakening the quarrel between the ancients and the moderns. This essay illuminates Strauss's view of that quarrel by considering a crucial stage in the development of his understanding of the most important differences between ancient and modern political philosophy. Strauss's critique of Hobbes inThe Political Philosophy of Hobbesculminates in a striking comparison of Hobbes's distinctively modern approach to political philosophy with the approach of Plato and Aristotle. By examining Strauss's critique of Hobbes's “new political science,” this essay brings out the view of the deficiencies in modern political philosophy that led Strauss to conceive of the possibility of a genuine return to classical thought.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.