Strauss:
A provocative writer. Mean guy. Chicago is kind of Leo Strauss’ homeplace. ”The chinese straussians” are a weird brand of philosophy of conservatives who brought together confucianism and Strauss.
The ones we are reading now are basically ”the gen z” of the theoretical philosophers we just read.
Strauss is looking for the perennial idea of natural justice.
Born in 1899 in Germany and raised as an orthodox Jew.
Dissertation under Ernst Cassirer (Neo-Kantian thought) in 1921 titled ”The problem of knowledge in the philosophical doctrine of Jacobi”.
Attended Husserl’s and Heidegger’s lectures in the early 1920s.
First released book was on Spinoza; ”Spinoza’s critique of religion in 1930.
After this, left for Germany.
Landed a position in the New School for Social Research from 1938 to 1948 (same as Levi-Strauss) and at the university of Chicago.
Published Persecution and the Art of Writing in 1952, Natural Right and History in 1953, Thoughts on Machiavelli in 1958→ Strauss’ most productive period.
Sterbt in 1973.
Strauss wrote mainly in the form of commentary and exegesis.
What is Political Philosophy is one of the few works he wrote that was notin dialogue-form.
Wrote on Plato, al-Farabi, Maimondies, Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Spinoza.
Developed the method of ”reading between the lines” in Persecution, all writers were persecuted somehow:
”For the influence of persecution on literature is precisely that it compels all writers who hold heterodox views to develip a peculiar technique of writing, the technique what we have in mind when speaking of writing between the lines”.
-
Great authors were persecuted and thus had to hide their opinions ”between the lines” so-to-speak.
-
This is generally what Straussians want to do: they want to approach all texts as esoteric texts that come to us as puzzles.
What is Political Philosophy was delivered as a lecture in 1954/55 as lectures at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (ewww).
”It is a great honor, and at the same time a challenge to accept a task of particular difficulty, to be asked to speak about political philosophy in Jerusalem […] while being compelled, or compelling myself, to wander far away from our sacred heritage, or to be silent about it, I shall not for a moment forget what Jerusalem stands for.”
→ what does it mean to ”wander far away”
Philosophy, something he considers far away from theology. For Strauss theology has access to revelation, ie. God, but political philosophy relies solely on human ability.
This preface indicates a subject matter of his speech.
”What is political philosophy” contains a very specific way of thinking; ie. The Greek way of thinking: Strauss comes back to the source of wisdom, by doing things in a Greek way (just like Heidegger). The main mission is to discover this perennial essence from ”real political philosophy”.
To understand political philosophy we need to understand natural right:
The text is a defense of philosophy and the natural rights against what he calls historicism and positivism (but also in opposition oto political theology).
Historicism is a school of thought that reduces everything to history. Everything that appears in history only has a very local and limited availability. It is discrete and specific.
Positivism:
Strauss gives the example of the declaration of independence of the united states as one of natural right. Strauss doesn’t agree with American liberalism and democracy really, but does endorse the natural rights which the declaration of independence posits.
”The very idea of natural right presupposes the possibility of philosophy in the full and original meaning of the term.”
Philosophy is a quest for a kind of truth that is universal, just like natural right. The concrete answer here however, we need to look at how Strauss tackles the question of philosophy in general, so that we can understand what natural right is.
”Political philosohpy is that bransch of philosophy which is closest to political life, to non-philosophic life, to human life.”
Critiqued the enlightenment for its lack of morality, wanted to go back to Greek ways of philosophy. Believed in universal values that transcend time, and thinks that the Greeks had access to this.
Outlines the opposition between modernity and political philosophy.
Philosophy is a quest for knowledge of the whole, universal.
Goal: replace opinions with knowledge.
Even if there are no answers, it is better to think abou these topics than ignore them (lol).
Strauss understands that in most cases we can’t really reach the final answers, but we still need to have them around us, as they still increase general understanding.
”The attempt to replace opinion about the nature of political things by knowledge of the nature of political things.”
Political philosophy always deal with god-bad and justice-injustice.
Don’t just defend political views but searching for the truth, search for knowledge instead of opinion.
Strauss differentiates political philosophy from other ways.
Political thought, political theory, political theology.
Political thought: no distinction between fact and opinion, political philosophy is concerned with knowledge only.
Political theory can be philosophical but can also be a defense of a previous conviction, is linked with specific policies rather than truth. Is connected with general public opinion.
Is more concerned with the broader political situation rather than specific policies.
Political theology is politics based on divine revelation.
Political philosophy is part of social philosophy, social philosophy has a different scope; ie. Society. Whilst political philosophy is about the country or culture one is apart of.
Political philosophy is dialectical, not empirical.
Not free from value judgements because it aims to understand the nature of poltical things and think about the good society. To achieve, making value judgements is unavoidable.
Historicism is more radical of rejecting value-judgements. Historicism abandons the distinction between facts and values completely, it denies science as well, as it is only one way of looking at the world: you have to look at the world from the way the society in question looked at things. According to historicism, no society is closer to a good society than another. Historicism believes that history is the primary determinant of value.
Political philosophy believes however there is permanent universal good to be pursued.
For political philosophy, universal truth about justice and the best political order is the most important thing, and we have to analyse the fundamental nature of political knowledge. The best political order is possible for humanity to pursue.
Goal of political philosohpy is ambiguous due to its comprehensive character: facing the human being as a whole.
Is dialectical method rather than empirical or descriptional method: through analysis of the nature of political things.
Positivism: if truth is not necessarily a value, why is social science a necessity of choice? If we do not make value judgements, why do you choose science over philosophy, which in itself is a value-judgement.
Strauss is ambiguous about his definition of truth, there seems to an unclear entangled relation between truth, value and choice; he uses an equation of evaluation and understanding why choices are based on ends and that this is not justified.
Strauss also presupposes the idea that there is a kind of platonic Idea, an essence, to political philosophy.
It might be interesting to look into later Wittgenstein’s ideas of political truth, or Nietzsche’s idea that people only make these agreements with each other.
”Philosophers must employ some myth like ”God” to persuade the common people, in some manner”.
The dialectic in Strauss can only happen between a ”great teacher” and an ”attentive student”.
”Philosophy is essentially not possession of the truth, but a quest for the truth”.
It doesn’t really have an end.
Political philosophy becomes a kind of disquieting thing.
The quest for knowledge becomes internal, because we are never sure that we have reached this final piece of truth. It is essential to recognise this fact, and not be contentious. Political philosophy needs to bet set in motion and remain in motion by the disqueiting awareness of the fudnamental differen between conviction, or belief, and knowledge.”
”The ambiguity of the political goal is due to its comprehensive character.”
Implies a criticism of conformism, which is the very origin of the problem of political philosophy. In the American intellectural world, conformism is the biggest evil. Strauss questions anyone who accepts any political that goes unquestioned because we can always find that there is a better regime for the human race.
Political philosophy is about action and life, rather than knowledge.
What is peculiar about action, is that it is always concrete, you always act in a sphere of being and not in a void. Political philosophy itself therefore needs to be concrete, particular and local. It concerns one’s own fate and life. Thus social philosophy is not as comprehensive and authoratiative because it has no real referens of the given political situation.
”Nation as a horizon” is important for Strauss (I don’t agree hehe).
Philosophy is supposed to aim for something that is universal, but the political can only happen in the particular. How can this be reconciled?
”It is only when the Here and Now ceases to be the center of referens that a philosophic or scientific approach to politics can emerge.”
The answer is that we need to recognise in this state of ambiguity and self contradiction, at least until political philosophy develops.
”All knowledge of political things implies assumptions concerning the nature of political things; ie. Assumptions which concern not merely the given political situation, but political life or human life as such.”
An assumption that form in concrete situations but aims for the universal. The way out of this paradox, does not consist in rejecting the universal ideal, nor does it consist in rejecting ourselves as subjective → we need to find a balance.
”The belief that scientific knowledge, ie., the kind of knowledge possessed or aspired to the modern science, is the highest form of human knowledge, implies a depreciation of prescientific knowledge.”
Polticial philosophy is to argue in a disquieting way; infinitely confusing. It is caught between universality and particularity.
We should not resort to quickly to the universal side of political philosophy.
Why value judgements are important:
The distinction between opinion and knowledge.
Comes from the Greek tradition, from Parmenides onwards.
Very strong ontological opposition; in some ways it underpins the character of knowledge only by the philosophers. Not from the ordinary people. The maximum that ordinary people can reach is the opinion among one another.
(In eg. Arendt, truth is something that people debate among each other, and in this way we can reach a consensus)
The nature of the political philosophy is based on the truth, which has the distinction between good and evil. ”Good and Bad are the notions which have to deal with when speaking of politics”
Which is why he wants to find the demaracation of other zones of politics. There are politics in practice, where opinion and knowledge actually mix.
Strauss’ stance on positivism:
Political philosophy and political science are generally seen as being together, though in reality this is no longer the case because positivism and historicism has made political philosophy decline.
Comte believed in the idea that society, just like the physical world, operates according to laws, just like in physics. His ideas were fundamental for the establishment of sociology. He believes that positivsm is a kind of solution between chaos in society.
However, positivsm has been modified by other frameworks like utilitarianism, which in turn makes positivism become more focused on pragmatic understanding of society.
Value judgements: valuative assessments about affairs, we are trying to find merit in things based on things we find.
Value conflicts: arrise when different values or value systems are in tensio nor opposition to each other.
Some value conflicts may be genuinely impossible to resolve through reason.
We can often make clear value distinction, even if some cases are ambiguous.
-
Value judgements are unavoidable in political philosophy.
-
Value conflicts can usually be resolved.
Some moral conflicts can be resolved with certainty.
- Values essential for understanding
True understanding requires evaluation
Inadequate evaluations means inadequate understanding
Basic political concepts require value assumptions.
- Value-Free position self-contradicts.
Claimed neutrality becomes alibi for thoughtlessness
Avoids deeper thinking about fundations of good
When it comes to social sciences, they are objectively trying to prove something about society, but this wanting to prove something is in itself a value-judgement.
- Value judgements have a rational basis.
Challenge view that values are purely subjective
Some value judgements can be rationally demonstrated and we can know thing about them.
Political philosophy aims to develop knowledge of values.
Strauss argues that the coup of 1933 in Germany was in part allowed to happen because historicism was a relativistic force. Thus it has actual practical bad conclusions.
Exactly 105 years ago, Max Weber gave a speech in Munich, titled ”science as a vocation” where Weber summarises the positivistic idea of a value-free social science. But at the same time, he exposes the problem that a value-free social scientist faces.
”I am ready to prove from the works of our historians that whenever the man of science introduces his personal value jdugement, a full understanding of the facts ceases.
”Positvistic social science is ’value-free’ ir ’ethically neutral’: it is neutral in the conflict between good and evil, however good and evil may be understood.” Strauss’ answer.
The viscious circle of social science:
Social rejects all the values as something subjective, but to do any kind of activity, you need an explanation; what’s your motivation to do something, your goal. Why is science so particularly important, more than other disciplines? If the social scientist rejects the notion of value, they can no longer answer the question about the value of their own research. Thus they cannot justify that this is universally desirable, because it is not a value which is always held. If the question of values are rejected as a whole, they have no ground for themselves.
”Scientific pleading is meaningless in principe because the various value spheres of the world stand in irreconcilable conflict with each other.” – Weber.
In Weber, the new world is a world of conflict between many Gods, even disciplines themselves constantly conflict without any party getting the upper hand.
Thus, Historicism leads to nihilism.
All values are indifferent; they are all the same. No reason to choose one over the other.
Science in the ends becomes untenable, undesirable and illegitimate.
However, on the other hand, he admits that nihilism that is not something that can be maintained, because it is self-defeating. He doesn’t actually think that science dies like that, but rather it is a less radical version of it, philistinism or conformism. The resignation before opinion.
Conclusion: Strauss’ real thoughts are hidden in commentaries with philosophers. However, we might still be able to conclude one thing: ”It is essential for political philosophy to be set in motion and be kept in motion.”
Strangely, he still ends up coming close to Weber, because for Weber history is a history of failure and of accidents.
Berlin is everything that is not Strauss. Strauss believes in universal philosophy, whilst Berlin is a voice of cultural pluralism. But still they were somehow good friends.
”He did try to convert me in many conversations when I was a visitor in Chicago, but he could not get me to believe in eternal, immutable, absolute values, true for all men everywhere at all times, God given natural law and the like. I gather that in one of his essays to be published soon – a posthumous work which has lain unread for some years – I am about to be severely attacked. So be it. I cannot answer him, for he is in his grave and I ahve too little interest in his many disciples. (Conversations with Isaiah Berlin).