Log in

Relevant bibliographies by topics / Strauss, Leo, – Contributions in political science / Journal articles

To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Strauss, Leo, – Contributions in political science.

Journal articles on the topic 'Strauss, Leo, – Contributions in political science'

Author: Grafiati

Published: 10 March 2023

Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles

Select a source type:

Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Strauss, Leo, – Contributions in political science.'

Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.

You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.

Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.

1

Abbott, James R. "Facts, values, and evaluative explanation: Contributions of Leo Strauss to contemporary debates." American Sociologist 32, no. 1 (March 2001): 50–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12108-001-1011-x.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

2

Douglas Albert, Craig. "TOCQUEVILLE’S THEOLOGICO-POLITICAL PREDICAMENT: LEO STRAUSS, RELIGION AND DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA." RELIGION AND POLITICS IN THE CONTEMPORARY TURKISH-SPEAKING WORLD 13, no. 2 (February 27, 2019): 113–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.54561/prj1301113a.

Full text

Abstract:

This paper analyzes Tocqueville’s Democracy in America in a new light. When viewed through Leo Strauss’ conception of the theologico-political problem, a novel reading of Tocqueville is presented. This interpretation argues that one of Democracy’s major themes concerns reason versus revelation. Within such a reading, it contends that Tocqueville’s seminal contribution to the history of political philosophy contained within it his reluctant announcement that religion may not be able to cure the social ills liberal democracy brings with it. Mainly, this is because Tocqueville fears democracy will contribute to the decline of religion itself. Tocqueville subtlety reveals his concerns over religion’s possible inadequacy, offers explanations thereof, and postulates another concept as a mitigating tool that has similar moderating effects on democratic defects: self-interest well understood.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

3

KING, RICHARD H. "RIGHTS AND SLAVERY, RACE AND RACISM: LEO STRAUSS, THE STRAUSSIANS, AND THE AMERICAN DILEMMA." Modern Intellectual History 5, no. 1 (April 2008): 55–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1479244307001539.

Full text

Abstract:

My interest here is in the way Leo Strauss (1899–1973) and his followers, the Straussians, have dealt with race and rights, race and slavery in the history of the United States. I want, first, to assess Leo Strauss's rather ambivalent attitude toward America and explore the various ways that his followers have in turn analyzed the Lockean underpinnings of the American “regime,” sometimes in contradistinction to Strauss's views on the topic. With that established, I turn to the account, particularly that offered by Harry Jaffa, of how slavery and race comported—or did not—with the Straussian account of the political foundations of the new nation and how latter-day followers of Strauss have dealt with the persisting topic of race and racism in America. Overall, I want to make two large points. First, the Straussian commitment to superhistorical standards provides the Straussians with a moral perspective on slavery, race, and racism. Second, though race and slavery have been less than central among the concerns of most followers of Strauss, the contributions of Jaffa and others have significantly shaped the present American conservative position on race, including the idea of color-blindness.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

4

Velasco Gómez, Ambrosio. "Historia y filosofía en la interpretación de las teorías políticas." Crítica (México D. F. En línea) 25, no. 75 (January 7, 1993): 3–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.22201/iifs.18704905e.1993.903.

Full text

Abstract:

This work belongs to the discussion between historians and science philosophers on methodological matters in the study of the nature and development of scientific theories. Notably, this paper seeks to state some fundamental steps towards the interpretation and reconstruction of political theories. In order to achieve this, Leo Strauss’s philosophical view, as well as Quentin Skinner’s historical approach, are critically examined, pointing out their most significant progresses as well as their main problems and weaknesses. On the grounds of this critical analysis, the need to seriously consider the history and philosophy of political theory as being mutually complementary is stated. Within this comprehensive approach, this paper considers the proposal of Alasdair MacIntyre which seeks to recover, through the concept of “research tradition”', significant philosophical and historical studies within political theory. Notwithstanding, MacIntyre, Strauss and Skinner do not take contemporary hermeneutic theories seriously when they formulate their interpretative perspectives. Beginning with contemporary hermeneutic philosophers (Gadamer, Ricoeur), the most significant contributions by Strauss, Skinner and MacIntyre are looked at in order to develop a historical and philosophical approach to study change and evolution in political theories. [Traducción: Gabriela Montes de Oca V.]

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

5

Lenzner, Steven J. "Introduction: Leo Strauss." Perspectives on Political Science 33, no. 4 (October 2004): 196. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/ppsc.33.4.196-196.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

6

SCHWARTZ, DANIEL B. "GAUGING THE GERMAN JEWISH." Modern Intellectual History 17, no. 2 (September 17, 2018): 579–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1479244318000380.

Full text

Abstract:

Few fields are as riddled with terminological indecision as “German Jewish thought.” One cannot invoke this sphere without immediately bumping up against essential questions of definition. Should membership within its bounds be reserved for those who wrote, primarily, as Jews for Jews, even if in a non-Jewish language? Or should its borders be expanded substantially to include Jewish contributions to secular German thought—or, perhaps more aptly put, secular thought in German, in order not to exclude the vast number of Central European Jewish innovators who wrote in the language? If one takes the latter route, the problems only proliferate, for the question then ensues, what makes any of these supposed Jewish contributionsJewish? How is the Jewishness of a particular work, school of thought, or sensibility to be gauged and assessed? How does one avoid the risk of reading too much in—or too little? How does one steer clear of reducing Jewishness to some stable core or essence, without relying on a notion so broad and diffuse as to be effectively meaningless? And always lurking is the question whether, in imputing Jewishness to a cultural product or outlook, one has betrayed its creator, who would have recoiled at being labeled a “Jewish” author or artist. These problems are not peculiar to German Jewish intellectual history. They arise wherever and whenever Jews have been disproportionately prominent in the shaping of secular culture—for instance, in the writing of the “New York intellectuals” in the postwar United States. But the role of authors and artists of German Jewish background proved especially pronounced even after many, like Hannah Arendt or Leo Strauss, emigrated to escape the Nazis. In their new environments, they remained active participants in intellectual life, and the question remains whether they were carrying on the tradition of German Jewish thought.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

7

Lenzner, Steven J., and William Kristol. "Leo Strauss: An Introduction." Perspectives on Political Science 33, no. 4 (October 2004): 204–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/ppsc.33.4.204-214.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

8

Paris, Crystal C. "Review Article: Leo Strauss." European Journal of Political Theory 9, no. 3 (July 2010): 347–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1474885110363986.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

9

Altman, William H. F. "Leo Strauss in 1962." Perspectives on Political Science 39, no. 2 (April 13, 2010): 97–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10457091003685092.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

10

Jensen, Michael. "Leo Strauss, Max Weber, And The Scientific Study Of Politics." Canadian Journal of Political Science 38, no. 2 (June 2005): 517–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0008423905399999.

Full text

Abstract:

Leo Strauss, Max Weber, And The Scientific Study Of Politics, Nasser Behnegar, Chicago: U. of Chicago Press, 2003, pp, xiii, 221.Any serious student of Leo Strauss will be familiar with the fact that Strauss was a serious critic of modern political science. Strauss contended throughout his career that the modern social sciences are one of the driving forces currently driving modern liberalism into a state of crisis. In Leo Strauss, Max Weber and The Scientific Study of Politics, Nasser Behnegar encapsulates Strauss' critique of the modern social sciences in an accessible and easy to read text.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

11

Patch, Andrew. "Leo Strauss on Maimonides' Prophetology." Review of Politics 66, no. 1 (2004): 83–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0034670500042480.

Full text

Abstract:

Leo Strauss's “political” interpretation of Maimonides′ doctrine of prophecy is well known, as is his claim that the Guide of the Perplexed has two fundamentally different teachings: a literal teaching, and a more radical philosophic teaching. This essay attempts to show that, in Strauss's view, Maimonides′ doctrine of the prophet as philosopher-statesman belongs to the former only, while according to the latter, prophecy (revelation) simply does not exist. It does so by showing that, in Strauss's view, Maimonides indicates that the preconditions he lays down for the existence of prophecy—in particular, the combination of intellectual perfection with extreme asceticism—cannot possibly be met. It attempts to explain, moreover, why in Strauss's view Maimonides denies the existence of prophecy: namely, because irrational moral opinions are an essential cause of all so-called prophecy.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

12

Wintrop, Norman. "New Perspectives and Leo Strauss." Australian Journal of Political Science 43, no. 4 (December 2008): 729–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10361140802429312.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

13

Lampert, Laurence. "Leo Strauss and the Theologico-Political Problem." Canadian Journal of Political Science 40, no. 2 (June 2007): 551–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0008423907070618.

Full text

Abstract:

Leo Strauss and the Theologico-Political Problem, Heinrich Meier, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006, pp. xxii, 183.One of the debates accompanying the reception of Leo Strauss's lifework as it grows into an inescapable force in political philosophy has been this: Where does Strauss really stand on the relation between reason and revelation? Heinrich Meier's new book ends that debate.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

14

BEINER, RONALD. "Hannah Arendt and Leo Strauss." Political Theory 18, no. 2 (May 1990): 238–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0090591790018002003.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

15

McWiliams, Wilson Carey. "Leo Strauss and the Dignity of American Political Thought." Review of Politics 60, no. 2 (1998): 231–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0034670500041188.

Full text

Abstract:

Leo Strauss wrote only rarely about American thought, but he pointed his students and readers toward the “high adventure” of the American political tradition as a serious encounter with the great questions of political philosophy. Strauss saw American theory as a contest—one fought less between Americans than within them—pitting modernity's “first wave”, with its appeal to reason and natural right, against the more radical individualism and the historicism of later modern doctrine. Religion and classical rationalism, offering their own standards of a right above opinion, had been historically the allies of “first wave”, modernity, but those voices, Strauss recognized, were growing weaker in American life. In recent American teaching and culture, by contrast, Strauss saw that the increasingly dominant ethics of self—interest and success, other political inadequacies aside, were incapable of speaking to the highest aspirations or winning the deepest allegiance of the young. By reviving classical teaching, Strauss also sought to contribute to the rearticulation and reanimation of the American ideal.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

16

Rosen, Stanley. "Leo Strauss in Chicago." Daedalus 135, no. 3 (July 2006): 104–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/daed.2006.135.3.104.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

17

Bouretz, Pierre. "Leo Strauss devant la modernité juive." Raisons politiques 8, no. 4 (2002): 33. http://dx.doi.org/10.3917/rai.008.0033.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

18

Smith, Steven B. "Leo Strauss: Between Athens and Jerusalem." Review of Politics 53, no. 1 (1991): 75–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s003467050005021x.

Full text

Abstract:

Harold Bloom, the Yale literary critic, once described Leo Strauss as “political philosopher and Hebraic sage.” This always seemed to me unusually prescient. For Strauss is most frequently understood as an interpreter and critic of a number of thinkers, both ancient and modern, who belong to the history of political philosophy. But far less often is he regarded as a contributor to Jewish thought. It is neither as a historian nor as a philosopher but as a Jew that I want to consider him here.At first blush this approach to Strauss seems relatively unproblematical. Even a superficial perusal of his major works shows that Jewish themes were a continual preoccupation of his from the earliest times onwards.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

19

West, Thomas G. "Leo Strauss and the American Founding." Review of Politics 53, no. 1 (1991): 157–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0034670500050257.

Full text

Abstract:

Strauss devoted his life to the recovery of classical political philosophy. The incentive for this enterprise was what Strauss called “the crisis of the West.” That crisis “consists in the West's having become uncertain of its purpose,” which was to establish the good society on the basis of reason and science. Twentith-century history revealed that the progressive spread of democracy throughout the world was hardly assured. Moreover, the “good society” of Western liberalism no longer looked unquestionably good. Modern philosophy eventually concluded that reason itself was to blame: not only could reason not establish the good society; it could not even say what the good society is.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

20

Sorensen, Kim. "Revelation and Reason in Leo Strauss." Review of Politics 65, no. 3 (2003): 383–408. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0034670500038298.

Full text

Abstract:

Revelation and reason are pivotal in Strauss's project. Yet nearly three decades after his death, questions remain about the essential meaning of this core dimension of his project. Scholarship of recent years has tended to approach his project by situating its position in relation to revelation and reason—to one or the other or to both. Among those who hold Strauss in high regard and inclusive of his former students, those often called Straussians, the view is far from clear. Was Strauss's allegiance with reason alone, that is, with Athens and classical political philosophy? Did his vocation as a political philosopher and his loyalty to the party of Athens preclude his being open to revelation, that is, open to the possibility that the Bible conveys truth regarding the good life? Or was he beyond a dogmatic attachment whether to reason or to revelation?

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

21

Weiss, Raymond L. "Leo Strauss on Maimonides." Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 24, no. 1 (February 24, 2016): 149–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1477285x-12341272.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

22

Susser, Bernard. "Leo Strauss: The Ancient as Modern." Political Studies 36, no. 3 (September 1988): 497–514. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1988.tb00245.x.

Full text

Abstract:

Although his approach to politics and philosophy were relatively little known outside the United States, Leo Strauss was perhaps the most revered and the most controversial figure in post-war American political science. His followers today form what is arguably the most cohesive intellectual fraternity in the discipline. They constitute a highly influential opposition to the empirical–quantitative course taken by political science and political philosophy. This study explores Strauss's ideas highlighting the unconventional mixture of substance and style that gives them an arrestingly idiosyncratic character. Substantively, Strauss belonged to the pre-modern intellectual tradition that understood Truth as accessible and knowable through philosophical contemplation. The form of his argumentation, however, his relentless critique of modernity and the moderns, is conducted with all the cognitive weaponry provided for by the modernist intellectual style.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

23

PIPPIN, ROBERT B. "The Modern World of Leo Strauss." Political Theory 20, no. 3 (August 1992): 448–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0090591792020003004.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

24

Janssens, David. "Review: Leo Strauss and the Theologico-Political Problem." Political Theory 35, no. 1 (February 2007): 75–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0090591706295102.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

25

Ménissier, Thierry. "Leo Strauss, filiation néoconservatrice ou conservatisme philosophique ?" Revue française de science politique 59, no. 5 (2009): 873. http://dx.doi.org/10.3917/rfsp.595.0873.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

26

Moulakis, Athanasios. "Leo Strauss and Eric Voegelin on Machiavelli." European Journal of Political Theory 4, no. 3 (July 2005): 249–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1474885105052704.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

27

Stone, James R. "Was Leo Strauss Wrong about John Locke?" Review of Politics 66, no. 4 (2004): 553–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0034670500039863.

Full text

Abstract:

Was Leo Strauss wrong about John Locke? Surely that he was has been the consensus among historians of political thought, though their reasons are sometimes at variance. The Cambridge school, influenced by the work of John Dunn, interprets Locke's work in the light of the Calvinism in his family background. Though attacked by spokesmen for the Church of England, Locke quickly gained admirers among dissenting clergy, for his psychology, his politics, and of course his program for religious toleration, and the proponents of the Calvinist interpreta tion explain why: His discourse closely tracks the theological language of his Calvinist contemporaries. Richard Ashcraft, meanwhile, sought to restore Locke's reputation as a revolutionary by investigating his role in English politics under the Restoration, albeit at the price of reducing the Two Treatises to a tract for the moment. James Tully would likewise save him from the charge of being a capitalist apologist, insisting Locke merely offered a defense of Whig landholding, with the responsibilities as well as the privileges embedded in the English law of estate. All these interpretations dismiss or disregard Strauss's account of Locke as an atheist in the mold of Hobbes and Spinoza who succeeded by his mastery of the art of esoteric writing in concealing his unbelief; as the most successful, because most prudent, proponent of the modern doctrine of natural rights, which revolutionized politics around the world; and as the theorist who prepared the way for modern capitalism by his vigorous defense of unlimited acquisition.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

28

Sadri, Ahmad, and Mahmoud Sadri. "Intercultural understanding: Max Weber and Leo Strauss." International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society 1, no. 3 (March 1988): 392–411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf01385427.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

29

Abbott, James R. "Leo Strauss and the American Academy." Society 38, no. 4 (May 2001): 83–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12115-001-1029-2.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

30

Lawler, Peter Augustine. "Leo Strauss, Platonic Political Philosophy, and the Teaching of Political Science." Teaching Political Science 13, no. 4 (July 1986): 179–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00922013.1986.9942404.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

31

Batnitzky, Leora. "Hermann Cohen and Leo Strauss." Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 13, no. 1-2 (2004): 187–212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/105369904777138659.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

32

Pinkoski, Nathan J. "Alasdair MacIntyre and Leo Strauss on the Activity of Philosophy." Review of Politics 82, no. 1 (December 20, 2019): 97–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0034670519000779.

Full text

Abstract:

AbstractFollowers of Leo Strauss have criticized Alasdair MacIntyre's account of the activity of philosophy as historicist. MacIntyre himself has been dismissive of Strauss. I argue that these apparent disagreements obscure their deeper agreements about the activity of philosophy. Rather than holding to historicism, MacIntyre's account of philosophy has a strong symmetry with Strauss's. To counter modern dogmatism, both Strauss and MacIntyre argue for a balanced mixture of history and philosophy to contend that philosophy's task is to gain knowledge of natural reality. Yet both place similar epistemic limits on philosophy, arguing that philosophy's gains are modest and always open to revision. Moreover, both hold that no authority other than human reason can direct the activity of philosophy. Putting MacIntyre and Strauss in a more careful conversation enriches the account of the fundamental philosophical problems that each addresses.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

33

Drury, Shadia B. "Leo Strauss and the American Imperial Project." Political Theory 35, no. 1 (February 2007): 62–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0090591706295209.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

34

Drury, S. B. "I. The Esoteric Philosophy of Leo Strauss." Political Theory 13, no. 3 (August 1985): 315–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0090591785013003001.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

35

Germino, Dante. "Blasphemy and Leo Strauss's Machiavelli." Review of Politics 53, no. 1 (1991): 146–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0034670500050245.

Full text

Abstract:

In 1966, I published a review article hailing Leo Strauss's Thoughts on Machiavelli as an instant classic. I also expressed some reservations or “second thoughts” about its conclusions. In the intervening years my appreciation for the profundity and originality of Strauss's interpretation has only increased, but many of my doubts have also remained. Here I wish to restate both my admiration and reservations with particular attention to parts of Strauss's chapter on Machiavelli published in the 1972 edition of his History of Political Philosophy, co-edited with Joseph Cropsey.Let me at the outset state the obvious: Strauss's interpretation of Machiavelli is well — indeed overwhelmingly — supported by textual evidence, given Strauss's manner of reading between the lines. No interpreter, therefore, is entitled to dismiss it out of hand, even if he or she disagrees with Strauss's methodology, in whole or in part. In this respect, Claude Lefort has provided a model for scholars whose philosophical orientation differs widely from that of Strauss. Strauss has given us a truly fresh look at the great Florentine.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

36

Lassman, Peter. "leo strauss and the problem of the theologico-political." European Political Science 6, no. 4 (November 12, 2007): 402–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.eps.2210156.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

37

Hoffmann, Stanley, and Anne Norton. "Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire." Foreign Affairs 83, no. 6 (2004): 153. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20034173.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

38

Tarcov, Nathan. "Introduction to Two Unpublished Lectures by Leo Strauss." Review of Politics 69, no. 4 (2007): 513–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0034670507000940.

Full text

Abstract:

These two lectures by Leo Strauss, “What Can We Learn from Political Theory?” delivered in July 1942, and “The Re-education of Axis Countries Concerning the Jews,” delivered November 7, 1943, include not only Strauss's most elaborate statement about the relation of political philosophy and political practice (in the first), but what may well be his fullest written public statements about matters of contemporary foreign policy. Both lectures obviously were carefully considered, composed, and corrected, but Strauss did not attempt to publish either. He may have had second thoughts about some of the arguments he advanced in these lectures, or he may simply have chosen to concentrate his literary efforts elsewhere. Other lectures he prepared during this period but did not publish himself have since been published: “The Living Issues of German Postwar Philosophy,” delivered April 1940 at Syracuse University, and “Reason and Revelation,” delivered January 1948 at Hartford Theological Seminary, both in Heinrich Meier, Leo Strauss and the Theologico-Political Problem (Cambridge University Press, 2006); “German Nihilism,” delivered to the New School's General Seminar February 26, 1941, is in Interpretation 26:3 (Spring 1999).

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

39

Webb, Stephen. "Heinrich Meier, Leo Strauss and the Theologico-Political Problem." Political Theology 8, no. 4 (October 7, 2007): 497–503. http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/poth.v8i4.497.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

40

ALDES WURGAFT, BENJAMIN. "CULTURE AND LAW IN WEIMAR JEWISH MEDIEVALISM: LEO STRAUSS'S CRITIQUE OF JULIUS GUTTMANN." Modern Intellectual History 11, no. 1 (March 5, 2014): 119–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1479244313000358.

Full text

Abstract:

The German Jewish historian of political philosophy Leo Strauss is best known for mature works in which he proposed the existence of an esoteric tradition in political philosophy, attacked the liberal tradition of political thought, and defended a classical approach to natural right against its modern counterparts. This essay demonstrates that in his youth, beginning during a scholarly apprenticeship at the Berlin Akademie für die Wissenschaft des Judentums, Strauss championed “medievals” (rather than ancients) against “moderns,” and did so through a sparring match with his postdoctoral supervisor Julius Guttmann, whom he cast in the role of representative “modern.” While for Guttmann the stakes were scholarly, for Strauss they were political. Strauss's Weimar Jewish “medievalism” was a deliberate rejection of the tradition of modern Jewish thought Strauss associated with Guttmann's teacher Hermann Cohen, whom Strauss accused of neglecting the political distinctiveness of Jewish thought. While the conflict between Strauss and Guttmann has been neglected in much of the literature on Strauss, it served as the crucible in which many of his mature views, including his famous exoteric (sometimes called “esoteric”) writing thesis, began to take shape.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

41

Janssen, Siebo M. H. "Leo Strauss and the politics of American Empire." Politische Vierteljahresschrift 47, no. 1 (March 2006): 109–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11615-006-0011-4.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

42

Dobski, B. "Robert Howse, Leo Strauss Man of Peace." Society 53, no. 2 (February 17, 2016): 226–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12115-016-9999-2.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

43

Kraynak, Robert P. "Moral Order in the Western Tradition: Harry Jaffa's Grand Synthesis of Athens, Jerusalem, and Peoria." Review of Politics 71, no. 2 (2009): 181–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0034670509000308.

Full text

Abstract:

AbstractHarry V. Jaffa has inspired a generation of students in American political thought by defending the natural rights principles of the Declaration of Independence and of Abraham Lincoln. Jaffa is also a defender of Leo Strauss's idea of a “political science of natural right,” which Strauss drew primarily from classical Greek political philosophy. Jaffa's efforts to defend the several strands of the Western natural right tradition led him to develop a grand synthesis of “Athens, Jerusalem, and Peoria,” which I argue is a noble but untenable way of upholding the moral order of the West—and a departure from the intentions of Leo Strauss.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

44

Seaton, Paul. "Political Philosophy and the God of Abraham." Canadian Journal of Political Science 38, no. 1 (March 2005): 250–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0008423905340108.

Full text

Abstract:

Political Philosophy and the God of Abraham, Thomas L. Pangle, Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003, pp. 263In the beginning was Leo Strauss with his trailblazing Platonizing exegeses of Genesis, “On the Interpretation of Genesis” and “Jerusalem and Athens.” Strauss begat many strong and independent minds who commented on the text. Hillel Fradkin and Robert Sacks were two of the earliest, as was Leon Kass. Kass recently published a hefty commentary on the entirety of Genesis, The Beginning of Wisdom (New York: Free press, 2003).

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

45

Lachterman, David R. "Strauss Read from France." Review of Politics 53, no. 1 (1991): 224–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0034670500050300.

Full text

Abstract:

Leo Strauss has long had a “scholarly” presence among French orientalists and medievalists, thanks to his fundamentally important works on the falasifa and Maimonides, two of which were published in France in the 1930's. To French political “thinkers,” caught as they were for so long, like Laocoon, in the serpentine toils of Stalinism, Maoism and other variants of “Marxism,” including its decadently ironic postmodern negations, Strauss seems to have been a largely unknown name. Some interpreters of the history of modern political philosophy have, of course, taken note of his analyses of Machiavelli, for example, and the French translation of Natural Right and History was in fact first published in 1954.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

46

Basili, Cristina. "After Sócrates. Leo Strauss and the Esoteric Irony." Anales del Seminario de Historia de la Filosofía 37, no. 3 (September 21, 2020): 473–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.5209/ashf.69785.

Full text

Abstract:

Throughout the philosophical tradition that stems from Plato, Socratic irony has represented an enigma that all interpreters of the Platonic dialogues have had to face from different points of view. In this article I aim to present the peculiar Straussian reading of Socratic irony. According to Leo Strauss, Socratic irony is a key element of Plato’s political philosophy, linked to the «logographic necessity» that rules his texts. I will therefore examine the genesis and the main features of Straussian hermeneutics. I will end the article by highlighting the relevance of the esoteric interpretation of Platonic thought as a conceptual tool that responds to the crisis of modern political philosophy.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

47

Ludueña Romandini, Fabián. "LEO STRAUSS AT THE CROSSROADS BETWEEN JUDAISM AND THE THEOLOGICO-POLITICAL PROBLEM." CONTEMPORARY JUDAISM AND POLITICS 10, no. 2 (December 26, 2016): 173–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.54561/prj1002173r.

Full text

Abstract:

This article explores the problem of Judaism in the oeuvre of Leo Strauss (1899-1973) and particularly in his 1962 conference at the University of Chicago delivered under the title of “Why We Remain Jews”. On one hand, Strauss presents the problem of Jewish assimilation in the light of the tension between Judaism as Revelation and philosophy as a reason-founded discipline. On the other hand, this polarity receives a new interpretation when Strauss reads Jewish history as a theologico-political problem. Strauss’s position is determined by his readings of Arabic medieval philosophy as well as by his acceptance of a post-messianic interpretation of Jewish eschatology. Finally, the text presents the hypothesis about the existence of a debate between Strauss’s view of Jewish history and Carl Schmitt’s conception of the biblical katéchon as the political element that gives sense to Western universal history.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

48

Rhodes, James M. "Philosophy, Revelation, and Political Theory: Leo Strauss and Eric Voegeli." Journal of Politics 49, no. 4 (November 1987): 1036–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2130783.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

49

Udoff, Alan. "On the Question of the Legacy of Leo Strauss." Perspectives on Political Science 45, no. 1 (January 2, 2016): 23–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10457097.2015.1024577.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

50

Baumann, Fred. "Comments on Robert Howse, Leo Strauss: Man of Peace." Perspectives on Political Science 46, no. 3 (October 10, 2016): 159–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10457097.2016.1229559.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

We offer discounts on all premium plans for authors whose works are included in thematic literature selections. Contact us to get a unique promo code!