Bibliographies thématiques / Strauss, Leo, – Contributions in political science / Articles de revues
Pour voir les autres types de publications sur ce sujet consultez le lien suivant : Strauss, Leo, – Contributions in political science.

Articles de revues sur le sujet « Strauss, Leo, – Contributions in political science »

Auteur : Grafiati
Publié le 10 mars 2023

Créez une référence correcte selon les styles APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard et plusieurs autres

Choisissez une source :

Consultez les 50 meilleurs articles de revues pour votre recherche sur le sujet « Strauss, Leo, – Contributions in political science ».

À côté de chaque source dans la liste de références il y a un bouton « Ajouter à la bibliographie ». Cliquez sur ce bouton, et nous générerons automatiquement la référence bibliographique pour la source choisie selon votre style de citation préféré : APA, MLA, Harvard, Vancouver, Chicago, etc.

Vous pouvez aussi télécharger le texte intégral de la publication scolaire au format pdf et consulter son résumé en ligne lorsque ces informations sont inclues dans les métadonnées.

Parcourez les articles de revues sur diverses disciplines et organisez correctement votre bibliographie.

1

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

Texte intégral
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
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 (27 février 2019) : 113–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.54561/prj1301113a.

Texte intégral
Résumé :
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.
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
3

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

Texte intégral
Résumé :
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.
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
4

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

Texte intégral
Résumé :
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.]
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
5

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

Texte intégral
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
6

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

Texte intégral
Résumé :
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.
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
7

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

Texte intégral
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
8

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

Texte intégral
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
9

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

Texte intégral
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
10

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

Texte intégral
Résumé :
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.
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
11

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

Texte intégral
Résumé :
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.
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
12

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

Texte intégral
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
13

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

Texte intégral
Résumé :
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.
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
14

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

Texte intégral
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
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.

Texte intégral
Résumé :
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.
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
16

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

Texte intégral
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
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.

Texte intégral
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
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.

Texte intégral
Résumé :
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.
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
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.

Texte intégral
Résumé :
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.
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
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.

Texte intégral
Résumé :
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?
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
21

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

Texte intégral
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
22

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

Texte intégral
Résumé :
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.
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
23

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

Texte intégral
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
24

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

Texte intégral
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
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.

Texte intégral
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
26

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

Texte intégral
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
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.

Texte intégral
Résumé :
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.
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
28

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

Texte intégral
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
29

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

Texte intégral
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
30

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

Texte intégral
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
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.

Texte intégral
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
32

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

Texte intégral
Résumé :
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.
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
33

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

Texte intégral
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
34

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

Texte intégral
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
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.

Texte intégral
Résumé :
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.
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
36

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

Texte intégral
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
37

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

Texte intégral
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
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.

Texte intégral
Résumé :
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).
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
39

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

Texte intégral
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
40

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

Texte intégral
Résumé :
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.
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
41

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

Texte intégral
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
42

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

Texte intégral
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
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.

Texte intégral
Résumé :
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.
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
44

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

Texte intégral
Résumé :
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).
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
45

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

Texte intégral
Résumé :
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.
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
46

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

Texte intégral
Résumé :
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.
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
47

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

Texte intégral
Résumé :
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.
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
48

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

Texte intégral
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
49

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

Texte intégral
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
50

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

Texte intégral
Styles APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, etc.
Vous pouvez également être intéressé par les bibliographies sur le sujet « Strauss, Leo, – Contributions in political science » pour d’autres types de sources :
Livres
Nous offrons des réductions sur tous les plans premium pour les auteurs dont les œuvres sont incluses dans des sélections littéraires thématiques. Contactez-nous pour obtenir un code promo unique!

Vers la bibliographie