Leo Strauss

Leo Strauss (September 20, 1899 – October 18, 1973), was a Jewish German-American political philosopher who has been greatly influential in America.

Political ideology

Though not an active participant in politics, Strauss was known as an unabashed critic of modern liberalism. He greatly admired the profundity, subtlety, and dialectical character of classical political philosophers such as Plato. In particular, he criticised modern liberalism for giving primacy to individual liberty without higher goals toward which freedom pointed. He reminded his students of the importance of such goals in life as excellence and virtue, as had been emphasised in classical liberalism.

Related Topics:
Liberalism - Dialectical - Plato

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Strauss is a controversial and much caricatured figure in some academic and journalistic circles, both for his criticisms of various modern movements and thinkers (including many conservatives), and because some of his students, such as Allan Bloom and Harry V. Jaffa, and his students' students, are themselves controversial public figures. Among his students' students are some Republicans such as Paul Wolfowitz who are said to demonstrate a link between Strauss and Neo-Conservatism, and therefore an indirect influence of Strauss over the direction of the American regime itself. The strength of this link is debatable.

Related Topics:
Allan Bloom - Harry V. Jaffa - Republicans - Paul Wolfowitz - Neo-Conservatism

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

However, in the most extreme cases, Strauss is still frequently portrayed as a Machiavellian right wing elitist who did not have much sympathy for American-style democracy, and perhaps even conspired against it via his intellectual influence on students. Part of the accusation is similar to that made against Socrates. The standard Straussian retort is that Strauss, like Winston Churchill or Shakespeare, could be a friend of democracy even while he criticised it. Indeed, Churchill's life and writings were a great inspiration to both Strauss and the Neo-Conservatives, and many of the beliefs they share can be found in Churchill's much more well known writings (including even a reference to the contrast between Jerusalem and Athens; see his History of the Second World War).

Related Topics:
Winston Churchill - Shakespeare

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Strauss was probably critical of something in all political systems - certainly those of the past, and probably all those of the future. He controversially claimed that Plato's seeming utopianism in works like the Republic should never have been seen as agendas for real regimes (he was scathing of Karl Popper, who criticised Plato's Republic as proposal for a real regime). He was consistently suspicious of anything claiming to be a solution to an old political or philosophical problem. He was very skeptical of "progress", but he was certainly also skeptical about political agendas of "return" (which is the term he used in contrast to progress). He spoke of the danger in trying to ever finally resolve the debate between rationalism and traditionalism in politics. In particular, along with many in the pre-war German right, he feared people trying to force a world state to come into being in the future, thinking that it would be inevitable that this would be a tyranny. One of his works is titled "On Tyranny" and Strauss's students feel that one thing he really did want people to learn in America is that tyranny is a real possibility.

Related Topics:
Utopianism - The Republic - Karl Popper - German right - World state - Tyranny

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The word "fascist" has been thrown at Strauss and his students, although even their harshest critics would have not accused Straussians of either anti-semitism or racism on the one hand, or popularism or demagoguery on the other, thus leaving the word with little meaning except "right wing". Demonstrating a connection to Nazism, would require a demonstration of racism and demagoguery, at least according to Strauss himself. (He referred to Nazism as "vulgar".) It would be however be true to say that Strauss felt that without these two characteristics, right wing politics was something which should be grappled with, as he did himself with regards to Heidegger, Nietzsche and Carl Schmitt. He also (like Churchill) did not treat imperialism as something which should always be considered as bad. In contrasting Churchill to Hitler he seemed to suggest, during the second world war, that Churchill might deserve empire.

Related Topics:
Fascist - Anti-semitism - Racism - Popularism - Demagoguery - Right wing - Nazism - Heidegger - Nietzsche - Carl Schmitt

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Apart from encouraging more and better reading of older, as opposed to only recent, philosophers, certain fashions in word use are perhaps one of the only influences that Strauss has had on early twenty-first century American political life. In particular, relativistic and vague words are out - hence politicians daring to use words like "evil". And words with a classical heritage, such as "tyranny" and "regime" are back in mode (with something even of their original meaning; for example "regime" = Greek "politeia" and is not so often used as a jargon word for a government anymore).

Related Topics:
Relativistic - Politicians - Evil - Classical - Tyranny - Regime

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

With regards then to Strauss' approach to philosophical texts, his most famous teaching was the distinction between 'esoteric' and 'exoteric' readings. Strauss maintained that philosophers very often concealed their true thoughts beneath a surface (or exoteric) teaching. Careful study would reveal the true or esoteric teaching. Primarily, philosophers did this to protect their own lives, and to guard against the detrimental effects of philosophy upon people who cannot understand it fully. The example of Socrates' execution at the hands of the many was not taken lightly.

Related Topics:
Esoteric - Exoteric

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Stemming from his study of Plato and particularly the discussion of writing in the Phaedrus, Strauss thought that an esoteric text was the proper type for philosophic learning. Rather than simply outline the philosophers thoughts, the esoteric text forces the reader to do their own thinking and learning. This, perhaps, accounts for the complexity and strangeness of some of Strauss' books.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Strauss argued that contemporary liberalism was the logical outcome of the philosophical principles of modernity, as practiced in the "advanced" nations of the Western world in the 20th century. He believed that contemporary liberalism contained within it an intrinsic tendency towards relativism, which in turn led to the nihilism that he saw as permeating contemporary American society. For Strauss, overcoming the relativism of our time requires a return to the ultimate philosophic sources of Western thought - most importantly, to the Socratic-Platonic-Aristotelian corpus.

Related Topics:
Modernity - Western world - 20th century - Relativism - Nihilism

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Strauss noted that thinkers of the first rank, going back to Plato, had raised the problem of whether good and effective politicians could be completely truthful and still achieve the necessary ends of their society. By implication, Strauss asks his readers to consider whether "noble lies" (Plato) have any role at all to play in uniting and guiding the cities of man. Are certain, unprovable "myths" taught by wise leaders needed to give most people meaning and purpose and to ensure a stable society? Or can society flourish on a foundation of those "deadly truths" (Nietzsche) limited to what we can know absolutely?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

While modern liberalism had stressed the pursuit of individual liberty as its highest goal, Strauss was interested in governments taking a greater interest in the problem of human excellence and political virtue. Through his writings, Strauss constantly raised the question of how, and to what extent, freedom and excellence can coexist. Without deciding this issue, Strauss refused to make do with any simplistic or one-sided resolutions of the Socratic question, What is the good for the city and man?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~