[Sci Fi Guy]

LaRouche, the fringe presidential candidate who believes that the world is being governed by Jewish bankers inspired by a Babylonian cult and that the Queen of England is a drug dealer, argue that Strauss is the evil genius behind the Republican Party. More sensible folk, like the New York Times writer Brent Staples, who earned a doctorate in psychology at Chicago in the 1980s, have also decried the ''sinister vogue'' of Strauss.

LOL, So this is what it looks like when the democratic party implodes.

[A. Pole]

FYI

[Seti 1]

This is a very interesting read. Thanks for posting it.

[Reactionary]

Here we go again. The Boston Globe has decided to educate everyone about the "real" Leo Strauss by quoting dunderheads like Shadia Drury. Her book "Leo Strauss and the American Right" is widely regarded as a vulgar attempt to link Strauss to the extremist views of the Nazi philosopher Karl Schmidt. What is her rationale? She does so by showing that Strauss held correspondance with Schmidt and discussed his "Occasional Decisionism" throughout his life. She ignores the fact, however, that Strauss also held lifelong discussions with people like Alexandre Kojeve (an avowed communist). For people who've read and understood Strauss, Drury's book has nothing to do with scholarship; it's an attempt to discredit Strauss through character assassination alone.

Strauss has never said that "those who are fit rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right, the right of the superior to rule over the inferior" (one of Drury's quotes). He never supported the idea of power politics or the mere usefulness of religion in civic life. He has never supported the idea of "perpetual war." He was never an enemy of liberal democracy.

Strauss was a political philosopher who focused on reviving the study of other political philsophers in a serious way. He was a friend of liberal democracy, although his support of it did not extend to flattery. His book "Natural Right and History" was a broadside attack on historicism and relativism. Granted, he had misgivings about the modern political project, especially concerning the non-teleological aspects of modern science. He thought that ancient political philosophy was superior to modern political philosophy. However this may be, Shadia Drury and the Boston Globe are completely out of their league in accurately describing anything he's written.

However, I will say that if the the editors at the Boston Globe are interested in people reading Strauss with "Straussian eyes," the first thing to do is to buy the books and read them. Let the author speak for himself. Don't focus on his life or what other people have said about him. In order to read Strauss with "Straussian eyes," let Strauss speak for himself.

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

One of Allan Bloom's students told me that Professor Bloom had taught them that Plato was just an American-style democrat. This is just absurd. Plato taught the rule of a tiny elite, which is what the Straussians actually believe.''

And the democrats arn't run by a small ruling class of power hungry rich, union boss thugs, and academic marxists? Who says they aren't? They sure as Hell don't stand for the individual.

[Helms]

It is doubtful that Heidegger was so well considered by Strauss.

ODD AS THIS MAY SOUND, we live in a world increasingly shaped by Martin Heidegger, Sartre and their postmodernist descendants . Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) a controversial philosopher influenced Marcuse, Hannah Arhrendt and other post moderns. Although generally unknown to the wider population,Heidegger has been one of the two or three most important intellectual influences on the liberal European imagination and politics now ascendant in the UN and EU.

"...antidemocratic sentiment was not merely an ephermeral trend, but a defining feature of 20th-century French political culture"

[kesg]

I have never heard of Leo Strauss until a few weeks ago, even though I have read dozens of philosophy books by many different philosophers over the last 25 years or so. After reading this article, which is long on innuendo but short on actual facts about what the man actually believed, I still know nothing about his actual views.

[Cacique]

ping

[Mihalis]

From: http://www.straussian.net/

What is Straussian Political Philosophy? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some distinguishing aspects of a Straussian approach to political philosophy:

(1) A return to treating old books seriously, reading them slowly and with an effort to understand them as their authors did, rather than as History does.

(2) A recognition of the political nature of philosophy, that most philosophers who wrote did so wrote with a political purpose.

(3) A recognition that the greatest thinkers often wrote with both exoteric and esoteric teachings, either out of fear of persecution or a general desire to present their most important teachings to those most receptive to them. This leads to an attempt to discern the esoteric teachings of the great philosophers from the clues they left in thier writings for careful readers to find.

(4) A recognition of the dangers that historicism, relativism, eclecticism, scientism, and nihilism pose to philosophy and to Western culture generally, and an effort to steer philosophy away from these devastating influences through a return to the seminal texts of Western thought.

(5) Careful attention paid to the dialogue throughout the development of Western culture between its two points of departure: Athens and Jerusalem. The recognition that Reason and Revelation, originating from these two points respectively, are the two distinct sources of knowledge in the Western tradition, and can be used neither to support nor refute the other, since neither claims to be based on the other's terms.

(6) A constant examination of the most drastic of philosophic distinctions: that between the Ancients and the Moderns. An attempt to better understand philosophers of every age in relation to this distinction, and to learn everything that we as moderns can learn about ourselves by studying both eras....

If this is what Straussian philosophy is, it seems quite empty.

[LauraJean]

''Robert Goldwin became one of the first Straussians to work in practical politics when he joined the campaign of Charles Percy, a Republican candidate for the governorship of Illinois, in 1964. ''
I never thought of Chuck Percy as a conservative. If I remember him rightly I always thought of his politics closer to the RINO catagory.
If Robert Goldwin is a Straussian then I can only assume that Straussian are not conservative but liberals who, realizing they could not win in the election as a Democrat, take on the coloring of the Republican party.

[AndyJackson]

The Philosopher of Neoconservatives - The late Leo Strauss has emerged as the thinker of the moment in Washington, but his ideas remain mysterious. Was he an ardent opponent of tyranny, or an apologist for the abuse of power?

This is an astonishing article. From start to finish. First, is the author’s hangup with neoconservatives, I presume with the warning that by supporting Bush in the Iraqi war, I am falling in with a nefarious crowd of people who are potentially duping all of us. Since, I still don’t know what a neo-conservative is other than a Republic who has incurred the wrath of Pat Buchanan, I am confused. I seriously doubt that there are 10 people in positions of power in Washington who have heard of Leo Strauss. I am further struck in all of this by the notion that these leftists are trying to insinuate that Strauss and Straussians are anti-democratic – they the followers of Carl Marx and Bill Clinton of all people.

One of Allan Bloom's students told me that Professor Bloom had taught them that Plato was just an American-style democrat. This is just absurd. Plato taught the rule of a tiny elite, which is what the Straussians actually believe.''

In this one neat little statement, this author manages to put words that were not uttered in the mouths of a host of people, discrediting all of them, without us having a clue what any of them actually said or believed. Allan Bloom’s “The Closing of the American Mind” is one of the great books of the 20th century. His argument is that American leftism has its origins in the misinterpretation of a German philosophic tradition that no of the adherents actually understood. Far from telling anyone what Plato said, what Bloom says is that everyone should go and read Plato for himself. In fact, his subtitle is From Socrates Apology to Heidigger’s Rektorratsrede. Bloom’s immediate problem is to understand how philosophers went from the intellectual position that of Socrates who died rather than to submit to tyranny to Heidigger who threw the weight of his office and prestige behind the Nazis. It is very hard, based on this book, to understand Bloom as a cryptofascist, or anything other than one who exhorts individuals to do their own thinking, their own interpretation, and have the courage to stand up to the fascists of the left who dominate American campuses and what passes for the American thought.

As such, Bloom is a real problem for the left, because he exposes the American left’s philosophical barrenness. Having assumed the mantel of an intellectual and philosophical elite, they show none of the habits of philosophers thorugh the ages. As such, I suppose it is or was a vital problem for the left to discredit Bloom and Strauss. But they are both dead,

One of the most striking and jarring of Plato’s texts is the Republic, which leads us step by seductive step on the road from democracy to tyranny. Given that this reductio ad absurdum is a standard technique of the Dialogs to demonstrate to individuals how little we really know, in fact, I find it hard to believe that Plato himself endorses the position that is reached in the Republic.

[philosofy123]

"we live in a world increasingly shaped by Leo Strauss"

You live in that world! Very few people know or care about who the hell is Leo Stauss. If a bunch of New York pincov Commies get together at a restaurant on 72St to bitch about things, that does not mean that they shaped our world.

[Allan]

Strauss is greatly admired by many leftist 'Political Scientists'.
Go figure.