[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.

[MEG33]

I read a good article by Horowitz about this if memory serves.

[A. Pole]

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.

Karl Schmitt should not be flippantly dissmissed. Same way you could dismiss Heidegger and Jung for example.

Even if one can disagree with their ideas, still they provide an important alternative approaches and points of reference. They should not be reduced to the Nazism, same way as many left-leaning thinkers should not be reduced to Commies.

[bourbon]

You are certainly correct to describe Drury's book as nothing more than a purblind diatribe. A much better and more searching description of the correspondence between Schmitt and Struass is Heinrich Meier's book Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss: The Hidden Dialogue. It quickly disproves Drury's foolish theory that there was some sort of essential connection between the two philosophers. In fact, Strauss' letters to Schmitt contain very powerful criticisms of the "Nazi philosopher's" writings.

One other thing. The article posted here makes it seem that egalitarianism was some sort of bugbear for Strauss. From my readings of his work, I would say this is an unfair characterization. I would say he focuses most of his scorn on the ideas of historicism, relativism, and the modern destruction of the classical ideal of "nature."

[Helms]

What about the supposed estimation of Strauss concerning Heidegger, The Magician/(or Maniac) of Messkirk ?

Recent scholarship and reading Richard Wolin and Habermas reveals that Heidegger was an unapolgetic Nazi and psuedo messianic philosopher whose influence has been underestimated as having gained huge influence in French and German philosophical thought. This philosophy has in turn influenced US liberal elites.

This article is suspect as being yet another idiots guide or interpretation of Post Modern Philosophy.

[dix]

Will read, and access later.

[Osage Orange]

You wrote:

"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."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I kept thinking the same....when reading the article.

Thanks for saying...what I was thinking.

FRegards,

[ladyinred]

I wish they would get it right.
Once and for all leftys, Nazi's were/are Socialists.
Look it up in your dictionary or an old old history book.