Philosophy
Prior to discussing Strauss's philosophy it is helpful to understand his
views on his relation to philosophy and philosophers. Strauss would not use
these terms loosely, and would not, himself, deign to consider his contributions
as more than an analysis of the previously existing philosophic canon. In
his introductory essay on Heidegger he wrote that, "perhaps only the great
thinkers are really competent to judge the thought of great thinkers." Here,
he made the distinction between "scholars" and "philosophers". He wrote that
he knew he was "only" a scholar, but that, today, most who call themselves
philosophers are, at best, mere scholars. Scholars are cautious and methodic,
not bold. Still, he argued that while the great thinkers are bold, they are
in fact even more cautious inasmuch as they see pitfalls whereas the scholar
sees sure ground. Finally, scholars become possible because the great thinkers
disagree on fundamental points, and these disagreements create the possibility
for scholars to reason.
Straussianism, as Strauss's philosophy has come to be called, is
predicated on the belief that 20th
century relativism, scientism,
historicism,
and nihilism
have been responsible for the deterioration of modern society
and philosophy.
Some Straussians believe that "universal principles of right" exist and are
knowable through careful study of those philosophers who believed in such
principles, especially Plato and Aristotle.
They reject the modern tendency to interpret the ancient philosophers within
the context of the era in which they lived, believing that universal principles
transcend historicity.
In "Natural Right and History" Strauss begins with a critique of the epistemology
of Max
Weber, and then goes on to discuss the evolution of Natural Right and
Natural Law with an analysis of the thought of Thomas
Hobbes and John Locke. He ends with a critique of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Edmund
Burke. Throughout the work Plato, Aristotle,
Cicero,
and Montesquieu are referenced and discussed. A selection
of Strauss's essays published under the title, "The Rebirth of Classical
Political Rationalism" offers an introduction to his thinking: "Social Science
and Humanism", "An Introduction to Heideggerian Existentialism", "On Classical
Political Philosophy", "Thucydides and the Meaning of Political History",
and "How to Begin to Study Medieval Philosophy" are topics discussed. Certainly
much of his philosophy is a reaction to the works of Martin Heidegger, as Strauss and his lifelong
friend Jacob Klein had numerous encounters with Heidegger when they were
young men. Indeed, Strauss wrote that Heidegger's thinking must be understood
and confronted before any complete formulation of modern political theory
is possible.
Strauss approached the ideas of Nietzsche (and Kierkegaard) from his understanding
of the work of Heidegger which he placed under the general rubric of "existentialism"-a
movement with a "flabby periphery" but a "hard center" (see his 1961 essay,
Relativism and the Study of Man). He wrote that Nietzsche was the
first philosopher to properly understand relativism, an idea grounded in a
general acceptance of Hegelian historicism. Hegel postulated an end of history.
Nietzsche, for his part, saw that "our own principles, including the belief
in progress, will become as relative as all earlier principles had shown
themselves to be." In fine, "the only way out seems to be that one turn one's
back on this lesson of history, that one voluntarily choose life-giving delusion
instead of deadly truth, that one fabricate a myth." It was Strauss's work
to show a way out of relativism.
There exists a controversy surrounding Strauss's interpretation of the
existing philosophical canon. Strauss believed that the writings of many
philosophers contained both an exoteric (public) and esoteric (private or
hidden) teaching. For instance, in "Natural Right and History" he contrasts
the views of Locke both from a traditional perspective wherein the idea of
Natural Law within a Christian theological ground is presumed, and another
more radical view contrary to this usual interpretation. To support his contention
he mentions Lessing's commentary on Leibniz, and Schleiermacher's Platonic studies. But, according
to Strauss, generally this kind of exoteric/esoteric dichotomy became unused
by the time of Kant.
Danny Bayer, a member of the LaRouche Youth Movement, makes the argument
(
Bayer's argument (http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/commentaries/3024lar_show_strauss.html))
that Strauss believed that in Plato's Republic, the representative of Plato's
true thinking on politics and society was not Socrates, as is generally thought,
but Thrasymachus. Strauss believed that Plato used Socrates
(who argued that justice was the implementation of goals that led to the
greatest harmony, and thus to happiness) to display skill in making the weaker
argument appear better, whereas Thrasymachus' argument that justice was the
exercise of power was the argument that Plato actually believed to be the
stronger one.
Strauss had similar views on the writings of the Jewish philosopher Maimonides
(Moses son of Maimon). Maimonides stated that he had controversial esoteric
views which were hidden from the masses. Strauss wrote an influential essay
illustrating the way to read Maimonides' Guide for the Perplexed, allowing a
reader to find his esoteric, true views.
Leo Strauss