Comments on: What is Political Philosophy? And Other Studies

By: Joseph Martin "pomonomo2003"

Joseph Martin "pomonomo2003" — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 18:14:58 +0000

9 of 16 people found the following review helpful:

The enticing ambiguities of Leo Strauss, February 8, 2006

Joseph Martin "pomonomo2003" (NJ, USA) -

This review is from: What is Political Philosophy? And Other Studies (Paperback)

For an author who is most often despised, and occasionally revered, one is surprised on how little consensus there is on what Leo Strauss actually thought. In this brief review I would like to give the prospective reader a little taste of the great enigma that is Leo Strauss.

The difficulty is this, in reading Leo Strauss one always gets the feeling that one is either on the edge of a rather large insight or the target of an elaborate, but delightfully subtle, joke. In the essay on Maimonides ("Maimonides Statement on Political Science," p155-169) LS speaks a great deal about the (meaning of the) order of Maimonides' listing of the divisions and subdivisions of Theoretical and Practical Philosophy, all the while taking special note of the central topic. Centers of lists, books, chapters, and so forth are very important to LS - they represent the least exposed position, and thus (perhaps!) the place to look for the philosophers true meaning.

Maimonides' list:

1. Theoretical Philosophy:

A. Math:

i. Arithmetic
ii. Geometry
iii. Astronomy
iv. Music

B. Physics

C. Theology:

i. God, Angels
ii. Metaphysics

2. Practical Philosophy:

A. Man's Governance of himself.
B. Governance of the household.
C. Governance of the City.
D. Governance of the Nations.

Unfortunately, or so it seems, there is more than one center to our list. There are two "centers" to this list considered as a whole. If one only pays attention to the ABC divisions the center is 2A: Man's Governance of himself. However, if one pays attention to the i,ii,iii subdivisions the center of the whole list is 1C.i: God and Angels. Furthermore, the center of theoretical Philosophy itself is either (in the ABC division) 1B -Physics or (in the i, ii, iii subdivision) 1A.iv -Music. Interestingly, of the 3 major divisions within theoretical philosophy only Physics isn't further subdivided. And (perhaps somewhat more alarmingly) there is no center at all to Practical Philosophy considered on its own.

Practical Philosophy has no center but one of its elements (2A, in the ABC division) is a contender to be the center of the whole of philosophy. Of the centers considered (two for the whole of philosophy, Man's Governance of himself and God and Angels; and two for theoretical philosophy, Physics and Music) only one (God and Angels) could, I think, be considered orthodox or religious. Thus one could (perhaps) be forgiven for thinking that what LS is insinuating, by drawing our attention to this list of Maimonides, is that (with the possible exception of Physics, which has no subdivisions) theoretical philosophy & practical philosophy are based on nothing but Man; the different types and needs of men. Psychology, apparently, is indeed the Queen of the Sciences, as Nietzsche much later maintained.

In any case, when LS says that, "[w]e are tempted to say that the Logic [i.e. the book by Maimonides where the above list occurs] is the only philosophic book which Maimonides ever wrote" one is eerily reminded of how LS saw fit to end the previous essay (How Farabi Read Plato's Laws, p134 -154): "[w]e admire the ease with which Farabi invented Platonic speeches." Now, is LS actually denying that Maimonides later work is philosophical? Or, is the speech (or purpose) LS seemingly attributes to Maimonides' list an invention? Has LS here `invented' a Maimonidean speech?

Further, if one takes into consideration the beginning of the Farabi essay (the observations by LS on Farabi's story about the mystic dissembling to escape a city) one is forced to wonder if (or to what degree) LS seriously meant what he indicates, or can be said to indicate, here. Or, another possibility, is LS `criticizing' Maimonides for daring to be so bold? Does a `genuine' philosopher ever dare say what he actually thinks? By not mentioning the youthfulness of Maimonides when he wrote this work (the `Logic' supposedly was written when he was 16!) is LS drawing our attention to it, seemingly to emphasize that no genuine philosopher would ever speak so frankly when mature? Thus, if this line of interpretation were correct, Maimonides, at the height of his powers (i.e. in the Guide), would never, or so LS maintains above, risk writing a philosophic work.

The central chapters, btw, of `What is Political Philosophy' are the essays on Farabi and Maimonides. ...Strauss was not young when he wrote them.

Additionally, I should point out that in the Farabi essay Strauss draws our attention not only to the similarity between philosophers and the pious (i.e. both face persecution) but also to the differences between them.

"We must understand this in the light of the story of the pious ascetic. Plato was not a pious ascetic. Whereas the pious ascetic... Read more

Help other customers find the most helpful reviews

Was this review helpful to you?

Comment

By: Tron Honto

Tron Honto — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 18:00:00 +0000

2 of 4 people found the following review helpful:

Make this the first book you buy by Leo Strauss, July 7, 2001

Tron Honto -

This review is from: What is Political Philosophy? And Other Studies (Paperback)

Strauss was a master at examining the political philosophy of the past and thus he was able to point us towards many of the lessons we have forgotten from past philosophies today. This work contains his key contribution to modern political philosophy with his great essays "What is political philosophy", "Political philosophy and history", and also a nice collection on such thinkers as Xenophon, al-Farabi, Maimonides, Hobbes, and Locke.

Help other customers find the most helpful reviews

Was this review helpful to you?

Comment

By: Michael Russell

Michael Russell — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 17:30:39 +0000

28 of 28 people found the following review helpful:

Complicated Introduction to Strauss, January 7, 2002

Michael Russell -

This review is from: What is Political Philosophy? And Other Studies (Paperback)

This book isn't a good place to start if you're new to Leo Strauss. In fact, unlike the reviewer above me, I would discourage Straussian neophytes from this collection. Although the book is rich and very representative of the wide range of philosophical concerns (perhaps except for Machiavelli) that dominated Strauss' thought, the essays almost always refer to previous debates/issues raised by other philosophers and/or Strauss' earlier writings. "On Tyranny" for instance presumes knowledge of the Starussian-Kojeve debate-dialogue over Xenophon's Hiero. The last essay on "Kurt Riezler" is really, at least in some sense, a bold assessment of Martin Heidegger's thinking and its effect on Germany during WWII and after.

All the essays date from the 1950s, a period that was very prolific for Leo Strauss. Moreover, this collection testifies to Strauss' on-going debate with prominent scholars of the moment, who have lost some significance in the passage of time. Every selection, except for the 16 book reviews from the 1950s, is a revised lecture; thus Strauss had a particular audience in mind when he offered his remarks (in the brief preface he indicates where and when he spoke/published each essay).

The cleanest and purest essay for the novice, in my estimation, is "On Classical Political Philosophy". Yet even here, Strauss assumes awareness in his audience of what, and who, defines "Classical Political Philosophy" and how "Modern Political Philosophy"(what and whom explained, but also assumed) have distorted the original teaching of classical political philosophers. All things considered I would encourage new readers interested in Leo Strauss to read "City and Man" first (my personal favorite).

These comments don't lessen my estimation of the magnitude, intensity and gracefulness of "What is Political Philosophy". It is certainly worth owning and reading. Albeit, I found this book so wonderful precisely because it refreshed my memory about things that Strauss taught me in his other works.

Help other customers find the most helpful reviews

Was this review helpful to you?

Comment