Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:09:37.638Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Revival of Classical Political Philosophy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

Charles N. R. McCoy
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the “metaphysical squabbles” that Bertrand de Jouvenel has said characterize much of American political science, none has been more bitter and perplexing than the controversy surrounding the work of Leo Strauss. To the extent that one can speak of a revival of classical political philosophy in this country, the credit for it assuredly belongs to the influence of Strauss's profound scholarship. Nonetheless there is common agreement among fairminded reviewers of Strauss's writings that a “calculated obscurity” hides his message. “He does not wish to tell us, in bold propositional terms, what is on his mind,” says Robert McShea. Granted that “Strauss indulges in the … game of esoteric silences,” that his real views are often “camouflaged,” we must see these devices for what Lee McDonald suggests they are: devices to persuade the reader to “a special way of reading the ‘classics’”; they are not primarily concerned with “specific details of interpretation.”

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , April 1973 , pp. 161 - 179
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 McShea, Robert, “Leo Strauss on Machiavelli,” The Western Political Quarterly, XVI (12, 1963), 782.Google Scholar

2 McDonald, Lee, Western Political Theory From its Origins to the Present (New York, 1968), p. 213, n. 72.Google Scholar

3 Strauss, Leo, What Is Political Philosophy? (Glencoe, 1959), p. 29.Google Scholar

4 Ibid., p. 31.

5 Ibid., p. 32.

6 Strauss, Leo, Natural Right and History (Chicago, 1953), p. 156.Google Scholar

7 Strauss, , What Is Political Philosophy? p. 32.Google Scholar

8 Strauss, Leo, The City and Man (Chicago, 1964), p. 21.Google Scholar

9 Ibid.

10 Strauss, , Natural Right and History, p. 156.Google Scholar

11 Ibid., p. 144.

12 Ibid., p. 156.

13 Ibid., p. 144.

14 Ibid.

15 Ibid., p. 156.

16 Ibid., p. 157.

17 Ibid.

18 Ibid., p. 144.

19 Ibid., p. 145.

20 Metaphysics 10. 1053a 33.Google Scholar

21 Strauss, , Natural Right and History, p. 87; p. 92.Google Scholar

22 Metaphysics 10. 1053a 33.Google Scholar

23 Strauss, , The City and Man, p. 278, p. 25.Google Scholar

24 Strauss, , Natural Right and History, pp. 147–148.Google Scholar

25 Ibid., pp. 148–49.

26 Politics 2. 1261b 23–33.Google Scholar

27 Metaphysics 10. 1053a 24.Google Scholar

28 Ethics 5. 1137b 12–19.Google Scholar

29 Politics 7. 1326a 24–32.Google Scholar

30 Strauss, , The City and Man, p. 22.Google Scholar

31 Strauss, , Natural Right and History, p. 152.Google Scholar

32 Ibid., p. 92.

33 Ibid., p. 93.

34 Ibid., pp. 93–94. As an example of “camouflage” in Strauss's teaching, to which McShea calls attention, we have the following curious remarks of Strauss on the “world-state”: “… what is divined in speaking of the ‘worldstate’ as an all-comprehensive human society subject to one human government is in truth the cosmos ruled by God, which is then the only true city, or the city that is simply according to nature because it is the only city which is simply just. Men are citizens of this city, or freemen in it, only if they are wise; their obedience to the law which orders the natural city, to the natural law, is the same thing as prudence” (ibid., pp. 149–150). Since, as we have just seen, the justice that has superhuman support is what is right according to nature as standard, the meaning of these sentences can only be that if God were to rule the “world-state” his rule would ignore the principles of indigenousness and private ownership. “God” is “camouflage” for “wise rules.” Indeed, Strauss tells us that Plato's cosmology is not separable from the quest for the best political order (The City and Man, p. 21).Google Scholar

35 De Koninck, Charles, “The Nature of Man and His Historical Being,” Laval Théologique et Philosophique, V, 2 (1949), 274.Google Scholar

36 Physics II. 197b 25–27.Google Scholar

37 De Koninck, , op. cit., p. 274.Google Scholar

38 Strauss, , Natural Right and History, p. 92.Google Scholar

39 Ibid., p. 87.

40 Aristotle, Ethics. I. 1096b 8ff.Google Scholar

41 Ibid.

42 Ibid.

43 Aristotle, On the Soul. 2, 414b 20–25.Google Scholar

44 Strauss, , Natural Right and History, p. 152.Google Scholar

45 One ought not to abandon the search for universal causes in the line of causality itself. Unlike the universal of predication which contains its subject parts indeterminately and confusedly (elephant and man are contained confusedly in “animal”; family and village are contained confusedly in “community”), the universal cause in the order of reality belongs to nature as “authority”: it has real existence as a universal and is a universal cause by reason of extending to many different kinds of effects. When Aristotle says that the state is prior by nature to the family, his meaning is that the state is a more universal final cause of good, diffusive of itself by reason of its communicability and reaching to the various parts of the whole state in their very diversity. But this diversity comes from the order of the parts in the whole; thus, the common good is the good of individuals as parts and members of society and is sought by them precisely as members of society and as being not all alike. Reaching thus to individuals in what is most determinate and actual in them, the common good is a universal cause in the order of causality: this common good of the community is, for each of the members, also the good of the others.

46 Aristotle, Politics. 2. 1261a 18–23.Google Scholar

47 Strauss, , Natural Right and History, pp. 163–164; p. 144.Google Scholar

48 McShea, , p. 786.Google Scholar

49 Strauss, , Natural Right and History, p. 119.Google Scholar

50 Ibid., pp. 92–93.

51 Ibid.

52 Cassirer, Ernst, The Philosophy of the Enlightenment (Boston, 1951), p. 18.Google Scholar

53 Ibid., pp. 144–145.

54 Strauss, , The City and Man, p. 21.Google Scholar

55 Cassirer, , pp. 144–145.Google Scholar

56 Aristotle, Physics. 200a 22Google Scholar; Ethics. 1103b 3–6; 1129b 17.Google Scholar

57 Aristotle, Metaphysics. IV.Google Scholar; Ethics. 1094a; 1096 ff.Google Scholar

58 Maréchal, Joseph, Précis d'histoire de la philosophie moderne (Brussels and Paris, 1931), I, 137, n. 77.Google Scholar

59 Sabine, George H., A History of Political Theory (New York, 1937), p. 65.Google Scholar

60 Strauss, , The City and Man, p. 21.Google Scholar

61 Hobbes, Thomas, LeviathanGoogle Scholar, Book II, Chapter 30. See also McCoy, Charles, The Structure of Political Thought (New York, 1963)Google Scholar, Chapter VII “The Modernized Theory of Natural Law and the Enlightenment.”

62 “Manuscrit economico-philosophique, XXIV,” cited in De Marx au Marxisms, (ed.) Aron, Robert (Paris, 1948), p. 93.Google Scholar

63 Quoted by Rühle, Otto, Karl Marx, His Life and Work (London, 1929), p. 33.Google Scholar

64 The State and Revolution, (New York, 1932), p. 74.Google Scholar

65 Marx, and Engels, , The German Ideology (New York, 1939), p. 20.Google Scholar

66 Marx, Karl, “Die Judenfrage,” Gesamtausgabe, sec. I. Vol. I, pt. I, (Berlin, 1927–1932) 595.Google Scholar

67 The Invisible Writing (Boston, 1954), pp. 41–42.Google Scholar This verification of the “substitute intelligence” of nature as standard that is found in Marx's “socialized humanity” may be seen also in that child of Lockean natural right, “corporate liberalism”: “The change from the overt authority of the nineteenth century to the anonymous authority of the twentieth was determined by the organizational needs of our modern industrial society. … Modern man is obliged to nourish the illusion that everything is done with his consent, even though such consent be extracted from him by subtle manipulation. His consent is obtained, as it were, behind his back, or behind his consciousness.” Erich Fromm, Introduction to Neill, A. S., Summirhill: A Radical Approach to Child-Rearing, 2nd ed. (New York, 1964), pp. x–xi.Google Scholar Italics added. See Lynd, Staughton, “The New Left” in The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (03, 1969).Google Scholar

68 Strauss, , What Is Political Philosophy? p. 51.Google Scholar

69 Strauss, , Natural Right and History, pp. 152–153; p. 119.Google Scholar

70 Ibid., p. 119.

71 Strauss, , What h Political Philosophy? p. 40.Google Scholar