Yoram Hazony and Leo Strauss on the Relation between Philosophy and Revelation

This essay challenges Yoram Hazony's ostensible correction of Leo Strauss's account of the tension between philosophy and revelation in Hazony's book The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture. While Hazony persuasively demonstrates the value of the Hebrew Bible, notably the half that he calls the “History of Israel,” as a work of rational political theory, emphasizing the difference in function between the Torah and the Christian “New Testament” (which serves chiefly to “bear witness” to particular events, rather than account for the permanent character of human and political life), he wrongly accuses Strauss of sharing the position of the radically antiphilosophic Christian theologian Tertullian that the Bible and classical philosophy are “absolutely oppos[ed],” even though Strauss, unlike Tertullian, takes the side of philosophy rather than the Bible in this conflict. Contrary to the impression Hazony conveys, Strauss readily acknowledged that the believer, no less than the philosopher, is obliged to make use of reason in his quest for truth and noted the critical areas of agreement between the Torah and classical philosophy. He simply emphasized the conflict between philosophy's reliance on reason as the ultimate guide to truth and the dependence of the Bible on belief in divine revelation, a dependence that Hazony implausibly seems to deny. And Hazony's challenge to the very distinction between reason and revelation threatens to weaken our appreciation of both sides of this tension, which Strauss identified as the source of the West's “vitality.”     

Living the Theologico-Political Problem: Leo Strauss on the Common Ground of Philosophy and Theology

Leo Strauss argues that the “theologico-political” problem arose from the competing claims of rationalist philosophy and theology. Although he urges others to take sides in this debate, most theorists see it as insoluble, since it is rooted in competing traditions and different, non-demonstrable, epistemic principles. Strauss, however, argues that there is a common ground capable of sustaining a contest between the two: their appeal to the pre-philosophic understanding of justice as moral virtue. The contest between the Bible and Socratic-Platonic philosophy centers on which of the two better understands what justice is, what completes it, and in what respect it is good. Strauss enables us to see why Plato’s Socratic dialogues became indispensable models for classical and medieval philosophers who sought to meet the challenge of theology on the vital common ground of philosophy and theology.     

Leo Strauss and the Defense of Western Civilization

To Father Ernest Fortin:

[The] highest achievement … of theology's handmaiden is to show that the arguments leveled against divine revelation are not compelling or demonstrably true.1 1.?Father Ernest Fortin, The Birth of Philosophic Christianity, Collected Essays, 4 vols. (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1996): I: 230. View all notes

To the extent that we are now in the midst of the so-called “clash of civilizations,” it may be noteworthy that a major controversy—scholarly and journalistic––has emerged over the bearing of Leo Strauss on the defense of the West. This article explores the roots of the controversy as found in his “The Mutual Influence of Theology and Philosophy,” which raises and answers two questions: what is Western Civilization and is it worthy of defense? It is claimed that the very foundation of Western Civilization is constituted at its core by the twin pillars of revelation and Socratic philosophizing; and that the West merits life only if both of its pillars are defendable by reason against rational attack. In what follows, I attempt to trace Strauss's dialectical defense of the West by means of his demonstration of the irrefutability of revelation by reason and the theological-political bearing of this defense. I come to a dual conclusion: the existence of the monotheistic God of revelation is irrefutable by philosophy; yet, the human relevance of revelation, as the guide for a way of life—politically and individually—remains open to challenge by philosophy. Along the way, I also treat the recent research that is in conflict over Strauss's views.     

Comments on Robert Howse,Leo Strauss: Man of Peace

Robert Howse's book does a good and welcome job of showing a Leo Strauss who is far from the bloodstained “neoconservative” caricature that is so commonly presented. He rightly emphasizes Strauss's concern for decency and the keeping of peace where possible. Especially telling is his account of Strauss's view of Thucydides's alleged “realism.” He does a good job of showing how Strauss, like Thucydides, balances the claims of necessity with the substantive and practically important claims of justice. However, Howse pushes Strauss a little too far when it comes to his faith in permanently peaceful large federations and goes to excess in distancing himself from Strauss's neoconservative followers, at one point even falling into mischaracterization in doing so. If the purpose of this distancing was to make Strauss more acceptable to leftist critics, it is doubtful that this will succeed; if the purpose was less strategic and more personal, it seems an excessive response.     

Exile and the Demos: Leo Strauss in America

This article explores the political, as opposed to the philosophical, impact of Leo Strauss’s exile in America on his thought. After a consideration of anti-Semitism and the importance Strauss attached to being a Jew, I argue that the fact that in America he no longer wrote in his Muttersprache but in English was central to his becoming a political theorist rather than a philosopher. Whereas as a philosopher he was unable to speak to the demos, as a political theorist what he needed was a group of “rhetors” who would carry a particular message to the demos.     

On the Question of the Legacy of Leo Strauss

The question of the legacy of Leo Strauss, insofar as it is philosophically raised, deals not with what he had handed down, but with the mission he had undertaken. Philosophically, the question of the legacy of Leo Strauss is the question of his legation. That question takes its bearings from the question of the mission of Socrates, which, in turn, takes its bearings from the question of the “ladder of ascent” as set forth by Diotima. The rung of that ladder reached by Strauss is the question of his legacy, philosophically understood.     

From experience to law: Leo Strauss and the Weimar crisis of the philosophy of religion

This paper is a study of the origins of Leo Strauss's thought, arguing that its early development must be understood in the context of the philosophy of religion of late Wilhelmine and Weimar Germany. More specifically, it shows that Strauss's early works were written against the background of Kantian philosophy and post-Kantian accounts of religious experience, and that his turn towards medieval law as a topic and ideal was precipitated by the critique of those accounts by radical Protestant theologians writing in the post-World War I era of crisis. Ironically, then, Strauss's investment in premodern Judaism—and his related rejection of modern philosophy—had important Christian origins.     

Between Athens and Jerusalem: Western otherness in the thought of Leo Strauss and Hannah Arendt

In understanding the meaning of the West, twentieth‐century political philosophers Hannah Arendt and Leo Strauss called for a return to “Athens” (classical political philosophy) in order to address the “crisis of the West,” a loss of a sense of legitimate and stable political authority which, in their view, constitutes a nihilistic threat to Western democracy. The only way for the West to escape this nihilistic crisis is to return to Plato and Aristotle. Implicit in this critique is the belief that the other tradition of the West, “Jerusalem” (the Bible) has contributed to this nihilism, by undermining the authority of the Greeks. Is Jerusalem, then, the fatal “Other” for the West? Which tradition—Athens or Jerusalem—is best prepared to alleviate the crisis of the West, especially the survival of democracy? As I address these questions, I shall contend that it is Jerusalem, not Athens, which is the true source of Western democracy.     

Intellectual History and the History of Philosophy

Summary

The issue which I wish to address in this paper is the widespread tendency in Anglophone philosophy to insist on a separation between the history of philosophy and the history of ideas or intellectual history. This separation reflects an anxiety on the part of philosophers lest the special character of philosophy will be dissolved into something else in the hands of historians. And it is borne of a fundamental tension between those who think of philosophy's past as a source of ideas and arguments of interest to the present, and those who hold that the philosophy of the past should be studied on its own terms, in relation to its immediate context, without reference to the present. The challenge, then, is to re-historicise the history of philosophy, and to keep the philosophers onside.     

A Life in Maps: Leo Bagrow,Imago Mundi,and the History of Cartography in the Early Twentieth Century

ABSTRACT:

This essay provides a critical commentary on the life of Leo Bagrow (1881–1957), the founding editor of Imago Mundi, drawing on previously unused correspondence from the journal’s archive, recently catalogued by the British Library in London. Bagrow’s experiences in the three European cities in which he lived and worked (St Petersburg, Berlin and Stockholm) are examined afresh and new insights are provided about the complex intellectual and sometimes political objectives and motivations of Bagrow and his fellow map dealers, map collectors and map historians. Particular attention is paid to the productive but often strained relationships between Bagrow and the expanding global network of map historians with whom he collaborated while establishing and editing Imago Mundi between 1935 and his death. This network was divided into four distinct and to some extent rival constituencies (university academics, map librarians, map collectors and map dealers). The essay examines how Imago Mundi, under Bagrow’s often confrontational editorship, emerged as the central co-ordinating forum through which these constituencies communicated with each other and within which the foundations for the modern discipline of map history were established.     

历史哲学谈薮

中国在：20世纪30年代,有过农业哲学、人生哲学、法律哲学、民族哲学、行动哲学等,其中较多的是历史哲学。这个复合词是怎么在中国发展的?我们研究史学的时候,何以有必要注意历史的哲学问题?学习这个历史哲学有什么基本的内容?中国人如何运用历史哲学?等等。本文企图将自己的体验作点介绍,并就正于方家门前。     

A note on the death of Leo Sgurus in A.D. 1208

Abstract

Leo Sgurus, archon and ‘tyrant’ of Argolis and Corinthia from c.1200 with an impressive career in the period until c.1208, succeeded in establishing an extensive albeit short-lived Territorialstaat in the NE Peloponnesus following the Latin capture of Constantinople on 12/13 April 1204 and the subsequent Latin onslaught in Greek territories. Truly among the most outstanding figures of the late Byzantine era, Sgurus has been characterized by Dionysios A. Zakythenos as one of the last 'defenders of Greek independence’ following the Frankish conquest of 1204, for this local archon seems to have constituted the sale realistic hope of the mainland Greece populations for an effective stance against the marching crusaders of Boniface of Montferrat, though, as the late George Kolias observed thirty years ago, he unwisely directed his activities rather against his compatriots than against the Latin invader. Yet, it has recently been said by Michael J. Angold that Sgurus ‘almost certainly enjoyed local backing in his expeditions’.