In the words of Catharine MacKinnon, "a woman is not yet a name for a way of being human." In other words, women are still excluded, as authors and agents, from identifying what it is to be human and what therefore violates the dignity and integrity of humans. Recognition, Responsibility, and Rights is written in response to that failure. This collection of essays by prominent feminist thinkers advances the positive feminist project of remapping the moral landscape by developing theory that (...) acknowledges the diversity of women. (shrink)

There is a growing resurgence in the study of psychedelic medicines for the treatment of mental health and substance use disorders. However, certain early investigations are marred by questionable research methods, abuses against research participants, and covert Central Intelligence Agency financial involvement. The purpose of this study was to understand how and to what extent people of colour and other vulnerable populations, specifically, individuals who were incarcerated or incapacitated due to mental health issues, were exploited during the first wave of (...) psychedelic research in the USA. To do so, we reviewed available empirical publications according to current ethical standards. Variables of interest included race and ethnicity of participants, population vulnerability, drug administration conditions, informed consent and undue influence. Our findings draw attention to the history of research abuses against people of colour in Western psychedelic research. In light of these findings, we urge a call-to-action to current psychedelic researchers to prioritise culturally inclusive and socially responsible research methods in current and future studies. All data relevant to the study are included in the article. (shrink)

The attempts at introducing so called "value neutrality" into social sciences did not approve to be the sufficient means against their ideological deformations, which still are a challenge requiring a new complex system of the critique of new ideologies. A more detailed examination of the ancient philosophy could be useful in resolving this task. The works of Eric Voegelin and Leo Strauss represent a specific approach to the study of ancient philosophical systems, They both emphasize, though from different points (...) of view, the complexity in classical philosophers in their examination of human nature. The paper focuses on those doctrines of the above mentioned modern philosophers, which might be useful not only in considering not only the political crisis in the West in the 20th century, but also in creating a better means for the critical analysis of the current problems of global politics. It also introduces examples of practical consequences of modern rejecting the "classical model" and points out several simplifications occurring in contemporary approaches to classical political philosophy. (shrink)

Leo Strauss (1899-1973) a inscrit sa pensée dans l'héritage de la tradition grecque, mais également dans celui de la tradition biblique. Se rapportant au judaïsme comme à une révélation de la Loi (pour laquelle la dimension de la foi est secondaire), il fait retour à une pensée juive (Pourquoi nous restons juifs) et tente de prolonger la réflexion de Maïmonide dans les conditions nouvelles des temps présents. Il s'oppose ainsi à sa rénovation par l'approche phénoménologique de Franz Rosenzweig comme (...) à la pensée de Martin Buber, tout en se tenant à distance de la réflexion sur le mysticisme juif de Gershom Scholem avec lequel il dialogue. Cet ouvrage interroge la manière dont Strauss pense les relations de corrélation et de conflit entre philosophie et judaïsme. En quoi la réflexion sur la Loi, dont il poursuit l'élaboration dans la lignée de la pensée médiévale et à contre-courant de la modernité des Lumières, représente- t-elle un approfondissement de la pensée juive et jette-t-elle une lumière crue sur la situation du judaïsme dans le monde? Quels sont les termes du débat avec les penseurs contemporains du judaïsme avec lesquels il est en relation? Quelles sont aujourd'hui les possibilités et les limites d'une telle réflexion pour la vitalité du judaïsme et de la philosophie? Les études présentes ouvrent des voies différentes, voire divergentes, essentiellement heuristiques, sur les possibilités et les limites de la réflexion straussienne pour la vitalité du judaïsme et de la philosophie. Elles s'accompagnent de la parution d'un texte inédit en français : " La situation religieuse actuelle " (1930), qui représente un moment décisif de la réflexion de Strauss sur la question. (shrink)

The die-hard viewpoint of an influential figure like President M.T. Steyn of the Republic of the Orange Free State led to the lengthening of the Anglo-Boer War by more than a year. The reasons for Steyn leading the Free State into this war, the reasons for his call not to surrender and the effect of the war on the Afrikaner, is discussed in this article. An ethical discussion of factors indicating a bitter end, is also on the cards. There was (...) a strong realisation among the representatives of the Republics of the Free State and the Transvaal in 1902 that this is the end of the war. (shrink)

Leo Strauss’ reading of al-Farabi is a meditation on the issue of how philosophers speak beyond their time and place. They must speak in such a way that they can be understood by the enlightened but avoid persecution by the vulgar masses. According to Strauss, al-Farabi recognized that the philosopher can be happy in the imperfect city democratic city because of its freedom of thought, while the masses can be truly happy only in the virtuous city. This leads (...) him to consider the possible role for the philosopher to advise the "enlightened prince" and to participate in the manipulation of the beliefs of the masses toward some enlightened goal – what we are now witnessing in our think-tank politics. But if we consider a truer reading of al-Farabi’s philosophy, it in many ways recognizes the importance of imperfections, ambivalences, and frontiers. Our intellectual and religious ideals are often beyond our reach – Plato’s “city in speech” – but yet these ideals can orient us and give us a sense of place even in our imperfect situations. For al-Farabi, the democratic city is the best of the imperfect cities, because its imperfections and freedoms allow for new possibilities. Today most of us live in this imperfect city, but this is precisely what allows us to maintain our connections with the past, and project many possibilities for the future. And it is what allows this conference to take place. (shrink)

The last two presidents of the Zuid-Afrikaansche Republic and the Republic of the Orange Free State, S.J.P. Kruger and M.T. Steyn, both stood in the tradition of the Christian Afrikaner. Kruger as the symbol of Afrikaner republicanism in the 19th century and Steyn as a younger and more modern Afrikaner, tried to base their policies openly and clearly on Biblical and Christian principles. Kruger as a member and recognised minister of the Reformed Churches in South Africa formulated his views in (...) a typical Dutch neo-Calvinistic way, while Steyn used Reformed concepts combined with his academic background in jurisprudence and the law of nations to foster the same ideas. Kruger and Steyn trusted one another, agreed on core issues and worked together rather well. Each strived to maintain the independence of his republic. (shrink)

The meaning of κερτομω and its congeners in Homer has been the subject of debate in this journal. Jones has argued that ‘to κερτομω someone is to speak in such a way as to provoke a powerful emotional reaction’, whether of anger or fear, and thus means ‘“to utter stinging words at [someone]”, “pierce to the heart”, “cut to the quick”, rather than merely “provoke” This definition seems to work well enough for some cases, but certainly not for all, and (...) especially not for the passage from which the whole controversy began: Iliad 24.649, where Achilles speaks to Priam ༐πικερτομέωυ. As Richardson says in his Iliad commentary, ‘there is no sign that Akhilleus’ speech has this direct effect [i.e. arouses fear] on Priam’. Jones's article was responding to an earlier one by J. T. Hooker, who attempted to ascertain the sense of Achilles’ ༐πικερτομέυ by surveying the usage of kertom- words throughout Homeric epic. He concluded that the basic meaning is ‘to taunt’ or, more abstractly, it ‘indicates the provocation of another person into behaving in a certain way, whether that is the behaviour desired by the speaker… or is not desired by the speaker’. The problem was that this definition did not seem to fit the very line from which his inquiry began, the words of Achilles to Priam. Hooker then hypothesized that the verse betrayed signs of an ‘imperfect adaptation’ of a different version of the poem in which Achilles taunted a defeated enemy or perhaps preserved his grudge against Agamemnon to its end. This explanation is unpersuasive. (shrink)

Marx, K. Preface to A contribution to the critique of political economy. From Capital.--Freud, S. From The psychopathology of everyday life.--De Saussure, F. From Course in general linguistics.--Tynianov, Y. and Jakobson, R. Problems in the study of language and literature.--Jakobson, R. Linguistics and poetics.--Jakobson R. and Lévi-Strauss, C. Charles Baudelaire's "Les chats."--Barthes, R. The structuralist activity. To write: an intransitive verb?--Lévi-Strauss, C. The structural study of myth. Four winnebago myths. History and dialectic.--Althusser, L. Marx's immense theoretical revolution.--Foucault, M. (...) The human sciences.--Lacan, J. The insistence of the letter in the unconscious. (shrink)

The Sartre volume in the Doubleday Anchor series, "Modern Studies on Philosophy," is a judicious blend of expository and critical articles. It covers many areas of Sartre’s professional concern from his early studies of the imagination through art and literary criticism to recent controversies over the role of the individual in social wholes. Though several of these essays are readily available elsewhere, four were written especially for this work. Of the latter, Anthony Manser’s "Praxis and Dialectic in Sartre’s Critique" is (...) particularly fine. In it, he faces the objection of Levi-Strauss that Sartre’s distinction between analytic and dialectical reason is vitiated by the very writing of the Critique in "analytic" terminology. Of the reprinted articles, two excellent historical studies are included, Ian Alexander’s "The Phenomenological Philosophy in France" and George Kline’s "The Existentialist Rediscovery of Hegel and Marx." Since the series contributes to contemporary debate as well as to the history of philosophy, the articles by Hide Ishigure [[sic]] on imagination and by Frederick Olafson on authenticity and obligation are apt choices. No collection of essays on Sartre would be complete without a piece by Francis Jeanson. Included is a selection from his Sartre par lui-même, "Pessimism and Optimism in Sartre’s Thought." The chief weakness of an otherwise superior volume is the heavy dosage of untranslated French which must be taken with the Alexander and the Wardman articles. This is especially distressing in the case of Wardman who wrote specifically for this edition. This collection meets the high standards of the series as a whole. It makes first-rate Sartrean scholarship available to a wide audience.—T. R. F. (shrink)

If the title of this book is surprising from a professor of sociology, its contents are even stranger. Yet this is a very good book. Blum follows neither the historical approach of classical philology—which usually presents a report on Socrates’ philosophical teachings and a judgment on his contribution to later developments—nor the example of careful exegesis of Platonic and Xenophontic texts engaged in by Leo Strauss and others. Instead, he conducts what he calls a "conversation" with Socrates, who exemplifies (...) the belonging-together of "Theory and Life". Theory needs life because life and its end, the good, enable theory to distinguish the essential and necessary from the inessential and contingent; life needs theory because it cannot achieve its end without "discoursing, questing, and inquiring." What matters in taking Socrates seriously is not a correct "biography or obituary" of the man but "friendliness" toward him, demonstrated in the work of discourse with him. Chapters 2 and 3 examine two opinions hostile to Socrates. "Hedonism" denies life’s need for theory by claiming that freedom, not the good, is what life is; consequently, speech is not an uncovering of truth but is only a convention establishing general agreement. "Exegesis," on the other hand, denies theory’s need of life, for it tries to reproduce the point of view of others as would a merely neutral observer who has nothing to learn and nothing to talk seriously about. Blum’s central theme, to which he returns again and again, and on which he plays many variations, is this: speech points toward a wholeness other than itself and other than life; this wholeness can at most be imaged or alluded to in speech; man’s place in the kosmos is in speech, in between that wholeness and the mere contingency of brutishness. Socrates’ concern with "Justice" and "Work" embody that theme. A chapter on "Philosophy" warns against the danger of merely seeking that which is common in the multiplicity of things: commonness is not essence. Finally, in the closest thing to textual exegesis in the book, Blum treats "The Oracle" as a metaphor for the Good to which speech aspires and co-responds. (shrink)

Theocratic movements are on the rise. But what does it actually mean for God to rule? This study offers one answer by recovering the theocratic project of medieval Judaism's most important thinker, Moses Maimonides. Theocracy is often thought to quash human agency, evoking an overpowering deity and clerical domination. Yet, by reconsidering Maimonides' debt to the Islamic philosopher al-Fārābī, and challenging Leo Strauss' influential reading, I argue that among Maimonides' aims was to elevate humanity's role in divine rule. In (...) its highest form, reason is identical with revelation, action with providence. God's governance is delegated: Theocracy requires human agency - the imitation of God. Maimonides focuses on philosophical religious leaders. But he also broadens imitatio dei to anyone whose knowledge of God inspires love of God: By emulating God's goodness, we can become agents of divine rule. In this way, Maimonides' ideas suggest ways by which theocracy and democracy might, counterintuitively, be reconciled. (shrink)

Le 7 novembre 2015, avait lieu à la BNF un colloque confrontant les pensées de René Girard et Michel Henry, intitulé "Le désir de l'Autre". Cette rencontre eut lieu trois jours après le décès de René Girard. Elle fut ainsi pour tous les participants l'occasion de lui rendre hommage. A la suite des confrontations déjà organisées par l'Association Recherches Mimétiques entre René Girard et des penseurs français du XXe siècle (Bourdieu, Levinas, Lévi-Strauss, Derrida, Sartre, etc.), il apparaissait nécessaire de (...) mettre la théorie mimétique en présence, cette fois, de la phénoménologie de Michel Henry, chez qui la question de l'Autre est cruciale. Nos travaux nous ont permis de manifester, peut-être contre toute attente chez des penseurs aux méthodes si différentes, une convergence, voire une complémentarité, dans la définition du désir, dans celle de la nature de la violence qu'il suscite, et aussi dans celle de la possibilité de son dépassement."--Page 4 of cover. (shrink)

Husik, I. An anonymous medieval Christian critic of Maimonides.--Neuburger, C. Das Wesen des Gesetzes in der Philosophie des Maimonides.--Neubauer, J. Zum ursprünglichen Titel von Maimunis Buch der Gebote und seiner Geschichte.--Teicher, J. Studi su Maimonide.--Wolfson, H. Maimonides and Halevi.--Diesendruck, Z. Die Telelogie bei Maimonides.--Heinemann, I. Maimuni und die arabischen Einheitslehrer.--Strauss, L. Quelques remarques sur la science politique de Maimonide et de Fârâbî.--Teicher, J. Observations critiques sur l'interprétation traditionelle de la doctrine des attributs négatifs chez Maimonide.--Altmann, A. Das Verhältnis Maimunis (...) zur jüdischen Mystik.--Shmiedl, A. Die Auferstehungslehre in der jüdischen Religionsphilosophie des Mittelalters.--Rawidowicz, S. Knowledge of God.--Strauss, L. Der Ort der Vorsehungslehre nach der Ansight Maimunis.--Strauss, L. Maimunis Lehre von der Prophetie und ihre Quellen. (shrink)

This volume presents an English translation of Nietzsche's Unzeitgemasse Betrachtungen or, Unfashionable Observations. The common impulse that links up these four essays is Nietzsche's attitude towards all mainstream and popular movements that constituted contemporary European, and especially German culture. The work offers the foundations for Nietzsche's whole philosophy, prefiguring both his characteristic philosophical style and many of the major ideas he develops in his later writings.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:BOOK R]]JVIEWS room for different theories and new developments. He does not try to tie up every loose end. Furthermore, he avoids the rut of the specialist by willingly and capably addressing questions of biblical exegesis, philosophy, psychology, science, and popular culture with even-handed competence. Space does not permit me to discuss his fascinating analysis of the psychology of near-death experiences or specific rejoinders to important objections (e.g., the (...) Bible depicts the dead as bodily beings, not immaterial spirits; dualism is a result of the Fall; dualism implies that the whole person does not die; at death we pass out of time, and, hence, there is no intermediate state). But I can assure you that his account is cogent and illuminating. Lenoir-Rhyne College Hickory, North Carolina PHILIP BLOSSER: The Crisis of Liberal Democracy: A Straussian Perspective. Edited by KENNETH L DEUTSCH AND WALTER SOFFER. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1987. Pp. ix+ 304. $54.50 (cloth); $18.95 (paper). For Leo Strauss, the superiority of classical political philosophy over modern social science (and political theory based on social science) lies in at least four principles. First, it treats political matters as they actually appear to man qua philosopher and, in a qualified way, to the good citizen. Because Strauss claims that social science (and much post-classical political philosophy) abstracts from his canon of intelligibility, he thinks that it cannot lead to a humane, rational politics. (See "What is Political Philosophy?", in What is Political Philosophy? [Westport: Greenwood], pp. 27-28, and "Distinction between Facts and Values" in Natural Right and History [Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1953], pp. 78-80.) Second, Plato and Aristotle believed that only the good man properly judges politics. This belief attracts Strauss, because it identifies virtue as the best claimant to political rule. ("What is Political Philosophy? ", pp. 36-38.) A third principle is derived immediately from this second: politics ought to be organized hierarchically. In the hierarchy, either the truly virtuous or gentlemen should rule, and those having a passive, obediential form of virtue should be the ruled. Fourth, this arrangement is rational and humane. For although the virtues of the ruler and the ruled are complementary in justice and necessary to it, still they are different and, in fact, require the stratification just mentioned. ("Classic Natural Right" in Natural Right and History, pp. 130-44.) BOOK REVIEWS 527 Because of the controversial nature of these principles and Strauss's eminence in political philosophy, one welcomes the present collection of essays by his disciples. They believe that in liberal democracies people confuse liberty with the uses to which liberty can and ought to be put. Doing so, people undermine that regime's foundations. Strauss and his disciples believe that modern natural right makes the clash between liberty and natural right inevitable, because its principal founders, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, conceived man as non-political. They conceived individuals as gaining certain advantages from governments hut as gaining no good in the exercise of politics itself. Classic natural right, by contrast, bases itself on the assumption that man is radically political. Moreover, it conceives politics as an arena for liberating, ennobling activities. Hobbes and Locke viewed the individual as independent of politics, which they placed at the low end of the range of human activity, along with everyday concerns and popular morality, rather than at the high end, as Strauss would. Thus for Strauss, liberal democracy is founded on modern principles, which are either apolitical and liberal (Locke) or apolitical and illiberal (Hobbes). Consequently, it cannot withstand the individualist and collectivist onslaughts that we have seen in this century. What, then, have Strauss's disciples to say about liberal democracy and the prospect of classic natural right in a Western world which is more or less permanently Hobbesian-Lockean? This can be answered by describing first the hook's divisions and then its diagnoses and prescriptions. In part one the contributors appraise the work of Strauss itself; in part two they define issues in liberalism ; and in part three they discuss liberalism in American political life. In the first part, Michael Platt outlines how Strauss's thought... (shrink)

This analytic survey should soon appear in English translation with Cambridge University Press in its new series, "Modern European Philosophy," edited by Alan Montefiore. As the title suggests, its leitmotif is the dialectic of same and other, first stated by Kojève in its explicit Hegelian mode of identity and contradiction and transposed during the sixties into that of difference and repetition. Descombes’s book is an account of how the generation of the three H’s was supplanted by that of the "masters (...) of suspicion," Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud. His point of departure is Kojève’s Hegel lectures which, he argues, had a determining influence on subsequent French philosophic thought. Central to the process was Kojève’s humanizing of the negative, le néant. Sartre naturally enters the scene at this point but exits without a hint of his own major study of dialectical reason. Merleau-Ponty receives more extended treatment, probably because he is portrayed as a bridge figure, though not only that, to the semiologists and philosophers of history of the sixties and seventies. When it comes time to define structure, Descombes takes Michel Serres’s quasi-mathematical definition as canonical. In fact, he insists that anything less yields pseudostructuralism, a statement which Foucault would doubtless second, if only to dissociate himself from that party once and for all. Serres and Lévi-Strauss are treated under the rubric of semiology with the aid of some very clear descriptions of the relation between semiology and structuralism in the strict sense. Next Descombes considers the Foucault of The Order Of Things and the complete Althusser as critics of History. The problem of difference enables him to treat Derrida and one aspect of Deleuze together. Deleuze reappears in the final chapter, "The End of Time," accompanied by the later Foucault, Klossowski, and Lyotard. (shrink)

The article argues that Rousseau's thought is unified by a non-materialistic, non-deterministic version of naturalism, according to which human beings are intrinsically good and intrinsically free, and at the same time moulded by their natural and social environment. Within that unity the article identifies a deep, creative tension between two competing visions of the best attainable form of human life: on the one hand a vision of a unified, integrated life , in which inner conflicts are at a minimum and (...) the goal is happiness; on the other hand a vision of a divided life whose goal is self-mastery. In support of this interpretation of Rousseau, the article subjects the readings of Cassirer and Strauss-Masters to a detailed critique. It concludes with a brief examination of Rousseau's intriguing claim that he would 'rather be a man of paradoxes than a man of prejudices'. (shrink)

René Girard (1923-2015) est un théoricien littéraire et un anthropologue de renommée internationale. Sa carrière s'est déroulée entre la France et les États-Unis, qu'il a rejoints en 1947, après l'effondrement de son pays et la tragédie de la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Figure majeure du XXe siècle, il laisse une œuvre considérable. Mais la vie de ce penseur unique restait à écrire. Cette biographie suit le parcours personnel, mais aussi les articles et les livres d'un écrivain qui voulut révéler la vérité (...) de la littérature et la violence des institutions humaines. Mettant au jour ces deux refus d'entendre que sont le 'désir mimétique' d'un côté, le 'mécanisme du bouc émissaire' de l'autre, il a fait résonner autrement la parole qui parle dans la Bible et dans les Évangiles. Mais René Girard a aussi été le passeur injustement oublié des ténors de la pensée française qu'il a introduits aux États-Unis et avec qui il a su dialoguer en profondeur: Roland Barthes, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Lucien Goldmann, Jacques Lacan ou Jean-Pierre Vernant, sans oublier les figures essentielles que furent pour lui Claude Lévi-Strauss et Jean-Paul Sartre. Fruit d'une longue recherche, avec René Girard lui-même, sa famille et ses amis proches, éclairée de témoignages brossant le portrait d'un séducteur qui aurait pu être marchand d'art à New York, d'un existentialiste converti à trente-cinq ans sur la route de Philadelphie ou de l'introducteur malgré lui de la French Theory, cette biographie intellectuelle s'appuie sur de nombreux textes inédits et une riche correspondance. Elle se lit comme le roman d'un siècle de bruit et de fureur."--Page 4 of cover. (shrink)

Richard Vitzthum, a Professor of English at the University of Maryland, has sought to write a book aimed at specialists and nonspecialists alike, in praise of the materialist tradition which he believes to require a new assessment at the present time. In his view, Lange’s History of Materialism suffered from an excessive neo-Kantian bias, contained too many historical digressions, and focused on figures like Gassendi, Hobbes and David Friedrich Strauss at the expense of figures that he, Vitzthum, finds crucial—and (...) more all-embracing in their materialism—namely Lucretius, the Baron d’Holbach, and Ludwig Büchner. (shrink)

À travers une suite d’œuvres qui cherchaient toujours un autre but, Lévi-Strauss dessine tout de même les contours d’une éthique qui prend acte d’un certain nihilisme - la vie humaine n’a pas un sens qu’elle pourrait « découvrir » et elle ne saurait non plus donner son sens au monde -. Il détermine, en particulier, quelques caractéristiques d’une éthique qui veille à la protection de toutes les cultures et à la préservation de la terre qui abrite tous les vivants (...) et qui verra la fin de l’homme comme elle a connu la fin de tant d’espèces. Le lecteur de Lévi-Strauss s’étonne de constater que le structuralisme que l’auteur met en œuvre par méthode dans son travail anthropologique s’associe à un usage de fictions quand il s’agit de tracer une éthique. Notre enquête consiste à examiner cette association un peu étrange qui fait ressortir que, sans adhérer à l’utilitarisme, qui use d’une théorie des fictions, l’auteur se sert de cette dernière sur des points stratégiques pour éviter les dialectiques de style kantien et hégélien, c’est-à-dire pour que les oppositions se fassent contrepoids entre elles et pour que les contradictions puissent se résoudre en plis plutôt que se déchirer entre elles. (shrink)

The year Leo Strauss published "Persecution and the Art of Writing" (1941), he prepared a lecture ("German Nihilism") that he never published. An analysis of this lecture shows that Strauss hadn't fully mastered the art of writing he'd discovered in others: his secrets are too exposed. In the context of "German Nihilism," it becomes clear that "Persecution and the Art of Writing" is about liberal persecution of authoritarianism, no the reverse, as liberals would assume. In response to recent (...) apologias presenting Strauss as a liberal who didn't "write between the lines," a Strauss-style reading of "German Nihilism" disproves both claims. (shrink)

ResumenLeo Strauss, en un ambiente filosófico adverso, tuvo la osadía de interrogarse acerca de la mejor forma de vida. Sin embargo, no parece haber alcanzado acabadamente su meta. El carácter zetético de su gnoseología, el abandono de conceptos metafísicos indispensables para alcanzar la unidad de ser, su énfasis en la «negatividad» del método socrático que limita la «positividad» propia de la mayéutica: el amor a la verdad, etc. le han conducido a la aporía consistente en la imposibilidad de alcanzar (...) una síntesis entre razón y revelación, consideradas como «totalidades» incompatibles entre sí. Por ello, no llega a dar respuesta a su interrogante más profundo.Palabras claveLeo Strauss, razón-revelación, escepticismo moderado, mayéutica.AbstractIn philosophical adverse times, Leo Strauss dared question about the best way of life. However, he does not seem to have achieved his objective completely. His zetetic epistemology; the abandonment of key metaphysical concepts necessary to comprehend the unity of being; his stress on the negativity stage of the Socratic method, limiting the conclusive positive stage of the maieutic (love of wisdom) have led him to an aporia. This is the impossibility of reaching a synthesis between reason and revelation, considered as «wholes» incompatible with each other. Hence he doesn’t find a convincing answer to his deepest inquiry about the best way of life.KeywordsLeo Strauss, reason-revelation, moderate scepticism, mai. (shrink)

In his review on Leo Strauss’ «On tyranny» Eric Voegelin, pointing out importance of his opponent’s work, still disagrees with several crucial Strauss’s findings. Especially important for him is comparing of «ancient» and «modern» tyranny, as well as Strauss’ idea that the text of «Hiero» makes up bounds between ancient and modern political philosophy, «tyrannical teaching» of Xenophon, the author of «Hiero», is very close to the Machiavelli’s point of view as presented in «The Prince». Voegelin points (...) out that this thought is indeed not that true and Machiavelli’s teaching does deal with the same sort of problem as Xenophon’s writing, because these texts were created in different historical contexts. The main aim is to understand modern tyranny, but, Voegelin argues, it won’t happen if we, as Strauss does, think that ancient and modern tyranny are the same. (shrink)

Que valent les formes de pensée traditionnelles face à l'apparition des régimes totalitaires? La démocratie a-t-elle présenté des lacunes favorisant l'émergence en son sein de tels régimes? Que devient l'idéal de progrès, de bonheur et de liberté des citoyens? Leo Strauss et Hannah Arendt ont tous deux affronté ce dilemme et posé la question de la portée de la philosophie politique. C'est leur démarche, strictement parallèle mais radicalement opposée, que Carole Widmaier confronte dans une étude stimulante : du constat (...) de la crise à leur parcours dans l'histoire de la pensée et à leur rapport respectif à la tradition et à la modernité. Tandis que Strauss invite à réhabiliter l'idée classique d'une nature humaine, Arendt montre la nécessité d'abandonner cette idée pour approcher l'existence humaine et ses différentes modalités. D'une part la défense d'un mode de vie philosophique retiré, la recherche de la vérité, de l'autre le « souci du monde » et l'attention à l'événement. Une réflexion salutaire pour affronter les maux de la modernité et s'ouvrir au changement politique. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:538 BOOK REVIEWS pressing my admiration for his work and for the wealth of sensibility he brings to the interpretation of a most difficult thinker. Anyone who is seriously interested in Wittgenstein's thought on ethics and religion should encounter the mind of Cyril Barrett through this volume. Hendrix College Conway, Arkansas JOHN CHURCHILL Faith and Political Philosophy: The Correspondence Between Leo Strauss and Eric Voegelin, 1934-1964. Trans. and (...) ed. by PETER EMBERLEY and BARRY COOPER. University Park, Penn.: The Penn· sylvania State University Press, 1993. Pp. xxvi + 368. $45.00 (Cloth). Those of us who have followed the development of Leo Strauss's and Eric Voegelin's thought with passionate interest over the years owe a debt of gratitude to Professors Peter Emberley of Carleton University, Ottawa, and Barry Cooper of the University of Calgary for presenting us with yet another opportunity to reflect upon certain well defined aspects of the thinking of these important political philosophers, and to confirm views that we have long held about the cordial relationship that existed between these two men, despite frequent reports to the contrary. Prefaced by an insightful "Introduction" by Emberley and Cooper, which almost constitutes a commentary on the correspondence, Faith and Political Philosophy is divided into three parts. In Part One, the editors present us with their English translation of the fifty-two extant letters (a few letters appear to have been lost) exchanged between Strauss and Voegelin during the years 1934 to 1964. (For the most part, Strauss and Voegelin corresponded with one another in German.) Because Strauss wrote most, if not all, of his letters longhand, the editors inform us that some passages from Strauss's letters were especially difficult to decipher, and that, on occasion, they had to have re· course to German-speaking persons familiar with the German academic idiom of the 1930s and '40s in order to make sense of what was said. Voegelin, it seems, also had trouble decoding Strauss's handwriting, and admits on one occasion to being unable to read the writing or make sense of Strauss's point. By contrast, Voegelin, we are told, was very much easier to transcribe, since his letters, although, on average, longer than Strauss's, were typewritten. Part Two contains four essays, two by each of the philosophers, on the relationship of reason to reve- BOOK REVIEWS 539 lation-a central theme of the letters, a theme that is explicitly addressed in the letters dating from the late 1940s and early 1950s, and tacitly present in much of the remaining correspondence that is of an academic nature. This theme also attracts the attention of all of the commentators in Part Three, and is plainly the source of the title for the book. All four essays are familiar to Strauss-Voegelin scholars, having been published in various venues. And, finally, Part Three is a collection of eight commentaries on the correspondence by recog· nized scholars, some of whom are frankly famous in academic circles and beyond (e.g., H. G. Gadamer, who, for my tastes, should have had more to say about Voegelin). These commentaries are generally of a very high quality, although curiously, given the theme, most of the commentators seem to be more attuned to modern reference points rather than to the ancient ones with which both Strauss and Voegelin were often in dialogue. The effect of this is particularly noticeable with respect to observations made about Voegelin. Voegelin frequently saw himself in debate with the fathers of the early Church (as his piece " The Gospel and Culture " bears witness), and unfortunately this is not obvious from these commentaries. Still, while exploring the im· plications of the positions taken by Strauss and Voegelin in light of their formally published writing, the commentators make many interesting and, ~t times, controversial observations about one or both of the letter-writers. In this brief review, we will limit ourselves to commenting solely on parts One and Three. This said, perhaps we might open with a general observation about the nature of the correspondence as a whole. As one might expect, the content of the correspondence between Strauss and Voegelin is by no means solely academic and... (shrink)

In a letter written to Gadamer after receiving a copy of Truth and Method, Leo Strauss offered many criticisms with which Gadamer took issue. However, he acknowledged the important hint cited in the title. Perhaps strangely, Gadamer never took up this hint and showed very little interest in comedy throughout his Gesammelte Schriften. In this essay, I show that there are ample resources within Gadamerian hermeneutics to answer Strauss positively, also for a rich philosophy of comedy along Gadamerian (...) lines. Toward that end, I use Gadamer’s Aristotelian view of tragedy as a clue; interpretations of play, excess and delight (Ergötzen) also weave into the analyses. (shrink)

Leo Strauss insistiert, dass jedes Ereignis mehr als nur ein singuläres Nu im Fortgang der Geschichte ist, und mehr zu sein hat als ein Eintrag im historischen Protokoll. Stattdessen muss sich historisches Verstehen am Begriff des Menschen und am Ideal der guten Gesellschaft orientieren. Nur so lässt sich eine ethische Verantwortlichkeit menschlichen Tuns einfordern. Folgt man dieser Prämisse, dann bleibt Raul Hilbergs eigenes Unbehagen an seinem Ansatz, die Ereignisse des Holocaust zu sichten und sie immanent zu- und anzuordnen, bestehen; (...) einem solchen Ansatz verschließt sich selbst ein nur anfängliches Verstehen des Holocaust. In der Warum-Frage jedoch, in der sich ein bloß historisches in ein ethisches Fragen wandelt, öffnet sich eine Möglichkeit, dem Rätsel auf die Spur zu kommen. (shrink)

Cet article oppose les traditions anthropologiques française et anglaise sur leur traitement du problème de la magie, en particulier sur les deux questions que pose le phénomène de la magie : quel type de rationalité donne à la magie son efficacité alors qu’elle ne fournit aucune prévision ? Comment passe-t-on de la rationalité magique à une rationalité critique et scientifique ? Après un rappel des rapports entre magie, religion et science tels qu’il sont conçus par Tylor et Frazer, on oppose (...) l’idée d’une plasticité des énoncés magiques en fonction des contextes pragmatiques où ils s’inscrivent, chez Malinowski et Evans-Pritchard, et l’idée d’une structure de la pensée magique qui viendrait prendre corps dans les actes de l’individu magicien, chez Mauss et Lévi-Strauss. On conclut alors sur la façon dont ces deux traditions abordent le problème d’une logique de la pratique, et sur les conséquences qu’une telle différence dans la position des problèmes peut avoir aujourd’hui. (shrink)

T opicality of the study of eurocentrism essence is caused by progressive globalization, the assertion of the systemic integrity of the world that highlites fundamentally new accent on the nature of the interaction of individual civilizations, leads to the unification of the civilizational process, its subordination to common principles and values. In philosophical and sociopolitical thought, the question of further orientations and development priorities of countries and peoples has recently become particularly acute. Analysis of the literature. We used the works (...) of the authors, who began the study of this problem: Z. Bauman, Zb. Brzezinski, U. Beck, I. Wallerstein, V. Inozemtseva, S. Kara-Murza, M. Castells, Claude Levi-Strauss, I. Osinsky, A. Panarina, A. Toynbe, F. Fukuyama, S. Huntingtonа, O. Spenglera and others, as well as the work of native scientists: Y. Afonina, V. Voronkova, A. Galchinsky, O. Gnatyuk, V. Gorbulina, L. Gubersky, O. Pakhlevskoy, Y. Pakhomova, S. Pirozhkova, M. Popovich, G. Shchekina. Purpose of the article – philosophical understanding of Eurocentrism as an ideological phenomenon and socio-political practice. The objective of the study is an analysis of the essence of the phenomenon of Eurocentrism, a description of its basic principles, a place in the life of Europe and in the world as a whole, the study of the peculiarities of the Ukrainian choice in modern conditions. The methodology of the study relies on an interdisciplinary approach, the principles of historicism and global evolutionism, the use of methods of analysis and synthesis, synergy to solve the complex problems of the dichotomy "we / they", "West-East" and their influence on the formation of a new world order. The results of the study: the article deals with the historiosophical basis of Eurocentrism, European universalism and European civilization. It reveals the methodological vulnerability and limited Western-centric interpretation and periodization of the historical process, reducing the diversity of past and future specific historical forms of its implementation to one of the possible. The idea of polycentricity, the existence of other models of social development is well grounded. In the context of new global trends of world development, each civilization is self-sufficient, distinctive in its originality and historical experience, and should develop through the self-knowledge of thenations inhabiting it and thereby fulfill its mission on the Earth. The conclusions of the study – progressive globalization and the formation of the systemic integrity of the world heighlight fundamentally new accents when it comes to the "unity of civilization", the interaction and interaction of different communities and cultures. The unity and integrity of human existence presupposes its diversity, the preservation of cultural identity and features of lifestyles, the mentality of nations and ethnic groups but not the subordination to a single model of civilizational being. (shrink)

Ce texte présente une tentative de trouver une notion de «prudence philosophique» chez Nietzsche. Il procède de la critique d’une contribution de Daniel Tanguay dans laquelle l’auteur s’oppose au diagnostic posé par certains exégètes de l’œuvre de Leo Strauss d’une certaine proximité entre la pensée du maître américain et celle de Nietzsche. L’argument principal de Tanguay tient en cette idée que la prudence, qui est le propre de la sagesse philosophique et qui est au cœur de la pensée de (...) Strauss, est absente chez Nietzsche. La démonstration proposée est sous-tendue par une thèse sur la figure du philosophe et sur la nature de la vie philosophique. Développant une argumentation contre cette conclusion, je veux préciser les conditions de possibilité et le sens d’une prudence philosophique nietzschéenne. En particulier, la recherche d’une notion de prudence chez Nietzsche demande d’explorer d’une part une possible distinction entre eros et volonté de puissance, et d’autre part une possible distinction entre nature et volonté de puissance. Cette double distinction permet de définir une conception nietzschéenne du philosophe et de la philosophie qui n’est pas dogmatique, et dans laquelle on trouve une autre forme de la prudence, celle du don. [This paper finds its starting point in a critique of Daniel Tanguay’s opposition to the idea of a kind of proximity between the thought of Leo Strauss and Nietzsche. Tanguay’s argument is to the effect that Strauss provides us with a notion of prudence philosophique, while Nietzsche, a dogmatic thinker, doesn’t. Underlying this diagnosis is a thesis regarding the nature of the philosopher and of the philosophical life. To counter this interpretation, this paper attempts to flesh a notion of prudence out of Nietzsche’s published works. More specifically, it explores the distinction between Eros and Will-to-Power on the one hand, and the distinction between Nature and Will-to-Power on the other. This twofold distinction allows for a non-dogmatic Nietzschean notion of philosophy in which can be found another brand of prudence that takes the form of a gift.]. (shrink)

John T. Scott has written a scholarly assessment of Rousseau’s psychological and theological thought. Following in the path of Leo Strauss and his followers such as Allan Bloom, Roger Masters, Arth...

"Y a-t-il une intelligibilité spécifique du problème de l'institution chez Sartre? La question est rarement posée car, trop souvent, on la considère comme d'emblée réglée: Sartre n'aurait pas été capable d'envisager la dimension institutionnelle autrement que sous une forme négative, celle de la pétrification et de la bureaucratisation de l'action insurrectionnelle d'un groupe. Fruit d'un travail collectif, cet ouvrage explore différentes déclinaisons de la notion d'institution dans la réflexion sartrienne des années 1950 et 1960, en montrant son importance pour articuler (...) la question de l'histoire, de la transformation politique et d'une éthique matérialiste. Au fil de ce parcours qui fait dialoguer Sartre avec Merleau-Ponty, Mauss, Lévi-Strauss, Derrida, Riesman, Guattari et bien d'autres, se dessine une conception originale de l'institution. En tant que dynamique historique d'invention collective, elle est porteuse d'une normativité ouverte : c'est moins la stabilité figée que l'instabilité créatrice qui la définit. C'est ce paradoxe d'une 'institution instable' que les contributions ici réunies proposent d'élucider."--. (shrink)

Recent work on extended mind theory has considered whether the material realizers of phenomenally conscious states might be distributed across both body and world. A popular framework for understanding perceptual consciousness in world-involving terms is sensorimotor enactivism, which holds that subjects make direct sensory contact with objects by means of their active, exploratory skills. In this paper, I consider the case of emotional experience, and argue that although the enactivist view does not transfer neatly to this domain, there are elements (...) of emotional consciousness whose physical underpinnings include parts of the extra-bodily environment. (shrink)

Speaks defends the view that propositions are properties: for example, the proposition that grass is green is the property being such that grass is green. We argue that there is no reason to prefer Speaks's theory to analogous but competing theories that identify propositions with, say, 2-adic relations. This style of argument has recently been deployed by many, including Moore and King, against the view that propositions are n-tuples, and by Caplan and Tillman against King's view that propositions are facts (...) of a special sort. We offer our argument as an objection to the view that propositions are unsaturated relations. (shrink)

Lettura prospettica di un caposaldo del pensiero hobbesiano: il sorgere del rapporto tra l'uomo ed il potere, tra la naturale condizione umana e la nozione di civiltà, attraverso due frammenti particolarmente rappresentativi della concezione hobbesiana del passaggio dallo stato di natura alla civiltà: il tredicesimo capitolo del Leviathan, sulla condizione naturale dell'uomo, ed il quinto capitolo, sulle cause ed origini della civitas, del De cive, giacché la mera esistenza dell'uomo ed il suo riconoscimento di una legge naturale, a giudizio di (...) Hobbes, non implica affatto necessariamente una qualsiasi forma consolidata di organizzazione sociale. Sebbene il De cive (pubblicato in latino nel 1642 e, in inglese, nel 1651) preceda cronologicamente il Leviathan (pubblicato, viceversa, dapprima in inglese, nel 1651, poi in latino, nel 1668), nell'ordine logico dell'esposizione qui presentata, il brano del Leviathan può essere considerato propedeutico al quinto capitolo del De cive, delineandone i presupposti, segnatamente la condizione di continuo pericolo per tutti causata dallo stato generale di reciproca guerra, che costituisce forse l'aspetto più noto (e frainteso) del pensiero hobbesiano. Per una migliore comprensione dei testi e delle differenti (spesso opposte) interpretazioni cui hanno dato vita, si è ritenuto di proporre, per quanto concerne i brani di Hobbes, tanto la loro traduzione in lingua italiana quanto le stesure originali in latino e inglese, presentate con i testi a fronte; tale scelta fornisce l'opportunità di osservare l'accurata scelta di alcuni dei vocaboli chiave della filosofia di Hobbes, la cui trasposizione da una lingua all'altra è stata spesso causa di fraintendimenti o volgarizzazioni in tutto o in parte ingiustificate. Allo scopo di offrire una più completa prospettiva del pensiero hobbesiano delineato nei brani selezionati, si è ritenuto di affiancare ad essi dei frammenti di interpreti novecenteschi (con delle sintetiche schede bio-bibliografiche) di alcuni concetti formulati da Hobbes e, segnatamente, di F. Tönnies, M. Horkheimer, L. Strauss, C. Schmitt, T. Parsons, N. Bobbio, H. Warrender. (shrink)

We don't understand the reactionary mind. As a result, argues Mark Lilla in this timely book, the ideas and passions that shape today's political dramas are unintelligible to us. The reactionary is anything but a conservative. He is as radical and modern a figure as the revolutionary, someone shipwrecked inthe rapidly changing present, and suffering from nostalgia for an idealized past and an apocalyptic fear that history is rushing toward catastrophe. And like the revolutionary his political engagements are motived by (...) highly developed ideas. Lilla unveils the structure of reactionary thinking, beginning with three twentieth-century philosophers--Franz Rosenzweig, Eric Voegelin, and Leo Strauss --who attributed the problems of modern society to a break in the history of ideas and promoted a return to earlier modes of thought. He then examines the enduring power of grand historical narratives of betrayal to shape political outlooks ever since the French Revolution. These narratives are employed to serve different, and sometimes expressly opposed, ends. They appear in the writings of Europe's right-wing cultural pessimists and Maoist neocommunists, American theoconservatives fantasizing about the harmony of medieval Catholic society and radical Islamists seeking to restore a vanished Muslim caliphate. The revolutionary spirit that inspired political movements across the world for two centuries may have died out. But the spirit of reaction that rose to meet it has survived and is proving just as formidable a historical force. We live in an age when thetragicomic nostalgia of Don Quixote for a lost golden age has been transformed into a potent and sometimes deadly weapon. Mark Lilla helps us to understand why. (shrink)

This is the third volume to appear in an edition that will be the first complete, critical, and annotated English translation of all of Nietzsche's work. Volume 2: _Unfashionable Observations_, translated by Richard T. Gray, was published in 1995; Volume 3: _Human, All Too Human _, translated by Gary Handwerk, was published in 1997. The edition is a new English translation, by various hands, of the celebrated Colli-Montinari edition, which has been acclaimed as one of the most important works of (...) scholarship in the humanities in the last half century. The present volume provides for the first time English translations of all of Nietzsche's unpublished notebooks from the summer of 1872 to the end of 1874. The major works published in this period were the first three _Unfashionable Observations_: "David Strauss the Confessor and the Writer," "On the Utility and Liability of History for Life," and "Schopenhauer as Educator." Translations of the preliminary notes for these pieces are coordinated with the translations of the published texts printed in Volume 2: _Unfashionable Observations_. The content of these notebooks goes far beyond the notes and plans for published and unpublished _Unfashionable Observations_, encompassing numerous sketches related to Nietzsche's major philological project from this period, a book on the pre-Platonic Greek philosophers. The ideas that emerged from Nietzsche's deliberations on these early Greek thinkers are absolutely central to his thought from this period and contribute in significant ways to the development of several of his major themes: the role of the philosopher vis-à-vis his age and the surrounding culture; the relationships among philosophy, art, and culture; the metaphorical nature of language and its relationship to knowledge; the unmasking of the modern drive for absolute "truth" as a palliative against the horror of existence; and Nietzsche's "unfashionable" attack on modern science and modern culture, especially on the Germany of the Bismarck Reich. These notebooks represent important transitional documents in Nietzsche's intellectual development, marking, among other things, the shift away from philological studies toward unabashed cultural criticism. (shrink)

Inspired by the work of prominent University of Notre Dame political philosophers Catherine Zuckert and Michael Zuckert, this volume of essays explores the concept of natural right in the history of political philosophy. The central organizing principle of the collection is the examination of the idea of natural justice, identified in the classical period with natural right and in modernity with the concept of individual natural rights. Contributors examine the concept of natural right and rights in all the manifold and (...) interdisciplinary dimensions associated with the Zuckerts’ oeuvre. Part I explores the theme of natural right in the ancient and medieval political philosophy of Plato, Xenophon, Aristotle, and St. Augustine. Part II examines the early modern break from the classical tradition in the work of Montaigne, Spinoza, Montesquieu, Locke, and Hegel as well as the legacy of the modern natural rights tradition as explored by Leo Strauss and Pope John Paul II. Part III treats the theme of natural rights from the Puritans through the Founding period in such figures as Thomas Jefferson and Gouverneur Morris and up to the Progressive era with Booker T. Washington and Theodore Roosevelt. Part IV addresses questions of natural justice in literature, including works of Euripides, Cervantes, Shakespeare, Edith Wharton, and Tom Stoppard. "In this collection compiled in honor of Catherine and Michael Zuckert, the contributors address a wonderful variety of serious issues in important literary and philosophic texts. Their topics range from Plato on piety to Stoppard on socialist utopianism, and from Aristotle and Augustine to Euripides, Locke, Hegel, Shakespeare, and Booker T. Washington. The volume stands as an impressive introduction to the liberal arts and a lively introduction to many great issues of liberalism, Christianity, justice, and liberty; it is also a tribute to the Zuckerts' breadth of study, teaching, and influence." —_Robert K. Faulkner, Boston College_. (shrink)

Günther Anders, Hannah Arendt, Hans Jonas, Emmanuel Levinas, Karl Làwith, Herbert Marcuse, Leo Strauss, Eric Weil... Non sans quelque paradoxe, la philosophie sociale, politique, métaphysique de l'après-guerre a été largement représentée par des penseurs allemands ou formés en Allemagne, qui avaient la particularité d'avoir été des étudiants de Martin Heidegger et d'être en même temps d'origine juive. Ce volume, issu d'un colloque international tenu à Paris en 2012, a voulu les penser ensemble pour la première fois et étudier sur (...) quel fond historique et intellectuel cette double spécificité a été possible. Quelle dette chacun d'entre eux a-t-il pu contracter à l'égard de ce maître commun et quelle distance ont-ils pu prendre (ou ne pas prendre) par rapport à lui après la Seconde Guerre mondiale? Un double questionnement qui permettra d'écrire une nouvelle page de la philosophie allemande, qui pourrait bien être aussi une page de la philosophie juive au XXe siècle. (shrink)