Leo Strauss, Philosopher

Description

This volume presents, for the first time in English, the approaches to Leo Strauss being pursued by European scholars in Spain, Italy, and Germany. Whereas the traditions of Strauss interpretation have, until recently, focused on issues of interest to political science and, to a lesser extent, religious studies, this collection makes a powerful contribution to the recent philosophical consideration of Strauss. Each essay treats a unique thread emerging from the tapestry of Straussian thought, illustrating Strauss's thinking on the reading of ancient texts and on the relationship between philosophy and politics. In doing so, Strauss is placed squarely and uncompromisingly within the history of philosophy, in conversation with a large range of philosophical figures.
Preface and Acknowledgments
Abbreviations

Antonio Lastra
A Proem

Carlo Altini
Philosophy and History of Philosophy

Alessandra Fussi
Loyalty and Love of Wisdom in Plato’s Republic

Jordi R. Sales-Coderch
Engaged Citizenship

Mauro Farnesi Camellone
The City and Stranger

Till Kinzel
Lessing’s Importance for the Philosopher

Josep Monserrat-Molas
An Epilogue

Notes on Contributors
Index

Sujets

• Philosophie
• Philosophie politique
• Ancient Greece
• Ancient history
• History of Europe

Informations

• Publié par: State University of New York Press
• Date de parution: 12 mai 2016
• Nombre de lectures: 0
• EAN13: 9781438461359
• Langue: English

Extrait

LEO STRAUSS, PHILOSOPHER
SUNY series in the Thought and Legacy of Leo Strauss
Kenneth Hart Green, editor
LEO STRAUSS, PHILOSOPHER
European Vistas
EDITED BY
Antonio Lastra and Josep Monserrat-Molas
Published by State University of New York Press, Albany
© 2016 State University of New York
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America
No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission. No part of this book may be stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means including electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission in writing of the publisher.
For information, contact State University of New York Press, Albany, NY
www.sunypress.edu
Production, Jenn Bennett
Marketing, Michael Campochiaro
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Leo Strauss, philosopher : European vistas / edited by Antonio Lastra and Josep Monserrat-Molas.
pages cm. — (SUNY series in the thought and legacy of Leo Strauss)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-4384-6133-5 (hardcover : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-1-4384-6135-9 (e-book) 1. Strauss, Leo. I. Lastra, Antonio, editor.
B945.S84L46 2016
181'.06—dc23
2015030794
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
In memoriam
George Anastaplo (1925–2014), Constitutionalist
Stanley Rosen (1929–2014), Metaphysician
CONTENTS
Preface and Acknowledgments
Abbreviations
A NTONIO L ASTRA
A Proem
C ARLO A LTINI
Philosophy and History of Philosophy
A LESSANDRA F USSI
Loyalty and Love of Wisdom in Plato’s Republic
J ORDI R. S ALES -C ODERCH
Engaged Citizenship
M AURO F ARNESI C AMELLONE
The City and Stranger
T ILL K INZEL
Lessing’s Importance for the Philosopher
J OSEP M ONSERRAT -M OLAS
An Epilogue
Notes on Contributors
Index
PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ἀγὼνγὰρ καὶ ὁ προαγὼν καὶ μυστήρια τὰ πρὸμυστηρίων, οὐδὲὀκνήσεισυγχρήσασϑαι φιλοσοφίας καὶ τῆςἄλλης προπαιδείας τοῖς καλλίστοιςτὰ ὔπομνήματα ἡμιν.
—Clement of Alexandria Stromata 1 I. i.15.1–4
T he University of Freiburg’s announcement of plans to transform the philosophy chair, which was held in the first half of the twentieth century by Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger—who gave his controversial inaugural address as rector there on The Self-Assertion of the German University —has stirred up the quiet and sometimes stagnant waters of the academic community both within and outside Germany with the force of a flood. The replacement of the prestigious chair by a junior professor’s post in logic and analytic philosophy of language not only signals an erosion in the professional status of the post’s occupant, but is also an evidence that the modern adage—“there are nowadays professors of philosophy, but not philosophers”—is, to some extent, right. The adage, though, does go on to say that “yet it is admirable to profess [philosophy] because it was once admirable to live.” So were Husserl and Heidegger philosophers or professors of philosophy? In his inaugural address, Heidegger referred to “teachers and students” as “followers” of “leaders who at all times are themselves led” ( Die Gefolschaft der Lehrer und Schüler […] zuvörderst und jederzeit die Führer selbst Geführte sind ). Whatever the rationale for or interpretations of Heidegger’s address, it may at least be said that his address is based on a particular reading of Plato’s Republic , and that one of the keys to that reading lies in the careful selection of the final quotation and in the deliberate omission of its context. We return to Plato shortly. 2
The distinction between a philosopher and a professor of philosophy is an important one. In Heideggerian circles, “professor of philosophy” was used to disparage Ernst Cassirer, Germany’s most distinguished professor of philosophy of the time, more distinguished than Heidegger who had just succeeded Husserl at Freiburg. The matter arose in the celebrated debate in Davos in 1929 on the philosophy of Kant (Was he a philosopher himself or a professor of philosophy?) and doubtless arose out of the ancient diaphora between Socrates and the Sophists established by Plato in the dialogues, on the threshold of the history of philosophy, and perhaps even out of a suspicion that the dialogues themselves did not contain the true teachings of Plato, somehow paradoxically reserved for at the Academy. Socrates’s apology to the city of Athens was that he had never been anybody’s teacher. Taking this last perspective, the professor of philosophy would be the authentic philosopher. 3
Leo Strauss, a member in his youth of what has been called the “Marburg constellation,” together with Karl Löwith, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Jacob Klein, Gerhard Krüger, and Hannah Arendt (among the philosophy students), and Max Kommerell and Erich Auerbach (among the philology students), 4 shared their common impression that they stood before a philosopher when they were in Heidegger’s presence. Conversely, Strauss believed that Cassirer, who had been the supervisor of his thesis on Jacobi and the problem of knowledge while he had studied at the University of Hamburg, was merely a professor of philosophy. 5 Towards the end of his life, however, Strauss came to share both in public and in private that in comparison with Husserl’s philosophy as a rigorous science, the “fantastic hopes” of Heidegger seem “more to be expected from visionaries than from philosophers.” Strauss also shared that “after many years it has become clear to me what is really false in him: a great intelligence in a kitsch soul [ Mir ist jetzt nach langen Jahre klar geworden, was eigentlich an ihm falsch ist: ein phänomenaler Intellekt, der auf einer Kitsch -Seele ist ].” 6
As ironic as the concept of a “sociology of philosophy” may sound today—and that is what Strauss would eventually call the problem of the relationship between philosophy and politics—charting the contours of this province of the sociology of knowledge compels one to inquire in earnest into the position of the philosopher. What place does he or she occupy in any society—within and outside the Academy, as a professor, and as a citizen—and what is his or her relationship with the powers that be, including the constitutionally elected and responsible authorities within contemporary democracies?
Perhaps it is not a matter of rhetorical excess to say that nowadays there are no philosophers, nor will there even be professors of philosophy in the future. Of course, the distinction between the life and the profession of the philosopher is not insurmountable. It does, however, highlight certain difficulties and requires a radical honesty. This is so because philosophy as a profession is public or political, and it has been losing its genuinely free and liberal status as society has claimed it as a program of study that has become obligatory or supererogatory for all citizens. A professor of philosophy is not necessarily a sophist, but society has always been the greatest of the sophists. If nothing of what we nowadays call “knowledge transfer” takes place, then philosophy is impracticable. At present, the teaching of philosophy has made all teachers or professors of philosophy into servants or functionaries of the society or state.
To ask what there may be of philosophy in the formal (i.e., social) teaching of philosophy is to come face-to-face with the consequences of an ancillary or propedeutic tradition with regard to medieval theology or modern science. Naturally, philosophy can be conceived of as privately taught and even as self-taught, but that would take us back, on the one hand, to a historical situation in which we would recognize none of the contents of a contemporary philosophy program and, on the other hand, to the rêveries of a solitary rambler. In every sense, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which safeguards freedom of expression, delimits our situation and elicits a paradox that is tough to resolve. Are the freedom of speech and libertas philosophandi comparable? Is a teacher or professor of philosophy, whose constitutional framework is based on the freedom of expression, free to philosophize? When he was still a young professor of philology at the University of Basel, Nietzsche wrote that the content of Plato’s Republic went beyond anything that παρρησία could permit even in the freest state. The freest state that Plato or Nietzsche had ad oculos was infinitely less free than any free state at the present time. Does the freedom of expression of the freest state today permit the literal exposition of Plato’s Republic ? 7
The term παρρησία appears twice in the Republic , once in reference to democracy and other to tyranny. According to Socrates, the inhabitants of a democracy will, above all, be free, and the city will be full of freedom and “frankness” (as the freedom of expression of the ancients is usually translated, 557b); and in the same way, some who have raised up the tyrant will dare to “speak frankly” (567b). 8 In the Laws , where the term appears more often than in any other work in the Platonic corpus, the Stranger praises the “freedom of speech” of the Persians, and although his proposals disconcert the old Spartan, the old Cretan grants him the “freedom of speech” needed to lay out all the laws (694a–b, 806c–d). 9 Could a professor of philosophy nowadays present the content of Plato’s dialogues literally in his or her philosophy classes? Is it not the “citizenship,” as Protagoras says, that is now the authority that holds the position once held by medieval theology or modern science and uses all the means at its disposal so that philosophy serves as preparation, ever available to train good citizens? In a passage of the Republic that is difficult to interpret (558a), Socrates suggests that the philosopher “stalks” among the πολιτείᾳ (which we could at least provisionally translate as “citizenshi