Talk:Leo Strauss/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Edits

3/9/06: thorough rewrite and reorganization of article. Made it more coherent, and also made it more clear where fact ends and controversy begins. In particular, I removed alot of content by combining the politics and philosophy section. The goal of this article is to give an overview of strauss not touch on every tiny aspect of his thought, so I removed all but the most important definitive points. Also, given that strauss did political philosophy, a separation of politics and philosophy is misleading.

I removed the external links to articles hosted by Lyndon LaRouche's server. Larouche is an anti-semite with vile motives against any famous jew. Given that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia of sorts then ideally all the external links ought to be removed because they are all wrong in one way or another. My opinion is that this article ought to be completely rewritten.

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. You may want to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies, in particular the policy regarding Neutral Point of View, which stipulates that on Wikipedia "all significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one... Readers are left to form their own opinions."

Thus, just because a given contributor may disaprove of or disagree with a particular point of view or its author does not mean that point of view should be excluded. noosphere 01:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a pathetic article--dismally pathetic. Whoever continues to remove sourced material on the basis of it being "POV" obviously has not applied the same criteria to the entire article. The entire article is "POV." Serious thinkers are turned off by your antics. In the past, I have considered Wikipedia to be a reasonably good resource for preliminary, encyclopaedic information. Looking to see what goes on behind the creation and maintenance of articles reveals the foolish men and women who pride themselves on the upkeep of this database. But enough of these ad hominems. Ideally, men and women who have read a considerable amount of Plato, Aristotle, Xenophon, Rousseau, Hegel, Husserl, Heidegger, Gadamer, Nietzsche, Spinoza, Maimonides, Weber, Comte, Al-Farabi, Hobbes, Locke, Lincoln, Tocqueville, etc. might be perhaps remotely qualified to edit this article. Yet, it is patently clear that those who concern themselves with this article have no interest in reading any of the before-mentioned thinkers, or even those writings of Leo Strauss for that matter. And for that reason, the article consists of a string of inanities that requires rebuttal. But since serious thought is not the criteria motivating Wikipedia zealots, then this particular scholar will remain obscured by this specious facade you have erected in his name. Perhaps this is the very nature of the distinction between οι πολλοι and οι αριστοι. (02/21/06, Annapolis, MD)

Ideally, men and women who have read a considerable amount of Plato, Aristotle, Xenophon, Rousseau, Hegel, Husserl, Heidegger, Gadamer, Nietzsche, Spinoza, Maimonides, Weber, Comte, Al-Farabi, Hobbes, Locke, Lincoln, Tocqueville, etc. might be perhaps remotely qualified to edit this article.

Presumably you are just such a man or woman. So why don't you help us fix the article? noosphere 04:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop trying to associate Leo Strauss with "Neo-conservatives" without both reading the neo-conservatives' writings in addition to the writings of Leo Strauss. This is sloppy, and far below the standards of Wikipedia. Please do not let this serious resource for the international community become a sandbox for children squabbling over contemporary politics. If you would like to write about Leo Strauss, then please read Leo Strauss. Do not pull quotes of his out of the context of his writing. He writes in a way that people often speak, thus he sometimes goes on to explain assertions by others for paragraphs only later to conclude that the reasoning is faulty. It would seem that he espouses these views that he explains, but if one reads the text from which they came, it becomes apparent that much of the "unsavory" quotes journalists often attribute to him have meanings quite contrary to their appearances. (01/28/06, Annapolis, MD)

This article is very poorly written. Whoever wrote it clearly does not have a very advanced knowledge of Strauss and his works. Clearly it was first written with an overt anti-Strauss bias and now individuals have attempted to take out the biases. Unfortunately, the article gives poor justifications for its arguments. It would be nice if someone could rewrite this article with better knowledge of Strauss.

7/6/05. Rewrote political ideology section to remove the obvious anti-straussian bias. Most of the assertions can not be proved and should not be there. This is not a page to demonize Strauss. I challenge anyone to prove that Straussians are neocons or republicans predominantly. By the way, Wolfowitz was barely associated with Strauss, and the rest of the so called neocon straussians are not really doing what Straussians do, which is teach in Political Science departments in American Universities. Someone ought to prove this association before making a bunch of junk accusations.

Removed some of the part about the "noble lie", which really isn't unique to straussianism and isn't even used by all straussians. This whole thing about strauss saying that the noble lie "should be used to decieve the common man" really comes from the many anti-straussian, anti-strauss, anti-straussian-in-the-bush-administeration articles out there.

This claim that Strauss did not advocate the "noble lie" is just another "noble lie" being advanced by a Straussian.

Added bibliography. added quote on straussian esotericism. Should add something about how Strauss disliked the straussian movement. should add something on how strauss was influenced by his reading of the talmud and maimonides.

Shadia Drury is hardly a Strauss scholar.

What, was this article originally written by a LaRouche supporter? They constantly relie on guilt by association and their own interpretations. The fact is, is that Strauss was "non-political but not a-political".

Strauss was definitely not raised in a Jewish Orthodox household, but in an assimilated Jewish one; he was enrolled only at the University of Hamburg, where he took his PhD. Clossius 06:27, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

______

Curious tussle here over the content of this page, emblematic of the greater "spin cycle" of so-called contemporary political "debate."

What, pray tell, happened to the little bit I once read here about Strauss' favorite TV show? Was is "Bonanza?"

Leo Strauss and LaRouche

This is the section which User:AndyL wishes to suppress:

Strauss has been criticised for his influence on the modern neo-conservative movement, particularly for his justification of Machiavellian concepts such as the inability of the general public to understand the truth and thus the necessity to lie for reasons of expediency. "Straussians" include Wolfowitz, William Kristol, Abram Shulsky, Gary Schmitt (executive director of the Project for the New American Century), and others. The first widely-distributed exposé of Straussianism that was critical of its influence on the Bush White House was published in April of 2003 by Lyndon LaRouche's Presidential campaign, [2] followed one month later by articles by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker,[3] and James Atlas in the New York Times. Shortly thereafter a response was issued by Robert Bartley, who studied with Strauss, in the Wall Street Journal.[4]

Re Leo Strauss see [5] which predates LaRouche's "expose" by a year and the book Leo Strauss and the American Right which came out in 1997 and was republished in 2001 once the Bush Administration was installed. I've accordingly removed your claims from the Leo Strauss article. It is interesting how various of your claims melt away upon further investigation. AndyL 04:02, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

See also this article in the Observer from February 2002.

American conservatism, following the teaching of the influential conservative American political philosopher Leo Strauss, unites patriotism, unilateralism, the celebration of inequality and the right of a moral élite to rule into a single unifying ideology. As Professor Shadia Drury describes in Leo Strauss and the American Right (St Martin's Press), Strauss's core idea that just states must be run by moral, religious, patriotic individuals and that income redistribution, multilateralism and any restraint on individual liberty are mortal enemies of the development of such just élites is the most influential of our times.

Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of state for defence pushing for an early invasion of Iraq, is a Straussian. So is John Ashcroft, the attorney-general, who has legislated for military tribunals both to try and execute suspected terrorists beyond the rule of law. Straussians build up the military capacity of the nation while invoking the Bible and the flag. This is not prejudice; this is a coherent ideological position.

It's clear the news about Strauss and his influence over the Bush Administration was already in the zeitgeist prior to LaRouche's April 2002 article. It also seems more likely that Hersch was influenced either by the new edition of Drury's book or by reviews and references to it in various media than by LaRouche's article. The fact that LaRouche's article appeared a few weeks prior to the New Yorker is a matter of coincidence rather than influence particularly since LaRouche was simply repeating what he'd read in Drury's book (or in the reviews of same). Given that LaRouche reference's Drury's book and that Drury's book was being discussed prior to LaRouche's article your claim that LaRouche either said anything original or influenced the New Yorker and NY Times articles is dubious. It's far more likely that Hersch either read the book or the article in the Observer than it is that he was twigged by LaRouche AndyL 04:26, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have just reverted an edit by User:AndyL, who is obsessively trying to re-write history to create a world with no Lyndon LaRouche. It is true that an article exists about Leo Strauss that predates the ones by LaRouche and his associates, but it doesn't belong in "Criticism," because it is written by a follower of Strauss and is supportive of his ideas ([6]). The "Straussians", as followers of Strauss term themselves, have been discussing his ideas in a more or less public fashion for quite some time (see http://www.straussian.net/) -- so it is not surprising that Andy googles up obscure articles that are sympathetic to Strauss. The other article Andy cites is simply in error; the publication date on [7] is March, 2004, just about a year after the LaRouche pieces. And, as the Wall Street Journal's Bartley correctly, if angrily, notes, it was the LaRouche material that started the controversy, and inspired the New Yorker and New York Times pieces -- so Andy's edits are also irrelevant, in addition to being incorrect. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:46, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The book predates LaRouche's article as well and is, in fact, LaRouche's source. AndyL 14:56, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hersh, the WSJ was trying to discredit the New Yorker article by fatuously connecting it to LaRouche when it was, in fact, influenced by Drury. That you take this guilt by association smear as a compliment just shows you are so desperate for compliments that you'll take an insult. The fact remains the Observer article (quoted again below) and, of course, the Drury book both predate LaRouche. AndyL 15:07, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Since Hersh seems to have missed this, the following was published in the widely read and respected newspaper The Observer two months prior to LaRouche's article:

this article in the Observer is from February 2002.

AndyL 15:15, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC) The above quote can hardly be considered "criticism" of Strauss. Supporters of Strauss were publishing favorable commentaries for years, without the public taking much notice. When the LaRouche movement distributed 1 Million pamphlets on the subject, it became the subject of national debate. --Herschelkrustofsky 19:28, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You don't think Shadia Drury's book had something to do with that? How uncharitable of you. Do you honestly think Seymour Hersh was influenced by the LaRouche article rather than by the Drury book? AndyL 20:00, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Drury book is fine work, and is cited throughout the LaRouche mass circulation pamphlet. However, there never would have been a political controversy on Main Street without the LaRouche mobilization, and Sy Hersh is interested in political controversy, rather than obscure academic debates. --Herschelkrustofsky 06:30, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You are speculating. Given the time it takes to write an article (ie research, interviews etc) and the time between the LaRouche article and the Hersh article it is highly doubtful that the former had any impact on the latter, particularly as the Drury book was already out and was being cited in mass circulation newspapers such as the Observer. The fact remains that the 2001 edition of the 1999 book by Drury is the source of revelations re Straussians and the Bush admin, not some pamphlet written by the LaRouche movement. AndyL 14:35, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Inaccurate quotation

The quote attributed to Seth Benardete is misattributed. This is a quotation from Norman F. Maclean's A River Runs Through It. Benardete uses it as the epigraph to his book Socrates' Second Sailing: On Plato's Republic. It's certainly off the mark to consider this a remark on esotericism! I suggest that it be removed. --Clayt 21:06, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

External Links

I removed the list of external links because they seem to totally violate the NPOV aim of Wikipedia. Many are not even close to being objective, yet even worse, they really are not about Leo Strauss, rather about his quote/unquote followers. I think its a shame such an odd collection of links try to argue a point that doesn't really belong in this article. Guilt by association is beneath the purpose and best practises of Wikipedia. That's just my two cents, and I have no doubt others may sincerely belief they have the right to include the links, but from someone fresh to this article, it strikes me as a very petty, odd debate that says much more about the current American ideological war, than the life and thought of Leo Strauss. More effort should be placed on articulating Strauss' own thought, instead of bending over backwards to smear him with the actions of Wolfowitz et al.--Mikerussell 04:53, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Revert Justification

I see no reason why the last revert by Rexrexilius was made. I'm not challenging the revert per se, as I know very little about Strauss, and maybe such minor quibbling is actually relevant. But it looks as though the revert had no real justification, and information put in by 65.5.234.26 was lost because of it. Again, let me say that I might be wrong, and the revert was justified, but I'd like to see justification on the talk page whenever a revert is done which erases actual content. Eric Herboso 21:16, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. Herboso. That addition of content actually deleted prior content that was crucial to the debate surrounding Strauss. A key theme in "Straussian" studies is the impact that Nietzsche had upon Strauss's thought. It would seem un-encyclopaedic not to touch upon that debate in a paragraph that purports to extrapolate on Strauss's philosophy. So, I did not have a problem with the additional discussion of Heidegger per se, but rather, with the deletion of the mention of Nietzsche, and was reverting to that. If the person who added the part on Heidegger wants to re-add that after the reference to Nietzsche, I don't see a problem. --Rexrexilius 03:52, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The quip on Nietzsche was not very explicit IMO. More information was needed, IMO. In any event, by reverting to the previous edit you deleted the part about Edmund Burke. Good going. If you believed the Nietzsche material was appropriate as it stood it would have been better to just add it back, instead of reverting to a previous edit. My intention was to, a bit at a time, go into an overview of Natural Right and History. But if sloppy editing without proper explanation is going to manifest then I'll leave it to others. mp _______________________________________________________

I'll try one more time to help out. I expanded the discussion of FN, which was pretty thin to begin with.

To any future would be editors: unless you find something factually wrong, or want to take the time to explain something better than what already exists, please be selective in wholesale reverting back to previous edits. What was the point of deleting the Burke reference, the discussion of Locke, and a bibliographic reference? And if you make edits, how about a note on what you were thinking? Who knows, we may agree with you. mp

What you have done now seems acceptable to me, MP (if that IS your REAL name-- I noticed you don't have a userpage link). --Rexrexilius 21:34, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Strauss and fascism

In an article [8] in the journal Logos [9] Nicholas Xenos quotes a letter from Strauss to Karl Löwith:

Strauss wrote to Löwith in May 1933, five months after Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor and a month after implementation of the first anti-Jewish legislation, that “Just because Germany has turned to the right and has expelled us,” meaning Jews, “it simply does not follow that the principles of the right are therefore to be rejected. To the contrary, only on the basis of principles of the right—fascist, authoritarian, imperial [emphasis in original]—is it possible in a dignified manner, without the ridiculous and pitiful appeal to ‘the inalienable rights of man’ to protest against the mean nonentity," the mean nonentity being the Nazi party.

Xenos concludes:

Strauss was somebody who wanted to go back to a previous, pre-liberal, pre-bourgeois era of blood and guts, of imperial domination, of authoritarian rule, of pure fascism.

If this is true then elaboration in the main article on Strauss' views on fascism would provide valuable insight in to where his political and philosophical views stem from. noosphere 21:36, 2005 July 31 (UTC)

Ok, since this has recieved no objections or comment in the nearly two months since I posted it, I'm putting it in the main article. noosphere 12:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

12:40, 1 November 2005 MPM I feel obliged to add that the article, as it currently stands, writes off any connection between Straussianism and fascism in quite a cavalier manner. They go yet further in setting up the straw man of Nazism, which can be more easily struck down. The critique of Strauss is *fascism*, not Nazism, and to act as though one is disproving the first while actually addressing the second is disingenuous at best (some would call it "misleading", or even "lying").

However, in writing it off, the (biased) author specifically mentions fascism's ("Nazism's") Populism and Racism; (s)he forgets the Anti-intellectualism. Later, it is admitted that Strauss's views were a reaction against such things as Scientism, Relativism, and Nihilism. Simple logic ties these together, as do the various pages defining each of these terms in this very encyclopedia:

Nihilism is associated with Nietzsche, and springs necessarily from "God is Dead" (and all that follows from that statement). Rejection of Nihilism has gone hand in glove with a reactionary Christianity; in the U.S., in contrast with most of Europe, Christianity is and always has been a populist platform, and has been used to push ideology (equal rights movement through to the current social conservative movement, and even pro-military positions) to the masses in this country.

Scientism is something that lives within the University system in the U.S., and we see a reaction against it now -- the challenging of science with religion, the challenging of peer-reviewed science with corporate-backed science, etc. This is anti-intellectualism, just as in other fascist states.

A rejection of Relativism typically sounds good to a lot of people -- especially when its posited that the logical end of relativism is that men should marry cattle, women should be able to kill their husbands, etc. In practice, Relativism in this country takes the form of Multiculturalism, Feminism, the Gay Rights movement -- that straight white male culture is not inherently superior to Latina/o culture, or black culture, women, etc.; that women should be able to work and live with the same freedom as men; that people should be able to marry whom they love; and on, and on, and on. One could call the rejection of some of this Racism, which is, again, a facet of Nazism (though not, I believe, all fascism), and be able to make a strong argument in support of that statement. The very fact that the Repubicans have long been fighting, and winning, elections through their Southern Strategy -which is by its nature Racist- belies this fact.

In short, Conservatives --including neoCons-- are currently using the weight of such movements as Populism (in the form of Christian grassroots "values voters"), anti-intellectualism, and racism (in the form of the Republicans' much-touted "Southern Strategy"). They are, in these ways, reacting against Nihilism, Scientism, and Relativism, just as Strauss and his followers. The fact that these followers ended up firmly entrenched within the Conservative movement, and act as vocal ideologues, is more than coincidence.

I agree, further, with the statement directly below this-- if pro-Straussians are going to attempt to silence any criticism of the man or his ideas through constant and sometimes anonymous deleting, a new section of "Criticism" needs to be added. If these people cannot restrain themselves from undemocratically erasing any dissenting opinion, they should cease to wonder why Strauss and his minions garner a reputation as Fascists. By creating and clearly labelling a separate section for criticism, any who wish to follow Straussian ideals can be forewarned that they are about to read views on Strauss that are more complex than those currently being allowed into this entry.

MPM

This article is incomplete. If we are going to erase those parts of Straussian philosophy that Straussians deny, we should probably put in a section about criticism of Straussianism and actually acknowledge academics such as Shadia Drury, as hers has become a very common and relevent interpretation of Strauss.

For any of us who are denying the link between neoconservatives and Straussians, please see Shadia Drury's texts. ---

MPM may be complaining about some changes I made. I added in discussion of a possible connection with the right wing and fascism which was about as far as anybody who reads Strauss is ever going to accept - I think it is stronger that what had been there previously. The way I understand wikipedia, it is best to write in a way that the fewest possible people are going to reject it. I would not bother making a change that was so undemocratic that it would be deleted by all the "minions" of La Rouche, Norton, Drury etc. So if I understand correctly I think MPM is being a bit too strong about this.

Andrew Lancaster 22:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, but did someone just call the South anti-intellectual and racist? That's a pretty prejudiced thing to say. --BohicaTwentyTwo 17:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to the earlier mention of the Southern Strategy?

Yes. In order to carry the South, one has to be anti-intellectual and racist? --BohicaTwentyTwo 14:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Anne Norton

Shadia Drury's account of Straussianism is full of invective and paranoia. A more reasonable account is in Anne Norton's Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire, more of an insider critique of Allen Bloom's influence on the neoconservatives. Also good are Jenny Strauss-Clay's remarks on her father's politics. Drury is more or less a Da Vinci coder.

The problem of interpretation with Strauss is that he openly talked about how philosophers have covert meanings and throughout his works hints at possible underlying motivations and so forth.--Monty Cantsin 07:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I took out this antisemitic bullshit from "Straussian Sources": Everything Straus said, did, and wrote, was for the preservation of the Jewish ideology of eventually controlling the entire world's nations by controlling the world's money. The "Treasures of Zion" instituted by Moses and King David are the fore running plan to control the world. They are applying the foreceps of "Manifest Destiny" to the final conception of "The New World Order." Paul Wolfowitz, and The Vulcans-Washington liars club, could very well be a portion of the "Grandiose Cabal Illuminati." Therefore their constant dedication to create Wars for more "prime rate interest" profiteering. In the guise of promoting progress, defense, human rights, equality, freedom and liberal democracy. A democracy that (as Socrates said) allows corruption and profiteering.(as Socrates said) I deleted it.

Notable Documentaries

From the Notable Documentaries section:

However, the documentarist fails to seriously engage the political philosophy taught by Leo Strauss--instead drawing on polemical secondary source texts to make inferences about the character and teachings of Leo Strauss.

Though interesting in-and-of-itself, the documentary is not recommended for those interested in a serious appraisal of the teachings of Leo Strauss.

All of this is POV. noosphere 22:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Quotations

I have now removed the following quote which is the whole of the quotation section twice, due to lack of citation.

those who are fit to rule are those who realise there is 
no morality and that there is only one natural right, the 
right of the superior to 
rule over the inferior

I cannot argue Strauss has never written or uttered these words, I would simply like to know when he did so.

Unlike some I do not feel that putting the quote into google and linking is a proper citation. Why ? For one Because this method does tell me where the quote comes from. The first page of google results is as follows.

Results 1 and 2 Doug’s Dynamic Drivel » 2003 » - Doug links quote to Strong Must Rule the Weak, said Neo-Cons' Muse Analysis - By Jim Lobe (from IPSnews.com)

Result 3

Is formerly disinfopedia.com now sourcewatch which doesnt't even seem to have the quote now (ie find did not turn it up)

Result 4

NewworldPeace.com

Republishing of Jim Lobe's article from above

Result 5

www.therandirhodesshow.com

Object not found page

Result 6 and 7

mail.architexturez.net some sort of discussion group all one thread

again a repost of Jim Lobe article

Result 8

smirkingchimp.com Yes once again Jim Lobe article reprint

Result 9

fidonet.sensationcontent.com Reprint of Jim Lobe article

Result 10

Page not found (note this link is NSFW)

It is much more of the same after page two. Now most of those results are progressive blogs and or organizations they all link to or republish one article(editorial) written by Jim Lobe which does not tell us where the quote originates. I am not asserting that the quotation is false simply that it should be properly cited. And the citation should let us know where it originated. The so called citation linking to a google search makes one beleive it orginated with Jim Lobe. Please do not waste anymore time if you are serious about including this quotation find out when Leo Strauss wrote or spoke it.

By the way here is the pertinent paragraph from Lobe's article

Like Plato, Strauss taught that within societies, some are fit to lead, and others to be led, according to Drury. But, unlike Plato, who believed that leaders had to be people with such high moral standards that they could resist the temptations of power, Strauss thought that those who are fit to rule are those who realise there is no morality and that there is only one natural right, the right of the superior to rule over the inferior.

I'm amazed Jim Lobe knew what Strauss thought, but I and the rest of the reasonable world would like to know what he in fact said and spoke.

I researched this myself after you pointed it out and it seems that Jim Lobe was actually quoting another author who is also discussed in the talk page, Shadia Drury. "According to Shadia Drury, who teaches politics at the University of Calgary, Strauss believed that 'those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right – the right of the superior to rule over the inferior.'" [10]. If you have a gmail account (or have access to the book) it also appears in Cruel and Unusual: Bush/Cheney's New World Order by Mark Crispin Miller on page 281, which also attributes the quote to Drury, not Strauss. The following paragraph cites 'Leo Strauss and the American Right' by Drury (St. Martin's 1999), I'd assume that the answer to whether these are Strauss' words or Drury's interpretation lie in there (but seeing as I have been only able to find the quote in reference to Shadia Drury, and no direct sources, I'd bet on the latter). --Head of the Caligula Appreciation Society 00:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems I've been duplicating your research. :) Yes, there is a lot of ambiguity about the origin of this quote. Depending on the source, it is either attributed as a Strauss quote, a Drury quote, or a Drury quoting Strauss quote. I also found a citation that attributed the quote to Strauss's book They City and Man, but I've been unable to find the quotation in a full text search of said book, even after trying several variations of the quote and wording samples.

I think we should call up Shadia Drury, and ask her whether it is a direct quote, or if it is her interpretation of his work. Its possible he said it in an interview, or in a speech, or an essay, which Drury heard, which wouldn't be something we'd be finding our our full text searches. Its an interesting quote, but it needs a proper citation, especially because its so controversial. Phidauex 02:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I just emailed drury, if she doesn't get back to me in a couple days, I'll call her. TitaniumDreads 04:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Postmodern or reactionary?

There are a couple of places in the main article where Strauss is referred to as "postmodern", but there is only one sentence in the article that I can find (in the What might Straussianism be? section) that seems to attempt to justify, in any way, the characterization of Strauss as "postmodern":

2. Strauss as a Post Modernist, but conservative. There is also a very notable skepticism about modernism, and the idea that what is written more recently supersedes was is older.

To me this sounds much more reactionary than postmodern. From the Wikipedia entry for reactionary:

More specifically, the term "reactionary" is frequently used to refer to those who want to reverse (or prevent) some form of claimed "progressive" change.

Although postmodernism is also skeptical about modernism it is not nostalgic about the days of old. Instead (from the Wikipedia entry on postomdernism), postmodernity is understood as:

the culmination of the process of modernity towards an accelerating pace of cultural change, to a point where constant change has in fact become the status quo

and

is broadly defined as the condition of Western society after modernity

What Strauss seems to reject is not modernism, but postmodernism, but he calls it "nihilism":

Strauss taught that Liberalism, strictly speaking, contained within it an intrinsic tendency towards relativism, which in turn led to a sort of nihilism--a kind of decadence, value-free aimlessness, and hedonism which he believed he saw permeating through the very fabric of contemporary American society.

In the belief that 20th century relativism, scientism, historicism, and nihilism were all implicated in the deterioration of modern society and philosophy, Strauss sought to revive Classical Political Philosophy (essentially the Socratic-Platonic-Aristotelian corpus, but one freed from the Scholastic hermeneutic)

While, (from the article on postmodernism):

The term postmodernism is also used in a broader pejorative sense to describe attitudes, sometimes part of the general culture, and sometimes specifically aimed at critical theories perceived as relativist, nihilist, counter-Enlightenment or antimodern, particularly in relationship to critiques of rationalism, universalism, or science. It is also sometimes used to describe social changes which are held to be antithetical to traditional systems of philosophy, religion, and morality.

It is clear that what Strauss is reacting against is postmodernism, not modernism. And he does so with nostalgia towards the past (ie. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle), which is reactionary.

The next point of difference is Strauss' claim that texts have a "true teaching":

Strauss maintained that philosophers very often concealed their true thoughts beneath a surface (or exoteric) teaching. Careful study would reveal the true or esoteric teaching.

This is in direct opposition to the postmodernist claim that:

...no Western philosopher has been able to successfully escape from this large web of text and reach the purely text-free "signified" which they imagined to exist "just beyond" the text

Postmodernism has an obvious distrust toward claims about truth, ethics, or beauty being rooted in anything other than individual perception and group construction. Utopian ideals of universally applicable truths... give way to provisional, decentered, local petit récits which, rather than referencing an underlying universal truth... point only to other ideas and cultural artifacts, themselves subject to interpretation and re-interpretation. The "truth", since it can only be understood by all of its connections is perpetually "deferred", never reaching a point of fixed knowledge which can be called "the truth."

In fact, the wikipedia article on postmodernism actually refers to Strauss, but only as a "modern thinker" with the "related idea" that a text has multiple meanings. The difference, of course, as explained above, is that Strauss claims he can get to "the truth", while postmodernism rejects it.

Therefore, I suggest we remove the word "postmodern" from the main Strauss article and replace it with "reactionary". noosphere 21:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Kirchhein or Kirchhain?

Where was he born? Was it called Kirchhein or Kirchhain? The article says Kirchhein, what sounds strange to me. I checked the German article, where it says Kirchhain (which makes more sense). I checked some external links and couldn't find it, please, somebody verify and correct if necessary. Ben ^T/_C 16:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it's Kirchhain. Both spellings exist for German villages and towns (as do Kirchheim, etc.), but the one Strauss was born in is Kirchhain, near Marburg in Hessen. Clossius 13:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Emergency surgery

Removed a bunch of original research and unsourced assertions from this article, and will do more. Babajobu 05:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

'The Debate on "Straussianism"' section

This section is full of original research, POV, and lacks sources. I'll give examples from the first paragraph, but the whole section is like this and is in need of a complete rewrite. So, on to the first couple of sentences:

Let it first be said that Straussianism is not a formal "club" or "organization" like the American Automobile Association (AAA). One does not apply for membership; and one cannot be ostracized for failure to abide by Straussian principles.

Who says it is? Who says it isn't? To make these kinds of assertions is original research, POV, and is unsourced.

It is also not accurately described as being an "Intellectual School"

Who has described it as being an "Intellectual School"? Who says this is inaccurate? This can at least be rephrased to attribute these opinions and accusations to the people who made them, instead of offering our own opinion on whether such accusations are "accurately described" or not.

an accusation often made on the basis of two false principles: (a) That Leo Strauss taught a hermeneutic for reading, by which scholars could "uncover" the meaning of ancient texts; and (b) That Leo Strauss has disciples in academic circles that accurately represent the tone, significance, and/or content of his scholarship

Again, who's making this accusation and who says it's false? Where are the sources for (a) and (b) ?

Those who make such assertions consider Allan Bloom to be one of the chief representatives of "Straussianism" (see Anne Norton, Shadia Drury).

So are the above assertions made by Norton and Drury? If so the article should clearly state that. As such it is not clear whether Norton and Drury called Straussianism a "club" or "organization", an "Intellectual School", accused it of teaching a "hermeneutic for reading" etc...

Thus, in order to undermine these fallacious claims, it is permissible to reference the written works and/or letters of Leo Strauss in addition to those of Allan Bloom

It's not the job of a Wikipedia article to "undermine" claims, nor to accuse them of being "fallacious". The former is original research, the latter is POV. If Bloom's claim contradicts Norton or Drury's claim it should, of course, be presented and cited, but without all the POV.

I could go on dissecting this section sentence by sentence, but I think you get the picture. It's all like that, so needs to be radically rewritten, imo. --noosphere 05:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Duplicated text

There are two paragraphs in "The Debate on Straussianism" section that are identical to two paragraphs in the "Strauss in the Public View" section. Alan Pascoe 21:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Edits by 68.76.49.146

This morning there was some massive re-editing done by 68.76.49.146. The justifications given were that the edits were "more accurate", "more coherent", "more objective", etc... however, no evidence was presented that it was in fact any of these things.

One particularly glaring POV edit was substituting a link to straussian.net for a whole host of bibliographic material, on the justification that this was a "better source".

Instead of merging new material with the information already in the article, much the existing material was simply deleted outright. It's one thing to edit the content to make it more in accordance with WP:NPOV, reword it to flow better, and/or add new information, but another to outright destroy the hard work that has gone in to making this article in a massive, destructive, mostly unjustified re-editing.

I urge 68.76.49.146 to work with the community by integrating their new information of deleting information, to make small edits, justify them in detail, and wait some time for the community to build consensus on their edits before making more edits. noosphere 15:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

misspelling?

The opening sentence reads "...who specialized in the relativization of classical philosophy..." and I'm not sure that's what it should read. Instead of "relativization" did we mean to say "revitalization"? I'm not sure that Strauss relativized anything, but most people would agree that he revitalized a few things.

Additionally, if I am right about the revitalization thing, I'm not sure that it is something he specialized in. I don't remember Strauss teaching any courses or writing any books about how to or the history of revitalization. He just did it. I might instead say "who is known for the revitalization of classical philosophy..." I might also add "and credited with influencing a number of scholars to do the same at other universities across the United States."

Public View section

What is the purpose of the reference to this bizarre mix of people, in the section on Strauss in the "public view"?

Not unlike Winston Churchill, William Shakespeare, Alexis de Tocqueville, and Thomas Jefferson, Strauss believed that the vices of a democratic regime must be known (and not left unquestioned) so that its virtues might triumph.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.216.190.75 (talk • contribs) 2006-04-20 05:06:26 (UTC).

If the article just came out and said Strauss criticized democracy he might be viewed in a negative light. This way that perception is mollified by putting him in illustrious company. -- noosphere 05:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Originally it was just Churchill and Shakespere I think, which was because they were people Strauss also mentioned in such contexts.--Andrew Lancaster 11:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Nietzsche's Nihilism

The discussion of Heidegger's revisions on Nietzsche includes the unexpected parenthetical "the nihilism that Nietzsche regarded as unmitigated tragedy." I am not sure if this is Heidegger's reading of Nietzsche (if so it could use a cite), but if it's not, and is instead the reading of whoever wrote it, I think it should probably be revised. Nietzsche thought it was a danger, thought Schopenhauer got caught in it, but never have I read any discussion of nihilism as "unmitigated tragedy." If anything, the ubermensch is the mitigation; more, it's the solution to this "tragedy." Not to mention, putting the word "tragedy" in Nietzsche's mouth is particularly worrisome, given his work on the subject. I don't know Heidegger well enough to work on the section, but could someone take a look at it?

Abrady 04:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives