Talk:Leo Strauss

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Leo Strauss article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Leo Strauss was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: March 7, 2007
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Discussion page Archive 1

Talk:Leo Strauss/Archive 1 Created on 7 June 2006

[edit] German-Jewish Extraction means what?

I changed the section at the top because I don't think the way it was written made it clear that Strauss was born in Germany as a Jewish person. They way it was previously stated, a reader might reasonably assume Strauss was born in the U.S. but had a German-Jewish parents or ethnic heritage of the same. I also tried to fix some personalized paraphrasing in the Philosophy section, while incorporating the existing ideas and prose. I think the article was pretty choppy and inconsistent, and thus cried out for an attempt at streamlining it into something a reader could process logically.--Mikerussell 04:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC) ---Yes, Strauss didn't leave Germany until the 1930's. He was a German Jewish immigrant. Also, the intro seems to assume Strauss is in fact the father of neoconservatism, and I think this assertion is arguable. There is no real evidence that he was the founder of some secret political movement. In fact, as others seem to have pointed out on the talk-back page, people can't seem to agree about what Strauss' personal politics or religious preferences were. I think its safter to make it clear how controversial he was, and to try and highlight what his work is most known for, and leave the conspiracy theories to someone else.16:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sullivan and Arthur Melzer drop-in comments revamped

The article cited Andrew Sullivan very vaguely about Strauss right in the first paragraph, to have Sullivan mentioned so prominently in a kind of hearsay comment, reads very amateurish. Another editor added info about the article below, and it had no title, and really did not deserve to be in the body of the text.

  • Melzer, Arthur. "Esotericism and the Critique of Historicism." American Political Science Review. 100, (2006) 279-295. --Mikerussell 03:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orthodox Jew according to Allan Bloom

The following source was used to reinsert the fact that Leo Strauss was raised an Orthodox Jew.

  • Bloom, Allan. "Leo Strauss". Political Theory 2(4), (1974) 372-92. --Mikerussell 03:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
This is not a fact, but a claim (and one that can be falsified), and the Blook obituary is not a source, but an at best secondary account (and probably a tertiary one). Allan Bloom was no expert on Strauss' youth and upbringing. I'll grant, however, that it is a common mistake, strangely enough especially among Straussians, to say that Strauss was reared an orthodox Jew. (I think just someone wrote that, and then all are copying from each other - I've discussed that with Cropsey as well.) What is true is that, especially during his Gymnasium and study years, he oscillated between the different forms of faith and possibilities to live as a Jew (see especially the report by Albrecht B. Strauss, son of Cantor Strauss with whom Leo lodged as a student).
But about the family itself, there are of course two main sources, both only in German:
  • Kaufmann, Clemens (2002). "'Vieles Gewaltige gibt es, doch nichts ist gewaltiger als der Mensch' - Werkgeschichtliche Anmerkungen zu einer Abiturarbeit von Leo Strauss", in Zukunft braucht Erfahrung. Eine Festschrift. 475 Jahre Gymnasium Philippinum, Erdmute Johanna Pickerodt-Uthleb, ed., Marburg: Gymnasium Philippinum, pp. 103-126.
  • Lüders, Joachim and Ariane Wehner (1989). Mittelhessen - eine Heimat für Juden? Das Schicksal der Familie Strauss aus Kirchhain. Marburg: Gymnasium Philippinum.
The latter is, I think, more serious and reliable than the former. Anyway, what is obvious in both is that the Strauss family, especially Hugo and his first and second wife (those who raised Leo), were by almost no standards orthodox, but what you would call conservative Jews, and not very strict ones at that. (Cf. Kaufmann, esp. pp. 105-107, who in judgment puts them between orthodoxy and conservatism, but the evidence he gives clearly proves that no orthodoxy was involved) This is, by the way, very obvious as well if you trace Leo's schooling - it is generally secular, even if there was a choice; he did - after the Volksschule - not attend the Jewish School in Kirchhain, but an academically better one, the private Rektoratsschule, which was led by Protestant clergy. (Cf. Lüders and Wehner, p. 14)
Given that the question of Leo Strauss' "Jewishness" is not entirely without significance to understand his work and its development (such as the struggle with Neokantianism), it seems worth getting this accurate here. Clossius 08:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
It certainly is a valid and reliable source to quote Allan Bloom's own published obituary in the highly respected, peer-reviewed, scholarly publication Political Theory. If Political Theory editors thought Bloom was not qualified to offer the essay as composed, it would not have been printed as is. By inference, one can safely say, contrary to your own personal opinion, Bloom was an ‘expert’, in the academic sense of the term, on Leo Strauss and qualified to make the claim "he was raised as an Orthodox Jew". Thus wikipedia article is not harmed by including the information. To suggest otherwise raises a few alarm bells in my mind to your claims themselves; especially when you are rather hypocritically claiming private conversations with Cropsey. Why would Cropsey know more than Bloom, or more importantly, how can you claim you know that Cropsey knew more? Isn't Strauss famous for the teaching that Socrates said different things to different people? Just rationally speaking, aren't you using the same hearsay standard to try to discredit hearsay as a valid source? Why is the reader supposed to take your private conversations as more valid then the ones Bloom undoubtedly had with Strauss?
On the simple level of quality of sources, yours are not better than Bloom's. Moreover, some of your own comments are really geared to a discussion/interpretation of what Orthodox vs. Conservative Judism in Germany then means, something not entirely fitting the biography section of the article. Suffice to say, Bloom believed "he was raised as an Orthodox Jew", and I don’t think you, or anything you offer above, are any better of a source than him. Additionally, by your own admission, you state it is a "common mistake, strangely enough especially among Straussians, to say that Strauss was reared an orthodox Jew". That leads one to think such a "common mistake", as you state it, should be noted within the article somehow. Whether Strauss oscillated between "faith and possibilities to live as a Jew." isn’t really what Bloom is saying, even an Orthodox Jew could be within their own mind "oscillating" about their faith. The source you cite for this claim is not Leo Strauss’ own words, but his uncle’s. How is that any more valid than Bloom’s? I think you have a preference for one source over the other- fine; but to dismiss Bloom's credibilty leaves one wondering if your preference is bordering on a prejudice against Bloom's own informed opinion.
But my point is, of course Allan Bloom knew Strauss very well, over many years, and it would be hard to imagine that he did not talk with Strauss about his life in Germany and his education. He is a very good source, first hand in fact. To suggest only persons acquainted with the family’s history, or studied the family, and derived opinions based on Strauss’s education, for instance, are qualified sources is faulty logic. It begs the question why did Bloom write otherwise? I think that is worth noting, if not investigating. Your sources focus on the Strauss family and seem, from the title, to deal with the status of the Jew in Hessen, Germany as accounted for by "a case study" of the Strauss family. The publication you are offering, as far as I can tell, for both sources is- more or less- a High School Yearbook. No matter how prestigious that school may be, it certainly cannot be more valid than Political Theory. Thus I think your comments above are a little too simplistic and dismissive of a very credible source, and for that reason alone I think there should be some mention of the comment by Bloom, which by your own admission is shared by other "Straussians", as you put it. What is clear- at least so far in this exchange- is Strauss did not state in his own words that he was or wasn’t raised a Orthodox Jew, thus it strikes me as an open question needing a little more thought then only what you state above. Personally, in all honesty, I could careless, I just don’t know enough about Jews and Orthodoxy and how it may or may not be practiced. But I am respectful that it must be very important to others who are greater minds than I (and you state this too), and it seems to be unjust not to mention it. You are right Bloom's claim is not a fact and can be falsified. True enough, but in my honest opinion, and admitted ignorance, you really haven't done it above. Some reference strikes me as still valid. --Mikerussell 05:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, Mikerussell, to paraphrase Paul Natorp, while the tone and argument of your reply should lead me simply not to respond, because the issue is clearly not getting the facts right, but "winning" even if one is factually wrong, the issue is important enough not to let the discussion stand like this and to - for other readers - clarify the situation, especially as the key texts are in German.
Allan Bloom knew Strauss quite well, but as is well known, Strauss did not enjoy discussing his early life with anyone, including those closest to him. In fact, he very rarely did. What my talk with Cropsey was about (and I think this is clear from what I wrote) is that even some of the "professional Straussians" (Jaffa, Pangle, Cropsey, Bloom, Mansfield et al.) did not know much about his time before he came to the US. Even Jenny Strauss Clay and Tom Strauss did not know much about this, and they actually cooperated with, and were very interested in, the Lüders/Wehner research (rather than dismissing them, Gutsherren style, as you do). The issue here is biography, not political philosophy. Therefore, Political Theory, while a good journal in its field, is not a medium that is particularly credible per se on biographical details (and by the way, obituary essays are of course not refereed, they are commissioned).
The sources I quote, however, deal explicitly with Strauss' family, especially with his parents. This is why they are the main sources on the topic, especially Lüders-Wehner. This was indeed a student essay, but one that for the first time used contacts to the children, the original sources in the Regenstein library, and Kirchhain and Marburg documents. It was written for a Federal competition and won, if I recall correctly, the President's 2nd Prize. The other essay is by a professor of political theory who wrote the main intro on Strauss in German (I don't like it, but that's not the point), and it appeared in the Festschrift for the 475th anniversary of the school, which was very carefully edited and widely reviewed in Germany (in Europe, such publications are not usually dismissed as unscholarly; many key essays by senior scholars are found there). Both publications are very far from what one can call a High School yearbook.
As far as I know, Bloom was not an expert on Oberhessen Jewishness around 1900; he also doesn't give a source in this article. This is why it is a secondary or tertiary account (the latter if he heard it from some other student of Strauss). To insist that this is more valid than the main research on the Strauss family is just stubborn but not scholarly. And to suggest that I prefer one source over the other because I "like" it more is just bad ad hominem rhetoric - of course I prefer a source that is more valid because it deals with the topic in question over an unreferenced essay by a disciple. If we were talking about Strauss and, say, Shakespeare or Spinoza or Plato, I would believe Bloom more than Wehner-Lüders. (We might also consider for a moment, and that I think is absolutely common in history and historiography, that Leo Strauss himself was not entirely honest, or clear, about his (early) biography; that happens very frequently, and this is why oral history needs to be critically received. Whatever Leo might have said about his youth to Bloom - and I think, but of course I cannot verify that, that he didn't say anything -, from a scholarly-historical perspective, this is not better evidence than facts and documents about that youth that focuses on family and context, i.e. on those who did the actual "upbringing", as it is phrased here.)
So, by Wikipedia standards, the main published research on the question in question shows that Strauss was not raised an orthodox (by German or American standards) Jew, and to say otherwise - just, as I think, in order to win an argument - is not only un-wiki and un-scholarly, but it also perpetuates faulty information that might harm further research on, and thinking about, Strauss. If that is your goal, congratulations (as I will not revise your changes again, putting as they do the cart before the horse; contrary to Oxford, I am not the home of lost causes) - and that it is is supported by your admission that you "couldn't care less"; if you were interested in the topic, indeed, you would probably welcome additional serious information, rather than to just stubbornly "defend" Bloom. If not, you might want to think again. Clossius 09:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, you are taking my concern far too personally, and I am surprised you read such a petty personal motive into my concerns, but so be it. The exchange itself, speaks for itself. In fact you raise an excellent point that was in my mind when I changed it back, namely
"We might also consider for a moment, and that I think is absolutely common in history and historiography, that Leo Strauss himself was not entirely honest, or clear, about his (early) biography; that happens very frequently, and this is why oral history needs to be critically received."
Why Bloom wrote what he wrote is worth noting because Strauss might have mislead, intentionally or otherwise, to make students believe this. It was something that crossed my mind yesterday and did not write explicitly- again- it is worth noting if not investigating. In your edit, such a point is lost under the guise of superior scholarship. Also, I disagree about the validity of the sources offered, not the content therein, since I have not read yours. To be blunt, this is English wikipedia and there is a German wikipedia, you cannot assume that readers are fluent in each language, and to say that the sources you cite are superior than Political Theory is almost mute because of the general inability for most readers to judge the quality and content of sources in a foreign language. (Even if they went to get them from the library). I don't think wikipedia is damaged by the current edit and personal pride or feelings have very little behind my concern. Finally, I think you write as if you have not taken a pseudonym and everybody can bank on your name as a valid source. Yet no one can, you might want to diminish the significance of your familiarity with others that you name freely when you purposely mask your own identity. How can the average reader really measure the merit of your statements, especially in regards to the Strauss family, by just reading your Userpage User:Clossius. As you know, Ph.D.s are a dime a dozen, and publications can be a simply a matter of course in academia, signifying not much more than perseverance in the Boy Scouts, sort of speak. Self supported claims are not valid proof; moreover, you may be very qualified, but how can a person judge? I would love to know who you are and how you know Cropsey and the family, I understand why you choose to remain anonymous too, but you cannot have it both ways in my opinion. That is why I think it is much berrer to include the Bloom contents than delete them completely based on your unsupported familiarity with German texts and family friends. --Mikerussell 17:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I also think this interchange speaks for itself, and thus I would let the matter rest here, but there is too much Strauss discussion here - soon this interchange will be archived, and readers of the wikipedia will not be able to judge for themselves anymore who has made a valid point here - only your changes will remain. Yes, this is the English wikipedia, which is why results of foreign-language scholarship should be reported here by those who can read it, and this should be verified by those who can judge, of which there are, after all, plenty (surely many thousands), including many of the Strauss experts. And in any case, my original edit was not to comment on the nature of Leo's upbringing, rather than to say it was this or that (because that is a question under discussion). One could, indeed, insert that many Straussians got this wrong (they, as a rule, do not anymore; background about Leo's youth became known in the US in the late 80's, early 90's only).
In any case, I absolutely agree that who I am or not am has nothing to do with the validity of my argument here, especially as Wikipidia is consciously, and by choice, not un- but non-scholarly, such as in that unpublished research doesn't matter. (Nor do PhD's and the like of course.) But my argument here rests entirely on publicly and freely available sources (not on my interpretation thereof), which cite and reprint original documents, and easily verifiable facts (such as Leo's schooling, an argument which you keep ignoring). And, well, scholarship is universal, but language competence is not, and I myself would refrain from arguing much about Strauss' (or even Bloom's) interpretation of Plato if I wouldn't read Greek, either. Strauss would have been the first to agree with that, by the way, and Bloom would have, as well. :-) Clossius 20:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
You have cited 2 German language sources in this discussion. I stated my concerns about the validity of those sources in light that they contradict Bloom's published claim. I did not say your sources where wrong, simply that they did not negate the significance of Bloom’s claim in-and-of-themselves. Nevertheless, the article was altered to represent this uncertainty/debate about whether Strauss was raised an Orthodox Jew. If you take out all this stuff about your private conversations, and take out your opinions, that even includes speculations that Strauss probably never talked to Bloom about his upbringing, what else is on the table? I am not quite sure how this debate has deteriorated into assessments about the language competencies of me or others not possessing fluency in Ancient Greek? If you have an axe to grind about philistines commenting on Plato find a better spot to sharpen your blade. Besides these 3 sources what is on the table? If you take out the comments you make about your own private conversations, which you admit shouldn’t be considered in this article precisely because they are unsubstantiated, what else is there? The issue about schooling is your deduction based on general familiarity with the typical schooling an Orthodox child would have in Hessen around 1910-1917, but it doesn’t conclusively resolve the issue. It’s possible his family deviated to some degree, or made an exception for him. Where you are certain, others can ask for more information legitimately in light of the contradictory evidence. Anybody can easily change the article at any moment. Give me a break on the bellyaching about what an injustice it is to readers that “my” current edit will remain when this invaluable discussion is archived. In fact, I would be the first to alter the work to conform to additional evidence that shows Bloom was mistaken if you- or anybody else- offered anything beyond 2 German language sources which are not scholarly in the crucial sense of the term. I just think unless more conclusive source are cited, an accurate portrait of the issue is present. --Mikerussell 03:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I think any reader with average intelligence can tell that my example regarding Greek is, in a Streaussian context, supposed to illustrate that it is both unscholarly and not very sensible on Wikipedia to insist that a language in which the main research on a certain topic is done is ignored - the 2nd language within the Wikipedia, that is, and not some arcane one. The Education of Leo Strauss happens to have been one of the very few sup-topics on research on Strauss where the results are in German. I've reported them, as they are very clear; anyone who reads German can check the sources. That in this discussion, I am giving some of the background and context, such as the schooling, and the opinions of the leading Straussians (to which group Bloom belongs) and the family (which is b.t.w. documented in Lüders-Wehner), is legitimate as providing context and background; you are free to ignore that, but your paranoia against any familiarity with Strauss or Straussianism, or with normal academic degrees is pretty obvious. Your current edit - of course yours and not "yours" - does not represent the state of scholarship at this moment; it is therefore not "unjust" but misleading. To stubbornly insist that the sources cited are less scholarly than a commissioned obituary note by a disciple in a political theory journal (which, I would really underline one last time, is neither a genuine source nor a particularly convincing reference - it's just a side remark by someone whose main interests lay elsewhere), or even that the genuine sources are unscholarly (an absurd claim especially from someone who by his own admission doesn't speak the language of the area, doesn't know the context and hasn't read the sources in question), betrays by itself both a deeply unscholarly and un-academic mind. (In that sense, maybe to have a PhD is a dime a dozen, but to have gone through the process helps...) Again, both Strauss and Bloom surely would have agreed with that - the unwillingness to learn, the dislike for new information of any kind and the unability to look beyond the Tellerrand is the mark of the doctrinaire. Clossius 06:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and in the light of the last comments, I think I may change the original entry, which I will do (just switching the argument around); it was necessary anyway because of some spelling mistakes in the current version. Clossius 06:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your edit and insight to my quality of mind, you have given me a great Sunday morning chuckle. All I can say is the edit is fine, and I can only wonder to myself how so much animus towards me was fueled by simply arguing what evetually you seem to agree should be in the article, at least until further evidence is uncovered. Your edit is my edit, except for a rewording, more or less. So I cannot figure out what the difference is. --Mikerussell 17:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, as I see, you in fact couldn't let it rest there, but you had to make the entry a bit more inaccurate, just to have the last word. Let's see whether I'll have the energy to change that back. I hope I don't. What it says now, and even what I wrote before, does not reflect either my opinion or the state of scholarship, but under the circumstances, it seemed to be more prudent to compromise on the facts, as it were, rather than to have a completely wrong and misleading statement there. Clossius 17:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
All you need to do is quote another of these "many other biographical writings" and it would be accurate. I still cannot get you do address that all you want to offer is 2 writings. No matter how certain you are, evidence is evidence and citing other sources by name is how you can prove your point conclusively. Everything else is just silly posturing. As I read this you are the fella bringing up winning points and personal insults about the quality of contributor's mind. Your frustration at being challenged about your sources tend to overshadow that Strauss has not written anywhere what he was raised as- this would be the type of schloarship that I call "crucial". As far as I know, there is not yet a biography of Strauss published either, in any language. The work of biography is very detailed and complex, and can uncover many unexpected results, so excuse me from doubting the assertions of an anonymous wikipedia editor who gets very angry when others honestly disagree with the merits of the source and wish to incorporate other valid views. --Mikerussell 18:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
What we have is two valid sources, one of which heavily cites the available documents, vs. one remark in an old commissioned notice that at best is hearsay. Bloom's remarks are not evidence in any scholarly sense of the word; the documents cited and context given especially in Lüders-Wehner are. Strauss didn't write about his childhood, but even if he had, this would not necessarily outweigh documentary and factual evidence. But indeed, by now this interchange is starting to get really unpleasant, and so I'm finishing my comments here for the moment, because all is said contents-wise. I'll take it up again if someone else wants to raise the issue. Clossius 04:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "A Giving of Accounts" Strauss' comments on Orthodox or Conservative

Added a revised edit on the biography upbringing issue in light of the ambiguity of opinion in the published sources. Adding the "A Giving of Accounts" quote which is a secondary quote of the comments, but interesting and certainly worthy of inclusion, even if the article seems a little swollen in the beginning.

  • "A Giving of Accounts" The College 22 no.1 p.1-5, St. John's College Review: Annapolis, 1970. and/or
  • "A Giving of Accounts" Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity. New York: State University of New York Press, 1997, p.457-465.--Mikerussell 05:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether this is more mis-information or not, here is a See also:

  • Alter, Robert. Neocon or Not? Book Review of Reading Leo Strauss by Steven B. Smith. New York Times Book Review. June 25, 2006.

"Born into an Orthodox Jewish home in a small German town in 1899, Strauss was trained in the rigorous discipline of Geistesgeschichte, intellectual history." New York Times Book Review. --Mikerussell 19:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conservative Judaism in Late 19C Germany

The Conservative movement in Judaism began in the U.S. There was no Conservative Judaism in Germany in the late 19th or early 20th century, though there were currents in German Judaism that were related to Conservatism. At any rate, though it may or may not be correct to call Strauss's family "Orthodox," it is certainly incorrect to call them "Conservative." I've amended the sentence on the main page to retain the questions about the Strauss' religious practice while removing the reference to Conservative Judaism.BenA (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup needed

I marked the section on Strauss in the public view as in need of cleanup because it reads poorly. Unfortunately I don't have the time right now to do it myself. Perhaps some other kind soul? --Beaker342 04:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I finally got some time to make the section more coherant and readable. If I have done any violence to what was there before, by all means, make changes.--Beaker342 06:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misplaced comment in Archive 1 repeated

On June 17th a user placed the below concern on the Archive page, ten days after the archive was created. I noticed it now, and since the user is new, I think they made a mistake in where to place the comment. Since it is 6 weeks old, the user may want to update it, but it seemed worthy of repeating here again.--Mikerussell 05:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

If "tragedy" is used here in the sense of sad or disasterous, then it's just a poor choice of words. Otherwise (of tragedy is referred to here as the art form), I'm not sure how nihilism can be likened to tragedy in Nietzsche's work. Nietzsche associated tragedy with Wagner and classical sources, but later moved away from this, first by distancing himself from the balance found in "The Birth of Tragedy" and then later by falling out with Wagner. If anything, the Ubermensch is not a mitigation of tragedy, but a transvaluation of it. --Vector4F 23:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems to be the editor's assessment of Nietzsche, not Heidegger's. It's accurate insofar as humanity would have been better had Christianity and the subsequent nihilism it produced had never come along, but since they have, they each open up new possibilities as each is transcended. I don't have any huge problems with the paragraph as it stands. --Beaker342 00:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong Jacob Klein is linked to in article

Leo Strauss' friend Jacob Klein, was not the Jacob Klein linked to from the article. His freind was tutor and dean at St. John's College in Annapolis MD, and wrote a commentary on Plato's Meno, The Origins of Greek Mathematical Thought, an Introduction to Aristotle. The other Jacob Klein linked to was a mathematician physicist.

I un-wikied the Jacob Klein, is the this person worthy of an article themselves? and thus a disambiguation page too? I don't know enough to say either way.--Mikerussell 04:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Straussian Schools of Thought

The below was deleted, but the article it was based on was added to the bibliography, (Thomas West's article). The below passage is pretenious. The content could certainly be included without starting a whole new section- oddly placed at the end of the article like a hiccup- and without using so many words. As written it takes one aspect of Strauss' thought and inflates its significance into a ridiculous 'schools of thought' dicothmy that supposedly shapes and define all scholars influenced or studying Strauss; it is American-centric too, and could be judiciously incorporated into the body of the article in a couple of places, citing Bloom's and Mansfield's varity of opinion according to Thomas West's article Jaffa Versus Mansfield Does America Have A Constitutional or A "Declaration of Independence" Soul?.Online

Two schools of thought known as East-Coast and West-Coast Straussianism developed from Strauss's work. The branch off of West-Coast Straussianism from East-Coast Straussianism arose from a dispute between two Straussians Alan Bloom and Harry Jaffa over the cultural significance of "myths" in society.
East-Coast Straussianism
The adherents of East-Coast Straussianism believe that "myths" or "noble lies" are essential for the stability of society, and that the writings of Plato sought to promulgate these "myths" for the good of society. However, East-Coast Straussians believe that outside of these "myths" no objective societal principles exist from which to govern a society.
West-Coast Straussianism
"West-Coast Straussianism was originated by Harry Jaffa founder of the Claremont Institute a think tank of West-Coast Straussian who disagreed with the East-Cost Straussians that no objective principles existed with which to rule a society, and therefore, societal good was not solely based on these "myths" but that it also entailed some self-evident truths.[1]

Whoever wrote this should, if they feel it is important to include, cite the sources from which the opinions attributed to Bloom and Jaffa come from, or at least give the debate a context in Strauss' writings as well, as to where these issues arose.--Mikerussell 03:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bibibliography

I would like to add the following books to the 'Bibliography on Strauss' section:

Benardete, Seth, Encounters and Reflections: Conversations with Seth Benardete, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 229 pages, 2002.

Drury, Shadia B., The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss, New York: St. Martin's Press, 256 pages, 1988.

Lampert, Laurence, Leo Strauss and Nietzsche, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 229 pages, 1996.

Neumann, Harry, Liberalism, Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 336 pages, 1991.

Rosen, Stanley, "Hermeneutics as Politics" in Hermeneutics as Politics, New York: Oxford University Press, 1987, 87-140.

Zuckert, Catherine H., Postmodern Platos, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 351 pages, 1996

I think Benardete's book should be included as a counterpoint to the reminisces of Ms. Norton. The first book by Drury, Political Ideas was probably her best book. Lampert, with Rosen and Benardete, represent the strongest philosophical (i.e., non-political) students of Strauss, and should be represented in the bibliography. Neumann is the Straussian wild-man and this possibility also needs to be noted. Ms. Zuckert's book has three chapters out of nine on Strauss and is very smart on the post-Nietzschean representation of Plato. Some of these books (e.g., Drury, Rosen) are now out in second editions. I have not seen them so I cite the first edition.

Pomonomo2003 00:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


In the "Publications by Leo Strauss" section:

(1) Some of the entries didn't really explain (or properly date) the various reissues and publisher changes. I've tried to make it a bit clearer with indents and a slight expansion.

(2) Gesammelte Schriften... I removed the "[2006?]" and added the three projected volumes (info from the publisher's website).

(3) Quelques remarques... I removed the "bis [?]" since most web references to this article don't say "bis".

(4) Hobbes' politische Wissenschaft... "completed in 1936 but, for political reasons, was not publishable at that time." Seems plausible, but NYScholar's request for a source has not been answered, and (a) Strauss writes in a May 9, 1935 letter that he has completed his Hobbes book, but "no German publisher or English translator can be found" (On Tyranny 1991:230). To me, that doesn't sound like politics making his book unpublishable. Also, (b) Schocken had just published his Philosophie und Gesetz in Berlin that year. So -- though I'm only casually acquainted with this material -- I've boldly changed 1936 --> 1935 and taken out the "unpublishable" bit. If wrong, someone will no doubt fix my error. (In the same entry: Neuweid --> Neuwied, Luchterland --> Luchterhand.)

(5) One additional handy Strauss source added (An Introduction...Ten Essays by Strauss, 1989).

(6) A few minor typos cleaned up.

I hope none of this is controversial?

Jdpiffle 19:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strauss had a daughter

According to his NYT obit, Strauss also had a daughter named Jenny Clay as well as his (step?)son Thomas, and three grandchildren. "Dr. Leo Strauss, Scholar, Is Dead" NYT October 21, 1973.

Jenny Strauss Clay is a professor of classics at the University of Virginia and occasionally writes about her father. http://phronesis.org/article.php3?id_article=13

His two children were accounted for in the article. In the previous paragraph it was stated he adopted his neice when her parents died in Eygpt (this undoubtedly is Jenny Clay Strauss), I am not sure when this was done, or how old she was when he legally adopted her. His son was also adopted since his wife was a widow with a young child when they married. Accordingly, I reinserted the comment about no biological children. It is a small point of probably no biographical significance beyond a recognition of life's fate, but why not keep it in if it is true?--Mikerussell 03:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Typo?

"He contended that great thinkers are bold but wary of pitfalls, while scholars benefit from surer ground."

Shouldn't this say that great thinkers are bold but unwary, meaning heedless?

I don't think so, but I did not write that part, although I am familiar with the passage. The biggest problem with this article is it lack references (I think it only has 1 official citation- although some sections have references in the text which should be reformated and placed at the end). I say problem not becuase the article is wrong, but it does refer to many of his works and if the correct cite was added it would reinforce the points. I am just as guilty as others for being too lazy to add the references, but I just don't have time to do it lately.--Mikerussell 15:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linked from HuffingtonPost

This article was linked from a post on HuffPo this morning and is also high on the list of HuffPo posts on Yahoo! here in relation to today's election, so we may be seeing some vandalism in the near future. Just a heads up. Dekimasu 09:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Machiavelli quote

In one of the quotation boxes at the bottom is this text:

The most superficial fact regarding the Discourses, the fact that the number of its chapters equals the number of books of Livy's History, compelled us to start a chain of tentative reasoning which brings us suddenly face to face with the only New Testament quotation that ever appears in Machiavelli's two books and with an enormous blasphemy. —Leo Strauss, Thoughts on Machiavelli, , U. Chicago Press, 1958, page 49

Does anybody know what NT quotation that is? Deaconse 17:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The New Testament quote Strauss refers to is:
"He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent away empty"
According to Strauss it comes from the Magnificat, the Virgin Mary's prayer of thanks after she had heard from the angel Gabriel that she would bring forth a son to be called Jesus. According to Strauss, this quote in the context of Machiavelli's Discourses, is a blasphemy because it is stated in reference to tyranny, and gaining political power, leading the reader to infer God is really a tyrant.
In the context of this chapter this means that God is a tyrant, and that king David who made the rich poor and the poor rich, was a Godly king, a king who walked in the ways of the Lord because he proceeded in a tyrannical way." —Leo Strauss. History of Political Philosophy 3rd ed. "Niccolo Machiavelli" p. 312. University of Chicago Press.

--Mikerussell 05:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike!

The canticle The Magnificat derives from Luke 1:46-55; this is verse 53.

It is evident that Machiavelli does extreme violence to Mary's song in general and to that verse in particular, when one views the verse in its full context, especially that of the verses immediately prior (vv 51 and 52): "He has shown strength with his arm; he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts. / He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly." (NRSV) Unusual behavior for a tyrant.

It is especially amusing that he seems not to take into account that, in 1 Samuel 8:4-22, God only very reluctantly grants to Israel their desire to become a kingdom, so they can be just like everybody else (vv 19-20). That is, King David may have been a godly person, but the existence of a king in Israel (or anywhere?) was not really godly. And so it was that David, like Saul before him, began as a good and brilliant hero, but they, with Solomon and Rehoboam and Jeroboam after them (cf 1 Kings 12:14!) wound up as hated tyrants. Sic semper regius, to borrow from John Wilkes Booth?

--Deaconse 18:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LaRouche view of Strauss

An editor keeps adding this material:

  • Strauss' association with Schmitt has been a matter of some controversy, because of Schmitt's important role in the Nazi government. [1][2]

Yet there is no mention of any controversy in the sources. At most we can say that Strauss has been criticized for his association with Schmitt. The second source is a self-published non-academic, non-notable person.[3] We already describe Strauss' association with Schimtt, I don't see a reason for piling on criticism from non-notable sources. -Will Beback · † · 00:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere in this source [4] where Strauus is criticized for associating with Schmitt. It is simply presented as a fact. I removed the other source because it does not meet WP:RS. -Will Beback · † · 01:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of BBC documentary "The Power of Nightmares"

At first I was against the removal of the links to the BBC page, but if you search the pages linked to, there's no use of Strauss's name. If it's about the Neoconservative movement and not about Strauss, then it shouldn't be linked to on his page, but on the Neoconservative page (it very may well be linked to on that page already). Phil 11:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


I'm going to put that paragraph back after 85.82.215.23 's May 30th edit. The link certainly does refer to Strauss by name, and the entire paragraph is well written and does a good job of connecting Strauss' name to many contemporary events, an area that this article could improve upon. In fact I think its a good idea to retitle the last section - CONTEMPORARY perspectives on "the Straussian" and "Straussianism", agreed then? Dr.crawboney (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Self-Delusion vs Impossibility

In the Social Sciences section of the article, it is written: "A political scientist examining politics with a value-free scientific eye, for Strauss, was impossible, not just a tragic self-delusion."

Can someone explain what the difference between self-delusion and impossibility is? Why were these particular words chosen? If anyone who thinks they are a particular thing is labeled: self-delusional, how is this not calling the being-of-the-thing impossible? SJCstudent 01:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I wrote it. I am not sure why I chose the words- I almost laughed when I read that question- Why were these particular words chosen? You are treating the text with too much respect! Simple answer- it made sense to me when I wrote it and I think it represents, or at least comes close to representing, Strauss' view, and certainly my own view of Strauss' view- right or wrong. If you want a careful detailed explanation, there isn't one, hey this is wikipedia and I like to contribute but it is what it is, you know- a user edited online encyclopedia. I'm like a bumble bee, it seems to me in hindsight, I just fly around with no direction or plan and edit what I like when I like. I have no clear plan or agenda, it is just a hobby. As far as what I think a reader can infer from the sentence, well- anyone may be self-delusional about many things. Examples might be that s/he is self-delusional about their dog talking to them, and self delusional about their spouse loving them; yet it may be possible that your spouse does love you, but it is impossible that your dog can talk to you. Thus political scientists may be self-delusional about a whole number of things, but when you add to the list of self-delusions their belief that they can view politics opinion free or purely like a natural scientist looks at fruitflies mating, then they are going beyond just being self-delusional, they are wrong. That is what the senetence means to me as I re-read it, and it seems to me it means that to you too, but you just don't want to accept the underlying assumption, people by nature are self-delusional about many things. --Mikerussell 05:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA failed

I am sorry but I have to fail this because it is not sourced. Please find secondary WP:RS compatible sources for the statements made in this article. Thanks --Aminz 00:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't be sorry, I agree with you. Whoever asked for the review should try to improve it first with adequate sourcing before trying again. --Mikerussell 03:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
This article still needs much improvement of its documentation, using reliable sources (see tags throughout and editorial interpolations. --NYScholar 17:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My own editorial interpolation deleted from bibliog./ext. links sec. by another user

Inclusion of this source contested by some editors. Including it still appears to be consistent with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, WP:POV, and Wikipedia:Citing sources as well as Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles; deleting it seems to be related to editors' own points of view (POV) and thus not consistent with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

I do not consider that editorial interpolation to be "inflammatory" as another user claims in a recent editing summary upon his having deleted it. I posted that some time ago after a number of people seemed to be warring over that particular source due to that very problem in attempt to point out that such a problem existed (which it did) and that people needed to be cautious of their own biases in making such deletions (not based on Wikipedia policy); SourceWatch articles are linked in external links and bibliographical entires throughout many articles in Wikipedia (still).

For the prevalent bibliographical (ext. links) refs. to SourceWatch articles in Wikipedia articles, see "what links here" in SourceWatch. (Cf. the templates used for other user-contributed sites like IMDb and NNI, enabling their linkage in ext. links in bibliography secs. of Wikipedia.)

I deleted another ext. link to a self-published website that I had earlier marked as "dubious" in another editorial deletion. I deleted the link to the site and the comment; editing summary history points to its unreliability. I follow WP:Attribution, Wikipedia:Citing sources, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, e.g. My editing summaries state explanations. --NYScholar 17:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

SourceWatch does appear in the external links section of many Wikipedia articles. However, linking to external wikis is not without controversy. The first criteria of links normally to be avoided is any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. It's hard to imagine how any external wiki provides a unique resource beyond that which our own Wikipedia article would provide it if was fully developed. That was the reason I cited for deleting the link to SourceWatch. So yes, your interpolated comment was inflammatory because it ignored my stated rationale for deleting the link and accused me of POV pushing. If an editor has something to say about another editor's actions, it should be said on the article's talk page or the other editor's talk page and attributed with a signature. Accusations of POV pushing should not be embedded into the article. As far as I'm concerned that's a breech of etiquette if not civility. MoodyGroove 17:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove
[BTW: I did not make any such "accusations" of "POV pushing": the user who used the phrase and thus made such an accusation, in effect citing WP:POVPUSH, was the one who deleted the SourceWatch source--editing summary; then another user restored the link to the SourceWatch article, referring to W:EL; it was the second user citing W:EL with whom I was agreeing (as I state in the editing summary) and in my restoring the link after MoodyGroove reverted to the deletion [5]; in effect MG was agreeing with EW's summary citing "POVPUSH" (That's the apparent incivility, not my editing summary or editorial interpolation afterward). I never used the term "POV pushing"; actually, the users deleting the SourceWatch article were making that accusation themselves. It "seem[ed] to me, I wrote, (and it still "seems" to me) that they were deleting the SourceWatch article because they did not agree with its "POV" (as they were calling it "POVPushing".) Check out the editing history summaries cited above. --NYScholar 03:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)]
see WP:POV. see also What links here for how other Wikipedia articles incorporate references to SourceWatch. There is no breach of etiquette or any incivility in my editorial interpolation, despite the unwarranted claim above, which I regard as "a breach of etiquette if not civility"; it is totally uncalled for, in my view, as was deleting my editorial interpolation, which was properly worded and properly placed at the time that I placed it. There was no discussion in this talk page of this article by users deleting the SourceWatch article, and this talk page and the editing summaries in editing history are what I was consulting and reading at the time that I posted my editorial interpolation. I did not consult anyone's personal talk pages; I was simply responding to what people had posted in their editing history summaries at the time. That is all that I knew about. If one has particular disagreements about the content of an article, one needs to post one's concerns on the talk page of the article in question and/or in editorial interpolations (which are quite common in Wikipedia relating to specific sources and lacks of sourcing); otherwise, others will not know what one's concerns are. Editorial interpolations are for problems too, and I posted both a clear editing summary and a clear editorial interpolation alerting other users to the problems that I was concerned might continue. If the editorial interpolation is no longer necessary, because consensus has been reached re: the SourceWatch source among many editors over an extended period of time, that is fine. But as that is not clear, I've posted the deleted editorial interpolation above. Anyone can see that it was totally civil and totally within Wikipedia etiquette and no purported breach of either one, as I have further explained above; see also the editing history summary: at the time I was not the only one expressing concern about the deletion. The policy is Wikipedia is WP:AGF and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; I suggest that the above editor consult these policies in tandem again, as Wikipedia:Etiquette is related to both of them too. Concerns about deleting reliable and pertinent sources in Wikipedia is an ongoing problem and not the concern of simply one editor. Many editors have expressed similar concerns over several years. (There is nothing "uncivil" in my sentence "deleting it seems to be related to editors' own points of view (POV) and thus not consistent with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." [Notice the emphasis seems. I was concerned about the appearance of multiple "editors' own points of view (POV)" resulting in their deletion of the source [and the accusation that the first user deleting it made to WP:POVPUSH.] I was not the only editor who expressed that concern at the time; I was actually agreeing with the editing summary comment of an earlier editor, who objected to the deletion at the time [citing propriety of the inclusion of the source and who referred in his editing summary to W:EL). That is all that I had seen and I restored the source in agreement with that editor's editing summary. One should not be accused of "incivility" etc. for agreeing with another editor's reasonable editing summary statement citing Wikipedia policy (W:EL). Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Neutral point of view clearly states that the sources being cited need not be neutral; a neutral Wikipedia editor is documenting various points of view by citing them (various points of view on a subject), and following WP:POV.] --NYScholar 01:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC) [updated. --NYScholar 01:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC); --NYScholar 03:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)]
[Note: I will be offline for the rest of the night and also for most of the following week and I will not be consulting Wikipedia for much of the time for the rest of the summer. I will not see further discussion of this matter. This is really all that I have time to post about it. Out of courtesy, I posted this full explanation. --NYScholar 02:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)] [added editing summary link from history above. Back offline. --[updated above posts in brackets with links to editing summaries. Some related tc (format)--Wikipedia links.] --NYScholar 03:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The point remains that you ignored my edit summary, restored the disputed content to the article, and inserted an interpolation that suggested I was POV pushing ("deleting it seems to be related to editors' own points of view (POV) and thus not consistent with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view"). That wasn't constructive. Content disputes are supposed to be handled via polite discussion on talk pages. It was Will Beback who restored the SourceWatch link to the Leo Strauss article. I disagreed with that decision, so I discussed it with him on his talk page before I removed the link from the article. That's what it means to develop consensus. Consensus isn't something that appears magically when there's a content dispute. You work for it. But you have to care what other editors think. What right do you have to use an interpolation to "alert other users" to an alleged problem you were "concerned might continue" when you hadn't even discussed the alleged problem with the editor who originated it? You don't own this article. Your refusal to "see further discussion" of this matter is typical. It's not like you made an effort to discuss it in the first place. MoodyGroove 03:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

The editing history summaries bear out what I have already posted. Actually, I am the first person to make an effort to discuss this on the talk page (I posted this section; the other user simply deleted my editorial interpolation, which was, in my view, extremely rude. I have no interest in engaging with him/her any further about this matter; it is a content issue, not a personal issue, so please stop trying to make it a personal issue. Point of fact: I did not "ignore" his/her editing history summary, as he/she claims; I read it, and I clearly disagreed with the statements in it [e.g., the SourceWatch article contains a useful list of documented sources, several of which are not given in this Wikipedia article on Strauss; it is hard to know, but some of the undocumented possibly-plagiarized material in this Wikipedia article may come from such sources as the SourceWatch article; it was placed here much earlier initially, perhaps by an editor who used it but did not attribute material to the SourceWatch article, just listing it in the ext. links.] I clearly agreed with the previous editor who had already restored the source from SourceWatch. (Prior to posting the "editorial interpolation" which the user took it upon himself/herself more recently to delete--a breach of Wikipedia:Etiquette in itself--I did not see his/her later discussion with that editor on his/her personal talk page(s). [The user later posted some nasty and in my view outrageous complaints about me personally in an arbitration that have no basis in fact and no support in the editing summary that I posted prior to that. I had not even noticed the back-and-forth between the users on their talk page until he/she did that, as I received notice of it in my "watch" list after he/she posted it.]

  • I still agree with the reasoning that leaves the SourceWatch article in this article, for the reasons that I have already stated.
  • Please focus on the content not on the contributors: WP:NPA.
  • Furthermore, please respect the fact that I have no time to discuss it any further. (I've discussed it fully enough.)
  • In no way anywhere was I referring to any user himself/herself individually; in my editing summary I referred to "editors" in the plural.
  • The user citing "POV pushing" was not I but the first user who deleted the SourceWatch article. (So please stop accusing me of doing something that I did not do.) Apparently, this user agreed with the initial user who deleted the SourceWatch article, it appeared, when he/she reverted the deletion (which had already been restored ("rv") by the user citing propriety and W:EL. I agreed with his restoration of the article, and I restored it too. The deleting user used the phrase "POV pushing" to describe the SourceWatch article itself, a charge which is not in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:POV. The hundreds of links to SourceWatch in Wikipedia illustrate how to make reference to articles in it.
  • Moreover, I did not see what was taking place on other users' talk pages about their own disagreements with one another. I saw only the editing summaries in this article when I posted my editing summary and the interpolated editorial comment. There was (until I posted this section) no discussion by any of them in this talk page about this matter. (What goes on on personal talk pages is not the same as what occurs in talk pages of articles, which are linked in the article menu.)
  • I am the one who initiated this discussion in this talk page by posting this section, and I have done so both courteously and, as I already stated, "out of courtesy" (especially since I am so pressed for time.) My edits are in keeping with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
  • Please stop dragging content disagreements down to personal levels. (The other user is doing that, not I.)
  • I am going offline, as I said, and I do not have time to come back online. It is unfair to keep making unwarranted attacks on other editors who will not be here to see them. So I suggest that Mg drop this strategy and focus instead solely on content matters: specifically, on how to improve articles like these that often suffer from problems of neutrality and, in this case particularly, from lack of adequate sourcing. When providing sources, one needs to avoid plagiarism and to use quotation marks and to attribute the statements to the sources one finds them in. (This article does not do that consistently.)
  • One or two editors or two to four editors in controversial and highly-contentious articles with a long history of content disagreements such as this one do not constitute "consensus." Building W:Consensus in Wikipedia takes much more time. It is not built on personal talk pages in comments between two users either, or in the course of a few hours or a day. Consensus is a specific process documented in the talk pages of the articles themselves (including archived talk pages).
  • Not everyone consults users' personal talk pages. Wikipedia policy is for discussions of content to appear on the talk pages of the articles. The talk pages of the articles are here entirely for the purpose of discussing how to make improvements to articles. That is why I posted my editorial interpolation here after the above user deleted it. Improving the article is all that I am interested in.
  • I will not see any further response to my comments as I will be offline. (I had to log back in to Wikipedia to post this reply, but I will be offline after posting it.) Please stop addressing me and talking about me personally. The talk page is for discussion how to improve the article, not for discussing other contributors personally; it is neither a forum on the general subject nor a forum on contributors. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for further guidance; particularly, Wikipedia:Consensus. Thank you. --NYScholar 04:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
When in doubt, bury your opponent in a mountain of text, with lots of bullet points, and vague references to dozens of Wikipedia editing guidelines. Remember to offer counter-accusations. It's just my opinion, but I think you have a poor understanding of consensus. Engaging other editors in constructive dialog is a critical part of consensus building, and the main reason we have talk pages. Two editors certainly can reach consensus all by themselves if they are the only two people involved in a specific content dispute, no matter how controversial the subject of the article. A little communication goes a long way. Wikipedia is not a battleground. We're supposed to be negotiating with each other in good faith, not using interpolations to make passive aggressive comments about each other. This may come as a shock, but we're all interested in improving the article. MoodyGroove 05:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:LeoStrauss.jpg

Image:LeoStrauss.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 14:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did Leo Strauss ever give any comment on the holocaust?

Did Leo Strauss ever comment the holocaust? Does anybody know?

[edit] Scholar or philosopher?

This article notes that Strauss distinguished between philosophers and scholars (but this comment lacks a citation). I read elsewhere that Strauss identified himself as a scholar and not a philosopher. Should the article lead be changed to say that Strauss was a "scholar" or "political theorist" rather than a "philosopher." I'm having trouble finding information on the Strauss and his scholar/philosopher distinction though. Does anyone have any references on this?--Bkwillwm 21:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Citation now provided, but this passage (not mine!) has raised a couple of understandable doubts, so... (1) Bloom Giants 239 suggests: Strauss was a genuine philosopher but too modest to say so, presenting himself as only a scholar (student, commentator, historian). (2) In the passage source (Rebirth 29–30)... (a) Strauss's words "we scholars" suggest some irony, since the phrase is well-known from Nietzshe's Beyond, where contemporary "philosophers" are derided as mere scholars. (b) The phrase "charmed circle" reminds of other passages (Tyranny [1991] 195; Liberalism ["Epilogue"] 203) where Strauss describes the charmed circle (school or sect) not as a shelter for scholars but as a trap from which the philosopher must free himself. (c) Strauss says he is using the term "scholar" to mean "historian of philosophy". And he often argues that we moderns need such a history (in which we try to understand the thought of past philosophers exactly as they did) to free us from the grip of historicism (according to which the views of past thinkers are prejudged as outdated) so that philosophy proper will be possible for us (e.g. Strauss Persecution ["Spinoza"] 142, 151–55; City 8–10). The historical question, whether a thinker held a certain view, is different from the philosophic question, whether the view is true (What Is ? ["Forgotten"] 222). I believe Strauss consistently uses terms like "scholar" or "historian" to indicate this particular task, the effort to follow a thinker's thought rather than judge it. (But of course this doesn't mean that Strauss is not a philosopher.) (3) In What Is ? ("Forgotten") Strauss says that the historian is "not likely" to be a great thinker (228), but that commentators (or scholars) can have philosophic depth (230). —No doubt in time subject Wiki paragaph will be given its context. Jdpiffle 21:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Cityandmanstrauss.jpg

Image:Cityandmanstrauss.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hidden Elitist Philosophy Accusations

I'm very curious as to where these accusations originate. The claim that Strauss had a "hidden" political philosophy that was elitist, illiberal and anti-democratic. Reading through the article and even several of the external articles linked to, I don't see any actual quotes from Strauss himself that would indicate this. I realize this may be a shortcoming of the criticisms themselves, and not necessarily the Wikipedia article, but it would be a great addition to the article if someone could provide a quote from Strauss or even one from one of his students that demonstrates this "hidden" philosophy. Awinkle (talk) 06:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The sad part is that the critics believe liberalism and democracy to be unqualifiedly good (and the more the merrier), so no elaboration is required to explain why being elitist, illiberal, or anti-democratic is bad. Some things just can't be questioned in contemporary politics. That would seem to prove Strauss's point that a philosopher had better watch what he says (or at least say it in a very careful way) lest he be condemned to death for offending the gods or corrupting the youth. More to the point, it would seem to be a waste of time to look for a quote from Struass that explains his "hidden teaching". Just know that he's a very bad man who is responsible for the war in Iraq. MoodyGroove (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove
I get your sarcasm, and I have similar feelings, but I was just reading the article about Allan Bloom... '"Closing of the American Mind" draws analogies between the United States and the Weimar Republic' That might be where some of it originates. But it would be hard to go down that path without it becoming "original research". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awinkle (talk • contribs) 05:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
You might find this article to be of interest. MoodyGroove (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove
I mean, as I understand it, a lot of his writings seem to be capable of being read as saying that noble lies to create and maintain an elite is inevitable or desirable.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
All this is all very well, but does Strauss adequately point out the disadvantages of noble lies, like the obvious huge loss of trust/power if and when noble lies are uncovered?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Only if you believe in the long chain of dubious reasoning that links together Strauss's reading of Plato and the War in Iraq. I am not qualified to speak for Strauss, but I might suggest that our (mean liberal democracy's) noble lie is that all men are created equal. If that is liberal democracy's noble lie, then it would seem to be a very effective one. After all, the mere suggestion that Strauss condones elitism of any kind (for any reason, however noble) makes him not only a dangerous war-mongering fascist, but an illiberal, anti-democratic blasphemer. Ironic, considering that modern scholars no longer believe in the natural right tradition from which America's great claim to "truth" was derived. So where is the obvious huge loss of trust/power in the wake of the realization that our "rights" have no basis in nature? The silence is deafening. The ancients believed that a society could be judged according to the quality of citizen it produced. Modern scholars view democracy as an end in itself, and don't appear to be the least bit concerned about the appalling herd-like behavior of democratic mass-man, or the fact that democracy has no basis outside of our arbitrary preferences. Perhaps that is why Strauss indicated that because we are friends of liberal democracy, we cannot afford to be flatterers of liberal democracy, and perhaps that is why Strauss sought to renew the conflict between the ancients and the moderns. At any rate, I'm sure it wasn't Strauss's goal to put the neocons into office. MoodyGroove (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove