Introduction to Political Philosophy - Ten Essays 0814319025, 9780814319024

A reissue of the 1975 edition, with four added essays, this collection offers a clear introduction to Strauss' view

988 89 78MB

English Pages 373 Year 1989

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

Introduction to Political Philosophy - Ten Essays
 0814319025,  9780814319024

Table of contents :
What is political philosophy? --
On classical political philosophy --
The three waves of modernity --
Natural right and the historical approach --
An epilogue --
Introduction to history of political philosophy --
Plato --
Progress or return? The contemporary crisis in Western civilization --
What is liberal education? --
Liberal education and responsibility.

Citation preview

An Introduction to Political Philosophy Ten Essays by LEO STRAUSS edited with an introduction by

Hilail Gildin

Wayne State University Press Detroit

THE CULTURE OF JEWISH MODERNITY General Ediwr ALAN UDOFF, BALTIMORE HEBREW UNIVERSITY Associate Editors David Patterson, Oxford University Sander Gilman, Comell University Amy Colin, University of Washington Paul Mendes-Flohr, Hebrew University Stephane Moses, Hebrew University Saul Friedlander, University of Tel Aviv Gillian Rose, University of Sussex

An ear1ier, shorter versiou of this book w;i� published as Politifrzf J>hi!ornphy: Six £55ays hy l,eo Straus., by Bobhs-lvlerriU iu 1975. Copyright tti 1975 by I-lib.ii Gildi11- Copyright " 1989 by Wayne Stare U11iversi,y Press, Detroit, Michi�an 48201. All rights arc reserved. No pan of 1hls book may be reproduced without formal permi�sion. 09 08

IU 9 K

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

St.rausst Leo. An introduction to political philosophy : ten essays / by Leo Strauss ; edited with an introduction by Hilail Gildin. p. cm, - (Culture of Jewish modernity} Bibliography: p. Includes index. ISBN 0-8113-1901-7 (alk. paper).-ISBN 0-8143-1902-5 (pbk.: alk. paper) I. Political science-Philosophy. 2. Political science-History. I. Gildin, Hilail, II. Title, Ill. Series. JA7I.S7935 1989 320'.0l-dcl9 89-30367 CIP Grateful acknowledgment is made for permission to reprint from the following sources: ..What ls Political Philosophy?"" reprinted with permission of The Free Press, a Division of Macmillan, Inc,, from What Is Political Philosophy and Other Studies by Leo Strauss. Copyright © 1959 by The. Free Press. "On Classical Political Philosophy" reprinted with permission from Social Re­ search, February l 945. "Natural Right and the Historical Approach"" reprinted with permission from Leo Strauss, Natural Right aitd Hiswry. Copyright© 1950, 1953 by The Uni­ versity of Chicago. All rights reserved, "An £pitogue'' from Essays in IM Scientific Study of Politics by Herbert Storing, copyright© 1962 by Holt, Rittehart and Winston, Inc., reprinted by permis­ sion of the publisher. "Introduction" reprinted with permission from Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey, History of Political Philosophy, 3rd ed., The University of Chicago Pres_,, 1987. Copyright© 1963, 1972 by Joseph Cropsey and Mirian Strauss. Copyright © 1987 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved . .. Plato" reprinted with permission from Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey, Hi.f,hy, 3rd ed., The University of Chicago Press. 1987. Copy­ right© 1963, 1972 by Joseph Cropsey and Miriam Strauss. Copyright © 1987 by The Universiry of Chicago. All rights reserved, "Progress or Return? The Contemporary Crisis in Western Civilization" re­ printed with permission of Johns Hopkins University Press from Modem Judaism I (1981): I 7-45. '"The Mutual Influence of Theology and Philosophy," published here as part three of "Progress or Return? The Contemporary Crisis in Western Civiliza­ tion," reprinted with permission from The fndependent Journal ef Phi/osephy 3 (1979): 111-18. "What ls Liberal Education?" from Educatitm for Public R,spon first place, seeing with one's own eyes as distinguished from hearsay, to ob­ serve for oneself; and secondly, the notion of inquiry pre­ supposes the realization of the fundamental difference be­ tween human production and the production of things which arc not man-made, so that no' conclusion from hu­ man production to the production of non-man-made things is possible except if ir is first established by demon­ stration t hat the visible universe has been made by think­ ing beings. This implication, I think, is decisive: it was on the basis of the principles of Greek philosophy that what later became known as demo nstrations of the existence of

286 Politirnl Phi/osuj1h)' God or gomocracy, or what one may call the ideal of Jemocracy, and democracy as it is. Accord­ ing Lo an extreme view, which is the predominant view in the profession, the ideal of democracy was a sheer delu­ ,ion, and the on ly thing which matters is the behavior of democracies and the behavior of men in democracies. Modern democracy, so far from bei n g universal aristoc­ racy, v,w uld be mass rule were it not for the fact that the mass cannot rule, but is rnlcd by elites, that is, groupings of men who for whatever reason are on top or have a fair chance to arrive at the top: one of the most important vir­ ttws required for the smooth working of democracy, as far as the mass is roncerned, is said to be electoral apathy, viz., lack of public spirit; not indeed the salt of the earth, but the salt of modern democracy are Lhose citizens who read nothing except the sports page and the comic section. De­ mocracy is then not indeed mass rule, but mass culturt>. A mass culture is a culture which can be appropriated hy the meanest capaci ties without any intellectual and mor·al effort whatsoever and at a very low monetary price. But even a mass culture and precisely a mass culture requires a constan t supply of what are called new ideas, which arc the products of what are called creative minds: even singing commercials lose their appeal if they are not varied from time to time. But democracy, even if it is only regarded as the hard shell which protects the soft mass culture, re­ quires in the long run qualities of an entirely different kind: qualities of dedication, of concentration, of breadth, and of depth. Thus we understand most easily what liberal education means here and now. Liberal education is the counterpoison to mass culture, to the corroding effects of mass culture, to its inherent tendency to produce nothing but "specialists w ithout spi rit or vision and voluptuaries wiLhout heart." Lihtcral education is the ladder hy which ,ve try to ascend from mass democracy to democracy as originally meant . Liberal education is the necessary en­ deavor to found an aristocracy within democratic mass so-

Wha t

is Liberal Education?

315

ciety. Liberal education reminds those members of a mass democracy who have ears to hear, of human greatness. Someone might say that this notion of liberal education is merely political, that it dogmatically assumes the good­ ness of modern democracy . Can we not turn our backs on modern society? Can we not return to nature, to the life of preliterate tribes? Are we not crushed, nauseated, de­ graded by the mass of printed material, the graveyards of so many beautiful and majestic forests? It is not sufficient to say that this is mere romanticism, that we today cannot return to nature: may not coming generations, after a man-wrought cataclysm, be compelled to live in illiterate tribes? Will our thoughts concerning thermonuclear wars not be affected by such prospects? Certain it is that the horrors of mass culture (which include guided tours to in­ teger nature) render intelligible the longing for a return to nature. An illiterate society at its best is a society ruled by age-old ancestral custom which it traces to original found­ ers, gods, or sons of gods or pupils of gods; since there are no letters in such a society, the late heirs cannot be in di­ rect contact with the original founders; they cannot know whether the fathers or grandfathers have not devrated from what the original founders meant, or have not de­ faced the divine message by merely human additions or subtractions; hence an illiterate society cannot consistently act on its principle that the best is the oldest. Only letters which have come down from the founders can make it pos­ sible for the founders to speak directly to the latest heirs. It is then self-contradictory to wish to return to illiteracy. We are compelled to Jive with boo�. But life is too short to live with any but the greatest books. In this respect as well in some others, we do well to take as our model that one among the greatest minds who because of his common sense is the mediator between us and the greatest minds. Socrates never wrote a book, but he read books. Let me quote a statement of Socrates which says almost everything that has to be said on ur subject, with the noble simplicity

J 1 6 Political Philosophy

and quiet greatness of the ancients. "Just as others are pleased by a good horse or dog or bird, I myself am pleased to an even higher degree by good friends . . . . And the treasures of the wise men of old which they left behind by writing them in books, I unfold and go through them together with my friends, and if we see something good, we pick it out and regard it as a great gain if we thus be­ come useful to one another." The man who reports this utterance adds the remark: "When I heard this, it seemed to me both that Socrates was blessed and that he was lead­ ing those listening to him toward perfect gentlemanship . " This report i s defective since i t does not tell u s anything as to what Socrates did regarding those passages in the books of the wise men of old of which he did not know whether they were good. From another report we learn that Euripides once gave Socrates the writing of Heraclitus and then asked him for his opinion about that writing. Soc­ rates said: "What I have understood is great and noble; I believe this is also true of what I have not understood; but one surely needs for understanding that writing some spe­ cial sort of a diver. " Education to perfect gentlemanship, to human excel­ lence, liberal education consists in reminding oneself of human excellence, of human greatness. In what way, by what means does liberal education remind us of human greatness? We cannot think highly enough of what liberal education is meant to be. We have heard Plato's suggestion that education in the highest sense is philosophy. Philoso­ phy is quest for wisdom or quest for knowledge regarding the most important, the highest, or the most comprehen­ sive things; such knowledge, he suggested, is virtue and is happiness. But wisdom is inaccessible to man, and hence virtue and happiness will always be imperfect. In spite of this, th� philosopher, who, as such, is not simply wise, is declared to be the only true king; he is declared to possess all the excellences of which man's mind is capable, to the highest degree. From this we must draw the conclusion

What is Liberal Education? 31 7

that we cannot be philosophers-that we cannot acquire the highest form of education. We must not be deceived by the fact that we meet many people who say that they are philosophers. For those people employ a loose expression which is perhaps necessitated by administrative conveni­ ence. Often they mean merely that they are members of philosophy departments. And it is as absurd to expect members of philosophy departments to be philosophers as it is to expect members of art departments to be artists. We cannot be philosophers, but we can love philosophy; we can try to philosophize. This philosophizing consists at any rate primarily and in a way chiefly in listening to the conversation between the great philosophers or, more gen­ erally and more cautiously, between the greatest minds, and therefore in studying the great books. The greatest minds to whom we ought to listen are by no means exclu­ sively the greatest minds of the West. It is merely an unfor­ tunate necessity which prevents us from listening to the greatest minds of India and of China: we do not under­ stand their languages, and we cannot learn all languages. To repeat: liberal education consists in listening to the conversation among the greatest minds. But here we are confronted with the overwhelming difficulty that this con­ versation does not take place without our help-that in fact we must bring about that conversation. The greate.st minds utter monologues. We must transform their mono­ logues into a dialogue, their "side by side" into a "to­ gether." The greatest minds utter monologues even when they write dialogues. When we look at the Platonic dia­ logues, we observe that there is neyer a dialogue among minds of the highest order: all Platdnic dialogues are dia­ logues between a superior man and men inferior to him. Plato apparently felt that one could not write a dialogue between two men of the highest order. We must then do something which the greatest minds were unable to do. Let us face this difficulty-a difficulty so great that it seems to condemn liberal education as an absurdity. Since the ·

318 Political Philosophy

greatest minds contradict. one another regarding the most important matters, th ey compel us to judge of their inono­ logues; we cannot rake on trust what any one of them says. On the other hand, v,e cannot but not.ice that we are not competent to be j udges. This state of things is concealed from us by a number of facile delusions. vVe somehow believe that our poillt of view is superior, h igher than those of the greatest minds­ either because our · point of view is that of our time, and our rime, bein g later than the time of the greatest minds, can be presumed to I.Jc superior to their times; or else be­ cause we believe that each of tl1c grcate!'.t minds was right from his point of view but not, a s he claims, simply right: we know that there cannot be the simply true substantive view, hut only a simply true formal view; that formal view consists in the insight that every comprehensive view is rel­ ative to a specific perspective , or that all comprehensive views are mutually exclusive and none can be simply true. The facile delusions which conceal from us our true situa­ tion all amount to this: that we are, or can be, wiser than the wisest men of the past. We are thus induced to play the part, not of attentive and docile listeners, but of impre­ sarios or lion tamers. Yet we must face our awesome situa­ tion, created by the necessity that we try to be more than attentive and docile listeners, namely, j udges, and yet we are not competent to be j udges. As it seems to me, the cause of this situation is that we have lost. all simply author­ itative traditions in which we could trust, the rwmos which gave us authoritative guidance, because our immediate teachers and teachers' teachers believed in the possibility of a simply rational society. Each of us here is compelled to find h is bearings by his own powers, however defective they may be. \.Ve have no comfort other than that inherent in this ac­ tivity. Philosophy, we have learned, must be on its guard against the wish to be edifying-philosophy can only be in­ trinsically edifying. We cannot exert our understanding

What is 1.ilieral Ed11rntion'! 3 1 9

without from time to time understanding something of importance; and this act of understarnling ma, be accom­ panied by the awareness of our understanding, by the un­ derstanding of understanding, by noesis noeseos, and this is so high, so pure, so noble an experience that Aristotle could ascribe it to his God. This experience is entirely in­ dependent of whether what we understand primarily is pleasing or displeasing. fair or ugly. It leads us to realize that all evils are i n a sense necessary if there is to be under­ standing. It enables us t o accept all evils which befall us and which may well break our hearts in the spirit of good citizens of the city of Cod. By becoming aware of the dig­ nity of the mind, we realize the true ground of the dignity of man and therewith the goodness of the world, whether we understand it as created or as uncreated, which is the home of man because it is the h ome of the human mind. Liberal education, which consists in the constant inter­ course with the greatest minds, is a training in the highest form of modesty, not to say of humility. It is at the same time a training in boldness: it demands from us the com­ plete break with the noise, the rush, the thoughtlessness, the cheaprwss of the Vanity Fair of the intellectuals as well as of their enemies. It demands from us the boldness im­ plied in the resolve to regard the accepted views as mere opinions, or to regard the average opinions as extreme opinions which are at least as likely to be wrong as the most strange or the least popular opinions. Liberal educa­ tion is liberation from vulgarity. The Greeks had a beauti­ ful word for "vulgarity'!; they called it apeirnhalia, lack of experience in things beautiful. Liberal education supplies us with experience in things beautifu l-:

Liberal Education and Responsibility

When I was approached by The Fund for Adult Educa­ tion with the suggestion that I prepare an essay on liberal education and responsibility, my first reaction was not one of delight. While. I am in many ways dependent on the administration of education and hence on the organiza­ tions serving education, I looked at these things, if I looked at them, with that awe which arises from both grat­ itude and apprehension mixed with ignorance. I thought that it was my job, my responsibility, to do my best in the classroom, in conversations with students wholly regardless · of whether they are registered or not, and last but not least. in my study at home. I own that education is in a sense the subject matter of my teaching and my research . . But I am almost solely concerned with the goal or end of education at its best or highest-of the education of the perfect prince, as it were-and very -little with its condi­ tions and its how. The most important conditions, it seems to me, are the qualities of the educator and of the human being who is to be educated; in the case of the highest form of education those conditions are very rarely fulfilled, and one cannot do anything to produce them; the only · things we can do regarding them are not to interfere with 321

their ir1terplay and to prcvrnirus, 2 J Creation, 2 8 1 , 288, 305 C ito (Plato), 3 30 Culture: mass, 3 1 4- 1 5 , 342; present-day usage of, 3 1 21 3; as product of education, 31 1, 312 Cyrus, 7 1 Darwin , Charles, 2 2 1 David, King, 277, 280

Decline, or Setting, of the West (Spengler), 8 1

Delusions of ProgreJS, The (So­

rel), 267 Democracy: advocated by Spi­ noza, 2 54; attitude of clas­ sics toward, 34-36, 1 70, 1 89 , 208, 209- 1 2, 2 25, 2 2 8 , 233, 24 1 ; difference between communism and, 3 7 ; ideal of, 3 1 4; and liberal education, 3 1 4- 1 5, 3 23, 325-27 , 3 3 0-36, 343-45; and new political science, 1 53-55; as rule by edu­ cated, 3 6-37; Strausi as ally o f, xxiii-xxiv; as universal aristocracy, 3 1 3 , 3 1 4; virtue as principal of, 3 1 3 , 34 1 Descartes, Rene, 1 9, 26, 5 2 Dialectics, 2 1 9-20

Economics, l 28 Education: to

moderation,

29- 3 0 , 2 3 2-35; religious, 3 3 1 , 3 3 6 ; scientific, 342; universal, 36; to virtue, 363 7 , 4 1 , 2 3 2 , 234-35, 243 Education, liberal: conditions for, 3 2 1 -2 2 ; of gentleman, 3 1 G, 324-25, 329, 3 3 1 -3 3 ; a s goal o f culture, 3 1 1 , 3 1 2; as intercourse with great minds, 3 1 1 - 1 2 , 3 1 5- 1 6, 3 1 7- 1 9; in mass democracv, 3 1 4- 1 5, 3 2 3 , 342, 3 43 -45; and moral education, 336, 3 3 9, 343; new orienut.ion in, 3 3 7-'.18; and philosophy, 3 1 6- 1 7, 3 28-29, 3 3 7 ; and responsible government, 32 5-27 , 3 30-3 6 ; universal­ ism in, 343, 344 Eleatic stranger, 2 1 7, 2 1 8, 220, 2 2 1 , 222, 224, 226, 2 2 7 , 228 Empiricism, and new political science, 1 36-4 1 , 1 45 , 1 49 Engels, Frcidrich, 263 Enlightenment, 47, 340 Esprit des Lois (Montesquieu), 51 F,thic:, (Aristotle), 2 76 Ethics (Spinoza), 308 Existentialism, 29 l Fascism, xx-xxi, xxiv, I 70

Faust (Goethe), 94

Fear, and pity, 278 Federalist Papers, 1 66 , 3 32 Florentine Histories (Machiavelli), 40 Frage nach dem Ding, Die (Hei­ degger), xxii Freedom , and license, 53, 27 I -7 2 General will, 52-54, 9 1 -93 Gentleman: education of, 3 1 6, 3 2 4-25, 329, 33 1 -3 3 ; of

Index 351 Gentleman: (cont.) leisure, 32 3-24; vs philoso­ pher, 328; rule of, 3 25-26, 328, 330 German idealistic philosophy, 55-56, 9 2 Glaukon, 7 1 , 1 68 , 1 77-78, 1 79 , 1 80 , 1 82 , 1 86 , 1 9 2, 1 95, 1 97, 1 98, 2 06 God: covenant with, 286, 293 ; human interpretation of ac­ tions of, 299; and knowl­ edge of essence, 306-7 ; mysterious, 287, 2 9 3 ; omni­ potent, 2 8 1 , 293, 306; perfection of, 306-7 . See al.m Bible; Revelation Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von, 94 Golden Age, 259 Good citizen, 33-34 Good city. See Just city Guide for the Perf1lexed (Maimonides), 28 1 Guilt, 276, 278 Halevi, Yehuda, 279, 295 Hamilton, Alexander, 332 Hegel, G. W.F., 5 2, 56, 7 1 -72, 9 1 , 95, 1 1 9 , 295 Heidegger, Martin, xviii-xix, xx, xxi-xxii, xxiii, 1 2 Herder, I 05n Herodotus, 285 Herzl, Theodor, 7 Hesiod, 208, 209 Historical process, 268 Historicism: assumption of absolute moment, 1 1 9; as­ sumptions about historical studies, 1 06, 1 07 ; critique of natural right, 99- 1 00, 1 0 1 , 1 02, 1 0 3-4, 1 1 8, 1 1 920; denial of universal norms, xviii, 1 03-6; distin­ guishing characteristics of,

23-24; distortion of "expe­ rience of history," 1 2 1 -22; 1 1 1 - 1 2; dogmatism of, emergence of, 1 02-3, 1 2 324; failure to derive objec­ tive norms, 1 07-9, 1 22 ; and fascism, xx-xxi; Heidegger and, xviii-xix, xx, xxi-xxii, xxiii; and historical change, 1 1 2- 1 4, 1 22; and l imita­ tions of human thought, 1 1 0- 11 , 1 1 5, 1 1 8; non­ skeptical tradition of, 1 1 0; obj ection to classical politi­ cal philosophy, viii-ix; and philosophic analysis, 1 0 9l 0; plausibility of, xvii-xviii; and positivism, xiv, 2 1 -22, 23, 1 06-7 ; radical, xviii, 1 1 5-1 8 , 1 2 1 ; self-contra­ dictory thesis of, xviii, 1 1 41 5, 1 1 8; this-worldliness of, 1 06; understanding of sci­ ence, xvi-xviii History, discovery of, 257 , 2 64, 272 Hobbes, Thomas, xxiv, 54,

83, 84, 87, 90, 9 1 , 270,

3 07; on common good, 1 50; concern with power, 50; correction of Machiavelli , 48-49, 88; criticism of clas­ sical political philosophy, ix-x; on natural law, 49, 88- � 9; and political science, X-XI ,

Homer'; 27, 1 6 1 , 2 1 2, 28 1 Hume, David, 62n, J 1 0 Humility, 275, 277 Husserl, Edmund, xxii, xxiii , 12 Isaac, 280 Isaiah, 249-50 I-Thou-We relations, 26

352 Index

Jefferson, Thomas, 68 Jesus, 45 Job, 276 Jonathan, 2 7 7 )udaism: assimilationism a s so­ lution to problem of, 2 5456; belief in revelation, 300-3 0 1 ; idea of progress beyond, 2 0 1 -54; idea of re­ turn to, 249-5 1 , 252, 253, 257-58; and power of past, 257 ; Zionism as solution to problem of, 2 56 jiulms!aa! (H erzl), 7 Just city, 76-7 7; abolition of family, 1 92, 1 93-94, 204; absolute communism in, 1 70, 1 72 , 1 83-84, 1 90-92 , 200; of artisans, 1 74-7 5 , 1 76, 2 1 4; a s caste society, 1 89-90; cfrdication to com­ mon good, 1 72, 1 74, 1 89; and education, 1 83, 1 84: and equality of sexes, 1 9293, 200; founding of, 1 7985; and idea of justice, 1 9598; and nature of justice, 1 86-89, 204-6 , 2 1 5- 1 7; order of arts in, 1 82-8 3 , 2 1 3- 1 4; origin in human need, 1 80-8 1 ; poetry in, 1 8 3, 2 1 2- 1 5; possibility of, 7 1 , 1 94-95, 1 98-99, 200, 203, 206-7 , 2 1 7 , 222, 23 1 ; regulation of sexual activity, 1 94; and rule of philoso­ phers, 1 70, 1 7 1 , 1 99-204, 2 1 8, 329; vs unjust city, 206-1 2; virtues in . 1 85-86; will of legislator and, 1 7377. See also Regime Justice: biblical vs philosophic, 275-77; opinions on, in Pla­ to's Republic, 1 69-7 7 ; and rule by gentleman, 325-26; and social hierarchy, 33940. See also Just city; Law

just man, l 7 1 -72, 1 77-79 , 2 04-5, 276 Just society, of Rousseau, 5455 Kant, Immanuel, xxii, 52, 53, 56, 87, 9 1 , 92, l l O, 270 Kephalos, 1 6 8-70, 1 7 1 Kingly art: a s caring for hu­ man herds, 22 1 -23; compe­ tition in, 225-26; and divi­ sion into classes, 223-24; and knowledge of whole, 22,1 -25, 229-30; of match­ making, 2 29; and philo­ sophic knowledge, 2 1 7- 1 8; public and private, 220; and rule of law, 226-28 Klein, Jacob, xix-xx, xxiii Kleinias, 2 3 1 , 232, 2 37, 242 Kronas, age of, 222, 223 Kuzari (Halevi), 295 Language, political, 1 46-48 Law: ancestral, worth of, 27, 2 3 1 -32, 29 1 ; change of, 28-29, 235, 244; divine, 276, 284-87, 29 1 , 292-93; and education toward mod­ eration, 29-30, 232-35; and human legislator, 3 1 3 2 ; about impiety, 3 0 , 24243; obedience to, 275, 29 1 ; persuasion and, 239-40: re­ vealed, 30t\-4; rule of, 22628, 23 1 , 239, 240 l.aw.1 (Plato), 26-3 1 , 23 1 -45, 2 74 , 275, 286 Legitimacy, principle of, 1 45 Lcibnitz, Gottfried von, 270 License, and freedom, 53, 27 1 -72 Locke, John, xi, 50-5 1 , 5 2 , 3 3 1 -3 2, 3 4 1 Logical positivism, 1 3 3 , 1 36, f43

Index

Lucretius, 260 Luria, Isaac, 250-5 1 Macaulay, Thomas B. , 62n Machiavelli, Niccolo, ix, 1 55 ; and beginning o f modern­ ity, 83--87, 88; campaign of propaganda, 45, 46-47; cri­ tique of morality, 40-43, 86-87; critique of religion, 40, 44-4fl; and Locke, 50-� I ; political teachings of, 43-44, 47-48 Magnanimity, 276-77 Maimonides, 258, 262, 28 1 , 2 8 3 , 30 1 !\fan: biblical view of, 86, 252; classical view of, 37-38, 8 5 , 1 3 1 ; Nietzsche's Over-man, 96-98.: progressive, 25253; responsible, 322 -23; Rousseau's natural man, 89-90, 98. See also Gentle­ man; Just man Marx, Karl, 4 1 , 96-97, 98, 2 1 1 , 344 Medici, Cosimo de, 40 Megillos, 23 1 , 232 Messiah, 250, 25 1 Michal, 277 Mill, John Stuart, 333-35 Miracles, 302, 305 , 306, 308 Mishneh Torah, 283 Modernity: anthropocentric character of, 269-70; counter-movement to, 269, 273; crisis of, xi, 8 1 -82, 98, 265; discovery of history, 272; emergence of concept of rights, 27 1 ; emergence of science, 8 7-88, 266; Hobbes and, 88-89; Ma­ and, chiavelli 8 3-87 ; Nietzsche and, 94-98, 265; radical change within, 83; and romanticism, 93-94; Rousseau and, 89-93; and

353

secularization, 82--8 3, 95; substitutes for moral princi­ ples, 268 Monarchy, 225, 228, 237, 24 1 :\fontesquieu, Charles Louis de, 5 1 Moralitv: biblical, 265 . 27 475, '2 76-80; philosophic, 72-7 3 , 74, 78-79, 274,-7 5 , 276-80, 29 1 -92; substitutes for principles of, 268. See olso Modernity; Value j udg­ ments; Virtue Moses, 45, 250, 274, 30 1 Mythology, rejection of, 29293 ;'I/age!, Ernest, xiv ".'Jathan (prophet), 280 Natural right: conventionalist view of, 1 00- 102; crisis of, I 24; and equality, 3 40; Hobbes on, 49, 8 8-89; in pre-Socratic doctrines, 1 6263; rejection by new politi­ cal science, 1 5 3; rejection in name of history, xi, 9 9- 1 00, 1 0 1 , 1 02, 1 03-4, 1 1 8, 1 1 920; Rousseau on, 52-53, 89-9 1 , 93; and universal knowledge, 1 1 4 Natural theology, 306-7, 309 Nature: conquest of, 8 8 , 264; ignorance of power of, 302; pre-philosophic equivalent of, 282-83; return to, 55, 3 1 5; as theme of philoso­ phy, 85-86, 1 60-62, 1 65, 2 8 1 -82 Nietzsche, Friedrich, xi, 2 1 4 , 266, 344; attack o n histori­ cism, 1 1 6; doctrine of will to power, 57, 96, 265; and historical process, 95-96; man of future, 97-98; and Marx, 96-97 , 98; sentiment

354 Index

Nietzsche, Friedrich (cont.) of existence, 94-95; solitary creator of, 56-57 Odyssey (Homer), 1 6 1 , 2 8 1

Oligarchy, 207, 208-9, 225, 228, 239, 339--40 On the Citizen (Hobbes), 49 On the Prince (Machiavelli), 4849 Patriotism, 33-34, 42, 1 72, 1 89 , 206 Perfect city. See Just city Personality, theory of, 1 4 4 Phaedrus (Plato), 27 1 Philosophy: and act of understanding, 3 1 8- 1 9; agree­ ment with biblical view­ point, 273-76, 287-88, 29 1 -9 2; concept of prog­ ress, 259-62; conflict with biblical viewpoint, 276-86, 289-9 1 , 292-95; end of, 337-38; historically relative character of, I 20-2 1 ; of human mind, 270; and lib­ eral education, 3 1 6- I 7 , 328-29, 337; means for re­ alizing just city, 1 70, 1 7 1 , 1 99-204; and morality, 7273 , 74, 78-79, 274-7 5 , 276-80, 2 9 1 -92; nature as theme of, 85-86, 1 60-62, 1 65 , 28 1 -82; obedience to law, 275, 29 1 ; and poetry, 2 1 5; and political philoso­ phy, 4-5, 76, 1 24; and poli­ tics, 327, 329-30; quest for beginnings, 283, 285-86, 292; quest for knowledge of whole, 4, 38-_ 3 9, 224-25, 229-30, 297, 298, 300, 327; quest for truth, 5; rejection of revelation, 296-97, 298, 304, 307- 1 0 ;

and science, ix, xii, 1 28, 1 59 , 266, 269, 298 , 3 4 1 42; as way of life, 297-98; work of individuals, 294. See also Political philosophy; Political philosophy, classi­ cal Physics, xii, 1 28, 1 30, 1 33, 266 Pinsker, 7 Pity, and fear, 278 Plato, xxiii, 38, 52, 56, 66, 1 0 1 , 1 02, 1 60, 165, 262, 27 1 , 274, 278, 280, 282 , 3 1 6 , 330; attitude toward democracy, 35, 1 70, 1 89, 208, 209- 1 2; concept of progress, 260; dialectics of, 2 1 9-20; dialogues of, 1 6768, 3 1 7; Laws, 26-3 1 , 66n, 2 3 1 -45, 274, 275, 286 (see also Law); The Republic, 1 5, 35, 7 1 , 7 7 , 82, 84, 163, 1 68-2 1 7, 2 3 3 , 234, 235, 276, 329 (see also Just city); The Statesman, 2 1 7-30, 23 1 (see also Kingly art) Poetry, in just city, 1 83, 2 1 215 Polemarchos, 169, 1 7 1 , 1 72 Polis, 1 65 Political action: directed to­ ward good society, 3; pres� ervation vs change in, 3 Political knowledge: assump­ tions underlying, 1 1 -1 2 ; degrees of, 8-9; and public opinion, 9; scholarly and nonscholarly, 9- 1 1 Political opinion, 9, 1 0, 1 40 Political philosophy: abstract­ ness of, 25-26; and crisis of modernity, xi, 8 1 -82; dis­ tinction between facts and values, xiii-xiv; diversity of, xii; effects of positivism on,

Index 355

Polit ical philosophy: (cont.) of, 74-75; practical, 7 1 -72, 1 3-24; fundamental princi­ 230; primary questions of, ple of, 39-40; of German 6 1 ; quest for best regime, idealism, 55-56, 92; of 3 2-34, 67-7 1 , 72, 84-85, Hobbes, 48-50, 88-89; of 1 05, 23 1 , 233, 234, 2 36-45 Locke, 50-5 1 ; of Machia­ (see also Just city); rejection velli , 40-50, 8 3-87 ; mean­ of rhetoric, 64; relation to ing of, 3-4, 8; of Montes­ political life, 59-60, 6 1 , 75quieu, 5 1 ; of Nietzsche, 5676; revival of, vii, xx, xxiii; 57, 94-98; and nonhistori­ teaching of legislative skills, cist studies, 1 23; and philos­ 65-66, 69; view of man, ophy, 4-5, 76, I 24; present 37-38 , 1 3 1 (see also Just state of, l 2- 1 3; rejection of man). See also Aristotle; classical philosophy, 7 1 -72; Plato; Socrates relation to political science, Political science, 3 1 3; as ac­ quisition of political knowl­ 7 -8, 1 2, 60-6 1 , 1 2 8 , 1 5 1 , l 59-60; relation to political edge, 1 0; Aristotelian, 1 27theology, 7; relation to po­ 32; criteria of relevance, litical theory, 6-7, 7 1 ; rela­ 1 4 1 -43; legalistic, 1 32-3 3 ; tion to soda! philosophy, 7; original meaning of, 63-65, of Rousseau, 5 I -55, 89-93; 66; relation to political phi­ theme of, 4; true standards losophy, 7-8, 1 2 , 60-6 1 , and, 5-6. See also HistOTi­ 1 28, 1 5 1 , 1 59-60; scientific, cisrn; Philosophy 8 , 1 9-2 1 ; value-free, impos­ Political philosophy, classical: sibility of, 1 8 arbitration of opposed Political science, new, xi: vs claims, 6 1 -63, 67, 73-74; Aristotelian political sci­ attitude toward democracy, ence, 1 27-32; authority of, 34-36, 1 70, 1 89, 208, 2091 25-26 ; democratism of, 1 2, 225, 228 , 2 3 3 , 24 l ; city­ 1 53-55; denial of common state as theme of, I 65-66; good, 1 49-5 1 ; denial of comprehensiveness of, 25; natural right, 1 5 3 ; depen­ concern with inner struc­ dence o n philosophy, xii­ ture, 67; differences from xiii; distinction between political science, 60-6 1 ; facts and values, 1 5 1 -5 3 , founded by Socrates, 1 60, 1 55; emergence of, 1 25 , 1 63-65; human legislator 1 26; empiricism and, 1 36in, 3 1-32; justification of, 4 1 , 1 4 5 , l 49; heteroge­ 76-78, 8 1 ; management of neous parts of, 1 27 ; and political community, 63-64; Hobbes, x-xi; language of, moral distinctions of, 721 46-48; vs legalistic politi­ 7 3 , 74, 78-79; natural char­ cal science, 1 32-33; logic as acter of, xxii, xxiii, 24; non­ basis of, 1 36, 1 4 1 ; need for traditional, 24-25; opposed universals, 1 43-46; notion by modern schools, viii-x; of science, 1 35-36; resis­ philosophic life as subject tance to, 1 26; treatment of

356 Index Political science, new, xi: (cont.) religion, 1 48-49; in unprec­ edented political situation, 1 3 3-3 5 Politics (Aristotle), 4, 3 3-34, 226 Positivism: and historicism, xiv, 2 1 -22, 2 3 , 1 06-7 ; le­ gal, l OOn- I O l n; in social science, 1 3-24 Progress, xi: and break with Judaism, 25 1 -54; classical concept of, 2 60-6 1 ; and conquest of nature, 264; decline of belief in, 258-59, 264, 2 67 ; idea of, 259; infinite, 260, 262-6 3 ; vs re­ turn, 249-5 1 , 264; social and intellectual, 260, 26 1 , 263-64 44-45, Prophet/prophecy, 303 Protagoras, 3 26-27 Psychology, 1 30 Public interest, 1 49-5 1 Public speaking, 64

Republic, The (Plato), 1 5, 3 5 , 7 1 , 77, 82, 84, 1 6 3 , 1 682 1 7, 2 1 8, 2 1 9, 220, 222, 230 , 23 1 , 2 3 3 , 234, 235, 239, 276, 329 Republicanism, modern, 3 3031 Revelation: argument in favor of, 2 99-304; historical criti­ cism of, 306; refutation by philosophy, 296-9 7 , 298, 304, 3 07- 1 0; refutation by science, 305 Rhetoric, 64, 1 3 3 , 1 75 Rights, concept of, 270-7 1 . See also Natural right Romanticism, 52, 9 3-94 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, xi, 36, 65n, 94, 95; deviation from Hobbes and Locke, 52; doctrine of general will, 52-54, 9 1 -93; end of just society, 54-55; limitation of license, 5 3 ; natural man of, 89-90, 98; wave of modern­ ity, 5 1 -52, 8 9

Rawls, John, viii Regime: best possible, 32-34, 67-7 1 , 72, 84-85, 1 0 5, 23 1 , 233, 234 , 2 3 6-45; def­ inition of good citizen, 3334; kinds of, 207-8, 225, 233; meaning of, 32, 2 07; mixed, 330-3 1 ; and will of legislator, 1 73-74. See also Just city Religion: education and, 3 3 1 , 336; fear· and pity as root of, 278-79; historical, 290; impiety, · "30, 242-43; Ma­ chiave11i's critique of, 40, 44-45; natural, 290, 306, 309; and new political sci­ ence, 1 48-49. See also Bible; God; Judais.m; Revelation

Samuel, 2 8 8 Saul, 2 7 7 Scholastics, 1 60 Scholem, Gershom, 2 5 0-5 1 S cience: based on hypotheses, 266-67; vs common sense knowledge, xiv-xv, xxii; historicist understanding of, xvi-xvii; and modernity, 87-88, 266; necessity of, 3 1 0; and philosophy, ix, xii, 1 28, 1 59, 266, 269, 2 9 8 , 34 1 -42; and principle of causality, xv-xvi; and prog­ ress, 263; refutation of rev­ elation, 305; specialization in, 343; supremacy of, 342; theoretical vs practical, 1 29-30. See also Political science

Index 35 7 Secularization, 82-83, 95 Self-preservation, right of, 52, 54, 55 , 88-89, 93 Seneca, 260 Skepticism, 1 1 0 Social progress, 260, 261 , 263-64 Social science, positivistic, 1 324 Sociology, 1 28 Socrates, xxii, xxiii, 1 5, 7 5 , 76, 77, 2 4 3 , 277, 280 , 300; character in Platonic dia­ logues, 30-3 1 , 35, 70-7 1 , 1 67 , 1 68-229; edurntion to gentlemanship, perfect 3 1 5- 1 6; founder of political philosophy, 1 60; poverty of, 328; re::jection of revelation, 295-97; view of man, 3 738 S ophist (Plato), 2 1 7, 2 1 8, 220 Sorel, Georges, 267 Spengler, Oswald, 8 1 , 94, 267 Spinoza, Baruch, 7 , 253-55, 257-58, 3 0 1 , 302, 307-8 Statesman, The (Plato), 2 1 730, 23 1 Stoics, 1 60 Structure of Science, The, (Nagel), xiv Temple, William, 62n Theaitetos, 2 1 7 Theaitetos (Plato), 2 I 7 , 2 1 9, 230 Themistocles, 63-64 Theodoros, 2 1 7, 2 1 8 Theologico-Political

Treatise

(Spinoza), 254 Theory of]ustice, A (Rawls), viii Thoughts on French Affairs (Burke), xxi Thrasymachos, 1 5 , 1 72-77, 1 88, 1 92, 206, 2 1 2 , 2 1 9 Timaeus (Plato), 262, 275 Timocracy, 207, 209, 23 3

Tocqueville, Alexis de, 62n Torah, 250, 257, 283, 300 Tragedy, 278 ., 279 Tyranny, 225, 228 Value judgment: and aban­ donment of moral princi­ ples, 268; distinction be­ tween fact and, xiii-xiv, 1 5 1 -53, 1 55; inevitability of, 1 6- 1 8; invisible, 1 7 ; moral distinctions and, 7273; rejected by historicism, 23; rejected by positivistic social science, 1 3- 1 4, 1 5 ; and solubility o f value conflicts, 1 8- 1 9 Virtue: aim o f human life, 35-36; biblical and philo­ sophic, 27 4-75, 276-78; education to, 36-37, 4 1 , 232, 234-35 , 243; end of political action, 244; hier­ archy of, 78; in just city, 1 85-86; vs nature, 93; as passion, 27 1 ; philosophic question about, 74, 78; as principle of democracy, 3 1 3, 3 4 1 ; reinterpretation 0� 4 1-43, 86-87, 89 Voltaire, 1 1 1 - 1 2 War, 1 73, 1 82-83, 232 Weber, Max, 1 9 Western civilization: and crisis of modernity, 265, 268-72; roots of (see Bible; Philoso­ phy) Whitehead, Alfred North, 1 2 Xenophon, 7 1 Zeus, age of, 222, 223 Zionism, 2 54, 256