Matter and Form explores the relationship between natural science and political philosophy from the classical to contemporary eras, taking an interdisciplinary approach to the philosophic understanding of the structure and process of the natural world and its impact on the history of political philosophy. It illuminates the importance of philosophic reflection on material nature to moral and political theorizing, mediating between the sciences and humanities and making a contribution to ending the isolation between them.

To Father Ernest Fortin: [The] highest achievement … of theology's handmaiden is to show that the arguments leveled against divine revelation are not compelling or demonstrably true.1To the extent that we are now in the midst of the so-called “clash of civilizations,” it may be noteworthy that a major controversy—scholarly and journalistic––has emerged over the bearing of Leo Strauss on the defense of the West. This article explores the roots of the controversy as found in his “The Mutual Influence of (...) Theology and Philosophy,” which raises and answers two questions: what is Western Civilization and is it worthy of defense? It is claimed that the very foundation of Western Civilization is constituted at its core by the twin pillars of revelation and Socratic philosophizing; and that the West merits life only if both of its pillars are defendable by reason against rational attack. In what follows, I attempt to trace Strauss's dialectical defense of the West by means of his demonstration of the irrefutability of revelation by reason and the theological-political bearing of this defense. I come to a dual conclusion: the existence of the monotheistic God of revelation is irrefutable by philosophy; yet, the human relevance of revelation, as the guide for a way of life—politically and individually—remains open to challenge by philosophy. Along the way, I also treat the recent research that is in conflict over Strauss's views. (shrink)

Most scholars of Rousseau's political philosophy pay their perfunctory respects to his Dedication of his Discourse on Inequality to The Republic of Geneva in pursuit of his teaching in his Social Contract. Some others focus on the Dedication in order to explore the complicated relation between actual Genevan ways and Rousseau's substantive picture of Geneva. Recently, Rosenblatt has authoritatively established the crucial importance of the Dedication in this regard by a thorough investigation of its concrete historical context. However, this important (...) contribution abstracts from the dramatic form or context in which Rousseau himself places the Dedication. A few scholars, for instance Masters and Palmer, have correctly concluded that the dramatic form, even more than the historical context, informs the substantive content of the Dedication. Yet, the depth and complexity of the drama -- characters as well as settings -- that informs the substantive teaching of the Dedication remains largely unexplored. As is shown in this article, the dramatic context of the Dedication crucially informs its substantive content -- as well as that of the Social Contract -- and the conclusion to be drawn is that the Dedication constitutes Rousseau's introduction to his whole corpus as informed by political philosophy. (shrink)

The recent research of Helena Rosenblatt, Hilail Gildin, Arthur Meltzer, and John Scott calls for a reconsideration of Rousseau's stance towards and effect on the natural public law tradition. This reconsideration is especially called for given the persuasive evidence and arguments that these scholars marshal to demonstrate the positive contribution of Rousseau to that tradition and to suggest that his pre-Kantian rational law teaching in the Social Contract is rooted in his post-Hobbesian stance towards natural law, especially in the Second (...) Discourse. The work of these scholars builds upon others, especially on Leo Strauss, Victor Gourevitch, Jean Starobinski, Marc Plattner, Roger Masters and John Charvet, as well as Asher Horowitz, R. A. Leigh, Franz Haymann, and Robert Derathe, and completes the full range of alternative answers to our question. Their contributions are an invaluable scaffolding for fully grasping the issue and for proposing theses that could resolve it. Given the great debt owed to these scholars, the present inquiry begins with an overview and general assessment of their opinions on the issue, which is then followed by a close analysis of the relevant texts of Rousseau, especially the “Preface” to the Second Discourse. (shrink)