Moses Mendelssohn was the leading Jewish thinker of the German Enlightenment and the founder of modern Jewish philosophy. His writings, especially his attempt during the Pantheism Controversy to defend the philosophical legacies of Spinoza and Leibniz against F. H. Jacobi’s philosophy of faith, captured the attention of a young Leo Strauss and played a critical role in the development of his thought on one of the fundamental themes of his life’s work: the conflicting demands of reason and revelation. _ Leo (...) Strauss on Moses Mendelssohn_ is a superbly annotated translation of ten introductions written by Strauss to a multi-volume critical edition of Mendelssohn’s work. Commissioned in Weimar Germany in the 1920s, the project was suppressed and nearly destroyed during Nazi rule and was not revived until the 1960s. In addition to Strauss’s introductions, Martin D. Yaffe has translated Strauss’s editorial remarks on each of the passages he annotates in Mendelssohn’s texts and brings those together with the introductions themselves. Yaffe has also contributed an extensive interpretive essay that both analyzes the introductions on their own terms and discusses what Strauss writes elsewhere about the broader themes broached in his Mendelssohn studies. Strauss’s critique of Mendelssohn represents one of the largest bodies of work by the young Strauss on a single thinker to be made available in English. It illuminates not only a formerly obscure phase in the emergence of his thought but also a critical moment in the history of the German Enlightenment. (shrink)

This collection of papers by prominent feminist thinkers advances the positive feminist project of remapping the moral by developing theory that acknowledges the diversity of women.

Reorientation: Leo Strauss in the 1930s seeks to explain the 'change in orientation' that Strauss underwent during a decade of personal and political upheaval. Though he began to garner attention in the 1950s, it was in the 1930s that Strauss made a series of fundamental breakthroughs which enabled him to recover, for the first time since the Middle Ages, the genuine meaning of political philosophy. Despite this being a period of marked output and activity for Strauss, his research in this (...) era remains overlooked. This volume is the first to assemble in one place an examination of Strauss' various publications throughout the decade, providing a comprehensive analysis of his work during the period. It includes, for the first time in English, five newly translated writings of Strauss from 1929-37, brought to life with insight from leading scholars in the field. (shrink)

Při výběru z teorií, které bychom mohli aplikovat na problém, jímž se zabýváme, je pro nás účinnost jejich použití jedním z nejdůležitějších kritérií. Jinými slovy, naše hodnocení teorií se odvíjí o jejich schopnosti řešit problémy. V tomto eseji nejprve ukáži, jaké druhy problémů jsou pro sociální vědy klíčové, a s pomocí strukturalistické kritiky funkcionalismu nabídnu ilustrace těchto problémů. Budu přitom tvrdit, že Lévi-Straussovy přísliby spojené s jeho metodou nebyly nikdy naplněny a že je strukturální antropologie neuspokojivá.

Leo Strauss (1899-1973) a inscrit sa pensée dans l'héritage de la tradition grecque, mais également dans celui de la tradition biblique. Se rapportant au judaïsme comme à une révélation de la Loi (pour laquelle la dimension de la foi est secondaire), il fait retour à une pensée juive (Pourquoi nous restons juifs) et tente de prolonger la réflexion de Maïmonide dans les conditions nouvelles des temps présents. Il s'oppose ainsi à sa rénovation par l'approche phénoménologique de Franz Rosenzweig comme à (...) la pensée de Martin Buber, tout en se tenant à distance de la réflexion sur le mysticisme juif de Gershom Scholem avec lequel il dialogue. Cet ouvrage interroge la manière dont Strauss pense les relations de corrélation et de conflit entre philosophie et judaïsme. En quoi la réflexion sur la Loi, dont il poursuit l'élaboration dans la lignée de la pensée médiévale et à contre-courant de la modernité des Lumières, représente- t-elle un approfondissement de la pensée juive et jette-t-elle une lumière crue sur la situation du judaïsme dans le monde? Quels sont les termes du débat avec les penseurs contemporains du judaïsme avec lesquels il est en relation? Quelles sont aujourd'hui les possibilités et les limites d'une telle réflexion pour la vitalité du judaïsme et de la philosophie? Les études présentes ouvrent des voies différentes, voire divergentes, essentiellement heuristiques, sur les possibilités et les limites de la réflexion straussienne pour la vitalité du judaïsme et de la philosophie. Elles s'accompagnent de la parution d'un texte inédit en français : " La situation religieuse actuelle " (1930), qui représente un moment décisif de la réflexion de Strauss sur la question. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Diacritics 30.3 (2000) 90-104 [Access article in PDF] After Death Jonathan Strauss According to Philippe Ariès, the nineteenth century was a turning point in the history of death. On the one hand there emerged a new sense of the irreplaceability of individual people, of the finality of death and the immeasurable preciousness of a single life. On the other hand death, that which followed one's demise, became conceptually more (...) austere. For the first time since antiquity, perhaps ever, the belief that death is pure negativity or nothingness asserted itself with enough success to become a generally accepted cultural attitude. 1 This image of sheer nonexistence, this death stripped down to its ontological minimum, is the most extreme form of mortality that has arisen in the history of the West, the hardest perhaps to take, the most naked. In ways that could not have occurred before, these two developments in the history of death have worked with and against each other to create a new understanding of subjectivity, a set of theorizations about human individuality that, for all their diversity of detail, are bound together by a certain historical determinacy. Hegel's views on the relation between mortality and subjectivity, for instance, like Heidegger's or Blanchot's, have no precedent, but they do have endless repercussions. Whatever their causes, the newness and the effectiveness of these theories indicate that during the nineteenth century a unique cultural formation arose in relation to mortality. The moment still has not passed, since the basic elements of the new death continue to operate on contemporary imaginations and theorizations. What follows is an attempt to draw the portrait of the death that emerged for the first time in the nineteenth century: to critically and analytically examine formulations of the relation between death and identity in order to determine the value of absolute mortality as an individualizing principle. Often these formulations are most clearly articulated by post-nineteenth-century thinkers, but they are the products, and indeed the expressions, of that historical transformation that occurred sometime after the Revolution. When we read these texts and arguments, we are asking not merely whether they are valid as arguments, but about the value of the general attitude they reflect—the value not only of a specific kind of death, but of a kind of subjectivity that is unique to the last two hundred years. And since that subjectivity is probably the most significant product of those centuries, the most pervasive and the most intimately affecting, we are also, intentionally or not, asking about the value of a whole period.To read this relation between mortality and subjectivity, we must come to some understanding about the terms at issue, especially what death is or is not when considered in its most extreme form as simple nothingness. It may seem odd that this is an issue at all, but nonexistence has proven a difficult concept to integrate into theorizations [End Page 90] of human life. The first question to raise in this context is whether death can be considered a state, a divisive proposition on which much hangs. In the introduction to a recent collection of essays on metaphysics and death, John Martin Fischer baldly asserted that "being dead is a condition or a state" [4]. The philosopher Paul Edwards, however, has pointed to some of the "absurdities," as he puts it, of considering death as an ontological condition. To imagine death as a state is, he argues, to attribute to it some sort of being, but death, understood as the permanent loss of consciousness and experience, has no being and is simply absence. To imagine otherwise leads to attempts (made by such existentialist philosophers as Ferrater Mora [175-203] and Tillich) to understand death "from the inside"—that is, to imagine what it would be like to experience the absence of experience. 2 Edwards's approach does not deny the possibility or value of investigations into the psychological significance of that absolute privation (that is, the meaning of death for the living), but it does preclude any understanding of death as such. This is, undoubtedly, part of the... (shrink)

Drawing together an assemblage of historical and textual reference, this article examines the curious connections between Paul de Man and Leo Strauss. It does not suggest an intellectual affinity between the two men (on the contrary). However, it notes the proximity of both around the question of dialogism in relation to de Man's reading of Rousseau.

Afin de montrer qu'il faut situer le début du processus de réception de l'œuvre nietzschéenne avant les années 1980, cet article dépouille les études critiques et les recensions de cette œuvre, parues dans les pays germanophones entre 1872 et 1889. Une étude statistique révèle que Nietzsche était connu pour ses écrits sur Wagner et sa première Inactuelle. Le dépouillement de l'importante réception de l'essai sur D. F. Strauss montre que les critiques de l'époque s'intéressaient à cet essai en fonction de (...) son actualité: les divers griefs qui lui sond faits voient notamment la première Inactuelle comme un écrit schopenhauerien en continuité avec la querelle entourant La naissance de la tragédie. En grande patrie critique, la première réception des écrits nietzschéens montre que le statut philosophique qui fut accordé à lœvre et à son auteur est le résultat d'un long processus d'appropriation par le combat.Dieser Artikel wertet kritische Studien und Rezensionen von Nietzsches Werk aus,d ie zwischen 1872 und 1889 im deutschen Sprahraum erschienen sind. Es soll veranschaulicht werden, dass der Beginn des Rezeptionsprozesses seiner Werke bereits vor den 1890er Jahren leigt. Eine statistische Auswertung des Materials zeigt, dass Nietzsche für sein Schriften über Wagner und seine ersten Unzeitgemässen Betrachtungen bekannt war und sein Essais über D. F. Struß aufgrund seiner Aktualität für Kritiker interessant war. Die erste Unzeitgemässe Betrachtung wurde als eine schopenhauerische Forzetzung des Streits um Die geburt der Tragödie betrachtet. In den ersten kritischen Rezeptionen von Nietzsches Werken wird deutlich, dass der Status, der Autor und Werk in der Philosophie zugeteilt wurde, das Ergebnis eines langen Prozesses von Aneignung durch Kampf ist. (shrink)

En el presente trabajo, utilizaremos el concepto althusseriano de problemática para repensar al estructuralismo. Nuestra pregunta será: ¿cómo comprender al estructuralismo? ¿Cómo indicar sus límites cuando se trató de un conjunto de propuestas teóricas que atravesó disciplinas, que sufrió cruces con diversas teorías y cuyas premisas nunca fueron establecidas con claridad? A partir del concepto de problemática, desarrollado por Althusser fundamentalmente en La revolución teórica de Marx, se nos abrirá la posibilidad de interrogar al conjunto de propuestas teóricas que lo (...) conformaron, no tanto como un canon aplicable a las más diversas materias sino como un espacio teórico atravesado por contradicciones. Así, nos apoyaremos en la noción de problemática porque la consideramos particularmente fértil para pensar un campo teórico más como un conjunto de problemas y preguntas que como un compendio de respuestas a dificultades teóricas claramente delimitadas.Pretendemos destacar las contradicciones que vertebran al estructuralismo porque nos conducirán a plantear que es posible emplazar una distancia en su interior, distancia que mostrará como una de sus variantes aquella que afirma la imposibilidad de pensar una estructura de estructuras final que las totalice a todas. Este hecho es el que nos pondrá delante cómo las tensiones internas del estructuralismo permiten mostrar el modo en que algunas de sus propuestas balizan el camino del posestructuralismo. (shrink)

Recognized as one of the leading philosophers and Jewish thinkers of the twentieth century, Emil Ludwig Fackenheim has been widely praised for his boldness, originality, and profundity. As is well-known, a striking feature of Fackenheim's thought is his unwavering contention that the Holocaust brought about a radical shift in human history, so monumental and unprecedented that nothing can ever be the same again. Fackenheim regarded it as the specific duty of thinkers and scholars to assume responsibility to probe this historical (...) event for its impact on the human future and to make its immense ramifications evident. In Emil Fackenheim's Post-Holocaust Thought and Its Philosophical Sources, scholars consider important figures in the history of philosophy--including Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, and Strauss--and trace how Fackenheim's philosophical confrontations with each of them shaped his overall thought. This collection details which philosophers exercised the greatest influence on Fackenheim, and how he diverged from them. Incorporating widely varying approaches, the contributors in the volume wrestle with this challenge historically, politically, and philosophically in order to illuminate the depths of Fackenheim's own thought. (shrink)

A suggestion for research on Rosenzweig and Viktor von Weizsacker, Franz Rosenzweig's Philosophical legacy: Levinas or Strauss?

Nowadays hypermedia constitutes, with its singular characteristics, a new language whose structure seems to be complex because it includes features such as multiple simultaneous paths, multiplicity of voices, the simultaneous manifestation of ordinary and scholarly languages and the mixture of means, genres and verbal, visual and aural languages. However, behind its complexity, hypermedia can reveal simple structures of order. Comprehending its nature, we can better construct using its language. This has great potential for creating narratives understood as universal manifestations of (...) human discourse through which people share their comprehension of the world. Using a parallel between the narrative structure of hypermedia and that found by the anthropologist Claude Lvi-Strauss in South-American indigenous mythical narratives, I looked for an alternative perspective for the comprehension and manipulation of the hypermedia logic structure and the resources it mobilizes to form a coherent whole, such as the temporality and spatiality of narratives, symbology and metaphors and its own alternative means of producing meaning. (shrink)

This introduction to the Common Knowledge symposium titled “Comparative Relativism” outlines a variety of intellectual contexts where placing the unlikely companion terms comparison and relativism in conjunction offers analytical purchase. If comparison, in the most general sense, involves the investigation of discrete contexts in order to elucidate their similarities and differences, then relativism, as a tendency, stance, or working method, usually involves the assumption that contexts exhibit, or may exhibit, radically different, incomparable, or incommensurable traits. Comparative studies are required to (...) treat their objects as alike, at least in some crucial respects; relativism indicates the limits of this practice. Jensen argues that this seeming paradox is productive, as he moves across contexts, from Lévi-Strauss's analysis of comparison as an anthropological method to Peter Galison's history of physics, and on to the anthropological, philosophical, and historical examples offered in symposium contributions by Barbara Herrnstein Smith, Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, Marilyn Strathern, and Isabelle Stengers. Comparative relativism is understood by some to imply that relativism comes in various kinds and that these have multiple uses, functions, and effects, varying widely in different personal, historical, and institutional contexts that can be compared and contrasted. Comparative relativism is taken by others to encourage a “comparison of comparisons,” in order to relativize what different peoples—say, Western academics and Amerindian shamans—compare things “for.” Jensen concludes that what is compared and relativized in this symposium are the methods of comparison and relativization themselves. He ventures that the contributors all hope that treating these terms in juxtaposition may allow for new configurations of inquiry. (shrink)

In this groundbreaking work, Richard L. Velkley examines the complex philosophical relationship between Martin Heidegger and Leo Strauss. Velkley argues that both thinkers provide searching analyses of the philosophical tradition’s origins in radical questioning. For Heidegger and Strauss, the recovery of the original premises of philosophy cannot be separated from rethinking the very possibility of genuine philosophizing. Common views of the influence of Heidegger’s thought on Strauss suggest that, after being inspired early on by Heidegger’s dismantling of the philosophical (...) tradition, Strauss took a wholly separate path, spurning modernity and pursuing instead a renewal of Socratic political philosophy. Velkley rejects this reading and maintains that Strauss’s engagement with the challenges posed by Heidegger—as well as by modern philosophy in general—formed a crucial and enduring framework for his lifelong philosophical project. More than an intellectual biography or a mere charting of influence, _Heidegger, Strauss, and the Premises of Philosophy_ is a profound consideration of these two philosophers’ reflections on the roots, meaning, and fate of Western rationalism. (shrink)

It has often been noted that Leo Strauss developed his understanding of political philosophy through a critical engagement with Heidegger. Yet most analyses focus on Strauss’s American works while neglecting his earlier response during the crisis years of the Weimar Republic. The article seeks to overcome this limitation by ‘deconstructing’ Strauss’s American definitions of political philosophy in light of both his Weimar understanding of politische Wissenschaft and his 1922 discovery of Heidegger’s Aristotle. I argue that Strauss’s conception of political philosophy (...) originated in Heidegger’s subversion of the traditional distinction between theory and praxis. I thus propose a way to read Strauss from the start following his own changing views of that distinction. (shrink)

In this groundbreaking work, Richard L. Velkley examines the complex philosophical relationship between Martin Heidegger and Leo Strauss. Velkley argues that both thinkers provide searching analyses of the philosophical tradition’s origins in radical questioning. For Heidegger and Strauss, the recovery of the original premises of philosophy cannot be separated from rethinking the very possibility of genuine philosophizing. Common views of the influence of Heidegger’s thought on Strauss suggest that, after being inspired early on by Heidegger’s dismantling of the philosophical (...) tradition, Strauss took a wholly separate path, spurning modernity and pursuing instead a renewal of Socratic political philosophy. Velkley rejects this reading and maintains that Strauss’s engagement with the challenges posed by Heidegger—as well as by modern philosophy in general—formed a crucial and enduring framework for his lifelong philosophical project. More than an intellectual biography or a mere charting of influence, _Heidegger, Strauss, and the Premises of Philosophy_ is a profound consideration of these two philosophers’ reflections on the roots, meaning, and fate of Western rationalism. (shrink)

OF THE NUMEROUS LEGACIES BEQUEATHED BY LEO STRAUSS, his influence on the study of German philosophy frequently goes least mentioned. Apart from some early reviews and other occasional pieces, Strauss left no major work on any German thinker. With the exception of the chapter on Max Weber in Natural Right and History and a short essay on Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil written near the end of his life, there are no works on such giants of the German Aufklärung as (...) Mendelssohn, Kant, and Hegel to rival his studies of other seminal figures in the history of political thought. Why, for example, did Strauss not write a Thoughts on Kant to parallel his study of Machiavelli, or The Argument and Action of Hegel’s ‘Philosophy of Right’ to complement his commentary on the Laws of Plato, or The Literary Character of Nietzsche’s ‘Zarathustra’ modeled after his essay on Maimonides’s Guide of the Perplexed? In any case, for a thinker like Strauss who has emphasized that what a person does not say is almost as important as what he does, such a startling omission calls for comment. (shrink)

The present topic, I must admit, has a forbidding aura of tension and invites a controversy which is philosophical, political, and even personal. The comparison between Martin Heidegger and Leo Strauss is a sensitive issue. In the early 1960s, while I was searching for an alternative to political behavioralism as a viable approach to the study of politics, I was impressed with the argument advanced by Strauss on the importance of ethical issues in political inquiry. Sometime later in 1961, (...) I was attending a seminar, given by the late John Wild at Northwestern University, which was devoted to the careful reading and explication of Heidegger’s Sein und Zeit. Wild was the American philosopher who met Edmund Husserl in 1931, studied with Heidegger at the University of Freiburg, came to the defense of Plato against Karl Popper, and was one of those who were primarily instrumental for propagating phenomenology on the American scene. It took me only a short while to realize that particularly in its critique of both intellectualism and empiricism, phenomenology is a paradigmatic force in political inquiry. In the following pages I shall discuss in broad strokes four main issues: Heidegger’s involvement with German National Socialism in relation to his philosophy ; Strauss’s critique of positivism which may be corroborated with phenomenological insights ; his critique of Heidegger’s ontology as historicism ; and the deconstruction of technology as an example of Heidegger’s seminal and epochal contribution to modern thought. (shrink)

Beginning with Heidegger is an in-depth examination of the influence that Martin Heidegger's inceptual thought exerted on Leo Strauss, Richard Rorty, Jacques Derrida and Alexander Dugin. How did these vastly different thinkers employ Heideggerian concepts to define their own philosophies and often antagonistic politics? After outlining Heidegger's main philosophical points, it discusses attacks on and the misuse of Heidegger's ideas to advance Rorty's left-leaning and liberal political agenda as well as the different interpretations that Strauss and Heidegger offer regarding (...) Plato's notion of the Good. It also looks at the existential rebirth in Russia that Heidegger's groundbreaking theories and Dugin's extension of them made possible. The role of Heidegger's notion of "Dasein" is the key to a Eurasian awakening for not just one but for many peoples of the heartland. In this respect, both Heidegger and Dugin seem to be the lights that guide a people without a philosophy into a destiny filled with meaning and identity. The book calls for the incorporation of Heidegger's thinking into the field of political philosophy and cautions against the distorting effects of our prevailing political prejudices. (shrink)

_ Source: _Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 233 - 253 Leo Strauss’s grand theme, the theological-political problem, has its basis in the predicament of being a philosopher in a political society. As a Jew and a philosopher, Strauss also faced the entanglement of Judaism and German philosophy culminating in Heidegger’s historicism. These related challenges prompted Strauss’s recognition of the first steps for philosophy in a global epoch. Strauss reinterpreted Heidegger’s religious anticipation of a “meeting of East and West” as a (...) philosophical re-encounter with the Bible as “the East within us.” Whereas the Bible challenges the rationality of the philosophical way of life, this “Bible as Eastern” challenges rationalism itself. (shrink)

Writing in 1935 as "Hugo Fiala," Karl Löwith not only connected Martin Heidegger and Carl Schmitt to an apparently contentless "decisionism" but drew attention to the fact that his correspondent Leo Strauss had attacked Schmitt—like Heidegger an open Nazi since 1933— from the Right in 1932. In opposition to the views of Peter Eli Gordon, Heidegger's bellicose stance at the Davos Hochschule of 1929 is presented as "political" in Schmitt's sense of the term while Strauss's embrace of Heidegger, never (...) regretted, showed that he ceased to be Nietzsche's "Good European" in his thirtieth year. A more significant "change of orientation" is revealed in Strauss's 1932 version of the "second cave," a pseudo-Platonic image of Verjudung . Revelation had disrupted a nihilistic "natural ignorance" that could only be reversed by an elite's secret decision for a self-contradictory content: only an atheistic religion provides a post-liberal solution to "the theological-political problem.". (shrink)

Modernity and What Has Been Lost comes out of a conference held at the Jagiellonian University in Krakw̤, Poland, on June 4-5, 2009 that sought to identify Leo Strauss's intellectual background in re: the repudiation of a modern idea of homogenous, universal state (considered as an illegitimate synthesis of Jerusalem and Athens, i.e., the claims of Reason and Revelation). The world we live in, molded by science and historical relativism, may be described as hostile to human dignity or perfection, or (...) abhorrent to those who love the search for wisdom. Straussian teaching consisted in the steady effort to reopen "the quarrel between the Ancients and the Moderns," and refers to the esoteric way of writing practiced by the most profound thinkers of the past which has been apparently forgotten in the last three centuries. Strauss binds the concept of natural right with the question of maintenance of conditions for philosophizing, and it probably seems to him that such defense of philosophy is the highest task in our times. However, one must be well aware that philosophizing always means a perilous way of life. Indeed, it may be destructive of the city (polis) itself as far as the city exists due to some crucial beliefs the philosopher might put in doubt. Reflecting on those issues, Strauss engaged in several highly important debates with his contemporaries, in an open way with, e.g., Carl Schmitt, Karl Lw̲ith and Alexandre Kojv̈e, and more tacitly with Martin Heidegger"--Provided by publisher. (shrink)

Summary In a noteworthy new study, Richard Velkley brings together Martin Heidegger and Leo Strauss as part of a reexamination of the foundations and nature of philosophical questioning. In what follows, I critically reflect on this shared search for foundations, and particularly on the role of Plato in Strauss's effort to forge a new path for philosophy which moves away from Heidegger without losing sight of him.

Nous avons choisi de faire dialoguer Hannah Arendt et quelques uns de ses contemporains: Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno, Gunther Stern-Anders, Martin Buber, Paul Celan, Martin Heidegger, Max Horkheimer, Karl Jaspers, Hans Jonas, Victor Klemperer, Emmanuel Levinas, Primo Levi, George Steiner, Leo Strauss, Eric Voegelin. Unanimes dans leur diagnostic d'une crise de l'occident, ces penseurs recusent la croyance dans le progres et les Lumieres: lorsque la Raison s'est muee en faculte destructrice du monde, lorsque la politique semble avoir perdu de (...) vue sa finalite, prendre soin du monde, comment resister aux forces du nihilisme? Tous illustrent la difficulte d'etre present a un monde hors de ses gonds sur lequel planait la menace d'une troisieme guerre mondiale, guerre atomique, guerre totale. Ils posent une meme question: comment repondre d'un monde habitable, amical, en avoir souci? Comment etre du monde et pas seulement au monde? (shrink)

Nichts ist so umstritten im Denken von Leo Strauss und nichts ist so zentral für sein Verständnis wie das theologisch-politische Problem. Da es im Zentrum von Strauss' Politischer Philosophie steht, findet der Streit seinen Niederschlag in allen großen Kontroversen, die sein OEuvre umgeben. Heinrich Meiers theologisch-politisches Traktat ist die erste Schrift zu Strauss, die das Problem, von dem Strauss sagte, es sei das Thema seiner Untersuchungen gewesen, zu ihrem Thema macht. Neben dem programmatischen Vortrag "Das theologisch-politische Problem", der auf dem (...) internationalen Leo Strauss Symposium in München im Juni 2002 große Beachtung fand, enthält sie den Kommentar "Zur Genealogie des Offenbarungsglaubens", der eine kühne genealogische Skizze von Strauss aus dem Nachlass zugänglich macht und argumentativ entfaltet, sowie den Text "Der Tod als Gott. Eine Anmerkung zu Martin Heidegger", der den Blick auf einen Philosophen richtet, auf dessen Denken das theologisch-politische Problem seinen langen Schatten geworfen hat, ohne dass es bei ihm jemals ein Thema von Gewicht war. (shrink)

The question of where philosophic examination must begin and what objects must it first examine is important no matter what philosophic perspective or approach one holds, and the response to such a question thereby determines both the form and the content of the philosophical conclusions one can reach. Martin Heidegger and Leo Strauss both present complex and controversial responses to the question of what ‘first philosophy’ is. My paper consists primarily of a comparison of these two conceptions, as well (...) as what each conception indicates concerning the two thinkers’ respective overall philosophical projects. I argue that one of the primary critiques Strauss makes of Heidegger’s philosophical position is that Heidegger is mistaken when he asserts that philosophy is primarily ontology. Hence, it would seem that Strauss’s conception of ‘first philosophy’ is ultimately more satisfying of Husserl’s phenomenological dictum, to which Heidegger holds, ‘to the things themselves!’ More generally, I conclude that the tension between Heidegger and Strauss concerning first philosophy sheds light on the relation of theory and practice, or, expressed in a different way, what it means to be a philosopher and at the same time to be a citizen of a political regime, and what this simultaneous and fraught existence entails. (shrink)

Marcel Detienne é um dos mais importantes historiadores e especialistas do estudo da Grécia Antiga. É reconhecida, sobretudo, por suas tentativas de aplicar uma abordagem antropológica à Grécia clássica e arcaica. Suas influências vieram do estruturalismo de Claude Lévi-Strauss e suas obras são reconhecidas pelos principais historiadores do seu tempo – Jean-Pierre Vernant e Pierre Vidal-Naquet, por exemplo. Dentre elas podemos citar: Homère, Hésiode et Pythagore: poésie et philosophie dans le pythagorisme ancien, De la pensée religieuse à la pensée philosophique, (...) Les Maîtres de vérité dans la Grèce archaïque e, principalmente, La cuisine du sacrifice en pays grec – produzida com Vernant em 1979. (shrink)

Ludwig Wittgenstein/ Karl R. Popper/ Claude Levi-Strauss/ Martin Heidegger/ Karl Jaspers/ Hannah Arendt/ Ernst Bloch/ Max Horkheimer/ Theodor W. Adorno.

In his newest book, Stanley Rosen examines the relationship between postmodern thought and the heritage of the Enlightenment. He argues forcefully that the revolt against fixed forms and the mathematical-scientific rationality postmodernists are practicing goes back to the Age of Reason. A "self-perfecting history" and "individual self-expressiveness" are themes Rosen sees as uniting a certain kind of eighteenth-century rationalism and the social-intellectual revolt culminating in deconstructionism. Most significantly, Rosen finds a link between Kant's ethical and historical thinking and modern hermeneutics (...) tinged by utopian thinking. These modern radicals--for example, Derrida, Lacan, and Kojéve--use textual interpretation to make political statements. Rosen surveys their work in this thin but densely written volume, and also treats of Plato, Rousseau, Leo Strauss, Martin Heidegger, and Emmanuel Levinas. (shrink)

Heidegger scholars have sometimes assumed that Heidegger’s experience of thinking was unprecedented and that the peculiarity of his idiom was related to the novelty of that experience. Reinhard May’s study suggests that Heidegger’s thought is fundamentally indebted to his early familiarity with Zen Buddhist ideas and to his reading of Taoist classics, including the Tao te Ching of Lao Tse and the works of Chuang Zu, in German translations Heidegger knew by Victor von Strauss, Martin Buber and Richard Wilhelm, (...) and, later, to his contact with Chinese and Japanese philosophers studying in Germany with Rickert, Husserl and Heidegger himself. Many European artists and intellectuals were engrossed by East Asian ideas, of course, but May’s conclusion is that Heidegger was in a sense a Taoist philosopher, and that the peculiarities of his philosophy are the same as those which inhere in East Asian philosophy, which prizes silence and rejects the hegemony of Western logic. While Heidegger’s appreciation for East Asian philosophy and his influence on modern Japanese thinkers have been noted often enough, the suggestion that the heart of Heidegger’s thought was profoundly oriented in the early 1920s by Taoist and Zen Buddhist ideas is provocative. The translator, Graham Parkes, who has supplemented his translation with an essay detailing Heidegger’s contact with Japanese philosophers, was among the first to suggest a deeper connection between Heidegger and East Asian philosophy in a series of essays he edited on Heidegger and Asian Thought, which includes contributions by Japanese and Chinese philosophers who knew Heidegger and were in contact with him for many years. (shrink)

Leo Strauss’s critical engagement with Martin Heidegger’s thought is widely recognized. Central to Strauss’s depiction of Heidegger’s intellectual and political failures is the latter’s disdain for political philosophy. For Strauss, in fact, Heidegger overlooked important inquiry into the good political order insofar as he replaced political philosophy with a belief in Dasein’s finitude as key to attaining a virtuous life. However, Strauss’s unfavorable rendition of Heidegger’s mortalism, the article explains, neglects esoteric maneuvers—imbued with political inflections—advanced by the author of (...) Sein und Zeit. By analyzing Heidegger’s esotericism as well as his search for the permanence of the secret and inscrutable, the article shows how Strauss disregards Heideggerian sigetics when foregrounding what he views as Heidegger’s disdain for political philosophy. Through the theoretical trajectory proposed by this essay, in sum, we will see that Heidegger’s exceptionalist esotericism is what Strauss ignored. (shrink)

Franz Rosenzweig is widely regarded today as one of the most original and intellectually challenging figures within the so-called renaissance of German-Jewish thought in the Weimar period. The architect of a unique kind of existential theology, and an important influence upon such philosophers as Walter Benjamin, Martin Buber, Leo Strauss, and Emmanuel Levinas, Rosenzweig is remembered chiefly as a "Jewish thinker," often to the neglect of his broader philosophical concerns. Cutting across the artificial divide that the traumatic memory of (...) National Socialism has drawn between German and Jewish philosophy, this book seeks to restore Rosenzweig's thought to the German philosophical horizon in which it first took shape. It is the first English-language study to explore Rosenzweig's enduring debt to Hegel's political theory, neo-Kantianism, and life-philosophy; the book also provides a new, systematic reading of Rosenzweig's major work, _The Star of Redemption._ Most of all, the book sets out to explore a surprising but deep affinity between Rosenzweig’s thought and that of his contemporary, the German philosopher Martin Heidegger. Resisting both apologetics and condemnation, Gordon suggests that Heidegger’s engagement with Nazism should not obscure the profound and intellectually compelling bond in the once-shared tradition of modern German and Jewish thought. A remarkably lucid discussion of two notably difficult thinkers, this book represents an eloquent attempt to bridge the forced distinction between modern Jewish thought and the history of modern German philosophy—and to show that such a distinction cannot be sustained without doing violence to both. (shrink)

En esta investigación intentaremos explicitar hasta qué punto Ser y Tiempo es una suerte de tentativa por retomar, en forma correcta, el originario proyecto filosófico que Kant desplegó en su Crítica de la razón pura. Para lograr justificar nuestra conjetura nos centraremos especialmente en la obra de Heidegger Kant y el problema de la Metafísica (1929). En dicho texto nos encontraremos con una controvertida interpretación que el pensador de Meßkirch elaboró del opus magnum de Immanuel Kant. Interpretación que, justamente, podría (...) sugerirnos que su Ser y Tiempo, no sólo estaría hermanado con la Crítica de la razón pura, sino que vendría a ser una correcta continuación del camino allí trazado por el filósofo de Königsberg. (shrink)