These twelve essays, together with the editor's introduction, examine the relationship of ideology to philosophy and politics. Part one deals with theoretical underpinnings of ideology: definitions are posited, and the relationship of ideology to thought itself, to use and abuse of theory, to social theory, to the epistemology of politics, to technology, and to political culture are discussed. Part two treats ideology in its historical context, dealing with the word as introduced by Destutt de Tracy in 1798 and looking both (...) forward and backward at such enquirers in the field as Aristotle, Bacon, Locke, Rousseau, Marx, Karl Mannheim, and Leo Strauss. The volume presents original and provocative insights into the meanings and uses of ideology, as well as into specific "ideologies." The essays will be of importance to students of philosophy and sociology of knowledge, political scientists, and historians. (shrink)

The problem of modernity occupies a central place in the political reflection carried out by Leo Strauss. Taking this into account, the fundamental aim of this paper is to analyze how this author understood and questioned the philosophic project proposed by modern thinkers. In this sense, we will try to comprehend how, from Strauss´s perspective, modernity, seeking to bring about in history the best political order through the abandonment of traditional esotericism and a radical politicization of philosophy, involves an ideal (...) of rationalization of human life that is ultimately problematic for both society and philosophy. (shrink)

Machiavelli can be read as a plebeian thinker supportive of plebeian institutions that, as such, differentiate the few from the many and aim to regulate and burden the few. Yet, like numerous contemporary plebeian thinkers, Machiavelli is mostly silent about the moral transgressiveness required by the advocacy of plebeian institutions and ideas. The theses offered here argue that advocates of plebeianism will need, like the Machiavellian prince, to learn how not to be good. In explaining what this means in practice, (...) the theses also defend the propriety of anachronistic readings, caution again plebeian violence, and explain other dynamics of plebeian leftism. (shrink)

Bringing continental sensibilities and skill to his project, David Janssens has abandoned the line of defense heretofore used by North American intellectuals to shield Leo Strauss from criticism: Janssens wastes no time trying to prove Strauss was a liberal democrat, frankly admits his atheism, and emphasizes the continuity and European origins of his thought. Nevertheless committed to defending Strauss even at his most vulnerable points, Janssens is compelled to anchor his new defensive position on a misreading of what he calls (...) "an inconspicuous footnote" in Philosophie und Gesetz (1935). (shrink)