Submitted by Marco Andreacchio, Feb 11, 2008 13:18

Cutting through the maze of diatribes surrounding the name "Leo Strauss," we may attempt TO UNDERSTAND THE AUTHOR AS HE UNDERSTOOD HIMSELF, before assuming to have understood him BETTER, especially when we thus proceed on the basis of what we have learned (or believe to have learned) ABOUT HIM, rather than FROM HIM.

Going to the source, we might find out that the man, Leo Strauss, rejected the MODERNIST attempt to IMPLEMENT philosophy to serve ANY political agenda.

A careful reading of the leading academic critiques of Strauss(ianism) does not miss the growing voice of dismay before the very possibility of recovering--after the manner of Strauss--a public recognition of the dignity of A THOUGHT THAT IS NOT BOUND BY HISTORICAL PARTICULARITIES OR SUBSERVIENT TO RELATIVE INTERESTS, BUT THAT CUTS THROUGH THEM BY AIMING DIRECTLY AT THE FUNDAMENTAL, ENDURING PROBLEMS OF MAN AS MAN. This would be to "cut through the gossip, and get to the REAL or CENTRAL IDEAS at the heart of CIVIL LIFE."

The attempt to regain sight of the fundamental problems of civilization is sometime rejected in the name of democracy, as if Truth were the enemy of Freedom--i.e. as if human freedom were ungrounded and intrinsically meaningless. Strauss gave plenty of evidence for NOT believing this to be the case (see e.g. his writings against nihilism). His words and life stand to remind us that a democracy that--after the Athenian model--sets itself against THE SCIENCE OF THE NATURAL OR CONSTANT PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL FREEDOM is one on the verge of converting into tyranny.

The attack on the name, Leo Strauss, turns out to be an attack on FREEDOM as understood, appealed to, and lived by PHILOSOPHERS in the SOCRATIC spirit. The attack in question is voiced from the podium of RADICAL CONVENTIONALISM or CONFORMISM--the handmaid of TYRANNY. This tyranny, against which Strauss warned us throughout the decades of his life in America, is a regime in which people are alienated from any and all sources of human dignity, so as to be condemned to depend entirely upon the powers that be (economic interests, entertainment business).

As a rule of thumb, we might say that one is anti-Straussian if he/she believes that our freedom is best enjoyed and preserved by those of us for whom speech and social conventions are cut off from any standard of right and wrong allowing us to reach an impartial or unbiased understanding of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.