Early Years of Leo Strauss
Leo Strauss was born on September 20, 1899, in the city of Kirchhain, located in the Grand Duchy of Hesse (now part of Germany). Strauss came from a Jewish family, and his upbringing was shaped by both the Jewish traditions of his family and the intellectual culture of late 19th and early 20th-century Europe. His father, Hugo Strauss, was a well-educated man with a keen interest in literature and philosophy. His mother, Minna Strauss, was a homemaker, and the family lived comfortably in a provincial town.
Strauss’ writings grew up in a time of profound political and social upheaval in Germany. The late 19th and early 20th centuries in Europe were marked by rapid industrialization, the rise of nationalism, and the challenges posed by modernity. Strauss’ formative years occurred during the tumultuous period of World War I and the Weimar Republic, which would later have a significant influence on his philosophical outlook. As a young man, Strauss experienced the aftermath of the war, the collapse of the German Empire, and the rise of the Weimar Republic, all of which would shape his view of political life and philosophy. Scholars like Heinrich Meier have emphasized the complex relationship between revelation and philosophy in Strauss’ work, arguing that Strauss intentionally crafts his arguments to provoke philosophical inquiry while recognizing the inherent challenges posed by revelation.
Education in Germany
In 1917, Leo Strauss enrolled at the University of Marburg to study philosophy. His early academic career began under the tutelage of the renowned philosopher Hermann Cohen, who was a leading figure in the Marburg School of Neo-Kantianism. Strauss initially focused on epistemology and metaphysics but soon became disillusioned with the prevailing philosophical trends. Cohen’s intellectual environment emphasized modern science, with a rational, scientific approach to philosophy, and while Leo Strauss respected his teacher, he found the emphasis on abstract systems and theories insufficient for understanding the moral and political dimensions of human life.
Strauss’ intellectual curiosity soon led him to explore the works of classical thinkers, particularly those of ancient Greece. At Marburg, Leo Strauss became increasingly interested in the study of political philosophy, especially the thought of Plato’s political philosophy, Aristotle, and other classical philosophers. This interest was deepened during his time in the 1920s at the University of Freiburg, where he studied with the philosopher Martin Heidegger, one of the most significant intellectual figures of the 20th century. Heidegger’s emphasis on existential philosophy and the study of being had a profound influence on Strauss, particularly in his later thoughts on the nature of philosophy and the relationship between philosophy and politics.
During his years in Freiburg, Leo Strauss was exposed to the vibrant intellectual debates of the time. This period marked the height of Weimar Germany’s intellectual culture, and Strauss engaged with a wide range of philosophical practices, including those of phenomenology, existentialism, and the critique of modernity. In his early philosophical development, Strauss began to wrestle with the tensions between the classical worldview, which he came to admire, and the modern political and philosophical systems that he found increasingly problematic.
Encountering Political Philosophy
It was during this period that Strauss began to develop his deep interest in political philosophy. He was particularly concerned with the crisis of modernity, which he saw as having eroded the foundations of traditional political thought. Strauss was troubled by the intellectual consequences of the Enlightenment and its emphasis on reason and science, which he thought had led to the secularization and relativization of moral and political values. This skepticism about modernity would become a central theme throughout Strauss’ career.
Leo Strauss’ intellectual journey also brought him to the study of Jewish philosophy. He was deeply interested in the works of Jewish thinkers like Maimonides, Spinoza, and the philosopher-historian Heinrich Graetz, whose writings dealt with the intersections of Jewish identity, religion, and politics. Strauss’ interest in Jewish thought extended to medieval Jewish philosophy, particularly the works of Maimonides, which explored the intricate relationship between reason and revelation. This engagement with Jewish thought would continue throughout Strauss’ career, shaping his views on the relationship between philosophy and religion, and the tension between reason and revelation.
In the early 1920s, Strauss traveled to Berlin to attend the lectures of the philosopher and historian of philosophy, Ernst Cassirer. Cassirer’s work on the philosophy of culture and his Neo-Kantian approach to philosophy further influenced Strauss’ thinking. Cassirer’s emphasis on symbolic forms and his exploration of the history of ideas resonated with Strauss, particularly his belief in the importance of understanding the historical context of philosophical ideas.
Leo Strauss also began to engage with the works of modern political philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. These thinkers, according to Strauss, had a profound impact on the course of modern political thought, but he was critical of their focus on individualism and the rejection of classical political ideals. Leo Strauss maintains that modern political science, by divorcing itself from the ancient tradition, had created a fragmented and impersonal view of politics and human nature that lacked the moral and spiritual dimensions found in classical philosophy.
Leaving Germany: The Rise of National Socialism
As the 1920s drew to a close, Germany became increasingly unstable under the Weimar Republic, and Strauss’ concerns about modernity and its consequences deepened. In 1932, the rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party marked a turning point in Strauss’ life. Strauss was acutely aware of the growing political threat posed by fascism, and he recognized that the climate in Germany had become increasingly hostile to intellectual freedom and the pursuit of philosophical inquiry.
In 1932, Leo Strauss made the decision to leave Germany, recognizing the dangers posed by the rise of National Socialism. He moved to France, where he continued his academic work and engaged with the vibrant intellectual circles in Paris. During this period, Strauss began to deepen his interest in the tension between reason and revelation, which would become a major theme in his later writings.
Immigration to the United States
Strauss emigrated to the United States in 1937, where he would spend the rest of his life. In the U.S., Strauss found a new intellectual home and a new political context for his ideas. He began teaching at a number of universities, eventually joining the faculty at the University of Chicago in 1949. In America, Strauss developed his distinctive approach to political philosophy, which emphasized the study of classical texts and the need for a return to the ancient understanding of politics and philosophy.
Strauss’ early life, marked by his experiences in Germany, France, and the United States, shaped his intellectual development and his views on modernity, politics, and philosophy. His engagement with classical texts and his concern with the crisis of modernity would lead him to become one of the most influential political philosophers of the 20th century. His critique of modern political thought, his focus on the relationship between philosophy and religion, and his emphasis on the importance of classical political philosophy would become the central tenets of his intellectual legacy.
The Academic Career of Leo Strauss
Teaching at the University of Chicago
Leo Strauss spent a significant portion of his academic career at the University of Chicago, where his contributions to political philosophy shaped the intellectual landscape for decades. Leo Strauss’ tenure at the University of Chicago, from 1949 until his death in 1973, marked the culmination of his lifelong study of classical texts and the revival of ancient political philosophy. His time at Chicago was both intellectually vibrant and formative for his students, many of whom would become prominent scholars in their own right.
At the heart of Leo Strauss’ academic career was his approach to political philosophy, which looked to recover the ancient tradition of thought in a time dominated by modern philosophy, often empirical, interpretations of politics, establishing him as a prominent political philosopher. Strauss’ view of political philosophy was rooted in the belief that the great texts of antiquity—particularly those of Plato, Aristotle, and Machiavelli—provided timeless insights into human nature, justice, and the proper structure of political life. This focus on the classical tradition formed the core of Strauss’ teachings at Chicago, where he aimed to reorient students toward the moral and metaphysical questions at the center of political philosophy, questions often obscured by the more technocratic or historical approaches of modern theorists.
As a professor at the University of Chicago, Leo Strauss attracted a diverse group of students interested in the fundamental issues of political philosophy. His courses were renowned for their intensity and depth, demanding careful, critical engagement with classical texts. Strauss was known for his Socratic method, encouraging his students to engage directly with the texts, questioning the assumptions embedded in modern political theory, and emphasizing the importance of understanding the historical context in which the classical thinkers wrote. His pedagogy emphasized the importance of seeking out the “hidden” meaning in philosophical texts, as Strauss believed that many great philosophers, especially those of the ancient world, wrote in ways that concealed their true meaning from casual readers. This method became one of Strauss’ trademarks, influencing generations of students to approach political philosophy with a sense of intellectual seriousness and rigor.
Leo Strauss’ political philosophy, as taught at the University of Chicago, also critiqued the rise of modern philosophy and its implications for political thought. He argued that modern thinkers, particularly those in the Enlightenment tradition, had divorced political philosophy from its moral and theological roots. Figures like Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, Strauss contended, had made political philosophy a more empirical or individualistic discipline, one that often ignored the deeper moral questions concerning justice, human nature, and the role of the philosopher in society. This critique of modern political philosophy was central to Strauss’ academic work and was a key element of his courses at Chicago, where he consistently returned to the tension between the classical and modern traditions.
As a professor, Strauss was not merely a lecturer but a mentor to many students who would go on to play important roles in the world of political theory. His influence on the field of political philosophy, particularly at the University of Chicago, cannot be overstated. Strauss’ students were exposed to his unique approach to political philosophy, and many of them continued to develop and refine his ideas. These students became instrumental in establishing the study of political philosophy as a serious academic discipline that centered on the classics and the moral questions that arose from them. The Chicago School of Political Philosophy, as it came to be known, was heavily influenced by Strauss’ insistence on the importance of classical texts and the moral foundations of political and philosophical life itself.
Throughout his time at the University of Chicago, Strauss continued to publish influential works, including Natural Right and History (1953) and The City and Man (1964), which elaborated on his views regarding natural law, the relationship between reason and revelation in social sciences, and the nature of political philosophy itself. These texts became foundational readings for students and scholars interested in understanding Strauss’ approach to political philosophy. In Natural Right and History, Strauss argued that natural law, far from being an outdated or irrelevant concept, remained central to understanding political order and justice in any era. His insistence on the importance of natural law as an enduring and universal standard for political philosophy was one of his key contributions to the field.
Strauss’ influence at the University of Chicago was not limited to his teaching and publications; his role in shaping the department and fostering a particular intellectual climate was equally important. The university became a center for the study of political philosophy in Strauss’ image, emphasizing the study of classical texts and the exploration of moral and metaphysical questions about political life. Strauss’ influence also extended to the broader academic world, as his students took positions at universities around the United States and beyond, spreading his approach to political philosophy far and wide.
Despite the deep respect he earned as a scholar and teacher, Strauss was not without his critics, especially among those who favored more modern or empirical approaches to political philosophy. Critics of Strauss’ approach often accused him of being overly nostalgic for the ancient world and of disregarding the practical realities of modern politics. Nevertheless, Strauss’ contributions to political philosophy, particularly his insistence on the study of classical texts and his focus on the moral and metaphysical aspects of politics, left an indelible mark on the field.
In conclusion, Leo Strauss’ academic career at the University of Chicago was a defining period in the development of 20th-century political philosophy. His focus on the classical tradition, his critique of modern political philosophy, and his insistence on returning to the moral foundations of politics made him one of the most important political philosophers of his time. Through his teaching, his writings, and his influence on students and scholars, Strauss reshaped the study of political philosophy, making it a rigorous, moral, and timeless pursuit. His legacy as a professor at the University of Chicago endures today, as his ideas continue to shape discussions in political theory and the study of political philosophy.
Strauss’ Most Well Known Writings and Books
Natural Right and History
Leo Strauss’ Natural Right and History (1953) is one of his most significant and influential works in political philosophy, where he explores the concept of natural right and its role in the history of political thought. The book examines the tension between modern and classical conceptions of natural law, critiquing modern political philosophers who have distanced themselves from the classical tradition and its understanding of universal moral principles. Strauss’ exploration of natural right is deeply connected to his broader critique of modernity and his commitment to recovering the ancient wisdom embedded in the works of Plato, Aristotle, and other classical philosophers.
At the heart of Natural Right and History is Strauss’ assertion that natural right—defined as a set of universal moral principles that can be known through human reason—is central to any understanding of justice and political life. For Strauss, natural right is not simply a theoretical construct, but a practical guide for understanding political order. Unlike modern political philosophy, which often focuses on relativism and the idea that moral standards are contingent upon time and place, Strauss insists that natural right provides objective and timeless standards for evaluating political systems and actions. This is one of the core elements of Strauss’ political philosophy, and it forms the basis of his critique of modern political thought.
A key aspect of Natural Right and History is Strauss’ critique of modernity and the crisis that it has created in political philosophy. Strauss argues that by rejecting natural right, modern political thinkers have contributed to a crisis of meaning in politics. Without the guidance of natural right, political systems become susceptible to the whims of power and the shifting tides of history. This, according to Strauss, leads to the rise of relativism, where no political system or moral framework can be considered universally valid.
Strauss contends that modern political philosophy, by severing itself from the classical tradition, has reduced politics to a mere struggle for power and a contest of interests. This is evident in the theories of thinkers like Hobbes, who reduced human nature to a series of selfish desires and argued that the state was merely a tool for protecting individual self-interest. Similarly, Strauss critiques Rousseau’s notion of the “general will,” which he sees as an attempt to create a collective standard of justice that is ultimately grounded in the will of the people rather than in any objective moral order.
For Strauss, the crisis of modern political philosophy is not simply an intellectual issue, but a deeply political one. The abandonment of natural right and objective standards of justice has led to a fragmentation of political life, where political action is no longer guided by any transcendent moral principles. This, Strauss argues, has created a political landscape that is vulnerable to totalitarian ideologies and the rise of nihilism, where politics becomes the mere exercise of power rather than the pursuit of justice.
Another important aspect of Strauss’ argument in Natural Right and History is the role of philosophy and the philosopher in the political realm. Strauss argues that philosophy, particularly political philosophy, has a unique responsibility to challenge the prevailing assumptions of political life and to return to the fundamental questions of justice, virtue, and human nature. This responsibility, according to Strauss, is especially urgent in the modern age, where the crisis of natural right has left political life without moral direction.
Strauss believes that the philosopher must engage with political life but also recognize that the truth about natural right is not always easily accessible or accepted by political society itself. He argues that the philosopher must be willing to engage with the tension between reason and revelation, between the moral truths that can be discerned through human reason and the political realities of the world. The philosopher must navigate this tension, recognizing that political philosophy is not merely an abstract theoretical exercise, but a practical engagement with the most important issues of human existence.
The Philosophy of Leo Strauss
The Context and Approach of What Leo Strauss Argued
Leo Strauss’ political philosophy is deeply intertwined with his broader intellectual goals. Strauss looked to recover and preserve the ancient tradition of political thought, which he saw as essential for understanding the true nature of human life and political order. Strauss maintained that modern politics had strayed from its classical roots and that the profound wisdom embedded in ancient texts, particularly those of Plato, Aristotle, and other Greek philosophers, held the key to understanding political and human life, in its most fundamental form.
One of the central features of Strauss’ thought was his conviction that political theory should not simply focus on abstract principles of governance or the mechanics of political systems. Instead, Strauss asserted that political philosophy should examine the moral and metaphysical questions that underlie political life, such as the nature of justice, the role of virtue in politics, and the relationship between human beings and the divine. This focus on the moral and philosophical foundations of politics set Strauss apart from other political theorists of his time, especially those who prioritized empirical or scientific approaches to political life.
Strauss’ insistence on returning to classical philosophy was motivated by his belief that modernity, in its emphasis on reason, individualism, and secularism, had undermined the ethical foundations of politics. For Strauss, modern politics, especially in the works of thinkers like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, represented a break with the ancient understanding of politics as a moral and spiritual endeavor. He saw this shift as contributing to the fragmentation of political life, leading to the decline of traditional political norms and the rise of relativism and nihilism in modern political thought.
The Question of Natural Law in Leo Strauss’ Philosophy
One of the most important aspects of Leo Strauss’ political philosophy is his development of natural law theory. Natural law, in Strauss’ view, is a concept that originates in ancient Greek philosophy and refers to the idea that there are universal moral principles that can be discovered through human reason, independent of cultural or religious norms. These principles are thought to reflect the natural order of the world and provide the foundation for a just political system. Natural law is deeply connected to the classical idea of reason, which Strauss thought was essential for understanding the moral structure of political life.
Strauss’ interpretation of natural law, however, is distinct from the traditional understanding of the concept. In contrast to many modern thinkers, who saw natural law as a set of principles that could be applied in a straightforward and universal way, Strauss wrote that natural law was more complex and elusive. He believed that the ancient philosophers had a more nuanced understanding of natural law, one that recognized the tension between human reason and the divine, and that sought to understand the proper relationship between the individual and the community.
For Strauss, the study of natural law was inseparable from the study of politics. Philosophy, in his view, should aim to uncover the natural principles that underlie human society and governance. Strauss’ emphasis on natural law was also a response to the rise of relativism and positivism in modern political theory. He believed that the rejection of universal moral principles in favor of subjective or historical standards undermined the possibility of true political knowledge. Without a commitment to natural law, Strauss contended, politics would lose its moral grounding and become little more than a tool for power politics.
The Ancient Roots of Natural Law in Leo Strauss’ Thought
Leo Strauss’ philosophy is rooted in his interpretation of classical political thought, particularly the works of Plato and Aristotle. Strauss saw that these ancient thinkers had a profound understanding of natural law, even though they did not always articulate it in the same way that later philosophers would. For Strauss, the study of these ancient texts was crucial for understanding the foundations of politics and the nature of natural law.
In his reading of Plato, Strauss emphasized the philosopher’s exploration of the ideal city in works such as The Republic. Plato’s account of the just city, Strauss maintained, was grounded in a natural order that could be apprehended through reason. Plato’s notion of the philosopher-king, who rules in accordance with the knowledge of the good, exemplified the idea that political authority should be based on knowledge of universal moral truths. Strauss also highlighted the tension between philosophy and politics in Plato’s work, noting that the philosopher’s pursuit of truth often conflicts with the demands of political life.
Similarly, Strauss saw Aristotle’s philosophy as an important source for understanding natural law. In works such as the Nicomachean Ethics and the Politics, Aristotle developed a theory of natural justice based on the idea that human beings have a specific nature and purpose. For Aristotle, the good life is one that is in accordance with nature, and political life should be ordered to promote the flourishing of human beings. Strauss emphasized Aristotle’s belief in the necessity of virtue and the role of reason in guiding human behavior, both in the individual and in the political community.
Strauss also turned to other classical thinkers, such as Socrates, Xenophon, and the Stoics, to develop his views on natural law. The Stoics, in particular, were important for Strauss’ understanding of natural law, as they developed a conception of natural justice that was rooted in reason and in harmony with the divine. For Strauss, the Stoics represented a more universal approach to natural law, one that transcended particular political systems and cultures.
The Challenge of Modern Political Science and the Crisis of Classical Political Philosophy
While Strauss’ philosophy was grounded in the classical tradition, it was also a response to the challenges posed by modernity. Strauss asserted that modern politics, beginning with thinkers such as Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Locke, represented a radical break with the ancient understanding of politics. The central feature of modernity, according to Strauss, was its rejection of natural law and its embrace of relativism and historicism. Modern politics, by focusing on human desires, individual rights, and the mechanics of political power, obscured the deeper moral and philosophical questions that had been central to classical political thought.
One of the central themes of Strauss’ philosophy was the critique of modern liberalism. Strauss asserted that the liberal tradition, with its emphasis on individual rights and the separation of politics from morality, was incompatible with the pursuit of justice and the common good. He saw liberalism as a form of politics that sought to neutralize or relativize the ethical foundations of politics, leading to the rise of totalitarianism, relativism, and nihilism in the 20th century.
In particular, Strauss was critical of the way that modern thinkers had sought to separate philosophy from theology and natural law from divine order. Strauss’ critique of modernity also engaged with the concept of political theology, contrasting his approach with thinkers like Carl Schmitt, who advocated for legitimizing power through divine authority. He argued that this separation had resulted in a fragmented view of politics, one in which political life was divorced from the moral and metaphysical questions that had once given it meaning. Strauss’ issue with modernity was not simply a rejection of the modern form of political thought but a call for a return to the ancient understanding of politics as a moral and philosophical pursuit.
The Relationship Between Reason and Revelation
Another important aspect of Strauss’ thought was his focus on the relationship between reason and revelation. Strauss asserted that the tension between these two modes of knowledge was central to the development of politics. In his view, ancient political philosophy, particularly in the works of Plato and Aristotle, was concerned with the reconciliation of reason and revelation, or at least with understanding their relationship.
In contrast, modern science and politics, beginning with thinkers like Machiavelli and Hobbes, had rejected divine revelation in favor of reason alone. Strauss saw this as a profound mistake, as it led to the secularization of political life and the erosion of moral foundations. For Strauss, politics and philosophy must engage with both reason and divine revelation, in order to understand the full scope of human life and political order. This emphasis on the relationship between reason and divine revelation was central to his interpretation of natural law, which he saw as a concept that could be apprehended through human reason but also had a divine dimension.
Esoterism and Why Strauss Accepted Its Necessity
Leo Strauss’ views on esotericism are a key aspect of his approach to political philosophy and the interpretation of classical texts. In his academic career, Strauss developed a distinctive understanding of esotericism, which refers to the practice of writing in a manner that hides or veils the true meaning of a text, often to protect the philosopher or political thinker from persecution or harm. Strauss saw that many of the great philosophers, particularly those from the classical period, employed esotericism in their works. He argued that these thinkers wrote in a coded or indirect manner to conceal their most profound and potentially dangerous ideas from the authorities of their time. This essay will explore Strauss’ basis for esotericism and his views on its role in the history of politics.
The Basis for Strauss’ View on Esotericism
Strauss’ view on esotericism is rooted in his broader understanding of ancient philosophy and the historical context in which philosophers wrote. Strauss asserted that philosophy is inherently linked to the moral and political conditions of the time in which it is written. He argued that the ancient philosophers, particularly during periods of political repression, had to conceal their most radical ideas from rulers and religious authorities who might view them as subversive. This practice of writing esoterically, according to Strauss, allowed philosophers to protect themselves from persecution while still communicating their ideas to a select group of readers capable of understanding the hidden meanings.
Strauss’ insight into esotericism was influenced by his interpretation of classical texts. He argued that ancient philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, and Xenophon often had to conceal their true political and philosophical beliefs behind allegories, paradoxes, and indirect expressions. Leo Strauss thought that this was not simply a rhetorical strategy, but a deliberate method employed to avoid the dangers associated with openly expressing certain ideas. For Strauss, these hidden meanings were crucial to understanding the works of these philosophers, as they often contained the core of their political philosophy and their critiques of conventional norms.
One of the most prominent examples Leo Strauss used to demonstrate the necessity of esotericism was the work of Plato. Strauss proposed that Plato’s writings, such as The Republic, contained hidden meanings that were not immediately accessible to all readers. In The Republic, for instance, Leo Strauss contended that Plato used the dialogue format not merely as a way of presenting philosophical ideas, but as a means of concealing more radical truths about politics and justice. The famous “myth of the metals” in The Republic, Strauss suggested, is an example of a veiled or esoteric message that Plato used to indirectly communicate his views on the nature of political order and the philosopher’s role in society.
Strauss’ Views on the Role of Esotericism
For Leo Strauss, esotericism was not merely a historical curiosity but a necessary part of the philosophical tradition, especially for philosophers in politically dangerous environments. Leo Strauss maintained that philosophical ideas were often so radical or threatening to the status quo that their public expression could result in persecution, exile, or even death. Esotericism, therefore, allowed philosophers to communicate their ideas in a way that could only be fully understood by those with the intellectual capacity to “read between the lines.” Leo Strauss distinguished between different audiences for his ideas, suggesting that only a select, thoughtful audience can grasp the deeper truths behind his writings, while the broader masses remain unaware of the more authoritarian implications of his philosophy.
Strauss’ analysis of esotericism was also tied to his critique of modern politics. He argued that modern thinkers, particularly those in the Enlightenment tradition and modern science, failed to recognize the importance of esotericism in the works of earlier philosophers. In modernity, Leo Strauss asserted that the rise of liberalism and the secularization of politics created an environment where philosophers could more openly express their views without fear of persecution. This, according to Strauss, led to a certain naivety in modern philosophy. Unlike their ancient predecessors, modern philosophers were not as concerned with the dangers of political authority, and therefore, their works did not carry the same layers of meaning. Leo Strauss criticized this development, arguing that the openness of modern philosophy had resulted in a loss of the depth and complexity that esotericism provided.
In Strauss’ view, esotericism was not just a response to political repression, but a way for philosophers to engage with the deepest and most difficult truths of human existence. The “exoteric” or public message in philosophical works, Strauss believed, was often intended for the general population, while the “esoteric” message was reserved for the more discerning reader, who could understand and appreciate the true meaning of the text. This dual communication, Strauss asserted, allowed philosophers to engage with both the broader political context and the deeper philosophical questions that could not be expressed openly.
The Modern Reception of Esotericism
Strauss’ views on esotericism have had a profound impact on the interpretation of philosophy, particularly with regard to the classical texts. Scholars and students who follow Strauss’ methodology often attempt to uncover the hidden meanings in the works of philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, and even Machiavelli. Strauss’ emphasis on the importance of reading between the lines has influenced a generation of scholars who approach classical texts with a sense of intellectual humility and an awareness that the surface-level meaning of a text may not always be its true meaning.
Critics of Strauss’ interpretation of esotericism, however, have raised several concerns. Some argue that Leo Strauss overstates the extent to which philosophers employed esotericism, while others question whether Strauss’ method of uncovering hidden meanings is overly speculative. Critics contend that Strauss’ insistence on esotericism leads to an interpretation of texts that may be more about his own philosophical agenda than about the ideas of the philosophers he examines. Others believe that Strauss’ approach encourages an overly intellectualized reading of philosophical texts, one that overlooks the social and historical context in which these thinkers wrote.
Despite these criticisms, Strauss’ views on esotericism remain influential, particularly in the study of classical political philosophy. His work has encouraged scholars to take a more nuanced and careful approach to the study of ancient texts, recognizing that philosophical writing is often shaped by the political, social science and cultural forces of the time. In this sense, Strauss’ ideas on esotericism serve as a reminder that politics is not simply an academic exercise, but a response to the complexities of the human condition and the challenges of living in a political world.
Intellectual Influences
Classical Roots
Leo Strauss was deeply influenced by classical philosophers, particularly Plato and Aristotle. He believed that their ideas on politics, ethics, and human nature were not only foundational but also enduringly relevant in modern times. Strauss’ work on Plato’s philosophy, for instance, underscored the significance of the philosopher-king and the concept of an ideal society. He argued that Plato’s vision of a ruler guided by wisdom and virtue offered timeless insights into the nature of political leadership and justice.
Leo Strauss also drew extensively on Aristotle’s concept of “natural right,” which posits that there are universal moral principles inherent in human nature that govern behavior and political order. This idea of natural right was central to Strauss’ criticism of modern political thought, which he believed had strayed from these universal principles in favor of relativism and individualism.
However, Strauss’ engagement with classical thought extended beyond Plato and Aristotle. He delved into the works of other ancient Greek philosophers such as Xenophon and Thucydides, exploring their contributions to political philosophy. Moreover, Leo Strauss examined the influence of classical ideas on medieval Jewish and Islamic philosophy, recognizing the continuity and transformation of these ideas across different cultural and historical contexts. Through his extensive research, Strauss aimed to recover the classical tradition of philosophy and apply its profound insights to contemporary political theory and social research, emphasizing the enduring relevance of these ancient teachings in understanding human nature and political life.
German Philosophy
Leo Strauss was also profoundly influenced by German philosophers, particularly Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Nietzsche. His academic training in the neo-Kantian tradition, under the guidance of Ernst Cassirer, emphasized the importance of reason and the limits of human knowledge. Strauss’ work on Kant’s philosophical doctrine highlighted the fundamental tension between reason and revelation, a theme that would become central to his own philosophical inquiries.
Despite his respect for Kant, Strauss was critical of certain aspects of modern philosophy that he believed led to the secularization and relativization of moral values. This critique extended to Friedrich Nietzsche, whose ideas on the “will to power” and the “death of God” were emblematic of modern. Leo Strauss thought that Nietzsche’s philosophy, while insightful, ultimately undermined traditional morality and values, contributing to the crisis of modernity.
Nevertheless, Leo Strauss recognized the profound impact of Nietzsche’s ideas on shaping modern thought and culture. He engaged deeply with Nietzsche’s work, understanding it as both a challenge and a complement to his own efforts to revive classical philosophy.
Strauss’ engagement with German philosophy was not limited to Kant and Nietzsche. He also studied the works of other influential German thinkers, such as Martin Heidegger and Edmund Husserl. Heidegger’s existential philosophy, in particular, had a significant impact on Strauss, especially in his early years. Additionally, Strauss explored the broader influence of German thought on modern science and philosophy, seeking to understand the intellectual currents that shaped contemporary Western civilization. Through his comprehensive study of German philosophy, Strauss sought to bridge the gap between ancient and modern thought, offering a nuanced critique of modernity while drawing on the rich intellectual heritage of the German philosophical tradition.
