What do you think?
Rate this book
فلسفه سیاسی چیست؟
The matter collected in this volume has all been published before, but not all of it in the English original. 'What is Political Philosophy?' is a revised version of the Judah L. Magnes Lectures, which the author delivered at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, in December 1954 and January 1955.
304 pages
First published January 1, 1959
42 people are currently reading
1001 people want to read
About the author
Leo Strauss
153 books368 followersLeo Strauss was a 20th century German-American scholar of political philosophy. Born in Germany to Jewish parents, Strauss later emigrated from Germany to the United States. He spent much of his career as a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, where he taught several generations of students and published fifteen books.
Trained in the neo-Kantian tradition with Ernst Cassirer and immersed in the work of the phenomenologists Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger, Strauss authored books on Baruch Spinoza and Thomas Hobbes, and articles on Maimonides and Al-Farabi. In the late 1930s, his research focused on the texts of Plato and Aristotle, retracing their interpretation through medieval Islamic and Jewish philosophy, and encouraging the application of those ideas to contemporary political theory.
Trained in the neo-Kantian tradition with Ernst Cassirer and immersed in the work of the phenomenologists Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger, Strauss authored books on Baruch Spinoza and Thomas Hobbes, and articles on Maimonides and Al-Farabi. In the late 1930s, his research focused on the texts of Plato and Aristotle, retracing their interpretation through medieval Islamic and Jewish philosophy, and encouraging the application of those ideas to contemporary political theory.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews
October 4, 2019
Quattro saggi su Hobbes e la filosofia politica; Hobbes come inizio della modernità... Auguri.
January 3, 2019
I read the title essay with my reading group. It took us months as we read paragraph by paragraph together, for ninety minutes, twice a month.
It is a difficult, dense essay. I would have comprehended only a small fraction alone of what I could understand when reading with others. I gather that Strauss himself was an enthusiast for group reading of philosophical texts. And I have learned first hand how powerful it can be.
Now, I am reading Strauss' NATURAL RIGHT AND HISTORY. I will save what more I have to say about WHAT IS POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY? for my review of NATURAL RIGHT.
It is a difficult, dense essay. I would have comprehended only a small fraction alone of what I could understand when reading with others. I gather that Strauss himself was an enthusiast for group reading of philosophical texts. And I have learned first hand how powerful it can be.
Now, I am reading Strauss' NATURAL RIGHT AND HISTORY. I will save what more I have to say about WHAT IS POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY? for my review of NATURAL RIGHT.
March 11, 2018
El autor de este texto Leo Strauss es un pensador elitista, anti liberal y antidemocrático, entre sus ideales tiene visión de sociedad jerárquica basada en desigualdad. Polariza duramente la audiencia ¿Por que su obra crea grandes intereses y a la vez provoca airadas contradicciones? Esta como otra preguntas son resultas a lo largo de este texto. La introducción escrita por el autor Juan Garcia Moran, brinda herramientas que le lector lo llevan a emerger de la filosofía política. Se desarrolla una prosa esotérica que convierte la lectura de sus textos en una tarea ardua y algo complicada. Las obras de este Nihilista alemán que tiene inclinaciones políticas pagano fascistas, sus teorías son influenciadas por la filosofía política clásica; Platon, Aristóteles; Minoría de ricos y mayoría pobres. Es un referente de la filosofía política contemporánea de siglo XX , con su fundador Maquiavelo. La filosofía política como el entendimiento del naturalísimo de las cosas políticas así lo plantea el autor como la esencia del naturalismo de la ciencia política. 1`La filosofía siempre llega demasiado tarde para guiar la acción política; El filosofo interpreta el resultado de la acción política, puede ayudarnos a entender el estado pero no puede enseñarnos lo que debemos hacer respecto al estado. ` Un estudio del pasado de la filosofodia política puede llegar a la hipótesis de que no existe ninguna filosofía política de la que se pueda aprender algo, porque lo evidente es una variedad lamentable de filósofos políticos, luchando entre ellos hasta la muerte. Pero para poder hablar de la utilidad que la filosofía política presta actualmente sino en todo momento, nos muestra cual complicado es asegurar los minamos de decencia, de la humanidad y de justicia que han sido dados por sentados, y se sigan dando en algunos países libres.
1___Leo Strauss_¿Que es filosofía política?___P.G 58_____Juan Garcia MORAN.
1___Leo Strauss_¿Que es filosofía política?___P.G 58_____Juan Garcia MORAN.
January 3, 2011
Review:
February 2006
The enticing ambiguities of Leo Strauss
For an author who is most often despised, and occasionally revered, one is surprised on how little consensus there is on what Leo Strauss actually thought. In this brief review I would like to give the prospective reader a little taste of the great enigma that is Leo Strauss.
The difficulty is this, in reading Leo Strauss one always gets the feeling that one is either on the edge of a rather large insight or the target of an elaborate, but delightfully subtle, joke. In the essay on Maimonides ("Maimonides Statement on Political Science," p155-169) LS speaks a great deal about the (meaning of the) order of Maimonides' listing of the divisions and subdivisions of Theoretical and Practical Philosophy, all the while taking special note of the central topic. Centers of lists, books, chapters, and so forth are very important to LS - they represent the least exposed position, and thus (perhaps!) the place to look for the philosophers true meaning.
Maimonides' list:
1. Theoretical Philosophy:
A. Math:
i. Arithmetic
ii. Geometry
iii. Astronomy
iv. Music
B. Physics
C. Theology:
i. God, Angels
ii. Metaphysics
2. Practical Philosophy:
A. Man's Governance of himself.
B. Governance of the household.
C. Governance of the City.
D. Governance of the Nations.
Unfortunately, or so it seems, there is more than one center to our list. There are two "centers" to this list considered as a whole. If one only pays attention to the ABC divisions the center is 2A: Man's Governance of himself. However, if one pays attention to the i,ii,iii subdivisions the center of the whole list is 1C.i: God and Angels. Furthermore, the center of theoretical Philosophy itself is either (in the ABC division) 1B -Physics or (in the i, ii, iii subdivision) 1A.iv -Music. Interestingly, of the 3 major divisions within theoretical philosophy only Physics isn't further subdivided. And (perhaps somewhat more alarmingly) there is no center at all to Practical Philosophy considered on its own.
Practical Philosophy has no center but one of its elements (2A, in the ABC division) is a contender to be the center of the whole of philosophy. Of the centers considered (two for the whole of philosophy, Man's Governance of himself and God and Angels; and two for theoretical philosophy, Physics and Music) only one (God and Angels) could, I think, be considered orthodox or religious. Thus one could (perhaps) be forgiven for thinking that what LS is insinuating, by drawing our attention to this list of Maimonides, is that (with the possible exception of Physics, which has no subdivisions) theoretical philosophy & practical philosophy are based on nothing but Man; the different types and needs of men. Psychology, apparently, is indeed the Queen of the Sciences, as Nietzsche much later maintained.
In any case, when LS says that, "[w]e are tempted to say that the Logic [i.e. the book by Maimonides where the above list occurs] is the only philosophic book which Maimonides ever wrote" one is eerily reminded of how LS saw fit to end the previous essay (How Farabi Read Plato's Laws, p134 -154): "[w]e admire the ease with which Farabi invented Platonic speeches." Now, is LS actually denying that Maimonides later work is philosophical? Or, is the speech (or purpose) LS seemingly attributes to Maimonides' list an invention? Has LS here `invented' a Maimonidean speech?
Further, if one takes into consideration the beginning of the Farabi essay (the observations by LS on Farabi's story about the mystic dissembling to escape a city) one is forced to wonder if (or to what degree) LS seriously meant what he indicates, or can be said to indicate, here. Or, another possibility, is LS `criticizing' Maimonides for daring to be so bold? Does a `genuine' philosopher ever dare say what he actually thinks? By not mentioning the youthfulness of Maimonides when he wrote this work (the `Logic' supposedly was written when he was 16!) is LS drawing our attention to it, seemingly to emphasize that no genuine philosopher would ever speak so frankly when mature? Thus, if this line of interpretation were correct, Maimonides, at the height of his powers (i.e. in the Guide), would never, or so LS maintains above, risk writing a philosophic work.
The central chapters, btw, of `What is Political Philosophy' are the essays on Farabi and Maimonides. ...Strauss was not young when he wrote them.
Additionally, I should point out that in the Farabi essay Strauss draws our attention not only to the similarity between philosophers and the pious (i.e. both face persecution) but also to the differences between them.
"We must understand this in the light of the story of the pious ascetic. Plato was not a pious ascetic. Whereas the pious ascetic almost always says explicitly and unambiguously what he thinks, Plato almost never says explicitly and unambiguously what he thinks. But Plato has something in common with the pious ascetic. Both are sometimes compelled to state truths which are dangerous to either themselves or others. Since they are both men of judgment, they act in such cases in the same way; they state the dangerous truth by surrounding it properly, with the result that they are not believed in what they say. It is in this manner that Plato has written about laws."
This last is directly attributed to Farabi by Strauss. Seemingly, LS would want us to choose between two alternatives: either Maimonides is a pious ascetic/mystic who "almost always says explicitly and unambiguously what he thinks" or he is a philosopher who "almost never says explicitly and unambiguously what he thinks". Eventually, one finds oneself wondering something similar about LS himself.
But why all this ambiguity?
"Farabi's Summary consists of allusions to those thoughts to which, as he thinks, Plato has alluded in the Laws. Farabi's allusions are meant to be helpful for men for whom Plato's allusions are not equally helpful: allusions which were intelligible to some of Plato's contemporaries are not equally intelligible to men of the same type among Farabi's contemporaries."
One can perhaps at this point be forgiven for adding that whereas Plato wrote allusively for ancient pagans and Farabi wrote allusively for medieval monotheists Strauss himself writes allusively for modern atheists. ...Is there then only one Philosophy?
Obviously I do not, btw, mean to claim that this is an exhaustive account of what LS says in these important essays. This is only a snapshot (i.e. a particular, if not peculiar, view) of what is going on in these essays; read and reread these, and the other essays, carefully to try to get a more comprehensive view.
February 2006
The enticing ambiguities of Leo Strauss
For an author who is most often despised, and occasionally revered, one is surprised on how little consensus there is on what Leo Strauss actually thought. In this brief review I would like to give the prospective reader a little taste of the great enigma that is Leo Strauss.
The difficulty is this, in reading Leo Strauss one always gets the feeling that one is either on the edge of a rather large insight or the target of an elaborate, but delightfully subtle, joke. In the essay on Maimonides ("Maimonides Statement on Political Science," p155-169) LS speaks a great deal about the (meaning of the) order of Maimonides' listing of the divisions and subdivisions of Theoretical and Practical Philosophy, all the while taking special note of the central topic. Centers of lists, books, chapters, and so forth are very important to LS - they represent the least exposed position, and thus (perhaps!) the place to look for the philosophers true meaning.
Maimonides' list:
1. Theoretical Philosophy:
A. Math:
i. Arithmetic
ii. Geometry
iii. Astronomy
iv. Music
B. Physics
C. Theology:
i. God, Angels
ii. Metaphysics
2. Practical Philosophy:
A. Man's Governance of himself.
B. Governance of the household.
C. Governance of the City.
D. Governance of the Nations.
Unfortunately, or so it seems, there is more than one center to our list. There are two "centers" to this list considered as a whole. If one only pays attention to the ABC divisions the center is 2A: Man's Governance of himself. However, if one pays attention to the i,ii,iii subdivisions the center of the whole list is 1C.i: God and Angels. Furthermore, the center of theoretical Philosophy itself is either (in the ABC division) 1B -Physics or (in the i, ii, iii subdivision) 1A.iv -Music. Interestingly, of the 3 major divisions within theoretical philosophy only Physics isn't further subdivided. And (perhaps somewhat more alarmingly) there is no center at all to Practical Philosophy considered on its own.
Practical Philosophy has no center but one of its elements (2A, in the ABC division) is a contender to be the center of the whole of philosophy. Of the centers considered (two for the whole of philosophy, Man's Governance of himself and God and Angels; and two for theoretical philosophy, Physics and Music) only one (God and Angels) could, I think, be considered orthodox or religious. Thus one could (perhaps) be forgiven for thinking that what LS is insinuating, by drawing our attention to this list of Maimonides, is that (with the possible exception of Physics, which has no subdivisions) theoretical philosophy & practical philosophy are based on nothing but Man; the different types and needs of men. Psychology, apparently, is indeed the Queen of the Sciences, as Nietzsche much later maintained.
In any case, when LS says that, "[w]e are tempted to say that the Logic [i.e. the book by Maimonides where the above list occurs] is the only philosophic book which Maimonides ever wrote" one is eerily reminded of how LS saw fit to end the previous essay (How Farabi Read Plato's Laws, p134 -154): "[w]e admire the ease with which Farabi invented Platonic speeches." Now, is LS actually denying that Maimonides later work is philosophical? Or, is the speech (or purpose) LS seemingly attributes to Maimonides' list an invention? Has LS here `invented' a Maimonidean speech?
Further, if one takes into consideration the beginning of the Farabi essay (the observations by LS on Farabi's story about the mystic dissembling to escape a city) one is forced to wonder if (or to what degree) LS seriously meant what he indicates, or can be said to indicate, here. Or, another possibility, is LS `criticizing' Maimonides for daring to be so bold? Does a `genuine' philosopher ever dare say what he actually thinks? By not mentioning the youthfulness of Maimonides when he wrote this work (the `Logic' supposedly was written when he was 16!) is LS drawing our attention to it, seemingly to emphasize that no genuine philosopher would ever speak so frankly when mature? Thus, if this line of interpretation were correct, Maimonides, at the height of his powers (i.e. in the Guide), would never, or so LS maintains above, risk writing a philosophic work.
The central chapters, btw, of `What is Political Philosophy' are the essays on Farabi and Maimonides. ...Strauss was not young when he wrote them.
Additionally, I should point out that in the Farabi essay Strauss draws our attention not only to the similarity between philosophers and the pious (i.e. both face persecution) but also to the differences between them.
"We must understand this in the light of the story of the pious ascetic. Plato was not a pious ascetic. Whereas the pious ascetic almost always says explicitly and unambiguously what he thinks, Plato almost never says explicitly and unambiguously what he thinks. But Plato has something in common with the pious ascetic. Both are sometimes compelled to state truths which are dangerous to either themselves or others. Since they are both men of judgment, they act in such cases in the same way; they state the dangerous truth by surrounding it properly, with the result that they are not believed in what they say. It is in this manner that Plato has written about laws."
This last is directly attributed to Farabi by Strauss. Seemingly, LS would want us to choose between two alternatives: either Maimonides is a pious ascetic/mystic who "almost always says explicitly and unambiguously what he thinks" or he is a philosopher who "almost never says explicitly and unambiguously what he thinks". Eventually, one finds oneself wondering something similar about LS himself.
But why all this ambiguity?
"Farabi's Summary consists of allusions to those thoughts to which, as he thinks, Plato has alluded in the Laws. Farabi's allusions are meant to be helpful for men for whom Plato's allusions are not equally helpful: allusions which were intelligible to some of Plato's contemporaries are not equally intelligible to men of the same type among Farabi's contemporaries."
One can perhaps at this point be forgiven for adding that whereas Plato wrote allusively for ancient pagans and Farabi wrote allusively for medieval monotheists Strauss himself writes allusively for modern atheists. ...Is there then only one Philosophy?
Obviously I do not, btw, mean to claim that this is an exhaustive account of what LS says in these important essays. This is only a snapshot (i.e. a particular, if not peculiar, view) of what is going on in these essays; read and reread these, and the other essays, carefully to try to get a more comprehensive view.
April 15, 2022
Not really feeling this one
favorite chapters: 1, 2, 3, 7, 9
favorite chapters: 1, 2, 3, 7, 9
March 22, 2025
Note: I only skimmed the eponymous essay.
This one started strong with a thesis that plays with ideas that I’ve been developing organically for around half a year now, but it quickly plummeted into a dry read that rambles on topics that I’m not sure how they relate to the central argument.
Strauss’s central argument – that all political judgments MUST be value judgments, is appealing to me prima facie, but once I think about it more, it gets hard to pin down or uphold. Strauss’s ultimate vision even goes beyond that – his vision is a generalization of the central argument – he argues passionately that all social science MUST be normative!
On face value, this is certainly true. If you strip social science’s goals of all practical considerations, then of course, I must certainly agree. For as Strauss says, an economist who considers no ethics in his analysis can only be a good statistician, never a good economist; a historian who considers no ethics can only be a good biographer, never a good historian; a politician who considers no ethics can only be a good administrator. Of course, that’s true. I think most would agree on that.
I’m very tempted to buy into Strauss’ argument. For the record, I read this essay without any knowledge of Strauss’ political views or his vision for social science. So it was very coincidental – this reading coincided with the new biography of Keynes that I’m currently reading, where the author’s, Zachary Carter, central argument is that economics was only Keynes’ foundation for his broader life’s work – that of an aesthetic and pacifist political philosophy. Keynes, above all, according to Mr Carter, was interested in human flourishing more broadly, and only saw economics, and more specifically, money, as just a means to an end. And what was the end? A world where scarcity is abolished, people live in stable economic regimes, and work minimal hours thanks to technological progress and are able to engage in the enjoyment of the fine arts. A vision which he sketched in ‘Economic possibilities for our grandchildren’.
This is the line of thinking that I’ve been treading on very organically. One of the catalysts for this thought was the realization that Smith was primarily a moral philosopher, and only saw ‘The wealth of nations’ as part of a broader inquiry.
But castles aren’t built in the clouds. As many fantasy novels we read and as many sci-fi movies we watch, we all have to put our pants on in the morning and go to work.
I cannot accept this idealistic vision for social science, for at least 3 reasons.
Firstly, value-neutrality lubricates the discourse of social science. Economics has made a lot of progress in the past 100 years or so, to separate itself from moral and political philosophy. That progress was built by the proverbial sweat and blood of the forefathers (e.g. Samuelson, Arrow, Tobin etc), and now, the language of economics (i.e. mathematics) makes it very easy to discuss extraordinarily controversial and sensitive topics without the heated emotions that usually derails any sensible discourse. Sometimes, shockingly easy. I can’t count how many times I’ve marvelled at how intelligently and calmly I’ve been able to debate issues like immigration, inequality, gender wage gaps, discrimination, and even fringe topics like ‘Is the system rigged’ etc, just by the grounding the debate on 1st-principle axioms e.g., ceteris paribus, labour moves across borders when the risk-adjusted expected wage gain > wage if they don’t move, ceteris paribus capital moves from capital-abundant countries to seek higher marginal returns to capital, etc. All this discourse would not happen if we economists give up that HARD-EARNED right to use VALUE-NEUTRAL language.
It seems to me the state of nature that political and economic discourse is tightly laced with ethical judgment. And this state of nature is very Hobbesian – nasty, brutish, short. So that’s why we should instead see the current state of affairs as a hard-earned right. Although, with how the AEA is really going off the deep end with how left-wing they’re suddenly becoming, that right might start to look uncertain.
Secondly, it is highly unpragmatic and unscientific to base political philosophy on moral judgments. If I had to advocate a view on how public policy should be done, it would be PRAGMATISM, i.e. do what works, as demonstrated best by 邓小平 and Lee Kuan Yew. And pragmatism is inherently, almost by definition, firmly grounded on empiricism. Following from my first point, econ has managed to, in the past 20 – 30 years or so, take an even bigger step in the right direction – basing our conclusions on experiments and empirical observation, not even just mathematical theorizing alone. Insisting that political philosophy must be firmly normative is to stay in the Stone Age, where econ (then called political economy) was just a branch of philosophy because there simply weren’t computers and data science methods to draw evidence-based conclusions.
One of my favourite quotes from Lee Kuan Yew (from his book ‘Third World to First’, which I read with great interest) – ‘My life is not guided by philosophy or theories. I get things done and leave others to extract the principles from my successful solutions. I do not work on a theory. Instead, I ask: what will make this work?’
‘I discovered early in office that there were few problems confronting me in government which other governments had not met and solved. So I made a practice of finding out who else had met, the problem we faced, how they had tackled it and how successful they had been. Whether it was to build a new airport or to change our teaching methods, I would send a team of officers to visit and study those countries that had done it well. I preferred to climb on the shoulders of others who had gone before us.’
Thirdly, moral philosophy is easy to study on one’s own, but I can attest that it is very difficult to study technical subjects like quantitative economics on one’s own. Although this argument of mine doesn’t directly argue that public policy in PRACTICE should be value-neutral, I believe it makes a strong case for limiting the STUDY of academic social science to strictly the positive and empirical realm. You don’t need to go to school to learn to be a well-rounded philosopher-king and enlightened man of letters, you can do that on your own after you finish your formal education; but positive economics is difficult to the point where it’s very challenging to do it without i) a teacher, ii) full-time dedication, iii) other requirements like datasets and computational software which you typically need an institution for. So, academic institutions should focus on giving people what they can’t get elsewhere. Almost like how only non-diversifiable risk is priced.
Finally, being the Hume fan that I am, I'm just very wary of the is-ought problem.
This one started strong with a thesis that plays with ideas that I’ve been developing organically for around half a year now, but it quickly plummeted into a dry read that rambles on topics that I’m not sure how they relate to the central argument.
Strauss’s central argument – that all political judgments MUST be value judgments, is appealing to me prima facie, but once I think about it more, it gets hard to pin down or uphold. Strauss’s ultimate vision even goes beyond that – his vision is a generalization of the central argument – he argues passionately that all social science MUST be normative!
On face value, this is certainly true. If you strip social science’s goals of all practical considerations, then of course, I must certainly agree. For as Strauss says, an economist who considers no ethics in his analysis can only be a good statistician, never a good economist; a historian who considers no ethics can only be a good biographer, never a good historian; a politician who considers no ethics can only be a good administrator. Of course, that’s true. I think most would agree on that.
I’m very tempted to buy into Strauss’ argument. For the record, I read this essay without any knowledge of Strauss’ political views or his vision for social science. So it was very coincidental – this reading coincided with the new biography of Keynes that I’m currently reading, where the author’s, Zachary Carter, central argument is that economics was only Keynes’ foundation for his broader life’s work – that of an aesthetic and pacifist political philosophy. Keynes, above all, according to Mr Carter, was interested in human flourishing more broadly, and only saw economics, and more specifically, money, as just a means to an end. And what was the end? A world where scarcity is abolished, people live in stable economic regimes, and work minimal hours thanks to technological progress and are able to engage in the enjoyment of the fine arts. A vision which he sketched in ‘Economic possibilities for our grandchildren’.
This is the line of thinking that I’ve been treading on very organically. One of the catalysts for this thought was the realization that Smith was primarily a moral philosopher, and only saw ‘The wealth of nations’ as part of a broader inquiry.
But castles aren’t built in the clouds. As many fantasy novels we read and as many sci-fi movies we watch, we all have to put our pants on in the morning and go to work.
I cannot accept this idealistic vision for social science, for at least 3 reasons.
Firstly, value-neutrality lubricates the discourse of social science. Economics has made a lot of progress in the past 100 years or so, to separate itself from moral and political philosophy. That progress was built by the proverbial sweat and blood of the forefathers (e.g. Samuelson, Arrow, Tobin etc), and now, the language of economics (i.e. mathematics) makes it very easy to discuss extraordinarily controversial and sensitive topics without the heated emotions that usually derails any sensible discourse. Sometimes, shockingly easy. I can’t count how many times I’ve marvelled at how intelligently and calmly I’ve been able to debate issues like immigration, inequality, gender wage gaps, discrimination, and even fringe topics like ‘Is the system rigged’ etc, just by the grounding the debate on 1st-principle axioms e.g., ceteris paribus, labour moves across borders when the risk-adjusted expected wage gain > wage if they don’t move, ceteris paribus capital moves from capital-abundant countries to seek higher marginal returns to capital, etc. All this discourse would not happen if we economists give up that HARD-EARNED right to use VALUE-NEUTRAL language.
It seems to me the state of nature that political and economic discourse is tightly laced with ethical judgment. And this state of nature is very Hobbesian – nasty, brutish, short. So that’s why we should instead see the current state of affairs as a hard-earned right. Although, with how the AEA is really going off the deep end with how left-wing they’re suddenly becoming, that right might start to look uncertain.
Secondly, it is highly unpragmatic and unscientific to base political philosophy on moral judgments. If I had to advocate a view on how public policy should be done, it would be PRAGMATISM, i.e. do what works, as demonstrated best by 邓小平 and Lee Kuan Yew. And pragmatism is inherently, almost by definition, firmly grounded on empiricism. Following from my first point, econ has managed to, in the past 20 – 30 years or so, take an even bigger step in the right direction – basing our conclusions on experiments and empirical observation, not even just mathematical theorizing alone. Insisting that political philosophy must be firmly normative is to stay in the Stone Age, where econ (then called political economy) was just a branch of philosophy because there simply weren’t computers and data science methods to draw evidence-based conclusions.
One of my favourite quotes from Lee Kuan Yew (from his book ‘Third World to First’, which I read with great interest) – ‘My life is not guided by philosophy or theories. I get things done and leave others to extract the principles from my successful solutions. I do not work on a theory. Instead, I ask: what will make this work?’
‘I discovered early in office that there were few problems confronting me in government which other governments had not met and solved. So I made a practice of finding out who else had met, the problem we faced, how they had tackled it and how successful they had been. Whether it was to build a new airport or to change our teaching methods, I would send a team of officers to visit and study those countries that had done it well. I preferred to climb on the shoulders of others who had gone before us.’
Thirdly, moral philosophy is easy to study on one’s own, but I can attest that it is very difficult to study technical subjects like quantitative economics on one’s own. Although this argument of mine doesn’t directly argue that public policy in PRACTICE should be value-neutral, I believe it makes a strong case for limiting the STUDY of academic social science to strictly the positive and empirical realm. You don’t need to go to school to learn to be a well-rounded philosopher-king and enlightened man of letters, you can do that on your own after you finish your formal education; but positive economics is difficult to the point where it’s very challenging to do it without i) a teacher, ii) full-time dedication, iii) other requirements like datasets and computational software which you typically need an institution for. So, academic institutions should focus on giving people what they can’t get elsewhere. Almost like how only non-diversifiable risk is priced.
Finally, being the Hume fan that I am, I'm just very wary of the is-ought problem.
March 23, 2022
The first four essays—"What is Political Philosophy?", "Political Philosophy and History", "On Classical Political Philosophy", and "Restatement of Xenophon's Hiero"—are deeply penetrating and provocative. The ninth, "On a Forgotten Kind of Writing," is a good summary of Strauss's case for an "esoteric" reading of certain philosophical texts, grounded in what he sees as a more general tension between philosophy (pursuit of truth) and the city/society (comprised of opinions). I found the other essays in this collection generally less interesting. Nevertheless, What is Political Philosophy? as a whole has given me a strong new appreciation for Strauss and his sense of the fundamental problems motivating his distinctive approach to philosophy and its history.
Read
April 27, 2010من امروز کتاب را گرفتم و مشتاقانه آنرا شروع کردم. اما اولین مطلبی که توجهم را جلب کرد این بود که اشتراوسی که می شناسیم را در این کتاب نمی بینید بعد از آن در گوگل بوکس صفحات اول این کتاب را به انگلیسی دیدم و متوجه شدم که گویا مترجم کتاب خودش را نوشته و از روز فروتنی فقط به جای اینکه آنرا به خود نسبت دهد به اشتراوس نسبت داده
August 27, 2020
ترجمهی بد و نادقیق از مفاهیم. نیمه کاره رها کردم.
August 28, 2024
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 26, 2025
*Read for symposium on leo strauss*
This is a very solid collection of essays by Strauss that I think offer a good overview of his thought. The title essay was by far the standout of the collection, and I would highly recommend to those interested in a broad overview of Strauss. Honestly, it was pretty much just a summary of "Natural Right and History" that presents the ideas in an easily digestible and shorter form. I also found "On Classical Political Philosophy," "How Farabi read Plato's Laws," and "On a Forgotten Kind of Writing" to be the star essays of the collection. The first offers a very compelling account of the classical conception of the purpose of politics that I think I boradly agree with. The latter two provide a good introduction into Strauss' ideas on esotericism, and I found the Farabi essay particularly enjoyable to read (it is less void of academic jargon and the boring snoozy type of writing that the rest of this stuff is.) That one REALLY made me excited for my Islamic Platonism class this spring.
I fear I found the essays on Hobbes and Locke to be major snoozers, as usual. I just don't really care about them that much, and there's nothing I can do to change that. It also didn't help that these essays, along with the Maimonides essay were responses to secondary scholarship (that I have not read) on the primary scholarship (that I also have not read). This rendered Strauss' responses to be largely inaccessible to me but I am not going to go read the entirely of the Leviathan so that I can understand this 30 page account sorry.
I am still undecided on Strauss' thoughts of historicism. I find his criticism very compelling and appreciate the inherent contradictions that he finds, and think that he largely succeeds in refuting it. Despite this, I am not entirely convinced that his alternative is void of its own contradictions and need to spend a lot more time thinking about this.
Also should note that I skipped the obituary remarks on Kurt Riezler because I didn't know who he was and the criticisms that appear at the end because I really need to get through the next book before this damn symposium. I will revisit and update my review accordingly if I have time before I ship out to Texas.
This is a very solid collection of essays by Strauss that I think offer a good overview of his thought. The title essay was by far the standout of the collection, and I would highly recommend to those interested in a broad overview of Strauss. Honestly, it was pretty much just a summary of "Natural Right and History" that presents the ideas in an easily digestible and shorter form. I also found "On Classical Political Philosophy," "How Farabi read Plato's Laws," and "On a Forgotten Kind of Writing" to be the star essays of the collection. The first offers a very compelling account of the classical conception of the purpose of politics that I think I boradly agree with. The latter two provide a good introduction into Strauss' ideas on esotericism, and I found the Farabi essay particularly enjoyable to read (it is less void of academic jargon and the boring snoozy type of writing that the rest of this stuff is.) That one REALLY made me excited for my Islamic Platonism class this spring.
I fear I found the essays on Hobbes and Locke to be major snoozers, as usual. I just don't really care about them that much, and there's nothing I can do to change that. It also didn't help that these essays, along with the Maimonides essay were responses to secondary scholarship (that I have not read) on the primary scholarship (that I also have not read). This rendered Strauss' responses to be largely inaccessible to me but I am not going to go read the entirely of the Leviathan so that I can understand this 30 page account sorry.
I am still undecided on Strauss' thoughts of historicism. I find his criticism very compelling and appreciate the inherent contradictions that he finds, and think that he largely succeeds in refuting it. Despite this, I am not entirely convinced that his alternative is void of its own contradictions and need to spend a lot more time thinking about this.
Also should note that I skipped the obituary remarks on Kurt Riezler because I didn't know who he was and the criticisms that appear at the end because I really need to get through the next book before this damn symposium. I will revisit and update my review accordingly if I have time before I ship out to Texas.
November 9, 2024
Leo Strauss is an incredibly intelligent man who makes some very good points in What is Political Philosophy? What brings it from being a 5/5 start text to a 3/5 star text is not the ideas presented or even necessarily in the way in which they are presented. The core issues with the text are firstly, when quoting texts it's in the original language without a translation provided. Secondly, the book covers less of "What is Political Philosophy" and more embodies "What are issues I have with famous essays written to critique famous philosopher's works". This requires an already present knowledge base on the context of either what is being critiqued or the article itself as he does a poor job of helping the audience know the context. It's understandable to presume I have a baseline understanding, however that is to the detriment of the point. What I did really appreciate from Strauss is when is shifted from a critique to an explanation or statement of his own ideas and beliefs. I think that is what Chapter 9 stood out to so many. If you do pick up the text, I think it's worth skipping chapter you have less of a care for and just fixating on what areas you WANT to learn more about. Overall it was a good read, it just wasn't what I expected nor did I feel that proper context was provided for more abstract essays he reviews.
January 1, 2026
Leo Strauss's interpretation of the history of Western political philosophy is often characterized by a division into "two ethical systems." The first system, represented by figures like Moses, Jesus, Plato, and Aristotle, emphasizes absolute ethical standards/deontology, such as divine law or Platonic Forms. The second system, exemplified by Machiavelli, focuses on power, utilitarianism, and consequentialism. Strauss views Machiavelli's system as a return to a "pre-Socratic Western ethics," centered on the principle of "might is right." This shift, where Machiavelli redirects political focus from "what ought to be" (the realm of absolute ethics) to "what is" (the realm of political reality), using success or victory as the ultimate standard for political action, is a key point of Strauss's critique and marks what he considers the beginning of modernity. Consequently, Strauss suggests that Machiavelli, predating Nietzsche, advocated for the dissolution of the absolute ethical standard system in favor of consequentialism, which reveals the modern crisis: once absolute, transcendent moral foundations are weakened, the political sphere risks devolving into a pure struggle for power and unscrupulous pursuit of victory.
March 26, 2024
"To understand fully its own purpose and nature, philosophy has to understand its essential starting point, and hence the nature of political things"
I have a love-hate relationship with this one. Or maybe an annoyed-intrigued relationship. Honestly I find it a little annoying of me to have read this. Nevertheless, I will admit Mr. Strauss is very clever, especially when reading between the lines, which made reading this quite rewarding at some points. Yes, in all his discussions he is pretentious, however, I cannot deny the accuracy of his analyses, and how impressively his assertions have managed to hold true overtime. Moreover, I understand why he sees it justified to attempt a more secretive form of writing... Altogether, there are interesting and clarifying points made throughout the many layers of his writing. I admire his dedication - I cannot imagine how long this would've taken me to write - yet at some points I did find myself with a desire to point out some logistical flaw and roll my eyes at any rebuttal.
"In other words, even the greatest minds cannot liberate themselves from the specific opinions which rule their particular society"
I have a love-hate relationship with this one. Or maybe an annoyed-intrigued relationship. Honestly I find it a little annoying of me to have read this. Nevertheless, I will admit Mr. Strauss is very clever, especially when reading between the lines, which made reading this quite rewarding at some points. Yes, in all his discussions he is pretentious, however, I cannot deny the accuracy of his analyses, and how impressively his assertions have managed to hold true overtime. Moreover, I understand why he sees it justified to attempt a more secretive form of writing... Altogether, there are interesting and clarifying points made throughout the many layers of his writing. I admire his dedication - I cannot imagine how long this would've taken me to write - yet at some points I did find myself with a desire to point out some logistical flaw and roll my eyes at any rebuttal.
"In other words, even the greatest minds cannot liberate themselves from the specific opinions which rule their particular society"
January 9, 2023
Exakt vad boken avser vara: En genomgång av politisk filosofi. Just eftersom det är en genomgång är det inte en speciellt djup bok. Det fanns ett par anteckningar som var värda att ta, men det mesta är skåpmat. Jag kommer inte att rekommendera den för vidare läsningar.
October 14, 2021
3,5 to be honest.
May 13, 2020
Testo universitario: un saggio sulla filosofia politica, una spiegazione delle tre ondate di modernità. Da leggere per avere una conoscenza base della filosofia politica
July 5, 2012
Érasme m'a appris cet adage que les anciens employaient dans les mêmes situations où nous disons " tu prêches un convaincu" : ils disaient "tu pousses un coureur". C'est ce que m'inspire la lecture de cet ensemble d'essais relatifs à la philosophie politique écrits il y a soixante ans par Léo Strauss, un allemand émigré aux États-Unis. En effet, le point commun de ces écrits est un appel à la lecture des auteurs classiques, comme Platon, Aristote, Cicéron, Maïmonide, Fârâbî, Machiavel, Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu et Rousseau. Pouvant me de m'être intéressé à leurs écrits, j'ai même eu du mal à comprendre au début l'intérêt de défendre une telle évidence, mais en prenant du recul, j'ai un peu mieux compris les intentions de l'auteur.
Son souci est de combattre un préjugé naturellement répandu suivant lequel au fond, toutes ces vieilleries sont bonnes à jeter, et qu'il vaut mieux se contenter d'un bon résumé des derniers développements de la science que de perdre son temps à ruminer les opinions fausses et éculées de vieilles barbes défraîchies, dont la longueur des discours assomme d'avance, et contre lesquelles l'ancienneté plaide puisque tout conspire naturellement au progrès général des connaissances.
Ce contre quoi Strauss s'élève, c'est un positivisme mal réglé qui prétend à une objectivité irréaliste en voulant séparer complètement faits et valeurs, évacue la morale, et se concentre sur une lecture exclusivement logique et descriptive, manquant ainsi l'essentiel. J'ai été un peu méfiant au début, vis-à-vis de ce que je craignait d'être une criaillerie d'universitaire en mal de reconnaissance, ou une réaction obscurantiste contre la science, mais tout bien considéré, il n'en est rien.
J'ai été d'abord un peu gêné par la manière avec laquelle il conduit certaines argumentations, en désarticulant les écrits des auteurs sur lesquels il s'appuie abondamment, citant dans une même phrase des extraits de différents ouvrages, pour en faire ressortir les incohérences. En particulier, Hobbes, Spinoza et Locke sont soumis à ces contorsions pour mettre en lumière les difficultés avec lesquelles ils placent Dieu dans leur systèmes. Mais il ne s'agit pas tant pour Strauss de flétrir ces auteurs - ils avaient déjà subis de telles attaques de leur vivant - que de mettre en lumière leur prudence et leur sagacité. Il ne pouvaient affirmer aussi positivement ce que Kant établira clairement. Et encore Kant s'entoure aussi de précautions infinies, par une difficulté voulue - ce qui écarte bon nombre de querelleurs - , et surtout en ayant le souci de mettre la morale au centre de ses préoccupations.
Au reste, je regrette ma complète ignorance des philosophes des deux derniers siècles : toutes les allusions à Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche et Heidegger me sont, hélas, parfaitement obscures. Au final, je suis assez content de cette petite escapade au XXème siècle.
Son souci est de combattre un préjugé naturellement répandu suivant lequel au fond, toutes ces vieilleries sont bonnes à jeter, et qu'il vaut mieux se contenter d'un bon résumé des derniers développements de la science que de perdre son temps à ruminer les opinions fausses et éculées de vieilles barbes défraîchies, dont la longueur des discours assomme d'avance, et contre lesquelles l'ancienneté plaide puisque tout conspire naturellement au progrès général des connaissances.
Ce contre quoi Strauss s'élève, c'est un positivisme mal réglé qui prétend à une objectivité irréaliste en voulant séparer complètement faits et valeurs, évacue la morale, et se concentre sur une lecture exclusivement logique et descriptive, manquant ainsi l'essentiel. J'ai été un peu méfiant au début, vis-à-vis de ce que je craignait d'être une criaillerie d'universitaire en mal de reconnaissance, ou une réaction obscurantiste contre la science, mais tout bien considéré, il n'en est rien.
J'ai été d'abord un peu gêné par la manière avec laquelle il conduit certaines argumentations, en désarticulant les écrits des auteurs sur lesquels il s'appuie abondamment, citant dans une même phrase des extraits de différents ouvrages, pour en faire ressortir les incohérences. En particulier, Hobbes, Spinoza et Locke sont soumis à ces contorsions pour mettre en lumière les difficultés avec lesquelles ils placent Dieu dans leur systèmes. Mais il ne s'agit pas tant pour Strauss de flétrir ces auteurs - ils avaient déjà subis de telles attaques de leur vivant - que de mettre en lumière leur prudence et leur sagacité. Il ne pouvaient affirmer aussi positivement ce que Kant établira clairement. Et encore Kant s'entoure aussi de précautions infinies, par une difficulté voulue - ce qui écarte bon nombre de querelleurs - , et surtout en ayant le souci de mettre la morale au centre de ses préoccupations.
Au reste, je regrette ma complète ignorance des philosophes des deux derniers siècles : toutes les allusions à Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche et Heidegger me sont, hélas, parfaitement obscures. Au final, je suis assez content de cette petite escapade au XXème siècle.
August 5, 2018
This is an interesting book, more suitable for serious scholars of political philosophy. A casual reader, however, may occasionally feel as if he were chewing on a 60 year old bit of dry parchment.
In it, Strauss has attempted to give an outline of political philosophy and its evolution through ages. Roughly, it may be divided into 4 parts.
The first part (consisting of first 2 chapters) is an introduction, in which he explains the term 'Political Philosophy' and stresses upon its relevance in the modern world. He also shows (though he is beating a dead horse here, so to speak) that the foundation of modern political philosophy had been laid sown in the classical period.
The next part (with the following 6 chapters) deals with a study of classical and (pre-)modern political philosophy - not directly, mind you, but by critiquing some of the contemporary philosophers who had critiqued the former. It becomes quite difficult at times to get a hang of what Strauss is saying because let's face it - only very serious students of political philosophy are going to read the critics who wrote about the classicists almost 70 years ago.
Third part consists of 2 chapters which includes a defense of his philosophical stand and an obituary-cum-analysis of a deceased philosopher friend of his.
Fourth part consists of 16 book-reviews. These books on political philosophy were written almost 60 years ago and I skimmed through the reviews, not even bothering to read a few.
Overall, you will not lose much if you decide to skip this book. If, however, you decide to read this, I think first and second parts are quite sufficient.
Final rating: 3.5/5
In it, Strauss has attempted to give an outline of political philosophy and its evolution through ages. Roughly, it may be divided into 4 parts.
The first part (consisting of first 2 chapters) is an introduction, in which he explains the term 'Political Philosophy' and stresses upon its relevance in the modern world. He also shows (though he is beating a dead horse here, so to speak) that the foundation of modern political philosophy had been laid sown in the classical period.
The next part (with the following 6 chapters) deals with a study of classical and (pre-)modern political philosophy - not directly, mind you, but by critiquing some of the contemporary philosophers who had critiqued the former. It becomes quite difficult at times to get a hang of what Strauss is saying because let's face it - only very serious students of political philosophy are going to read the critics who wrote about the classicists almost 70 years ago.
Third part consists of 2 chapters which includes a defense of his philosophical stand and an obituary-cum-analysis of a deceased philosopher friend of his.
Fourth part consists of 16 book-reviews. These books on political philosophy were written almost 60 years ago and I skimmed through the reviews, not even bothering to read a few.
Overall, you will not lose much if you decide to skip this book. If, however, you decide to read this, I think first and second parts are quite sufficient.
Final rating: 3.5/5
January 2, 2021
单纯从思想史的阐述能力来看，施特劳斯和伯林之间简直有云泥之别。再加上堪称惊悚的翻译作祟，此书一度读到让我抓狂崩溃。说实在的，作为施特劳斯的高徒，艾伦·布鲁姆的书读起来那才算得上是一场酣畅淋漓的盛宴啊。
February 6, 2016
The Goodreads listing for the 1959 hardcover edition of this work incorrectly lists the author as "Laura Strauss." The author was, of course, Leo Strauss.
I purchased this 1959 edition on May 27, 1967 at the University of Chicago bookstore. I read most of it during the late 1960s and early 1970s. I have recently read or reread some of the essays. It is an excellent account of Strauss's approach to political philosophy.
I purchased this 1959 edition on May 27, 1967 at the University of Chicago bookstore. I read most of it during the late 1960s and early 1970s. I have recently read or reread some of the essays. It is an excellent account of Strauss's approach to political philosophy.
Read
September 7, 2011This book is excellent for anyone interested both in an introduction to political thought as well as some insight into deeper questions. Thus, not all the essays in this volume are equally accessible to someone without any previous knowledge of political theory. The first one, which gives its name to the book, and the second ("Political Philosophy and History") are absolutely worth it.
August 3, 2025
Excellent collection of essay, some of which I had already read, but I was definitely benefitted, to say the least, by a second reading. The essay on Xenophon’s Hiero, although I haven’t read the work itself struck me the most. Strauss really seems to open up there about what he thinks the future may look like. The essay on Hobbes was also very revealing. Worth a read for sure.
April 24, 2016
کتاب بسیار عالی بود. اما ترجمه کتاب متاسفانه از کیفیت لازم برخوردار نبود. نویسنده که دارایی زبانی ساده و روان است، مطالب را به خوبی بیان می کند و به شما درک خوبی از مقایسه میان فلسفه سیاسی کلاسیک و مدرن می دهد. رئوس اختلاف ها و تفاوت های فلسفه سیاسی کلاسیک و مدرن را ارائه می دهد
March 27, 2009
The most confusing political theory book I've ever read in my life. Straussians are weird people.
Want to read
November 12, 2009Recommended by James Schall in Another Sort of Learning, Intro to Part 2, as one of Four Beginning, Though Difficult, Books by Leo Strauss and Eric Voegelin.
shelved
July 1, 2011Strauss presents a collection of essays, lectures, and reviews examining the theme of political philosophy, and varied aspects of political and human life...
August 19, 2012
Somewhat more obscure essays than in 'The Return of Classical Political Rationalism', but just as illuminating.
September 20, 2016
كتاب بسيار آمزنده و جالب بود
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews