Talk:Leo Strauss

Removal of BBC documentary "The Power of Nightmares"

At first I was against the removal of the links to the BBC page, but if you search the pages linked to, there's no use of Strauss's name. If it's about the Neoconservative movement and not about Strauss, then it shouldn't be linked to on his page, but on the Neoconservative page (it very may well be linked to on that page already). Phil 11:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to put that paragraph back after 85.82.215.23 's May 30th edit. The link certainly does refer to Strauss by name, and the entire paragraph is well written and does a good job of connecting Strauss' name to many contemporary events, an area that this article could improve upon. In fact I think its a good idea to retitle the last section - CONTEMPORARY perspectives on "the Straussian" and "Straussianism", agreed then? Dr.crawboney (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

After a lot of back and forth has continued over more than one year concerning this section I have started work on it last night. I discussed it on the talk page of one person who was deleting it holus bolus, User:Dynablaster. In response to his comments I have now included sourcing, and greatly reduced all the attempts to put in "yes but" arguments which are indeed in violation of WP:OR. If anyone knows proper published responses to the documentary, then this would be something that could be included, but until now no-one has bothered and so Wikipedia editors may not put in their own responses. I felt that keeping the section is necessary, at least in a stripped down form, because the fact that a person is mentioned many times as an influence in world politics in a very well-known documentary is not something we should delete, even if controversial. (Upon looking at the documentary, which is all over the internet, I see that it was more guarded in its claims than the article made out, and this has also been adjusted.) See WP:NEUTRAL.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The documentary is nice and interesting, but in so far Strauss gets discussed, it does not get beyond conspiracy theory: the vile Leocon deceivers took over America in order to wage a fratricide war against their Muslim ideological fellows. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

It depicts Strauss as a Western version of Sayyid Qutb, this comparison is, frankly, hogwash. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

But that is your original opinion, and not the opinion of a published source I suppose. Wikipedia core content policy tells us to neutrally report controversies that exist in not only the best sources, but also notable sources. The BBC is normally considered a pretty notable and reliable source. If we agree that they are taking a relatively extreme position, which is quite a reasonable thing to argue in many cases of course, then we simply make it clear that this is the position debated by one source, rather than presenting the positions as uncontroversial facts in the voice of Wikipedia. I can not think of a policy justification for not mentioning the documentary at all. The documentary is about Neoconservatives, not Strauss as such, but he is mentioned it seems. (We could discuss how much he is mentioned perhaps. It is a significant mention? I seem to remember it was.) That Strauss gets associated with Neoconservatism is undeniable even if controversial, and there are at least indirect links with students and people who cite him a lot. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Most of those identified as Straussians in the documentary are not in fact Straussians. And, as someone argued, if politicians do lie, they did not learn it from Strauss. Strauss was not an enemy of freedom and democracy, although some of the philosophers he described would have been opposed to liberal democracy, if they knew it. But that's their own fault, not Strauss's fault. It appears that Strauss himself would not have supported neoconservatism, if he knew it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

No point debating it here though. What we do on Wikipedia is try to summarize what publications say according to a reasonable methodology. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Source: https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/T/bo4038449.html Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Strong stuff! "The Truth about Leo Strauss. Political Philosophy and American Democracy" (2006, University of Chicago Press), Catherine H. Zuckert, Michael Zuckert, pages 13 and 14: "Characteristically, the LaRouchite version of the carryover themes is stated in more extreme and immoderate language, but the main elements of what the mainstream press promoted as Straussian are present in nearly recognizable form in the LaRouchite statements. In contrast to LaRouche’s own promodern, proprogressive, prodemocratic Prometheanism, Strauss is presented as regressive and fascist—even Nazi. According to one of the LaRouchite statements, significantly subtitled “Leo Strauss, Fascist Godfather of the Neo-Cons”: “A review of Leo Strauss’ career reveals why the label ‘Straussian’ carries some very filthy implications. Although nominally a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany . . . Strauss was an unabashed proponent of the three most notorious shapers of the Nazi philosophy: Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, and Carl Schmitt. ... Strauss, in his long academic career, never abandoned his fealty to Nietzsche, Heidegger and Schmitt.” The LaRouche writings constantly affirm the Nietzsche-Heidegger-Schmitt-Nazi filiation of Strauss, and then they group him with a surprising set of thinkers (mostly fellow ´emigr´es), who allegedly stand for the same “fascist” principles. ... Thus Steinberg identifies “the hallmark of Strauss’s approach to philosophy” as “his hatred of the modern world, his belief in a totalitarian system, run by ‘philosophers,’ who rejected all universal principles of natural law, but saw their mission as absolute rulers, who lied and deceived a foolish ‘populist’ mass, and used both religion and politics as a means of disseminating myths that kept the general population in clueless servitude.” Tony Papert, another member of the LaRouche organization, expands on these themes: according to Strauss, “moral virtue had no application to the really intelligent man, the philosopher. Moral virtue only existed in popular opinion, where it served the purpose of controlling the unintelligent majority.”"     ←   ZScarpia   23:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

My impression is that the following extract from Tony Burns and James Connelly's "The Legacy of Leo Strauss" is a concise and realistic description of how things played out: "Leo Strauss was a political philosopher who died in 1973 but came to came to prominent attention in the United States and also Britain around the beginning of the War in Iraq. Charges began emerging that architects of the war such as Paul Wolfowitz and large numbers of staff in the US State and Defense Departments had studied with, or been influenced by, the academic work of Strauss and his followers. A vague, but powerful, idea was generated in the popular press that a group known as the Straussians had been instrumental in the long-range strategic planning of American foreign policy, both to advance American interests and to encourage democratic revolutions outside the West."     ←   ZScarpia   09:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps of use to any editors looking for information on the 2004 BBC series "The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear", presented by Adam Curtis: Wikipedia article on the series; BBC programmes and iPlayer pages; imdb page. The series is mentioned scathingly in Peter Minowitz's 2009 book "Straussophobia: Defending Leo Strauss and Straussians against Shadia Drury and Other Accusers".     ←   ZScarpia   12:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Writing esoterically

In the "Strauss on reading" section, it is claimed that Strauss supported obscure writing for the philosophical priesthood. When Strauss wanted to communicate this concept to his reading audience, did he choose to use obscure, esoteric, unclear, Hegelian language, which would prevent clear communication? If a person has a clear, well–formed idea in mind and takes the trouble to write it down and publish it, would that person want to present it in a manner that makes it difficult to understand? No. A clear idea is most successfully communicated through clear, simple language. However, if a person is influenced by other motives than successful communication, then writing esoterically is understandable. Such motives might be the desire to appear profound, the need to present a poor idea as a good idea, the compulsion to follow a stylistic trend, the wish to imitate an obscure writer, etc. Lestrade (talk) 02:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

The issue of Strauss's "esotericism" is much inflated. Strauss posited a new mode of close reading which is supported by his own close readings of original texts. Strauss also like to play games with his readers to make sure they had paid similar close attention to original texts or to his own arguments. I would cite a few examples I've discovered but that takes away from all the fun. Read it yourself. There's nothing nefarious going on. Strauss wrote quite academically and clearly on the art of esoteric writing. Strauss himself adopted this style in some cases, not to conceal anything from anyone our of malice or in order to suggest a political agenda to an elite, but rather to have broader appeal to a larger audience and appeal in any number of different ways. All this talk about "Clear" makes me think that Scientology is at stake here. But seriously, Strauss believed that deep thinkers have a responsibility not to share certain insights with certain types of men who would abuse their fellows, or else they, philosophers, thinkers, academic types, would be accused of being political, and then persecuted for their thinking as was Socrates. Does this sound familiar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tullyccro (talk • contribs) 06:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"language becomes a tightrope or a narcotic if not a whipsaw" -- what is this kind of language doing in a Wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.1.116.93 (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

that's how Strauss wrote. His complex language is a major topic in the RS. Rjensen (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced opinion on Leo Straus as pro-Thrasymachus and anti-Socrates in the Republic

I deleted the last paragraph in the "On Reading" section. It is based on an article by an unidentified pseudonymous writer at the non-reliable-source dailykos.com, an article beginning with the line, "So Strauss was this nutjob from the University of Chicago."

Here is the most relevant paragraph from that article:

Thus for example, in the "Republic," Strauss argued that Socrates' line of reasoning in the dialogue with Thrasymachus was an exoteric cover story: the REAL truth is actually the oratory of Thrasymachus. Ergo, the "Republic" doesn't REALLY demand that a good Philosopher King be limited by morality (as we poor fools learned in school); rather, it argues that truth and morality are tools in the hand of the powerful. Thrasymachus' theory of brutal power is really the way to go, and Socrates' nice-guy-king is just a pleasant cover story to keep non-elites from complaining.

This may all be accurate, but if it is, it should not be hard to cite where Strauss advances this theory, or a least to find a reputable scholar who interprets Strauss on Thrasymachus in this fashion. Meanwhile, the entire paragraph is suspect, including the mass of non-encyclopedic and unsourced but presumably quoted metaphors (although not from the dailykos.com article) that end it: "may not be able to discern the philosopher's real intent from the shadows, and language becomes a tightrope or a narcotic if not a whipsaw." —Blanchette (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Quid sit Deus?

Just a note about the translation of what Strauss obviously considered an important question. The use of the subjunctive sit does not introduce, as in the previous translation, a doubt regarding the being in question, but is simply a subjunctive of subordination, required in Latin because the question is being introduced within a larger sentence. The full import of the question is evident in English with the direct question "What is God?". Desde la Torre (talk) 03:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

What does an "influence" mean?

I've recently edited the influence part of the template, based on various receptions by scholars of Strauss' work. But as they start to become quite a lot, I wonder what it means to be an influence on another thinker. First, are the "influence" and "influences" limited to philosophers alone, or do they include commentators, journalists, politicians historians, etc.? Second, how is it defined? Is Strauss' influence based on his method of interpreting texts, or his various positive assertions or criticisms? Does every person who cite or discuss Strauss - or anyone for that matter qualify them to be "influenced," by Wikipedia standards? Kai theos en ho logos (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)