Customer Reviews

Leo Strauss: An Intellectual Biography

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Daniel Tanguay has written what is perhaps the best introduction to Leo Strauss's philosophical journey, a book that should be helpful for anyone interested in Strauss's thought.

At the beginning of the book's conclusion, Tanguay summarizes the book's main purpose:

"The name of Leo Strauss is generally associated with the attempt to revive the quarrel between the ancients and the moderns and with the proposal for a return to ancient natural right in order to protect liberal society against the deviations introduced by relativism, radical historicism, and nihilism. We have sought to show that this theme certainly does not constitute the essential problem in Strauss's thought, which can be genuinely understood only to the extent to which it is put into relation with its central problem, that is, with the theologico-political problem. Strauss himself claimed that this was 'the' theme in his inquiries" (193).

Defending liberal society and reviving the quarrel between the ancients and the moderns are certainly two of Strauss's aims, but his primary philosophical interest emerged in the 1920s, while he was studying Spinoza and experiencing the theologico-political problem firsthand as a Jew in interwar Germany. What is clear, however, is that the theologico-political problem goes far beyond `the Jewish Question' and extends beyond the Jewish world. The problem emerges in the tension between politics and religion and between theology and philosophy.

Strauss originally sought to discover whether the philosophical critique of revelation, in its most radical, Enlightenment form, had succeeded, and he began a long study of the history of philosophy to find the sources and forms of the theologico-political problem. His journey took him from Spinoza, Hobbes, and Machiavelli back to Maimonides and the `Islamic Aristotelians'--especially Farabi--and in the process he rediscovered the art of esoteric writing. Tanguay does a fantastic job drawing out how Strauss's thought and writing style changed after this point, which Tanguay appropriately names `the Farabian turn.' Strauss's text "Farabi's `Plato'" emerges as one of the key documents for understanding his thought.

Strauss moves after his reflections on Farabi to `the ancients'--specifically, the zetetic philosophy of Socrates and Plato, of the skeptic in the original, ancient meaning of the term--and explores the deepest conflict in Western intellectual history, the conflict between Jerusalem and Athens, a metaphor for the theologico-political problem. Strauss ultimately sought to revive the dispute between the two Western ways of life--between philosophy and revelation, between the life defined by philosophic eros and the search for wisdom and the life defined by the fear of God and obedience to the divine law.

Leo Strauss has been getting a fair bit of bad press lately (and some good press as well). Reading the criticism, one gets the suspicion that, unlike Strauss's critics of the mid-20th century, his current critics have not actually bothered to read very much, if anything, of what he wrote. Before making political or character judgments about Strauss, it is probably prudent to seek for oneself what he thought and what he believed. This book can be useful here.

Also, behind Professor Tanguay's exposition of Strauss's scholarship is the person of Strauss. While that is not Tanguay's main subject, it is extraordinary, reading this book, to see Strauss's personal struggle as he makes his intellectual journey. In his heart and mind he lived the conflict between Jerusalem and Athens, between his struggles with the Jewish tradition and his love of philosophy. I must admit that I felt a connection with Strauss when reading these parts of the book--after all, in the Jewish tradition, Israel/Yisrael can translate as `Godwrestler,' and Strauss wrestled with some of the most fundamental questions in both revelation and philosophy. It is also fascinating to read about Strauss's focus on the permanence of the questions of revelation and philosophy, and how cautious and reluctant he is to suggest sweeping solutions to them or to the theologico-political problem. The questions and problems are central for him, not the answers, and this attitude brings with it a certain nuance and what ultimately amounts to an invitation from Strauss, an invitation to study the questions, even though answers may ultimately elude our grasp.

Daniel Tanguay deserves congratulations for writing this book. The biography is lucid, useful, and succinct, and Strauss's thought becomes more coherent after reading this book. It is probably helpful to have read some of Strauss's works before reading this book, but not all of them. Anyone approaching Strauss for the first time can probably get a sufficient introduction by reading Tanguay's biography and Thomas Pangle's edited volume, 'The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism,' which is also an excellent introduction to the main themes of Strauss's thoughts. Strauss's difficulty is often exaggerated, but it is true that it can at times be unclear what the guiding problems are for him. This book identifies and explores them, and can serve as a useful guide when reading Strauss. It is an extraordinary book.

Tanguay's superb book was originally written in 2003. That makes it the first major study that was written about Strauss in either English or French. In spite of my praise of the volumes written by the Zuckerts and Pangle, this is the best introduction to Strauss that I have yet to read. (If you can judge the quality of a philosopher by the quality of his/her interpreters, then Strauss was quite good.)
The reason for the superiority of Tanguay's effort is ironic. His book is by far the most Straussian interpretation of Strauss. One of Strauss' basic hermeneutical principles was that the reader should first attempt to understand the author as the author understood himself (see pp. 2-4 of the intro for Tanguay's discussion on how he read Strauss). Strauss also emphasized the importance of reading an author while being "moved by the suspicion that perhaps his teaching contains the truth about the Whole" (p.3).
I think that both the Zuckerts and Pangle are concerned about reading Strauss in such a way as to deflect somewhat his implied critique of the American regime. Tanguay doesn't care about that and that allows him to present some of the edges of Strauss' thought more sharply.
Tanguay believes that the key to understanding Strauss is his relentless focus on the theological-political issue. Strauss came to the issue early in his life as a Jew in Weimer Germany and his focus on that issue only sharpened. Tanguay is superb at examining the early texts of Strauss, e.g., Spinoza's Critique of Religion or Philosophy and Law, for how they mark the stages of development of Strauss thought on this issue. Tanguay focuses on the essay, Farabi's Plato, as a critical turning point in that development. Strauss' readings of some of the philosophers of the Medieval Enlightenment (Farabi, Maimonides, Halevi, etc.) led him both to a new understanding of Plato and to his famous theory of esoteric/exoteric levels of writing. ( By the way, this is one area where I disagree with Tanguay. He asserts throughout his book that at this point in his career that Strauss began to write esoterically. Dunderhead that I am, I just don't see it unless you limit the meaning of the idea. I do not believe that Tanguay really provides any examples of this in Strauss. If anyone who reads this believes they know of one, please comment. I need educating!)
Tanguay is really good at drawing out all the unresolvable tensions that are to be found in Strauss' beloved Athens vs. Jerusalem problem nexus and his theological-political problem. Along the way Tanguay provides some remarkable insights about the way Strauss saw the philosophical tradition. Tanguay suggests that (in Strauss' reading) Plato's ideas are not metaphysical entities so much as philosophical issues. Thus the Idea of justice becomes the issue of "what is justice" or "how do we behave justly?" Regardless of whether this is the correct reading of Plato, it is a fascinating one and suggest some ways in which Strauss' thought might be usefully compared to someone normally held far from him, say, Dworkin.
Another interesting point. Tanguay feels that Strauss does not quite see that to see the theological-political problem in terms of Athens-Jerusalem or in terms of revelation-philosophy is to place the issue solidly in a historical context. Socrates knew nothing (as far as I know) of Moses or of the giving of the Law (Torah) at Mt. Sinai. For us to see the problem in the light of this juxtaposition is to assume the superiority of our historical insight, something that Strauss would be loath to do (Tanguay's discussion starts on p.212 and, trust me, is far richer than my summary).
Another small complaint I have with Tanguay is that he doesn't engage with Strauss' later writings. As suggested by the train of his own thought, in his later years, Strauss focused on his reading of the ancients, thinkers like Xenophon, Plato and Aristophanes. None of these later books are examined in Tanguay or, for that matter, in the Zuckerts or in Pangle.
This is a small complaint about an excellent book. Tanguay has done us a great service in explicating a difficult and undervalued thinker. He is also a great stylist as a philosophy writer. [My title is a quote of his (p. 214) which perfectly summarizes one of Strauss' central insights]. I have read quite a few philosophers and historians of ideas and the good writers are few and far between. I look forward to reading Tanguay's next work regardless of subject matter.

...and for the sake of sincere and honest scholarship, professor Tanguay has done "humankind" an unparalleled service, which only later on will be fully exposed and appreciated. My words will not suffice to even match the wit and scope of my fellow reviewers of this erudite work. Hence I resort to a brief examination of my understanding of professor Tanguay's project.

Over the years the late Leo Strauss has been accused of everything and anything possible. This assessments of Strauss' character found (and still finds) formulation in the mouths of the many inhabitants of the city. Similar to a phantom that is still roaming the Republic, Strauss has been associated with dictatorial pursuits and anti-liberal agendas. What professor Tanguay attempts (and achieves) is to clarify what Strauss actually meant for what he stood for, without the perennial democratic crucifixion of thinkers.

The three main points that I took from Tanguay's work is Strauss relationship between thinker and lover (lover of a world long forgotten, but desperately needed), Orthodox Jew and American citizen. Strauss, as so many of those fine critics assigned him to be, is not an atheist who rejects religion. Instead, Strauss is a person open to the Whole, neither camping in a ideological deadlock, or dogmatism itself. Possible, one might accuse of zetetic philosophy to be a dogma, but the very of idea of being open to the whole contradicts dogmatism.

Strauss paints a world where there are two lifestyles available (essentially two lifestyles). The pious adherent to the tradition and the thinker who pursues the quest for for the Whole. As such, Tanguay rejects the notions that Strauss was an elitist. If anything, Strauss was a caring member of society, who for the benefit of us all, wrote in a way to prevent, as one of my professors rebuked me once, "developing stupid ideas about philosophers." Tanguay perfectly constructs the ideas of his book so as to make the reader comprehend why there is a need for dissimulation. It is not out of malice nor because of despotic flavors. No, quite frankly nature itself mandates that a certain art of communication was and is necessary if one wants to be able to live in a city.

Tangauy vehemently reminds us that modernity has not achieved what it sought to (Machiavelli and Spinoza being the flag bearers of the modern project). Thanks to a very close reading of Strauss' works, Tanguay ruminates why exactly Strauss has a case against modernity. After having read Tanguay' work, Plato and Nietzsche, make so much more sense, not to mention of Strauss himself (and Farabi). One element that I love so much about Tanguay' work is that he gives you a run down of the past 2000 years of Western thought. Why does he do that? Because in order to understand Strauss (if one can ever!) Western thought as a Whole must be comprehended.

It is a shame that Leo Strauss is demonized. Whether we agree with him, or not, there is a universe to be awaited in his thought. One that augments the Eros, one that encourages one to go beyond what was believed possible. I am very certain that professor Tanguay's work will become the quintessential introduction to Leo Strauss (next to Strauss' five lectures on the Problem of Socrates).

One more thing, we ought to salute Christopher Nadon for his excellent job at translation professor Tanguay's work. I am so grateful to professor Nadon for taking the time and love to do so.

This is a great way to get an overview of Strauss without actually having to suffer through his own writing, which is largely inscrutable, and is meant to be inscrutable, from what I understand. Having suffered through Thoughts on Macchiavelli and Natural Right and History, I appreciate this book a lot. An additional bonus is that his thought is presented in a clear and objective manner, free of conspiracy theories. Highly reccommended.