Saba S. (broucek) reviewed Natural Right and History (Walgreen Foundation Lectures) on + 48 more book reviews
An actual attempt to tell you what the book is about.
I apologize for my review title. This is one of the cases when I am not sure I recognize the book I just read from the other reviews. I propose to try to tell you something about actual content and structure of the book. I think it is worth doing because I believe this to be one of the most important books on political philosophy written during the twentieth century.
Strauss' history of Western political philosophy can be summed up as follows. In the beginning there were the Greeks. They lived in their politeia (which Strauss translates as regime- see circa p.136 for his discussion). At first they believed that the laws of their particular cities were handed down from god(s) either directly or through divine inspiration. But then they began to reflect on the fact that their different politeia contradicted each other in their ideas of what was just, godly and noble.
Two things happened as a result. The ideas of nature and convention developed.
-Important methodological aside- As has been pointed out by Kennington and many other commentators, Strauss' use of the word `idea' (see. p. 123) is very particular and could be called Socratic-Platonic. In NRH, he uses the word very sparingly, and only to indicate the philosophical issues that are central to his story. The discussion of each chapter of the book and the book as a whole is built around these ideas. By my listing they are as follows: philosophy, history, natural right, science, nature, justice, man, best regime, man's perfection, the city, and virtue (I may have missed some of these). Now some of these, I would claim, Strauss sees as fundamental issues that have alternate solutions between which it is impossible to rationally decide and some of these issues are dead ends for philosophy. Part of the fun of reading Strauss is deciding which is which. And now back to our story.-
Out of these related ideas- convention and nature, the classical vision of political philosophy developed. Strauss covers this in his central chapters 3 and 4. There is only a few points I want to make about his presentation. He believes that the classical understanding of natural right and of man is based on " the hierarchic order of man's natural constitution" (127). Because our nature is hierachial, our ends are as well. Our highest end is the philosophy which is not a body of knowledge but a life of contemplation on the nature of the whole and on the nature of the parts.
Back in the political realm, the result is an investigation as to what constitutes the best regime- what form of politea encourages the development of gentlemen (from whom the philosophers will come-note the type of person that Socrates typically converse with in the Platonic dialogues) and the fostering of the virtues that will be necessary for both the city and the citizen (the virtues required for the philosopher are much more difficult to grasp). Note also that there is no discussion of individual rights here- it is of the duties of the citizen that we speak.
The beginning of the modern version of natural rights is almost an inversion of this view. Instead of focusing on what is highest (and therefore rarest) in human nature, the moderns (e.g., Hobbes) decided to focus on what was most common, indeed, what was universal in the hopes of actualizing their philosophies. Hobbes and Locke (according to Strauss) therefore focused on the passions, particularly on the desire for self-preservation. Strauss' reading of Hobbes and Locke is brilliant and is based on a very broad reading in their works. He sees modernity as undergoing three waves (see the essay, The Three Waves of Modernity, in Strauss' book An Introduction to Political Philosophy). The second wave, started by Rousseau, exposed the presumptions in the philosophies of Hobbes and Locke and ruthlessly critiques their philosophies on the basis of their own presumptions (see p. 269 of NRH for an example). Not discussed in NRH is how Nietzsche initiated the third wave by doing the same thing to Rousseau and his followers.
The third wave of modernity self-implodes in the philosophies of Heidegger (the radical historicist of the early chapters of NRH) and the vacuousness of positivism.
Thus my summary of NRH. Note that there is little content as to what natural right really is in Strauss' opinion. Strauss felt that we would get nowhere on understanding natural right unless we confronted the two major traditions in Western philosophy: historicist (modern) philosophy and nonhistoricist (ancient philosophy). His book is best seen as his attempt to reconsider the most elementary premises of those traditions (p. 32). After all of our careful reading, we are back at the beginning. Running as fast as we can to stay where we are. I am being glib.
I would love to have other readers of NRH comment on how I might improve my understanding of this book. I am nowhere near done with the book or the author. Like other reviewers, I disagree w/ Strauss in many of his fundamental presumptions (where is his argument for the soul?), I suspect many of his interpretations (although many are revelations) but I love learning from him and debating internally with him. He very rarely tells you what to think. He spends almost all of his time exploring the issue at hand in its full complexity. And he has driven me back to rereading Plato and Locke. Ain't nothing wrong with that.
I apologize for my review title. This is one of the cases when I am not sure I recognize the book I just read from the other reviews. I propose to try to tell you something about actual content and structure of the book. I think it is worth doing because I believe this to be one of the most important books on political philosophy written during the twentieth century.
Strauss' history of Western political philosophy can be summed up as follows. In the beginning there were the Greeks. They lived in their politeia (which Strauss translates as regime- see circa p.136 for his discussion). At first they believed that the laws of their particular cities were handed down from god(s) either directly or through divine inspiration. But then they began to reflect on the fact that their different politeia contradicted each other in their ideas of what was just, godly and noble.
Two things happened as a result. The ideas of nature and convention developed.
-Important methodological aside- As has been pointed out by Kennington and many other commentators, Strauss' use of the word `idea' (see. p. 123) is very particular and could be called Socratic-Platonic. In NRH, he uses the word very sparingly, and only to indicate the philosophical issues that are central to his story. The discussion of each chapter of the book and the book as a whole is built around these ideas. By my listing they are as follows: philosophy, history, natural right, science, nature, justice, man, best regime, man's perfection, the city, and virtue (I may have missed some of these). Now some of these, I would claim, Strauss sees as fundamental issues that have alternate solutions between which it is impossible to rationally decide and some of these issues are dead ends for philosophy. Part of the fun of reading Strauss is deciding which is which. And now back to our story.-
Out of these related ideas- convention and nature, the classical vision of political philosophy developed. Strauss covers this in his central chapters 3 and 4. There is only a few points I want to make about his presentation. He believes that the classical understanding of natural right and of man is based on " the hierarchic order of man's natural constitution" (127). Because our nature is hierachial, our ends are as well. Our highest end is the philosophy which is not a body of knowledge but a life of contemplation on the nature of the whole and on the nature of the parts.
Back in the political realm, the result is an investigation as to what constitutes the best regime- what form of politea encourages the development of gentlemen (from whom the philosophers will come-note the type of person that Socrates typically converse with in the Platonic dialogues) and the fostering of the virtues that will be necessary for both the city and the citizen (the virtues required for the philosopher are much more difficult to grasp). Note also that there is no discussion of individual rights here- it is of the duties of the citizen that we speak.
The beginning of the modern version of natural rights is almost an inversion of this view. Instead of focusing on what is highest (and therefore rarest) in human nature, the moderns (e.g., Hobbes) decided to focus on what was most common, indeed, what was universal in the hopes of actualizing their philosophies. Hobbes and Locke (according to Strauss) therefore focused on the passions, particularly on the desire for self-preservation. Strauss' reading of Hobbes and Locke is brilliant and is based on a very broad reading in their works. He sees modernity as undergoing three waves (see the essay, The Three Waves of Modernity, in Strauss' book An Introduction to Political Philosophy). The second wave, started by Rousseau, exposed the presumptions in the philosophies of Hobbes and Locke and ruthlessly critiques their philosophies on the basis of their own presumptions (see p. 269 of NRH for an example). Not discussed in NRH is how Nietzsche initiated the third wave by doing the same thing to Rousseau and his followers.
The third wave of modernity self-implodes in the philosophies of Heidegger (the radical historicist of the early chapters of NRH) and the vacuousness of positivism.
Thus my summary of NRH. Note that there is little content as to what natural right really is in Strauss' opinion. Strauss felt that we would get nowhere on understanding natural right unless we confronted the two major traditions in Western philosophy: historicist (modern) philosophy and nonhistoricist (ancient philosophy). His book is best seen as his attempt to reconsider the most elementary premises of those traditions (p. 32). After all of our careful reading, we are back at the beginning. Running as fast as we can to stay where we are. I am being glib.
I would love to have other readers of NRH comment on how I might improve my understanding of this book. I am nowhere near done with the book or the author. Like other reviewers, I disagree w/ Strauss in many of his fundamental presumptions (where is his argument for the soul?), I suspect many of his interpretations (although many are revelations) but I love learning from him and debating internally with him. He very rarely tells you what to think. He spends almost all of his time exploring the issue at hand in its full complexity. And he has driven me back to rereading Plato and Locke. Ain't nothing wrong with that.
