What do you think?
Rate this book
History of Political Philosophy
This volume provides an unequaled introduction to the thought of chief contributors to the Western tradition of political philosophy from classical Greek antiquity to the twentieth century. Written by specialists on the various philosophers, this third edition has been expanded significantly to include both new and revised essays.
980 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1963
About the author
Leo Strauss
149 books312 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
April 9, 2010
I actually read this entire book from cover-to-cover.
For fun.
Because i felt somebody really ought to.
I'm of the opinion that anyone who wishes to truly understand a subject must diligently study not merely the superficial aspects of that subject, but also the subtle and arcane aspects. The tree, as they say, grows mostly below the ground. This view is also, it seems, paramount among the authors of this collection of essays. Covering the history of political philosophy from Thucydides to Hiedegger, the authors encourage the reader to consider the less-popular works of well-known thinkers, so as to better appreciate the true scope and depth of their thoughts. Many high-school children are assigned Machiavelli's "The Prince," but how many are assigned Machiavelli's "Discourses on the First Ten Books of Livy?" How many read Adam Smith's "The Theory of Moral Sentiments?"
One is tempted to read "Straussianism" into each essay, and I suppose that may be rightly so. I'm not a professional academic, and I can't pretend to appreciate the complex subtleties of debates between big-city University philosophy departments. If there is a political agenda being conveyed in this text, however, it is not one that lends itself to simple "left vs. right" characterization. The essay on Marx presents the subject's views with equal respect and fervor as does the essay on Blackstone.
The reader will also find an extremely helpful index, and copious reference notes and additional reading recommendations at the end of each chapter. Overall, this is an essential read and valuable reference tool for today's busy philoso-punk.
For fun.
Because i felt somebody really ought to.
I'm of the opinion that anyone who wishes to truly understand a subject must diligently study not merely the superficial aspects of that subject, but also the subtle and arcane aspects. The tree, as they say, grows mostly below the ground. This view is also, it seems, paramount among the authors of this collection of essays. Covering the history of political philosophy from Thucydides to Hiedegger, the authors encourage the reader to consider the less-popular works of well-known thinkers, so as to better appreciate the true scope and depth of their thoughts. Many high-school children are assigned Machiavelli's "The Prince," but how many are assigned Machiavelli's "Discourses on the First Ten Books of Livy?" How many read Adam Smith's "The Theory of Moral Sentiments?"
One is tempted to read "Straussianism" into each essay, and I suppose that may be rightly so. I'm not a professional academic, and I can't pretend to appreciate the complex subtleties of debates between big-city University philosophy departments. If there is a political agenda being conveyed in this text, however, it is not one that lends itself to simple "left vs. right" characterization. The essay on Marx presents the subject's views with equal respect and fervor as does the essay on Blackstone.
The reader will also find an extremely helpful index, and copious reference notes and additional reading recommendations at the end of each chapter. Overall, this is an essential read and valuable reference tool for today's busy philoso-punk.
March 14, 2014
neo-conservative presentation, accurately reflected in the title. chapter per writer, beginning in Athens, and ending with Strauss himself as object of inquiry. how humble!
February 22, 2012
This hefty tome has given me a broader perspective of some of the most influential thinkers throughout the ages. Besides showing me gaps in my understanding of political philosophy, and kindling a greater thirst for knowledge, Strauss' History provides an overarching perspective of intellectual history. It traces modern thought to it's roots, and opens up an invaluable conversation with the past. Thanks in part to this book, the present makes more sense.
May 1, 2024
85/100
I'll give a brief review, followed by a chronological collection of quotes that I found notable. I read this book as a hobbyist in philosophy, and despite having very clear problems with it, I think the book is still a valuable and extremely informative collection of essays. The thinkers tackled here are among the most important with a few notable exceptions (Fichte, Leibniz, to name a few, but there's only so much space), and the perspective of the essayists is frequently very insightful and gives good context and analysis of the ideas that would have been difficult for a novel reader to garner from the original texts themselves. Obviously, it's no substitution for confronting the original texts, but with the absolute deluge of information available, this is a good culling and presentation of that info, allowing the reader to choose which sources to further explore.
My main problem here is that Leo Strauss is not an objective editor. He has a bias toward the ancients and the religious thinkers, leading to the first half of this book being composed of various esoteric thinkers that are often boring to read and of questionable relevance. It wasn't until the second half of this book did I truly got invested and felt myself being hit with fresh and relevant insights. I also noted that during these old Jewish, Islamic, and Christian thinkers, there was a notable lack of criticism or critical analysis. I thought perhaps these essayists were simply attempting a completely objective analysis until I got to Marx and Nietzsche, where there is a clear negative bias that is frustrating to read. I don't think that these are perfect schools of thought that ought to be immune to criticism, but it is clear that the essayist seeks to get across the incorrectness and fallibility of this thought. Strauss was a Jewish man in the Weimar Republic, and a Zionist no less, so his disdain of German thought may be understandable, but it doesn't make it less frustrating.
Still, there is an immense amount to be learned from this book. In particular, the essays on Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Smith, Dewey, and especially Tocqueville, are all very good summaries of thought that are very informative on our current political position and the science of politics are large. Overall, this is a very valuable resource for those interested in the Philosophy of Politics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thucydides p. 17
"The most obvious lesson of the work as a whole...is the sobering one that as long as our species remain, we must reckon on a human nature that will again and again, when given the chance, overpower the fragile restraints of law and peace."
Plato p. 54
"...what we mean by justice and kindred things is not as such, in its purity or perfection, necessarily found in human beings or societies; it rather seems that what is meant by justice transcends everything which men can ever achieve." [A true Justice (a Platonic ideal, even) is likely impossible to achieve, but this doesn't mean we should not strive towards it at all times.]
Machiavelli p. 299
"A man who wishes to do in every matter what is good will be ruined among so many who are not good. Hence, it is necessary for a [leader] who wishes to maintain himself to learn to be able not to be good, or use goodness and abstain from using it according to the commands of circumstances." [To gain the power necessary to change things for the better, an amount of Realpolitik must be adopted. It is the challenge to restrain one's self only to what is necessary and not grow their own power unnecessarily.]
Hobbes p. 401
"All the laws of nature and all social and political duties or obligations are derived from and subordinate to the right of nature, the individual's right to self-preservation... The right of nature is the blameless liberty to do or refrain from doing whatever one can to preserve one's life... Hobbes may be regarded as the founder of modern liberalism."
Descartes p. 428
"The science that leads to human happiness is not the traditional study of the excellence of the soul, moral and political science, and still less theology, but medicine, the science of the body. 'Health is without doubt the first good and the foundation of all the other goods of this life.'"
Locke p. 501
"The people 'will always have a right to preserve what they have not a power to part with [self-preservation].'" [A government comes together to further the self-preservation and growth of its people. Should it ever fail in that regard, in actively harming self-preservation through despotism, etc., the people have not just a right, but a necessity to dissolve the government and replace it.]
p. 503
"What characterizes the wisest and best princes is not their obedience to and enforcement of law, but their service to the people. The scope of executive discretion is limited ONLY by the proviso that it be used for the public good."
"The good prince and the tyrant act alike in that they both act outside the law and even contrary to it... who shall decide whether the powers of government are being used to endanger the people [differentiate between a good prince and a tyrant]? Locke answers, 'The people shall be Judge'". [Great quote]
Hume p. 543
"As the human imagination was made the ground of science so the human affections are made the grounds of morality... The vice of a vicious action 'entirely escapes you, as long as you consider the object. You can never find it, till you turn your reflection into your own breast, and find a sentiment of disapprobation, which arises in you, towards this action. Here is a matter of fact, but 'tis the object of feeling, not of reason. It lies in one's self - not in the object. Morality, therefore, is more properly felt than judged of."
Rousseau p. 566
"[Man in society] has made himself miserable. Now he lives for others, not only because he is physically dependent on them but because he has learned to compare himself to them. He seeks money and honor instead of gratifying [his own inner wishes]. Amoure-propre (vanity) has taken the place of amour de soi (self-love). Instead of physical desires which must be appeased, he is now possessed by infinite yearnings for possessions he can never use and a glory he despises as soon as it's gained."
"The inequality which has gradually come into being is made lawful, and the oppression of the poor is maintained by public force." [Very Foucaltian]
p. 567
"Man needs government to organize and regulate the life to which he has become committed. But precisely because he has developed terrible passions that necessitate a government, a just government is rendered difficult because the men who form the laws have been under the influence of those very passions, and the citizens continue to possess those passions and have every interest in altering the government for the sake of their own satisfaction. Only the most severe moral education can obviate this difficulty."
p. 578
"Above all, civil society demands virtue, and virtue is hard. Virtue means living according to principle, conscious repression of the animal and sentimental in man."
Kant p. 589
"Every man is entitled to respect from every other man and in return owes all of them respect: 'Humanity itself is dignity,' meaning that a man cannot be treated, even by himself, as a means but only as an end... 'I cannot deny a depraved man the respect which, in his capacity as a man, cannot be taken away from him. [This would suppose that he is] unable ever to improve himself, which cannot be reconciled with the idea of man who, as a moral being, can never lose every inclination towards what is good."
Tocqueville, one of the most enlightening and interesting things I've read in a while so I'll list a lot here.
p. 765
"[In democracy], each individual becomes the center of a tiny private universe consisting of himself and his immediate circle of friends and family. Wholly absorbed in the contemplation of this universe, the individual loses sight of the greater universe, the society at large."
"Around the issue of individualism will be seen to cluster certain propensities which one may call the Problems of Democracy . These are the passion for well-being and material comfort, a concern for one's private welfare to the exclusion of all consideration of public affairs, and an inevitable drift toward mediocrity. This leads to a tendency for 'soft despotism' securing him in these pursuits and preferences [like Sartre's unauthentic man]. A resolution of these problems of democracy entails finding a place within democracy for liberty, for human excellence, for the re-emergence of public virtue, and for the possibility of greatness."
"When individualism is linked with equality of conditions, as insatiable thirst develops for the material comforts of this world. In a society shorn of the traditional restraints and obligations - to country, to lords, to church - men strive eagerly to gratify their immediately felt and immediately intelligible desire to improve their conditions of life"
"The need for the amelioration of material conditions is seen as the legitimate expression of the natural rights of all men. Democracy then must satisfy the desire for well-being [and material comfort?] of all men while inducing them to devote some part of their energy to other pursuits and to the needs of the nation at large. This solution is found if there are enough material goods to satisfy everyone [tragedy of the commons deems this unlikely], or if democratic man can moderate his desires."
p. 766
"Tocqueville's reproach to equality is not that it encourages men in the pursuit of unlawful or excessive gratification [like many modern conservative thinkers], 'but that it absorbs men solely in quest of those which are allowed. By these means a kind of 'virtuous materialism' may ultimately be established in the world, which would not corrupt, but enervate the soul and noiselessly unbend its spring of action."
"All avenues of self-satisfaction have been opened, but opened equally to all. The competition is overpowering. However much one may have, he thinks continually of the vast store of goods that eludes him. This thoughts 'fills him with anxiety, fear, and regret and keeps his mind in ceaseless trepidation.' There can be no technological solution to the problem of well-being: the desires of men increase with what they feed upon; there can never be enough for all."
"Commerce readily transforms the simple desire for modest comforts into a caricature of its former self. It comes to be regarded as the noblest pursuit, and beguiles the faculties of the men of most competence in society. Men of superior intellect are diverted from politics to business, from public life to private affairs... In fact, these men threaten to form the nucleus of a new aristocracy: Tocqueville warns the friends of democracy to be wary: 'for if ever a permanent inequality of conditions and aristocracy again penetrates into the world, it may be predicted that this is the gate by which they will enter." [!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
"Individualism and materialism, divisive features of democracy, are offset with a general softening of manners and the growth of a spirit of compassion or human fellow-feeling. The classes of the Middle Ages had looked upon each other as beings belonging to different species, such was the difference in their manners, pursuits, and tastes. As conditions became more equal, men become cognizant of their likeness to each other. This awareness evokes feelings of genuine sympathy, and an act of the imagination suffices to enable one to experience the sufferings of another."
p.768
"Moreover, the spirit of compassion transcends national boundaries, and, as such, operates to weaken political ties men become indifferent to those arbitrary things which distinguish men as citizens. Compassion in a natural instinct tending to undermine ties which are merely conventional."
//Jarod comment: I will cut off my quotations of the Tocqueville essay here, though there is still much more to harvest. Tocqueville makes clear that democracy has these problems, and he presents them in ways that may be more true now than they were when he wrote then, as he was predicting the course of our nation and not merely observing his current day. That said, he still thinks democracy is the most superior form of government by far, and he doesn't see the push for equality and compassion as inherent negatives. Rather, he details the problems they lead to so that we might prepare to deal with them and lay a stronger foundation for which they may flourish.
Marx p. 809
"Until every man simply merges himself in the whole of humanity, producing only because production is the release and cultivation of human energy, and not because production is a way of obtaining subsistence directly or through exchange by exploiting other men's neediness - not until then will men be perfectly free and the final articulation of man, society, and nature be achieved. Until that time, men will distort each other's nature by treating each other as objects, even regarding nature itself as nothing but a source of gain."
Dewey p.853
"We are in for some kind of socialism, call it by whatever name we please, and not matter what it will be called when it is realized. Economic determinism is now a fact, not a theory."
//Jarod comment: Dewey's essay is also very enlightening, though I'm getting lazy and don't feel like exploring it entirely here. Dewey finds it apparent that, though we have conquered much of the causes of suffering of humanity, the means with which to prevent it have been absorbed/co-opted by the corrupt and selfish for personal pleasure. Dewey presents a "scientific method" that focuses on the overall growth of the American citizen in a neutral, non-sentimental way. He explores the idea that, while association is one of the most important aspects of democratic virtue, it also represents one of the biggests threats to its security through the form of large financial/ political machines taking advantage of citizens in ways that are amoral and destructive but very purposefully and carefully still legal. Dewey gives a guideline to the government for identifying these types of associations and degrading their power. This comes back to the central problem of democracy: how does one staunch the bleeding that is exploitation of the many by the rich few without stepping on individual liberty or giving excess control to government powers? Dewey approaches this, with less-than-satisfactory but still intriguing results.
I'll give a brief review, followed by a chronological collection of quotes that I found notable. I read this book as a hobbyist in philosophy, and despite having very clear problems with it, I think the book is still a valuable and extremely informative collection of essays. The thinkers tackled here are among the most important with a few notable exceptions (Fichte, Leibniz, to name a few, but there's only so much space), and the perspective of the essayists is frequently very insightful and gives good context and analysis of the ideas that would have been difficult for a novel reader to garner from the original texts themselves. Obviously, it's no substitution for confronting the original texts, but with the absolute deluge of information available, this is a good culling and presentation of that info, allowing the reader to choose which sources to further explore.
My main problem here is that Leo Strauss is not an objective editor. He has a bias toward the ancients and the religious thinkers, leading to the first half of this book being composed of various esoteric thinkers that are often boring to read and of questionable relevance. It wasn't until the second half of this book did I truly got invested and felt myself being hit with fresh and relevant insights. I also noted that during these old Jewish, Islamic, and Christian thinkers, there was a notable lack of criticism or critical analysis. I thought perhaps these essayists were simply attempting a completely objective analysis until I got to Marx and Nietzsche, where there is a clear negative bias that is frustrating to read. I don't think that these are perfect schools of thought that ought to be immune to criticism, but it is clear that the essayist seeks to get across the incorrectness and fallibility of this thought. Strauss was a Jewish man in the Weimar Republic, and a Zionist no less, so his disdain of German thought may be understandable, but it doesn't make it less frustrating.
Still, there is an immense amount to be learned from this book. In particular, the essays on Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Smith, Dewey, and especially Tocqueville, are all very good summaries of thought that are very informative on our current political position and the science of politics are large. Overall, this is a very valuable resource for those interested in the Philosophy of Politics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thucydides p. 17
"The most obvious lesson of the work as a whole...is the sobering one that as long as our species remain, we must reckon on a human nature that will again and again, when given the chance, overpower the fragile restraints of law and peace."
Plato p. 54
"...what we mean by justice and kindred things is not as such, in its purity or perfection, necessarily found in human beings or societies; it rather seems that what is meant by justice transcends everything which men can ever achieve." [A true Justice (a Platonic ideal, even) is likely impossible to achieve, but this doesn't mean we should not strive towards it at all times.]
Machiavelli p. 299
"A man who wishes to do in every matter what is good will be ruined among so many who are not good. Hence, it is necessary for a [leader] who wishes to maintain himself to learn to be able not to be good, or use goodness and abstain from using it according to the commands of circumstances." [To gain the power necessary to change things for the better, an amount of Realpolitik must be adopted. It is the challenge to restrain one's self only to what is necessary and not grow their own power unnecessarily.]
Hobbes p. 401
"All the laws of nature and all social and political duties or obligations are derived from and subordinate to the right of nature, the individual's right to self-preservation... The right of nature is the blameless liberty to do or refrain from doing whatever one can to preserve one's life... Hobbes may be regarded as the founder of modern liberalism."
Descartes p. 428
"The science that leads to human happiness is not the traditional study of the excellence of the soul, moral and political science, and still less theology, but medicine, the science of the body. 'Health is without doubt the first good and the foundation of all the other goods of this life.'"
Locke p. 501
"The people 'will always have a right to preserve what they have not a power to part with [self-preservation].'" [A government comes together to further the self-preservation and growth of its people. Should it ever fail in that regard, in actively harming self-preservation through despotism, etc., the people have not just a right, but a necessity to dissolve the government and replace it.]
p. 503
"What characterizes the wisest and best princes is not their obedience to and enforcement of law, but their service to the people. The scope of executive discretion is limited ONLY by the proviso that it be used for the public good."
"The good prince and the tyrant act alike in that they both act outside the law and even contrary to it... who shall decide whether the powers of government are being used to endanger the people [differentiate between a good prince and a tyrant]? Locke answers, 'The people shall be Judge'". [Great quote]
Hume p. 543
"As the human imagination was made the ground of science so the human affections are made the grounds of morality... The vice of a vicious action 'entirely escapes you, as long as you consider the object. You can never find it, till you turn your reflection into your own breast, and find a sentiment of disapprobation, which arises in you, towards this action. Here is a matter of fact, but 'tis the object of feeling, not of reason. It lies in one's self - not in the object. Morality, therefore, is more properly felt than judged of."
Rousseau p. 566
"[Man in society] has made himself miserable. Now he lives for others, not only because he is physically dependent on them but because he has learned to compare himself to them. He seeks money and honor instead of gratifying [his own inner wishes]. Amoure-propre (vanity) has taken the place of amour de soi (self-love). Instead of physical desires which must be appeased, he is now possessed by infinite yearnings for possessions he can never use and a glory he despises as soon as it's gained."
"The inequality which has gradually come into being is made lawful, and the oppression of the poor is maintained by public force." [Very Foucaltian]
p. 567
"Man needs government to organize and regulate the life to which he has become committed. But precisely because he has developed terrible passions that necessitate a government, a just government is rendered difficult because the men who form the laws have been under the influence of those very passions, and the citizens continue to possess those passions and have every interest in altering the government for the sake of their own satisfaction. Only the most severe moral education can obviate this difficulty."
p. 578
"Above all, civil society demands virtue, and virtue is hard. Virtue means living according to principle, conscious repression of the animal and sentimental in man."
Kant p. 589
"Every man is entitled to respect from every other man and in return owes all of them respect: 'Humanity itself is dignity,' meaning that a man cannot be treated, even by himself, as a means but only as an end... 'I cannot deny a depraved man the respect which, in his capacity as a man, cannot be taken away from him. [This would suppose that he is] unable ever to improve himself, which cannot be reconciled with the idea of man who, as a moral being, can never lose every inclination towards what is good."
Tocqueville, one of the most enlightening and interesting things I've read in a while so I'll list a lot here.
p. 765
"[In democracy], each individual becomes the center of a tiny private universe consisting of himself and his immediate circle of friends and family. Wholly absorbed in the contemplation of this universe, the individual loses sight of the greater universe, the society at large."
"Around the issue of individualism will be seen to cluster certain propensities which one may call the Problems of Democracy . These are the passion for well-being and material comfort, a concern for one's private welfare to the exclusion of all consideration of public affairs, and an inevitable drift toward mediocrity. This leads to a tendency for 'soft despotism' securing him in these pursuits and preferences [like Sartre's unauthentic man]. A resolution of these problems of democracy entails finding a place within democracy for liberty, for human excellence, for the re-emergence of public virtue, and for the possibility of greatness."
"When individualism is linked with equality of conditions, as insatiable thirst develops for the material comforts of this world. In a society shorn of the traditional restraints and obligations - to country, to lords, to church - men strive eagerly to gratify their immediately felt and immediately intelligible desire to improve their conditions of life"
"The need for the amelioration of material conditions is seen as the legitimate expression of the natural rights of all men. Democracy then must satisfy the desire for well-being [and material comfort?] of all men while inducing them to devote some part of their energy to other pursuits and to the needs of the nation at large. This solution is found if there are enough material goods to satisfy everyone [tragedy of the commons deems this unlikely], or if democratic man can moderate his desires."
p. 766
"Tocqueville's reproach to equality is not that it encourages men in the pursuit of unlawful or excessive gratification [like many modern conservative thinkers], 'but that it absorbs men solely in quest of those which are allowed. By these means a kind of 'virtuous materialism' may ultimately be established in the world, which would not corrupt, but enervate the soul and noiselessly unbend its spring of action."
"All avenues of self-satisfaction have been opened, but opened equally to all. The competition is overpowering. However much one may have, he thinks continually of the vast store of goods that eludes him. This thoughts 'fills him with anxiety, fear, and regret and keeps his mind in ceaseless trepidation.' There can be no technological solution to the problem of well-being: the desires of men increase with what they feed upon; there can never be enough for all."
"Commerce readily transforms the simple desire for modest comforts into a caricature of its former self. It comes to be regarded as the noblest pursuit, and beguiles the faculties of the men of most competence in society. Men of superior intellect are diverted from politics to business, from public life to private affairs... In fact, these men threaten to form the nucleus of a new aristocracy: Tocqueville warns the friends of democracy to be wary: 'for if ever a permanent inequality of conditions and aristocracy again penetrates into the world, it may be predicted that this is the gate by which they will enter." [!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
"Individualism and materialism, divisive features of democracy, are offset with a general softening of manners and the growth of a spirit of compassion or human fellow-feeling. The classes of the Middle Ages had looked upon each other as beings belonging to different species, such was the difference in their manners, pursuits, and tastes. As conditions became more equal, men become cognizant of their likeness to each other. This awareness evokes feelings of genuine sympathy, and an act of the imagination suffices to enable one to experience the sufferings of another."
p.768
"Moreover, the spirit of compassion transcends national boundaries, and, as such, operates to weaken political ties men become indifferent to those arbitrary things which distinguish men as citizens. Compassion in a natural instinct tending to undermine ties which are merely conventional."
//Jarod comment: I will cut off my quotations of the Tocqueville essay here, though there is still much more to harvest. Tocqueville makes clear that democracy has these problems, and he presents them in ways that may be more true now than they were when he wrote then, as he was predicting the course of our nation and not merely observing his current day. That said, he still thinks democracy is the most superior form of government by far, and he doesn't see the push for equality and compassion as inherent negatives. Rather, he details the problems they lead to so that we might prepare to deal with them and lay a stronger foundation for which they may flourish.
Marx p. 809
"Until every man simply merges himself in the whole of humanity, producing only because production is the release and cultivation of human energy, and not because production is a way of obtaining subsistence directly or through exchange by exploiting other men's neediness - not until then will men be perfectly free and the final articulation of man, society, and nature be achieved. Until that time, men will distort each other's nature by treating each other as objects, even regarding nature itself as nothing but a source of gain."
Dewey p.853
"We are in for some kind of socialism, call it by whatever name we please, and not matter what it will be called when it is realized. Economic determinism is now a fact, not a theory."
//Jarod comment: Dewey's essay is also very enlightening, though I'm getting lazy and don't feel like exploring it entirely here. Dewey finds it apparent that, though we have conquered much of the causes of suffering of humanity, the means with which to prevent it have been absorbed/co-opted by the corrupt and selfish for personal pleasure. Dewey presents a "scientific method" that focuses on the overall growth of the American citizen in a neutral, non-sentimental way. He explores the idea that, while association is one of the most important aspects of democratic virtue, it also represents one of the biggests threats to its security through the form of large financial/ political machines taking advantage of citizens in ways that are amoral and destructive but very purposefully and carefully still legal. Dewey gives a guideline to the government for identifying these types of associations and degrading their power. This comes back to the central problem of democracy: how does one staunch the bleeding that is exploitation of the many by the rich few without stepping on individual liberty or giving excess control to government powers? Dewey approaches this, with less-than-satisfactory but still intriguing results.
May 19, 2013
The first essays I read were on Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau and consequently had the opportunity to be amazed at their wonderfully divergent use of the concept of natural man. They all build their political theory from a foundation in this concept, and given their different formulations, it is easy to foresee much of what follows. Hobbes' natural man is one whose every waking moment is pressed into the service of self-preservation and needs to be: everyone else out there realizes that their own self preservation is dependent on taking out yours. If ever a 'dog eat dog' world was elaborated, this is it. It's a terrible situation, and who wouldn't want to leave it. However, man being man, there can be no hope that a mutual laying down of rights (the social contract) goes very far; what is needed to insure these rowdies keep the peace is a terribly strong sovereign who makes sure that all contractors equally perform their contracts. The sovereign has use of the only tactic that really works, fear of punishment. We keep the peace because we are afraid not to.
One of the reassuring aspects of Locke's natural man is that he is less extrapolated from the contemporary situation than either Hobbes' or Rousseau's. He's pretty much what you see around you, based in self preservation still, but Locke asks if that means the wanton destructiveness Hobbes manages to sugggest. At one time, pre-civil man was different, but how different? For Locke, he was initially different in having no private property. Somewhere, sometime because of need and the usual human cleverness, a human speciman not only absorbed the bounty around him but put some labor into increasing it. Because of the labor he put into it, he recognized it as his own, and saw the need to safequard it against those who had not expended theirs. "Men are quickly driven into society for the protection of their property" (p 495). At some point, men can no longer can endure the problems associated with quarrels on property, and set up an independent judge to mediate them, to the benefit of at least the majority. Basically, natural man had it not so bad, civil man has it a little better. And since mankind is indeed based in self preservation, the government can't really ask too much of you or you naturally and rationally fall back into the natural state of no government.
Rousseau would have accepted Locke's history of private property being the basis of civil society, but would have made of the demarcation the fall of man. Locke's natural man was a man looking after his interests in the quiet, English countryside; Rousseau's was Tarzan without Jane. One of the interesting aspects of Rousseau's natural man is how unsocial he is. The species continues because a man meets up with a female, they mate, and they're on their way. Rousseau was hardly unique but extremely talented in showing how once men come together in civil society, their chances of being their own man becomes essentially zero. Rousseau dreamed of the man capable of taking on the natural world, exulting in his own prowess, and then laying down to a comforable siesta aware that he had it good. Rousseau held up this image as a way of criticizing the society around him, one that believed overall that man had attained freedom through reason and would progress toward an ever brighter future. For Rousseau, that progress was leading to an ever greater muffling of an individual's ability to think outside of culturally determined ways. As much as Rousseau wanted to be Tarzan, he knew his time has passed, and if man was to live together in society and still possess any of that sense of automomy that is the basis of man, it demanded a certain turn of the screw. An individual needed to so identify with his community that their well-being was his well-being, their freedom was his freedom. The traditions of the community were taken on with complete acceptance and joy, the individual will was obsorbed into this community identity. Whatever else can be said about this form of the social contract, it might be called the last defense for a person who truly suffered under the social conventions of his time and longed for the autonomy which was the basic human condition.
One of the reassuring aspects of Locke's natural man is that he is less extrapolated from the contemporary situation than either Hobbes' or Rousseau's. He's pretty much what you see around you, based in self preservation still, but Locke asks if that means the wanton destructiveness Hobbes manages to sugggest. At one time, pre-civil man was different, but how different? For Locke, he was initially different in having no private property. Somewhere, sometime because of need and the usual human cleverness, a human speciman not only absorbed the bounty around him but put some labor into increasing it. Because of the labor he put into it, he recognized it as his own, and saw the need to safequard it against those who had not expended theirs. "Men are quickly driven into society for the protection of their property" (p 495). At some point, men can no longer can endure the problems associated with quarrels on property, and set up an independent judge to mediate them, to the benefit of at least the majority. Basically, natural man had it not so bad, civil man has it a little better. And since mankind is indeed based in self preservation, the government can't really ask too much of you or you naturally and rationally fall back into the natural state of no government.
Rousseau would have accepted Locke's history of private property being the basis of civil society, but would have made of the demarcation the fall of man. Locke's natural man was a man looking after his interests in the quiet, English countryside; Rousseau's was Tarzan without Jane. One of the interesting aspects of Rousseau's natural man is how unsocial he is. The species continues because a man meets up with a female, they mate, and they're on their way. Rousseau was hardly unique but extremely talented in showing how once men come together in civil society, their chances of being their own man becomes essentially zero. Rousseau dreamed of the man capable of taking on the natural world, exulting in his own prowess, and then laying down to a comforable siesta aware that he had it good. Rousseau held up this image as a way of criticizing the society around him, one that believed overall that man had attained freedom through reason and would progress toward an ever brighter future. For Rousseau, that progress was leading to an ever greater muffling of an individual's ability to think outside of culturally determined ways. As much as Rousseau wanted to be Tarzan, he knew his time has passed, and if man was to live together in society and still possess any of that sense of automomy that is the basis of man, it demanded a certain turn of the screw. An individual needed to so identify with his community that their well-being was his well-being, their freedom was his freedom. The traditions of the community were taken on with complete acceptance and joy, the individual will was obsorbed into this community identity. Whatever else can be said about this form of the social contract, it might be called the last defense for a person who truly suffered under the social conventions of his time and longed for the autonomy which was the basic human condition.
April 30, 2018
This is rather a long book (nine-hundred plus pages), so I am not going to provide any synopsis for it. It is an anthology written by various academics, covering a variety of political philosophers and others who while not philosophers contributed to the field of political philosophy. There are famous and not so famous among those who are written about. Some of the famous are, of course, Plato, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, and Marx. Some of the not so famous are Hugo Grotius, Montesquieu, and William Blackstone. Some of those that are not philosophers, but still included in the book are Thucydides, John Milton, and Tocqueville. The book goes no further then Heidegger. It ends with an essay on one of the editors, who was deceased when the third edition was produced, Leo Strauss, and his work in the history of political philosophy.
I am going to forgo any comments on specific pieces of text. I only took a few notes, and none of them strike me as comment worthy now.
Being an anthology I was attracted to some chapters more than others; although, I found the writing to be pretty good in general. Seeing this, and that it took me quite awhile to finish it, and that political philosophy is not a topic that I am into, I still enjoyed reading it. One reason for my enjoyment was that a lot of the chapters went over the ethical views of the person being discussed, and ethics is one area of philosophy that I tend to think a good deal about.
My recommendation would definitely lean toward those that are really interested in political philosophy. I supposed that one could read the book in piecemeal fashion; although, that is not my style of reading.
I am going to forgo any comments on specific pieces of text. I only took a few notes, and none of them strike me as comment worthy now.
Being an anthology I was attracted to some chapters more than others; although, I found the writing to be pretty good in general. Seeing this, and that it took me quite awhile to finish it, and that political philosophy is not a topic that I am into, I still enjoyed reading it. One reason for my enjoyment was that a lot of the chapters went over the ethical views of the person being discussed, and ethics is one area of philosophy that I tend to think a good deal about.
My recommendation would definitely lean toward those that are really interested in political philosophy. I supposed that one could read the book in piecemeal fashion; although, that is not my style of reading.
Currently reading
October 3, 2018More than one year, since I started reading this book. Reading Leo Strauss is questioning everything about your own mediocre thinking and just reveling in the beautiful sentences and in-depth insights about the most extraordinary political thinkers..
March 9, 2022
Strauss and Cropsey's History of Political Philosophy is a collected history on political philosophy from Thucydides to Heidegger. I read this textbook as supplementary materials for my polit. theory class to get a sufficient summary of the philosopher being read and what it is precisely they discuss in their texts. I did not read through every thinker in the book, but I found what chapters I did read to be helpful for the purposes that I bought it for. However, reader be warned, this book has a very Eurocentric perspective of philosophy and does not stray away from liberalism. I cannot compare this with Durant's text as I have not read it yet, but I imagine Strauss' doesn't fall too far from the tree.
May 11, 2019
This book was the primary book used for my Modern Political and Economic Ideas course. So I did not read this book in it’s entirety, but I did read much of it. It is well written, presents plenty of valuable information, and most importantly, contrary to many college textbooks, it is not unbelievably overly verbose. Pretty well condensed. Good job here. The sections I read, I enjoyed.
May 6, 2018
It gives the reader Strauss' thoughts on what political philosophy has been and should be again.
Selected for their general interest and their accessibility, the essays in the book provide a solid foundation for understanding Leo Strauss and his political philosophy. Highly Recommended!
Selected for their general interest and their accessibility, the essays in the book provide a solid foundation for understanding Leo Strauss and his political philosophy. Highly Recommended!
October 20, 2019
Long overview of Utopian to Machiavellian thought with emphasis on philosophy over politics while presupposes a little theological and historical knowledge going in. The quality of each entry varies... unsurprisingly ends on Strauss.
December 10, 2019
I haven't read the entire book; I picked it up to read the article by Kennington on Descartes, the founder of modern political philosophy. Reason does not reach for truth; reason serves the passions of the will.
June 6, 2021
I must admit that I did not read the book from cover to cover. But my main objection is that book does not clearly bring out thoughts of each philosopher. It also does not build any main thread and even after you read few essays you dont have a sticking story or core thoughts with you.
November 11, 2018
A very interesting book. Very well written but I think it will take reading it two or three times to completely get everything out of it.
By the way, Nietzsche was brilliant but one messed up dude!
By the way, Nietzsche was brilliant but one messed up dude!
May 27, 2023
Oni koji su jednaki u jednom pogledu, misle da su jednaki u svemu; oni koji su nejednaki u jednom, misle da su nejednaki u svemu.
March 16, 2015
Not for light bedtime reading, but essential reading for those who want to understand the thought leaders through the centuries who have contributed to what we would call the Western tradition of political philosophy. Starts with thought leaders of classical Greek antiquity and progresses through thought leaders of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. The reader will have at least a passing familiarity with some of the names, if not the specifics of their thought contributions. But there will be many other names that most readers have never heard of, yet they too made important contributions to the stew that is "the Western tradition." Any serious student (or practitioner) of politics should read this book at least once.
July 25, 2016
Essential reading for anybody interested in political philosophy. Great to pick up after reading the primary source material of a political philosopher to have an essay to clarify any queries you have and analysis that you may well have missed whilst reading. From Burke to Marx, and even lesser known names (yet nowhere near insignificant), clearly this is the definitive history of political philosophy - though will, of course, require updates! Excellent work.
September 1, 2019
I have no doubt that Strauss and Cropsey are experts on political philosophy after reading this book. I also have no doubt that their writing style is not for recreational reading. They are the authors that find it necessary to use vocabulary that the common, not academic, reader would use. From my perspective and education level, I found their style to be more confusing than informative. So, if your looking for key points in a concise presentation, this is not the book to read.
January 25, 2008
Not really a book to read or have read, but one to be turned to at need. It's an encyclopedia of political thinkers and their thought, written by eminent friends and students of Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey, as well as by Strauss and Cropsey themselves. Its essays are concise and surprisingly clear, for Straussian writing.
July 15, 2009
A collection of essays, but it is an outstanding synopsis of every major (and some minor) political philosophers. It is as concise as can be, but still in-depth enough for you to learn about and speak knowledgeably of anyone you need to research.
Shelved as 'shelved'
August 11, 2011Focusing on the contributors to western philosophy, this volume is a highlight in the work of political philosopher Leo Strauss who specialized in classical philosophy and focused his research on the works of Plato and Aristotle...
May 16, 2012
Really useful! I used it in my Introduction to Political Philosophy course at Yale University, and it helped me understand a lot more about the thoughts and lives of the greatest thinkers of our time.
May 9, 2015
One can posit that there are many philosophers and their many writings, but what this composite did was give me a clear, concise, and succinct look at many of the great philosophers. Excellent book and a must read as a primer to philosophy.
January 10, 2009
This book is essentially an encyclopedia of essays on the political philosophy of most of the big names in the field from Plato through to Heidegger.
Read
September 23, 2010History of Political Philosophy by Leo Strauss (1987)
December 20, 2014
OK, but wordy. Good study guide.
July 9, 2014
Marvelous textbook for a course taken in college. Got me hooked on philosophy.
March 24, 2015
I have read the Chinese version several years ago. But the translation makes me a little confused.
I don't know it will take me how long to finish it.
I don't know it will take me how long to finish it.
Read
January 24, 2016Seneca
October 9, 2022
Extremely comprehensive, highly recommended
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews