Epilogue: Leo Strauss and the History of Political Philosophy

The last chapter of History of Political Philosophy is Nathan Tarcov and Tomas L. Pangle’s epilogue on Strauss himself and why he wrote this book. First off, for Strauss, an understanding of the history of political philosophy was necessary to understand the present crisis of both the West and as well as modernity. The greatest symbol of this crisis was the rise of communism, which Strauss saw as both a form of Western political theory and a form of Eastern despotism. Strauss was also concerned with the loss of the West’s faith in its ability to bring about a universal and free order, which Strauss saw as bringing back the pluralism of cultures and the belief in natural inequality of the ancients. This means that the West had to defeat its own doubt and growing belief in various forms of relativism. Thus, while the limits and problems of liberalism can be recognized, these are not to be seen as fatal to the liberal project as even worse problems have arisen out of the destruction of the liberal state such as communism and fascism.

Strauss saw the study of history as particularly important as for him, the root of the modern crisis is historicism. By studying history, Strauss feels that the problems of historicism will emerge. Still, Strauss still thought that that the past must be understood on its own grounds, a move which Strauss hopes will avoid what he sees as the pitfalls of both historicism as well as historical progressivism. Understanding a historical figure on their own grounds means that a person try and recreate the framework the historical figure was using which includes both terminology and influences.

Strauss also sees philosophers as having a responsibility to investigate without damaging the basic liberal order, which he sees as being greatly tied up in the origins of modernity. For Strauss, the roots of modern political philosophy are to be found in Machiavelli as this is where a shift occurred from having a purely theoretical conception of the right order to trying to actualize it and with this, the birth of the idea of historical progress. According to Strauss, modernity’s belief in a false notion of progress would eventually give birth to the idealization of the past from Rousseau and Nietzsche. Strauss looked to the ancients and the medieval philosophers who followed them for inspiration, but he also realized that their basic ideas must be reformulated.

Following from them, Strauss also placed great emphasis on the political life and looked to it as proof of humans’ place in nature as a social animal. The social nature of humans though is for Strauss rooted more in the idea of the common good than in cold calculation. Through this, Strauss hopes to establish a meaning to society beyond political necessity. A natural understating of the basis of power will develop from this which will help humans fully flourish. Strauss further sees the philosopher as being able to comprehend human problems and the human experience as a whole and thus the true philosopher, as opposed to the Sophist must have a sense of the dialectic.

Strauss was a supporter of liberal democracy, but he was not a flatterer of it. He also tried to inject a degree of classical republicanism into modern republicanism. Despite his aim to inject an ancient understanding into modernity, Strauss thought the ancients were to be admired for their philosophy, not for their social and political order. Modern liberalism is also to be valued as a means, not as an end. What this means is that freedom in a liberal order must not be understood in such a way that it threatens the modern liberal order itself. Social science must be utilized for the understanding and solving the problems of the liberal order and must ultimately protect it. This means that for Strauss, both the fact/value dichotomy and the notion of “value-free” science must be rejected. Likewise, all political science must also focus on the protection of the liberal order. Political scientists must also therefore focus on studying the other types of regimes in the world in order to come to a more robust understanding of them. This should be used to engage in debate with supporters of the other styles of regimes. This is particularly true of the Marxists which Strauss hopes to use this dialogue between the supporters of the liberal order and the supporters of the Marxist order in an effort to understand the Marxist paradigm which Strauss hopes to use to defend the basic superiority of liberalism over Marxism.