I'm interested with critique of Heidegger, and it seems to be the one by Leo Strauss being the crucial one on that.
What was his critique? What book did he write this critique? What is the heideggerian response on that?
>btw this guy is very conservative, I didn't know that
I'm interested with critique of Heidegger, and it seems to be the one by Leo Strauss being the crucial one on that
Jacob James
Other urls found in this thread:
archive.org
twitter.com
Ayden Butler
The only book I have on this guy is his commentaries on Machiavelli, which are ironically precisely what I argue against in my thesis.
Joseph Gray
Post thesis
James Clark
Yeah post thesis
Christian Carter
You can just go straight to his book, Natural Right & History, if you want the intro that most Strauss students receive. That's the one where he lays out his critique of historicism most famously. But if you want a true understanding of Strauss' thought you pretty much have to read him chronologically, at least his major published works and his unpublished response to Schmitt's Concept of the Political, in the '20s and '30s. The gist is that Strauss "would have been a Nazi if he weren't a Jew" (he basically says this), because he sees the validity or at least the philosophical comprehensibility of the fascist response to the failure of the Enlightenment project. His goal after this realization is to find a third way.
His early work is mostly diagnostic of the problem, and his late work in America is when he starts his famous program of returning to classical philosophy.
So read his early stuff if you are fairly serious about understanding him, then read his later stuff. But read that chronologically as well, because it goes off the deep end fairly quickly. NR&H is good, the On Tyranny collection with his letters to Kojeve is good, etc. But Strauss is famous for some weird reasons:
#1 His followers are insane and cult-like, and basically should be completely ignored unless you're planning to join their country club; if you are curious about them, consult Paul Gottfried's book, maybe Shadia Drury's book. Tldr: They are bad scholars and mostly succeed through nepotism and strategic colonization of various ivory tower outposts.
#2 He's also known for being a batshit insane numerologist. This is the notorious "exoteric/esoteric" thing most people have heard about. It's hard to tell how much of this was him being genuinely nuts, how much of it was simply facile and him monomanically blowing a few real instances of it out of all proportion, and how much of it was tongue-in-cheek. The Machiavelli book is the weirdest one by far. Nobody takes Strauss' numerological hermeneutics seriously except aforementioned cult-like Straussians. Pocock and Skinner have some funny reviews of it.
What do you argue in your thesis? I recently reread Machiavelli for fun and was trying to read reception history on him to see if there's any plausibility to the satire thesis. Did you read Mattingly's old article and the response to it by any chance?
Josiah Jones
Macron, is that you?
Connor Powell
What a boringly self evident subject to be interested in.
Haha students. Good on you lad.
Jacob Howard
No I don't want to read him, I didn't even read crucial political philosophy such as two treatises of government
I just want a book to understand what "strauss' critique that historicism historicizes away its own basis of validity" means. I just need one book.
>#1 His followers are insane and cult-like, and basically should be completely ignored unless you're planning to join their country club
IDK man that seems like heidegger too to me
Julian Gonzalez
What I don't get about it is why critique mentions Historicism when Heidegger also didn't agree with Historicism. Heidegger said Historicism has alienated people from insight into the historical nature of life.
Mason Phillips
>I'm interested with critique of Heidegger
Just read Adorno adn Benjamin
Nolan Watson
>Adorno
Hahaahahhahhaha
Robert Powell
What's wrong with adonro you little cunt?
Wyatt Reyes
I always have been thought Adorno is Yea Forums for 2 years
Am I wrong or are you serious
Cameron Barnes
He's a guy pedophiles like to use for some reason, assuming it's because of his jewish name and anti nazism
Jacob Turner
I’d read Allan Bloom’s Closing, which focuses the critique on Hi De Ho.
No, we can’t be sure it’s Strauss’ critique.
But it’s more interesting.
Aiden Rivera
What?
That’s incomprehensible.
Colton Jones
> I always have been thought Adorno is Yea Forums for 2 years
are you illiterate?
Grayson Cook
specifically the jargon of authenticity.
Andrew Hernandez
Your English is fucking atrocious. Hang yourself.
Connor Thompson
I'd be careful with anything Drury says; her 'scholarship' on Strauss is marred by misquotations, selective quotations, strange citations that don't prove what she claims but that she knows no one will look up (citing 'devastating reviews' of Strauss's books that are actually positive or neutral reviews), and shockingly lazy refutations that amount to "Strauss says nature is x, but as scholar y brilliantly demonstrated, it's acshuallly z". Further, she's so paranoid about him that she refuses to read him as explicating any of the works he's discussing in a given essay or book, and she inserts theses into his mouth that never occur in his work (such as that Thrasymachus is the protagonist of the Republic). Her book on Plato and Socrates has the same manner of flaws. She's a terrible scholar, and I'd ignore her polemics, if only because she can't even get them right.
The numerology is just about only a thing in the Machiavelli book, and isn't relevant to his discussions of exoteric writing in other authors.
Some of his students are unbalanced or suspect (Jaffa, Bloom, Shulsky) and some of his hanger-ons are embarassing (the Kristols), but a lot of "Straussians" are pretty good scholars who tend to pay more attention to what's written in a text then bigger name figures.
Natural Right and History was mentioned, which is ultimately Strauss's critique of Heideggerian philosophy, but for a more direct text, take a look at the following essay "Existentialism" (sometimes called "Heideggerian Existentialism").
Lincoln Anderson
Read this.
Brandon Garcia
>>btw this guy is very conservative, I didn't know that
???
What even is this post?
Ryan Peterson
>The numerology is just about only a thing in the Machiavelli book, and isn't relevant to his discussions of exoteric writing in other authors.
It's mentioned directly as a principle in his main essay on esoteric writing though.
Also it does show up in classes with Straussians. I've had to sit through them counting pages and paragraphs. Not fun.
Noah Carter
It's mentioned in the exoteric essay, because it was historically used at times (e.g., by Maimonides, pretty explicitly).
Most Straussian students are more unbalanced toward that then Strauss was, who barely uses numerology in any of his other works.