Classical Political Philosophy Research Articles

The Balance between "Negative Liberty" and "Positive Liberty"

John Stuart Mill, a prominent figure in classical liberalism, inherits the emphasis on individual spirit from earlier liberals such as Locke. He expanded this notion to include social liberty on the basis of political liberty, deepening the public understanding of individual freedom. To some extent, Mill's recognition of negative liberty and human diversity also corrects the classical political philosophy's singular and universal natural purpose. Moreover, his proposal of positive standards and purposes, based on negative liberty, not only complements and corrects classical liberalism but also offers solutions to the problems arising from neoliberalism in the contemporary world.

Leo Strausso sugrįžimas prie užmiršto rašymo meno

The aim of this article is to reconstruct Leo Strauss’ project of a return to the forgotten art of writing and to demonstrate its relation to his attempts to find alternatives to historicist positions. By emphasizing the insoluble conflict between the political community and philosophical life medieval philosophers opened up the possibility of a novel understanding of the premodern philosophical tradition. This new perspective is based on the assumption that philosophers of the past attempted to avoid persecution and wanted to protect their societies from the potentially destructive effects of philosophical radicalism, which is why the presentation of their doctrines was formed by the distinction between esoteric and exoteric doctrines. The forgetfulness of the technique of careful writing began with the implementation of liberal political principles and was furthered by the triumph of historicist assumptions. Strauss’ return to classical political philosophy is inseparable from his polemics with historicist positions that negate the fundamental assumptions of this tradition. By emphasizing the distinction between esoteric and exoteric elements of philosophical texts Strauss introduces a technique of interpretation which is based on attempts to distinguish between elements that have a transhistorical meaning and are found in the esoteric doctrine, from the exoteric teaching, which has always been accommodated to the dogmas and prejudices of concrete society. The attempt to reconstruct the transhistorical elements of doctrines is inseparable from the goal of returning to the natural consciousness that is to be found in the tradition of ancient political philosophy.

Absolutyzacja woli ludu jako źródło degeneracji ustroju demokratycznego

The aim of the article is to outline the distinction between the nomocratic and the voluntarist version of democracy. Based of the findings of classical political philosophy, I strive to show that democracy can also turn into tyranny, the basic feature of which is the instability of the law. The main issue I am considering is the question of how to limit the will of the people without placing any other will above people’s will. In the past, this was achieved by depoliticizing the people. Today, however, this path seems closed due to, among other things, the constant pressure on the people to take a stand. The people are convinced by party leaders that they are a many-headed monarch and that their will is above the law. This creates the conditions for the emergence and functioning of a voluntarist democracy, which is a tyranny of the majority. Thus, the prospects for the development of a nomocratic democracy, in which the people are seen as guardians of law, are not bright.

The genealogy of integrationism: Ideational foundations of the politics of immigrant integration

This article traces the idea of (“immigrant”) “integration” from its roots in classical political philosophy and the birth of the modern nation-state, to its current relevance in the European political agenda and, relatedly, its centrality in the newly consolidated field of Migration Studies. I examine the ontological (i.e., philosophical and sociological) and political rationales behind the idea that migrants need to “integrate into society”, and the different varieties of political solutions that are offered in this sense. The paper asks: How did the migrant come at the center of the idea of an integrated society? And how did integrationism become consolidated as the hegemonic idea of governing diverse societies in post-migration contexts in Europe? Employing an extensive list of secondary literature, documentary data, policy analysis of the EU-level Framework on migrant integration, and discourse analysis of integration-related research publications, I attempt a genealogy of the idea of “integration” as it traveled across the North Atlantic West and between academia and government. The paper shows how the production of the subject of integration—the misfit “immigrant” figure—is historically marked by a consensus across the learned and the governing elites that identifies the preservation of a homogenous national social order as a societal goal. I argue that the scientification of integration governance via the “evidence-based policy” paradigm (most notably promoted by EU institutions) normalizes, naturalizes and aims to depoliticize the otherwise highly normative and contested question of migrant integration.

The Spirit of Sparta or the Taste of Xenophon

The article which was published for the first and single time in 1939, is the starting point of Leo Strauss’ “esoteric” scholarship. While devoted to the investigation of Xenophon’s treatise called Constitution of the Lacedemonians the article, using it as an example, shows reasons, techniques, and the meaning of writing “between the lines”. Strauss sequentially shows how Xenophon hides his critique of the Spartan constitution behind the facade of an encomium. But what may be even more important, in the piece Strauss clearly tries to overcome the established 19th-century view that Xenophon was a mediocre and charged with laconophilia historian; he tries to reinstate Xenophon’s position as that of a serious thinker: a Socratic philosopher. He shows how meticulously Xenophon studies the Spartan constitution and that this apparently very successful and very stable regime, in fact, deserves serious politico-philosophic critique. Thereby he partially reveals the essence of classical political philosophy to careful readers.

Becoming “Woke” Rightly Understood: Peter Lawler on Liberal Arts and the Human Soul in American Heresies and Higher Education

Becoming “Woke” Rightly Understood is an examination of Peter Augustine Lawler’s sometimes lighthearted, often ironic, and yet equally profound analysis of the current state of higher education. Lawler’s treatment is panoramic; it presents both the warts and beauty marks of higher education. The book itself is an example of the traditional goals of higher education. It forces readers to think by offering arguments for and against the liberal arts. Lawler is aware that people fully understand ideas if they work them out for themselves. His analysis wanders from pop culture to classical political philosophy with many stops in between. American Heresies and Higher Education forces readers to wonder, not only about higher education, but also about what is best for the human soul.

Enabling and Constraining Classical Confucian Political Philosophy

Enabling and Constraining Classical Confucian Political Philosophy

The Politics of Heaven and Hell: Christian Themes from Classical, Medieval, and Modern Political Philosophy, by James V. Schall

The Politics of Heaven and Hell: Christian Themes from Classical, Medieval, and Modern Political Philosophy, by James V. Schall

Virtue and the Ancient Polis: A Place of The City and Man in Leo Strauss’s Corpus of Works

The article presents a historical-philosophical study of the book The City and Man published in 1964 by the political philosopher Leo Strauss. Using a large amount of material, the author attempts to assess the place the book holds in Strauss’ legacy. Additionally, the author presents his own interpretation. Highlighting that The City and Man is mostly concerned as a marginal work in comparison to other of Strauss’ papers, he gives and analyzes a number of political interpretations of the book. Not being content with any of them, he presupposes that The City and Man should be considered in the context of classical political philosophy research undertaken by Leo Strauss. Analyzing each of the three chapters of the book dedicated to Aristotle’s’ Politics, Plato’s Republic and Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War, the author concludes that all three texts are interconnected through the figure of one man. This man is Socrates, who discovered sanity and reason as the basis of political philosophy. Each of these works has sanity and reason at their roots, which is a foundation for the revival of political philosophy. By comparing virtue and city (polis) as terms of classical political rationalism, we could shed light on the actual problem of the relationship between ethics and law.

The Iron Law of Elites and the Standards of Political Judgment

In a time when “elites” come under many cogent critiques and “populism” gives rise to manifold fears, the cohesion and even future of liberal democracy is today in question in ways that it has not been for some time. This essay approaches the issue of our “divided city” by way of an examination of the thinkers of the Italian School—Gaetano Mosca, Vilfredo Pareto and Roberto Michels. Better known as “the neo-Machiavellians,” they aimed at a rigorously scientific understanding of social composition and change. Central to their findings was the so-called “iron law of oligarchy.” No society, modern democracy included, can escape the reality of the rule of the few. This essay argues that their scientific methodologies and generalized laws necessarily precluded them from understanding the main alternatives of political life and what is essentially at stake in human history. Paradoxically, their perspective ends up being unable to judge the changing relations between elites and peoples. Like many authoritative social sciences in contemporary academe, this theory appears to be intrinsically silent about, or blind to, the contents of human life. Throughout the analysis of the theory of elites, the approach of classical political philosophy is invoked to highlight the modern scientific alternative. This essay is then a contribution to the understanding of the science of the practical realm, the stakes of politics, the articulations of the parts and the whole of human community.

LEO STRAUSS AND THE CHARACTER OF CLASSICAL POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

This paper aims to present Leo Strauss’s interpretation of the meaning of classical political philosophy. To this end, the paper will try to show how, for Strauss, classical political philosophy, emerging from the original conflict that opposes philosophic reason to the authorized opinions of the city, was organized as a fundamentally esoteric teaching that sought to make the practical and moral demands of political life, expressed exemplarily in the ideal of best regime, compatible with the defense of contemplative life as the most perfect and happy life for man.

A Case for Theorizing Relevance: A New Entry Point to Indian Classical Political Philosophy

A Case for Theorizing Relevance: A New Entry Point to Indian Classical Political Philosophy

Beyond Dogmatomachy: Eric Voegelin’s Bodinian Understanding of Toleration and Symbolization

ABSTRACT Eric Voegelin’s intellectual project has typically been described as involved in the rehabilitation of classical political philosophy and in the diagnosis of Gnostic tendencies in modernity. In his work, however, he repeatedly points to the late-medieval/early modern concept of toleration as a necessary addition to the Platonic-Aristotelian legacy he was concerned with retrieving. This article explores Voegelin’s understanding of toleration, and especially its Bodinian origins. As the article demonstrates, his understanding of toleration is deeply intertwined with a Bodinian understanding of religion, and as such it may be more difficult to integrate with other elements of Voegelin’s thought than he himself believed.

Xenophon’s «Anabasis»

At the end of his life Leo Strauss (1899–1973) started to devote additional attention to his interpretation of philosophy of Socrates’ pupil — Xenophon of Athens. During 1969–70 in St. John’s College he made a lecturing course on Xenophon’s «Oeconomicus» and «Memorabilia». After it he publishes two of his last intravital books: «Xenophon’s Socratic Discourse. An Interpretation of the “Oeconomicus”» (1970) — in which he interprets the «Oeconomicus» and «Xenophon’s Socrates» (1972) — in which he interprets the «Memorabilia», «Apology», and «Symposium». Yet, Strauss did not stop there. He wants to complete his scholarly work on Xenophon’s philosophy and thus turns to the «Anabasis», writing an article about the book. Unfortunately, he was not able to publish it. The article comes out after his death, in 1975 through the efforts of the philosopher’s circle. That article is in front of you. In Strauss’ customary manner it looks like a consecutive short summary of Xenophon’s «Anabasis» sprinkled here and there with some valuable remarks and findings. In fact, this enigmatic stile of reasoning gives one keys to the understanding of Xenophon’s philosophy, which allow one to see behind a «historical novel» a truly philosophical work that raises pivotal for the classical political philosophy questions. Among them the problem of human rule, human virtue, and divine meddling.

On Striking Similarities between Chapters XIV – XIX of Machiavelli’s The Prince and the Fifth Book of Aristotle’s Politics

In the article, I try to refute an old and widespread superstition according to which the new political philosophy created by Niccolo Machiavelli breaks with classical political philosophy by taking a novel position toward the political; that is, that classics were idle “idealists” while Machiavelli is a coldblooded “realist”. To do that, I compare the most explicit part of The Prince (chapters XIV-XIX) with the end of the fifth book of Aristotle’s Politics and attempt to show that in the most pivotal chapters of his most famous work, the Florentine, in fact, often borrows Aristotle’s advice on how to preserve a tyrannical rule.

Augustine's Political Thought ed. by Richard J. Dougherty

Reviewed by: Augustine's Political Thought ed. by Richard J. Dougherty Evan Dutmer Richard J. Dougherty, editor. Augustine's Political Thought. Rochester Studies in Medieval Political Thought 2. Rochester: University of Rochester Press, 2019. Pp. vi + 281. Cloth, $125.00. "Augustine's City of God is not a treatise of political or social philosophy." So begins Christian Tornau's section on political philosophy in his entry on Augustine for the Stanford [End Page 330] Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Evident in this remark is the ambivalence with which historians of philosophy have generally treated the political philosophy of the great late antique philosopher of northern Africa. Despite its suggestive title and its extended apologetical attacks on the Earthly City, the City of God is decidedly not a work of political philosophy in the traditional sense: it does not reason about the best form of government; it only rarely functions as a mirror for Christian princes; it recommends no real social or political reforms (e.g. the abolition of slavery); even the cities described have fluid, shifting citizenry of indefinite number (the Earthly City, for instance, turns out to be only loosely composed of earthly patriots—the denizens of the City of God walk in their midst). It is rather intensely protreptic, a proselytizing document that calls for the reader to leave the Earthly City (with its characteristic love, amor sui, viz. love of self) for the City of God (with its characteristic love, amor Dei, viz. the love of God). Augustine's Political Thought proceeds from different starting points. Inspired by Ernest Fortin, the contributors to this volume search for a political teaching in the work of Augustine that, at times, is implicit or indirect. The City of God, which casts doubts on the efficacy of political theory as a project worthy of Christian attention, thus could be seen as containing a latent pessimistic political teaching. Further, even works not generally considered to be political in the Augustinian corpus—e.g. the Confessions or the early Cassiciacum dialogues—become candidates for political interpretation (see Michael Foley's chapter on the early dialogues and Douglas Kries's on Augustine's Confessions and Plato's Republic). Inspired by Leo Strauss's esotericism hypothesis—that numerous philosophers in (especially) the Platonic tradition have used an esoteric style of writing—contributors to this volume examine Augustine's point of contact with "classical political philosophy" (see especially Thomas Harmon's "The Few, the Many, and the Universal Way of Salvation: Augustine's Point of Engagement with Platonic Political Thought"). In Peter Busch's "Peace in the Order of Nature: Augustine, Giles, and Dante," interest in the supposedly continuous tradition of classical political philosophy extends to an intriguing medieval debate between Giles of Rome and Dante on the temporal and ecclesial-spiritual powers of the Pope. Strauss's influence is evident in the only clearly explicated methodological commitment of the volume, contained in Dougherty's editorial introduction: "The contributions of this volume all take as a matter of utmost importance the task of understanding St. Augustine on his own terms" (1). Similarly: "The thrust of the essays is not simply putting Augustine into conversation with ancient or modern authors … but rather first coming to know with as much assurance as possible what Augustine thought. … To do so, one must honor Augustine's foundational work as much as one can, following the nuances of his argument and often recognizing the interplay between and among texts" (2). These comments follow Strauss in criticizing the perceived "historicism" of modern-day scholarship, encouraging, rather, close study of the "interplay" between texts in Augustine's corpus—and understanding "Augustine's own argument comprehensively" (2). The appeal of many essays in this volume will depend on how plausible one finds these background interpretive commitments. Some might be skeptical about attempts to "understand Augustine's own argument comprehensively" (2) through "honor[ing] Augustine's foundational work" (2), while others may doubt just how much of Augustine's political thought can be gleaned from works on topics other than political philosophy. Last, those disposed to view Augustine's thought along roughly developmental lines might find it curious to draw from much earlier works in Augustine's...

Whose Social Contract?

Many scholars view political contractarianism as a distinctly modern account of the foundations of political order. Ideas such as popular sovereignty, the right of revolution, the necessity of the consent of the governed for rightful political authority, natural equality, and a pre-civil state of nature embody the modern rupture with classical political philosophy and traditional Christian theology. At the headwaters of this modern revolution stands Thomas Hobbes. Since the American founders subscribed to the social contract theory, they are often said to reject classical political philosophy and traditional Christian political theology as well. In America on Trial, Robert Reilly rejects the usual argument. He maintains that the building blocks of the American founding originate in medieval Christian political theology. In this essay, I argue that a morally and metaphysically realist contractarian tradition—one that affirms natural equality, the authority of the society over government, the necessity of consent for legitimate government, the right to resist tyrannical rulers, and the idea of a pre-civil state of nature—predates Hobbes and also that the voluntarist contractarian tradition inaugurated by Hobbes is self-referentially incoherent. A coherent political contractarianism logicially depends on the sort of metaphysics and moral ontology Hobbes rejects.

The project of retheoretization of political philosophy in E.Voegelin’s A New Science of Politics

The article discusses the project of the retheoretization of political science proposed by political philosopher E.Voegelin. By means of retheoretization (restoration) of the classical Platonic and Aristotelian political philosophy, Voegelin attempts to provide an answer to the discredited positivistic worldview of man, politics and history. Voegelin’s political philosophy evaluates critically both the methods and the subject matter of political science, explores the human nature and reality of human existence in society and history, comprehends relations between knowledge and reality, penetrates the sources of the disorder of society, probes the limits of instrumental rationality, and establishes an ontological basis for political epistemology. His aim is to regain a truth of political order that has been lost through the process of modernization. In developing the theme of retheoretization, he distinguishes between classical political philosophy as represented in the works of Plato and Aristotle, on the one hand, and the modern understanding as conceived by positivism on the other. Voegelin argues that modern political science, like modernity in general, is the result of the great Gnostic revolution. Retheoretization, he insists, would return political science to the kind of enterprise founded by Plato and Aristotle, and overcome the effects of positivism with its emphasis on emulating the methods of natural science and establishing a value-free mode of inquiry. The article concludes that all of Voegelin’s topics are part of his overall plan for the restoration of a true science of politics. This plan, as the authors of the article argue, in A New Science of Politics is not only outlined, but also partially implemented, and Vögelin’s work itself is an example of a restored political philosophy.

LEO STRAUSS: A CRITIQUE OF HEGEL’S POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

The article is devoted to Leo Strauss’s critique of Hegel’s political philosophy. The author holds this topic relevant in the context of the crisis of modern political science. To understand the causes and nature of this crisis, it is necessary to pay attention to alternative philosophical and political theories of the XX century. Leo Strauss’s philosophy of politics is just such an alternative theory. Strauss made a radical critique of modern political philosophy, which he saw as an important part of the project of modern civilization. Strauss stresses that Hegel became one of the most prominent philosophers who participated in the creation of modern science and the modern world. The author considers the main critical arguments of Strauss, evaluates their validity and their significance for the Straussian conservative revolution in philosophy. The author pays special attention to the question of Hegel’s role in the break with classical political philosophy. Strauss accused Hegel that he had taken all the major steps that led to this rupture. Hegel, according to Strauss, secularized political thinking, which led to the loss of universal Christian values. The consequence of this secularization was the dominance of positivism in political philosophy. Hegel’s philosophy of history, according to Strauss, is relativism. Hegel’s historicism and progressivism are contradictory and inconsistent. Strauss also accuses Hegel of abandoning the philosophical esoteric art of writing. The article draws attention to the fact that Strauss recognized the importance of Hegel as an outstanding thinker of his time. Strauss viewed Hegel’s philosophy as a kind of intermediate link between classical philosophy and modern positivism. The author concludes that for Strauss the critique of Hegel’s political philosophy became an important element of his project of restoration of classical political philosophy. The article uses little-known materials from Strauss’s lectures in 1958 and 1965.

Climate change, distributive justice, and “pre‐institutional” limits on resource appropriation

AbstractIn this paper I argue that individuals are, prior to the existence of just institutions requiring that they do so, bound as a matter of global distributive justice to restrict their use, or share the benefits fairly of any use beyond their entitlements, of the Earth's capacity to absorb greenhouse gases (EAC) to within a specified justifiable range. As part of the search for an adequate account of climate morality, I approach the task by revisiting, and drawing inspiration from, two prominent models from classical political philosophy for thinking about norms (rights, permissions, limits, etc.) regarding “pre‐institutional” appropriation of unowned resources; Locke and Kant, respectively. The basic resources they develop—connected to fundamental norms of equality and rights to self‐preservation and freedom—in order to generate their particular schema for distributive shares prior to the existence of just institutions can be usefully and plausibly connected up with thescarce, valuable, rival, non‐excludable, global, and unowned resourcethat is EAC in order to undergird a picture of individual climate duties in the contemporary world. It is a picture that comes with some fairly radical implications, especially for the well‐off.