Bagley, “Practice of Esotericism.”ほか

Bagley, Paul J. “Practice of Esotericism.” Journal of the History of Ideas. 53.2 (1992): 231-247.


バグレーは現在ロヨラ大学(Loyola College)准教授。専門は古代(プラトン)・初期近代哲学(スピノザ)、政治哲学。

Altman, William H. F. “Leo Strauss on “German Nihilism”: Learning the Art of Writing.” Journal of the History of Ideas. 68.4 (2007): 587-612.

アルトマンは、シュトラウスの“German Nihilism”をPAWと関連付け、前者に緻密な解釈を施すことによって、そのエソテリックな教義を浮き彫りにする。

To begin with, he refuses simply to embrace “the modern ideal” in the service of which the English have invented their efficacious “prudence and moderation.” Nor is it characteristic of the later Strauss to defend moderation on utilitarian grounds when it comes to “the radicalism of thought.”... Finally, and most importantly, the very qualities he appears to praise at the end of the lecture have been described in far less flattering terms at its beginning while presenting the position of “the young Nihilists” on “the open society.” (p.601)
アルトマンによれば、シュトラウスは若きニヒリスト(正確には、新ヘーゲル主義的ニヒリスト)のペルソナ(仮面)を被って(“Strauss the Siren”)、エソテリックな教義を講演のちょうど中央の節(II-6)に忍び込ませたという。その解明の過程は微に入り細をうがっている。
Those who imagine that any historicist notion of philosophy is adequate to deafen the ears of a modern Odysseus to historicist arguments from a persuasive nihilist are wrong: it is their own reliance on history that has rendered Strauss the Siren irresistible. This, he now reassuringly suggests, has been his point all along. / Moreover, it is only by embracing a timeless, absolute, and unchanging standard that the nihilist can be refuted... In order to conceal the fact that he has just revealed his secret teaching, Strauss now offers---is indeed compelled to offer---an unusually strong statement of his exoteric teaching. (p.608)
[B]y Strauss’s definition, we are searching for a standard that is known (and not just “believed”) that must also be well-known. A standard of which philosophers alone are aware does not constitute an adequate bulwark but an unchanging standard that is known and not believed would necessarily be the preserve of few. But further qualification... that this be “a known... standard,” Strauss uses the ignorant multitude against the philosophers. Indeed the many will be persuaded by Strauss’s palinode but not the few. (p.609)
この部分の分析は、一見細かすぎるようにも思えるが、非常に鋭い。アルトマンの謂わんとするところはこうである。すなわち、シュトラウスによればドイツのニヒリズムに抵抗するために、当の不変的基準が単に少数の哲学者(the few)が有する(というよりも確信する)知識(known)であるのみならず、民衆一般(the many)にも広く知れ渡って(well-known)いなければならない。しかし、シュトラウスの後の著作からも明らかなように、自然的正は哲学者とっても探求の対象でしかなく、確たるものとして所有されえない知識である。(アルトマンはこの部分で唐突に「三位一体」を説明に持ち出す) したがって、 “German Nihilism”で用いられるパリノード(改詠詩)は、後者に対して一種の高貴な嘘として機能する。さらに、II-6の末尾で論じられた理性の唯一性と不変性についても、アルトマンはそこに含まれる技巧(理性は知の客体ではなく主体であること)と矛盾(不変的基準については知識でなくとも信念で事足りる)の双方を指摘する。



Velkley, Richard. “On the Roots of Rationalism: Strauss’s Natural Right and History as Response to Heidegger.” Review of Politics. 70 (2008): 245-259.


There is little basis, if any, in Strauss’s writings for the view that he sought to recover a teleological natural philosophy, or that he thought such recovery a necessary condition for philosophy in its classical form. He thought that the philosopher must come to terms with the unavailability of such cosmology... In sum, I venture to say that Heidegger provoked Strauss... to approach Greek philosophy with the suspension of the traditional expectation of finding therein a teleological physics and cosmology. The belief that classical philosophy is inseparable from an “antiquated cosmology” had been a principle barrier against taking it seriously---a belief that Strauss came to see as a misreading of the Socratics (WIPP, 38). (p.254)
I suggest that in Strauss’s view Heidegger does not distinguish the awareness of the fundamental problem from the historical efforts at solutions to it... Heidegger’s remarkable “path of thinking” conflates philosophical reflection on the problematic character of existence with nonphilosophic human concerns for being at home in the world---the world defined by particular language, customs, poetry, and the gods. In Strauss’s view this necessarily conflates the suprahistorical with the historical, or the philosopher’s being at home in the whole with various ways of being at home in human affairs, in which the philosopher can never be entirely at home. (p.256)

One could think of this entire historical mode of presenting this critique of historicism as having ironic features. Strauss’s one book directly engaging German thought is his most “German” in form. The account of historical inevitability in the progression of modern thinkers is surely overstated so as to give less attention to the dissenting from modern progress by Rousseau and Nietzsche. Strauss’s borrowing from Plato’s Republic the “three waves” figure to describe the history of modern political philosophy (IPP, 81-98) also points to an intent both playful and serious: like Socrates’ interlocutors, the reader must participate in the construction of the “ideal city” (in this case, Strauss’s ideal construction of the modern development) in order to uncover the limitations of this account. And that construction itself exploits, in an inverted way, the modern belief in inevitable progress. (p.251)
ヴェルクレーはチューレーン大学教授(Celia Scott Weatherhead Professor of Philosophy)。ペンシルヴァニア州立大でPh.D.(1978)。専門はカント以後の哲学、政治哲学ほか。
posted by ta at 21:23| Comment(0) | TrackBack(0) | シュトラウス文献 | このブログの読者になる | 更新情報をチェックする
お名前: [必須入力]



コメント: [必須入力]

認証コード: [必須入力]