Leo Strauss: On a Forgotten Kind of Writing [1954]

LEOSTRAUSS

ON A FORGOTTENKIND OF WRITING Recently, a suggestion

a student which

at the

University I have made both

told me that Chicago in the classroom and in

of

print has proved to be of interest to some of his friends but that it is not

sufficiently it would be helpful the Chicago Review.

written

to them. This

if I were In order

a note

to write not

student

merely

mentioned

on

that

the matter

to repeat what

for

I have

elsewhere, I believe itwill be best if I discuss here those

objections I suspect to those

clear

to my which have suggestion arose out that these objections that various students have felt.

been of

made

difficulties

I should begin by briefly summarizing my certain earlier thinkers, studying of conceiving the relation between

I became the quest

publicly. similar

In

suggestion.

aware

of

for

truth

this way (philos

ophy or science) and society: Philosophy or science, the highest activity

of man,

is the

attempt

to

replace

opinion

about

"all

things" by knowledge of "all things"; but opinion is the element or science to dis of society; is therefore the attempt philosophy solve the element inwhich and thus it society breathes, endangers or science must Hence remain the preserve philosophy society. or scientists must of a small and respect minority, philosophers on which rests. To is the respect society opinions opinions as true. them different from accepting something entirely or scientists who hold this view about the relation Philosophers or science are driven a to and of society philosophy employ manner to of which would enable them reveal writing peculiar as the truth to the few, without what they regard endangering to the on of the many commitment the opinions unqualified rests. true will between the which distinguish society They as the esoteric the and teaching socially useful teaching teaching as the exoteric the exoteric whereas is meant teaching; teaching

64

Chicago Review, Vol. 8, No. 1 (Winter - Spring, 1954), pp. 64-75

This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Mon, 3 Mar 2014 16:10:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

to be closes

easily itself

accessible to

to every reader, the esoteric and well-trained very careful

only and concentrated long The crucial premise

study. of this argument of society. This

dis

teaching readers

after

is the

that proposition is opinion premise accepted by social scientists. teach that every many contemporary They on in the last values or on society rests, analysis, specific specific on are not or which i.e., myths, assumptions evidently superior to alternative there any preferable assumptions. imply, They reveals and stresses the char fore, that social science arbitrary acter of the basic any given assumptions underlying society; social science desires to be and "objective" "undogmatic." They a tension fail to see, however, creates that this state of things is the

between truth

the

of social science requirements (knowledge and of the truth) and the of teaching requirements

(whole-hearted know

element

of

the

society

acceptance of the principles of society):

if I

are not intrin of liberal the principles democracy to the or fascism, of communism I am sically superior principles to liberal of whole-hearted commitment incapable democracy. of two consists, then, fundamentally My suggestion questions: as to whether the historical there ever were question any great thinkers who held the view about the relation of and philosophy which I have on it; and sketched and who acted society just the whether that view is false or philosophic question simply or true if is the element true, simply qualified (e.g., "opinion that

two are The societies"). questions obviously are not trivial in the sense that of and importance; they they are discussed in every textbook. One further and go say might that it is a considerable time since have been discussed at they

of

all nonliberal

all.

friends therefore, young My expected, arouse some interest mentioned would in

the

that scholarly

suggestion circles. But

young people are bad judges inmatters of this kind. Only or five

scholars

of my

generation

did

become

interested.

four One

of them is aman of high reputation in his field who understands the contemporary

dangers

to

intellectual

freedom

well

enough

65

This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Mon, 3 Mar 2014 16:10:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

to realize Senator

that

these

McCarthy "liberals"

academic

or

"scientific"

is

social

not

only

by

men of

dogmatism scientists

like

certain

as well.

He

I had tried to convey by the words,

expressed the lesson which "there

are caused, the absurd

dangers but by

hope."

Professor

H.

George

has reviewed

Sabine

tion and the Art of Writing,

in the April,

my

book,

Persecu

1953, issue of Ethics.

certain the canon for reading begins by wondering a rule for I workable great books which "provides suggested or an invitation to perverse historical ingenuity." interpretation whether

He

This doubt is perfectly gation: misused.

grounds to perverse

be misunderstood

or

the

of not

cannot

which

to understand the that one ought principle terms social in of back their the great thinkers

Did

teachings

to any investi justified, especially prior

is no method

there

than one

in more

also become,

case,

"an

invitation

"the argument Sabine says that I make ingenuity"? a case of the art too easy when of 'master the [I put] as would shame an such blunders who 'commits

somewhat of writing'

intelligent high-school boy,' because that kind of writing would not

even

deceive

Sabine's

manner

a careless

reader." I merely

of

I shall not note

about complain is the quotation are to meant which

that

quoting. one sentence out of seven sentences of part runs as sentence some rules of indicate reading. The complete such blunders commits "If a master of the art of writing follows:

a

it is reasonable boy, high-school intelligent are intentional, if the author dis to assume that especially they blun of intentional the however cusses, possibility incidentally, on the remark As Sabine's ders in writing." passage regards more to than one I know of that I regret he which say quoted, are not careless commentators who case where exceptionally do not who Readers of this kind. did not even notice blunders as would

notice deceived

shame

blunders are

an

of this kind those who

Also the only ones deceived. as them but take them simply

are not

notice

from time to time. commits everyone I had mentioned. are one of the blunders Contradictions species or in an author contradiction "The limits of permissible probable blunders

of

the sort

that

66

This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Mon, 3 Mar 2014 16:10:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

are

really very difficult to determine because

Things which

to determine." the meaning

of

"an author"

Sabine

cannot

in

case of authors who

say that explicitly a in order to indicate

contradict themselves they intentionally secret to an elite among their readers, teaching nor ent from that of authors who neither say of the kind.

impossible is so vague.

are true of the highest intellects are wholly

to others. The

applicable

limits are

Those

but

admit

is

entirely indicate

it is sometimes

that

differ anything neces

the lines, but he trivializes this admission sary to read between by to consider In its he evades the refusing implications. particular, of the criteria which would allow us to be question distinguish tween at and an author indicates between guessing knowing what "Is the lines. He raises the question, the lines between reading of an elaborate the unraveling system of con characteristically suffers lack of again from objection of whom? If a present rejoin: characteristic of American and average economist, average day intelligence of would indicate between the Unes of an power expression, trived

deceptions?" Iwould definiteness.

This

a

for in the lines evad economy while planned preference vs. the free issue the I economy ing "planned enterprise system," to assume that he is "an elaborate would hesitate system of using contrived but of writers another caliber might well deceptions"; article

such a "system." Still, unconscious the lines makes

use

even

the most

casual

or half-conscious

between writing use of those very use of which presup

of expression the principles fully conscious "an elaborate Sabine is poses system of contrived deceptions." to say that "at least in doubtful whether I mean political philos a distinction an esoteric between and an exoteric ophy, meaning is the form of I never committed this typical interpretation." absurdity. does not

He

put circumstances

asserts

can be that society hardly imagined on what an author or on the restrictions may say, or on the choice under which he may of say it, that "a

to whom he may persons suitably which men can attack in writings

in say it." I assert that societies to all both the estab accessible

lished social or political order and the beliefs on which can not

only

be imagined

but have

existed,

e.g.,

the Third

it is based Repub 67

This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Mon, 3 Mar 2014 16:10:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

lie in France and post-Bismarckian Wilhelminian not

know

what

Sabine

thinks

the wisdom

of

Germany. such

of

I do

extreme

I admit of course that there were and this as it may, are societies which were issue and are not liberal. The extremely concerns must the conclusions which draw from the the historian Be

liberalism.

fact

that not

all literate

writers

societies

and are liberal.

were

If a one

its

from

society is en

prevents freely discussing principles, as to whether a writer who to titled to raise the question belongs of its such a and who makes himself the princi society mouthpiece because is convinced of their these he expresses ples principles or because

soundness

he cedes

to

force. The superior question in is a great mind who question one to teach doctrines which

takes on some urgency if the writer not wrong that is it says expressly as erroneous. if his still more urgent It becomes writings regards one abound in which overlooks if one features enigmatic easily not attentive. After

stating

his

general

Sabine

criticism,

on

turns

to

my

He

Treatise.

Theologico-Political grants Spinoza's to the use of Strauss's method" work "is well adapted I say about I am not in what Spinoza's entirely wrong If I understand him toward revealed correctly, religion. to say that while is a of revealed the religion rejection was of Spinoza's Ethics, consequence Spinoza perhaps aware fully more

of this consequence, whereas aware of it. I cannot discuss

I had maintained this

criticism,

is

chapter that that and

that

attitude he means

necessary not fully that he was

which

is not

an

assertion that my detailed argument, unsupported on the Theologico-Political is almost based Treatise, entirely the does not leave it at expressing Sabine opinion faulty. perhaps are uncertain. He tries to show conclusions that my perhaps . . . I had that they are "in one respect paradoxical." Spinoza, to in order conceal devices his certain used contended, literary held views from the vulgar; but, Sabine says, "the vul seriously to fear, occasion the Calvinist whom he had most gar namely, were not deluded." I "were the ones who theologians" just than

no doubt about this point: I had spoken of thought I had left Spinoza's

extraordinary

boldness.

His

whole

enterprise

68

This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Mon, 3 Mar 2014 16:10:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

consists

one

of what

call

might

He theology. count, within

Biblical could believers

or, more

an

on all forms of orthodox open attack could dare to make he this attack because

certain

precisely,

of liberal limits, on the sympathy on the re of those who sympathy

garded the moral teaching, as distinguished from the teaching about

dogma

as the chief

and ritual,

of divine

teaching

revelation

as accessible in the Bible. The explicit theses of the Theologico an extreme to of version may be said express reasons for the "liberal" view. But there are strong doubting of the with that extreme version that Spinoza himself agreed to not "liberal" view. orthodox any appease attempted Spinoza or less inclined a but those who were more toward theologians Treatise

Political

im

liberal Christianity. He concealed his partial, but decisively portant, disagreement with liberal believers In

of

speaking

that I regard This vulgar.

not with of various

the

orthodox

but

theologians

shades.

another

"paradox" as even the commentators

of mine,

Sabine

less

suggests than the

penetrating I entirely wrong: regard many as less than the present-day penetrating vulgar a much the had of the seventeenth latter because century, greater awareness of the serious character of the and theological problem is not

suggestion commentators

even of its details than do men brought up in the belief that a form of reli for science and progress constitutes a frontal at When Sabine knew that "that says gion. Spinoza was I can tack on Calvinist theology impossible," only ask him a frontal attack on the belief does not make whether in Spinoza a doctrine and whether of a certain miracle (the any miracles enthusiasm

of

miracle theology Sabine

resurrection) as knew Spinoza "should

have

quite honest when to advocate 'to refute tion

is not

the

very

center

of Calvinist

it.

preferred

to believe

that

Spinoza

was

he said that the chief aim of his book was

freedom

of speech and of rather than investigation, the claims which have been raised on behalf of revela

throughout

the

ages'

as Strauss

says." The

chief

according to the full title of the Theologico-Political the sole aim of that work

is to advocate

freedom

of

aim,

or,

Treatise,

philosophiz 69

This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Mon, 3 Mar 2014 16:10:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

as ing. But, Spinoza defend that freedom chief

the

he cannot says in the preface, successfully to without the reader's attention drawing to the i.e. religion, regarding especially

prejudices

prejudice that philosophy must be the handmaid of theology: he must

ogy. if theology He

truth.

the radical

advocate

But

a radical

such or

therefore has no

Biblical to

teaching try to refute

pelled half of revelation

having for his other

on

to teach

to

to

try value whatever:

cognitive the claims which

have

theoretical

show

that

he was

been

raised

the com

on be

in a very his large part of the book, provided that aim is the necessary and sufficient condition was aim or aims "If defensible. becoming Spinoza

pursues attained

sciously

fully knew

compelled

and theol philosophy to him unreasonable

to the ages. It is throughout legitimate desig aim of a book that aim which the author con

as the chief

nate

separation appeared could be assumed

the Bible

was

of

separation

convinced

that revelation

that if toleration

that

point

waited

it would

argued exoterically has revealed God

wait

on

to be refuted, he ought certainly was until there agreement general forever." I concluded, he Hence,

the

the Bible, that, through assumption not indeed of knowledge things of action, the and that right principles toleration.

to man,

or natural, but spiritual these demand principles Sabine notes that my

the

about

"argument

esoteric

interpre and compli with, philosophical writings . . . 'historicism' cated by, another ", but he argument against does not see a "close relation the two argu between logical The ments." is this. Esotericism strict connection necessarily tation

of

is combined

follows from the original meaning of philosophy, provided that it is assumed

that opinion

is the element

cism is incompatible with philosophy

of

society;

but

histori

in the original meaning of

cannot can and historicism be the word, One ignored today. as follows: illustrate the connection the two arguments between be said to be the view, may accepted by Sabine, that "there are in what Carl Becker called presumptions implicit ever of an age that no contemporary the 'climate of opinion'

Historicism

fully grasps, precisely because they are so deeply ingrained in 70

This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Mon, 3 Mar 2014 16:10:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

the

texture

of his

minds

cannot

which

rule

In other words, thinking." from themselves the liberate

even

the greatest

opinions specific This view can be established society. particular more statements of all great if all thinkers must easily explicit to be taken than if this express their private assumption thoughts is questioned. if As regards my argument Sabine doubts against historicism, he follows

their

to say was that if one does not take the inten of the great thinkers, intention namely, one cannot understand the truth about the whole, I meant

it.What

the seriously tion to know

is based on the that this intention them; but historicism premise to know it is is unreasonable because the simply impossible I never said, as Sabine believes I did, that truth about the whole. old books can support the truth of the statement "that, reading no account of the whole, unless there is a single true account of can be true." I in said that anything particular merely reading as an antidote to the is old books indispensable ruling today a final and true account of that the notion the of very dogma on whole said that "a historian must is absurd. I never proceed even the that and supposition philosophers, original important and consequences the of all ones, always know presuppositions said that the historian must merely the that the great thinkers understood supposition proceed not better what than the historian who is they thought likely to be a great thinker. believes that "there are Sabine however in . . . 'the climate of of an age presumptions implicit opinion' no ever seems to that contemporary fully grasps." He imply that the statements

they

I

make."

on

the historian 'climate

may

grasp

fully say, of

of

the

presuppositions, fourth century

in the implicit Athens which

early opinion', did not those presuppositions, If accepting fully grasp. Sabine had given an example he would have enabled his readers to consider whether he is I do not know of any historian right. a fundamental who of a great grasped presupposition fully Plato,

thinker which the great thinker himself did not fully grasp. The

attitude

characteristic

of of M.

Sabine Yvon

contrasts BelavaPs

with review

the

open-mindedness in the October, 1953, 71

This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Mon, 3 Mar 2014 16:10:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

of

issue

if Beiaval

Even

Critique.

my

rejecting

suggestion and force

suggestion gives unity tered remarks which serious not

could

is not

He

help making.

a

lirmne. He

only

realizes

Renan's

that

to some

fragmentary earlier of certain

students realizes

incompatible with

known

he would have been prevented

Averro?s and the Encyclop?die, from

had

above

all that my

and

that scat

thinkers suggestion

the demands of

compliance with

exactness.

historical

Belaval begins his criticism with the remark that my sugges tion is based on the anti-positivist view "that the philosophic truth of

or on "a classical

is

untemporal" truth." He raises

the question this view and my

tion between

and rationalist

whether

is no

there concern

apparent

conception contradic

with

making

historical inquiries independent of every philosophic postulate. I did not

of philosophy

one

that

suggest

can make

the

study

of

the history

independent of every philosophic postulate. His

of the persistence presupposes tory necessarily philosophy and this alone, is the the same fundamental This, problems. must there which if be admitted, is to be truth trans-temporal of On the other hand, history of philosophy history philosophy. starts from of any the if the historian is acceptance endangered if he knows in advance of the fundamental solution problems: of

that a given philosophic doctrine which he lacks or

the

for

incentive

care. What

studying does imply

I said

he is studying is false,

that doctrine the

with of

rejection

sympathy positivism:

to the fundamental problems, and therefore posivitism is blind cannot be a historian of philosophy; as the positivist positivist a man who

to be a

happens

positivist

can become

a historian

of

extent to which he develops the capacity philosophy only to the of questioning positivism. Belaval raises the further question whether every philosophy finds itself in conflict with politics or only dogmatic philosophies. I can

only

repeat

that

there

is a necessary

conflict

between

philosophy and politics if the element of society necessarily opinion,

i.e. assent

sceptics as well

to

opinion;

this condition

can be admitted

as by dogmatists; if this condition

72

This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Mon, 3 Mar 2014 16:10:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

is by

is rejected,

can

there

only conflicts

be

between

and philosophy some that philosophers are at variance results which

conflicts

accidental from

the fact

arising or negative positive notes of a Belaval that non with the given society. principles of re sometimes the opposition official dogmatisms provoked do not authorities. We authorities rather than of political ligious is not in the have to consider whether proper every authority men to It suffices fre last say that political analysis political. re of able unbelievers the support welcomed against quently fanatics who the statesmanlike hand seemed to endanger ligious in of But other affairs. this fact?the that fact, words, ling philos the rule of have ophers generally preferred speaking non-priests to the rule of does not prove that there is no priests?obviously tension between of fundamental the requirements and philosophy of Belaval the requirements wonders whether political society. politics, times reach

of

in

speaking tize a partial roistic" view

a fundamental

such

i.e. view," is no more

the

"Averroistic"

partial

than

one

more

to be much

is if I had been

to "Averroism." cannot

Belaval an

infer

ignorant unaware of

essential

is

quite

than

view.

right

"systema "Aver

both

and politics.

I am and

the existence

antinomy

The

its contrary:

views about the relation of philosophy have

I did not

tension

when

in fact

I would that

any the alternative

of he

between

are total

says

that

one and

philosophy

politics from the factual persecution of philosophers by political authorities. But tween

I may

I am add

certain that I did not make quite infer an essential that one cannot

this mistake. harmony

be

and

from the factual of politics recognition or even of all certain socie given philosophy, philosophies, by on errors. Belaval ties: that recognition be based may capital is also right when he says that one cannot the "Aver accept if one believes roistic" view that M. the truth. Koj ?ve teaches philosophy

a

Turning issue with

to the my

of methods question "axiom" that one writes

of

takes reading, Belaval as one reads. He asserts

that very careful philosophers like Leibniz and Kant have not I had not readers. very careful but of careful writers. Belaval ophers

been

spoken of has not

careful proved

philos that the 73

This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Mon, 3 Mar 2014 16:10:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

and

Essais

Nouveaux

in the sense inwhich

written

are

of Pure Reason

the Critique

carefully

the Discorsi sopra la prima deca di

are

to say of certain written, pre nothing carefully In the same context, he expresses modern books. the suspicion the scholar for the for that I might have mistaken philosopher, T.

Livio

he

believes

that

were

rather

commentators

and

Jewish

in

the writers than philosophers: on Plato and Aristotle rather

than

in the

sense

I doubt

Islamic

ages, I studied in fact scholars and

philosophers of the middle commentators

certain

from

starting

by

whether

question original of dis

originality philosophers. or invention to do with of has anything covery philos "systems" or true was much more originality. Spinoza original ophic depth sense of the term than was Maimonides; but in the present day was

Maimonides Belaval

questions the one that

statements

is the more

author of

a certain

assume more that

that

kind the

is the more

secret.

I had

contradictory is more thesis which

more

that

students

important subject only or asserts its contrary of the author invariably

presenting

the

author's

as is disregarded unintelligible the carefulness and estimates prove his contention, like Maimonides of men

they even

prove

Belaval

believes

in all other

or

on

silent the

ignore doctrine:

the

of

suspect immediately was that that suspicion

began

the

I

places

subject, statement

unique statement unique over Belaval

unimportant. of most

Spinoza

disagree. a statement

readers.

To

that

the persecution after immediately

fact proves merely heterodoxy. well-founded; men. It does

It does there not

that not are

of innocent prove persecution how heterodox those their persecutors recognized men men were. Besides, or causes their these had defenders great examples at all that

of

i.e. which

at all. I must

remains

to

occurs

view.

once, while

of the

in writings

are entitled

if an author makes

they had published certain books. This became

secret,

perspicacity he refers to the fact and

find

theses, we

serious

be concealed

than once

if we

said that

two

rarely, expresses such a secret cannot

on a very he either

in the time

subversive

the author's

have noticed

when

a thinker than Spinoza. deeper two of the "axiom" that, contradictory

nevertheless

also

74

This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Mon, 3 Mar 2014 16:10:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

who

not have

would

been

acter of their heterodoxy to refer to the relatively the two cases mentioned

or the if the char degree precise It is also not irrelevant had been known. allies

mild

character

and

in other

of

the

similar

in persecution cases. It is not

to say, as Belaval does, that the sufficient of security philosophers less on the cautious of their character than depended writings on the a com from which support they benefited: political

imprudent philosopher

pletely not have The of

reading

He

fortune

the good

main

is beyond

support if he does

to be as insane. regarded is to the effect that the method

of Belaval

objection I suggest which

can never

lead to absolute

certainty.

isright in questioning my comparison of the deciphering of texts with

texts: of cuneiform that deciphering was in what occurred I rather comparison thought obviously an argument to a counter I shall limit ad hominem. here myself to Belaval's main Do the alternative methods objection objection: esoteric

the

not the alternative lead to absolute Are reading certainty? based on the of methods false reading demonstratively premises a one book that in what may interpreting disregard completely or of its author the about and caution, says secrecy necessity or rare statements that one may disregard the completely unique on in favor of what the author important subjects says most of

or in all cases but

frequently

to

method

my comparing there is this difference: of

confession cases where made would now

sure be there

the very sooner or claim

the the

that

one? As that

that my criminal. My

criminal the

of

method answer

confessed

detective

Belaval the

would

notes,

detective, cannot is twofold:

later

to know

lead up to the I know of

posthumously not condemn

if there were been

to abandon what

certain

the

complacency thinkers great

after

him; crime where

of suspicion faith in only implicit perfect least the observations I have made will happy has

M. Koj?ve, asserted that

having and I

innocence. force

with

to

up

At

historians

which

thought,

they to admit

of the past is much more than it is thought enigmatic to wonder held to be, and to whether the his generally begin not as torical truth is of access as the difficult truth. philosophic that

the

75

This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Mon, 3 Mar 2014 16:10:38 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions