1 Heidegger, Martin, Nietzsche: The Will to Power as Art. trans. Krell, David Farrell (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981), pp. 4–5, emphasis added.Google Scholar

2 Strauss, , Natural Right and History (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1950)Google Scholar. All unspecified references in the text are to this work.

3 “Positivism necessarily transforms itself into historicism” (Strauss, Leo, What Is Political Philosophy? And Other Studies [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1959005D;, p. 26Google Scholar). According to Strauss, positivistic political science is inferior to historicism in every respect except one: it has the merit of asserting, though in an inadequate manner, “the notion of the one truth, or as it would probably prefer to call it, of objectivity” (“The Crisis of Political Theory,” in The Predicament of Modern Politics, ed. Spaeth, Harold J. [Detroit: University of Detroit Press, 1964], p. 92).Google Scholar

4 Easton, David, “The New Revolution in Political Science,” American Political Science Review 63 (1969): 1061, 1051, 1055CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wolin, S., “Political Theory as a Vocation,” American Political Science Review 63 (1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Weber, Max, Max Weber on the Methodology of Social Sciences, ed. and trans. Shils, Edward and Finch, Henry (Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1949), pp. 18–19Google Scholar, 50–51 [hereafter MSS]; “‘Wissenshaft’ is a far more inclusive term than ‘science’. Strauss's translation, ‘philosophy or science,’ correctly brings out the point that Weber's negative thesis—the denial of ultimate rationality to all moral and political choices—is far more sweeping than the slogan ‘value-free science’ indicates” (Turner, S. P. and Factor, R. A., Max Weber and the Dispute over Reason and Value: A Study in Philosophy, Ethics, and Politics [London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984], p. 183).Google Scholar

6 “That science today is irreligious no one will doubt in his innermost being, even if he will not admit it to himself” (Weber, Max, From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, ed. and trans, byGerth, H. H. and Mills, C. Wright [New York: Oxford University Press, 1946], p. 142Google Scholar [hereafter MWES]).

7 MWES, p. 148; Weber, Max, Roscher and Knies: The Logical Problems of Historical Economics, trans. Oakes, Guy (New York: Free Press, 1975), p. 116.Google Scholar

8 An Introduction to Political Philosophy, ed. Gildin, Hilail (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1989), pp. 309–10.Google Scholar

9 Eden, Robert, “Why Wasn't Weber a Nihilist?,” in The Crisis of Liberal Democracy: a Straussian perspective, ed. Deutsch, Kenneth L. and Soffer, Walter (New York: State University of New York Press, 1987), p. 212Google Scholar; “Weber and Nietzsche: Questioning the Liberation of Social Sciences from Historicism,” in Max Weber and his Contemporaries, ed. Mommsen, Wolfgang J. and Osterhammel, Juergen (London: Allen & Unwin, 1987), p. 418.Google Scholar

10 It would of course be foolish to take Strauss's conclusion for granted. There are, however, in principle only two legitimate responses: one must either show that modern science does not reject revelation or show that its rejection of revelation is based on sufficient reasons.

11 Schaar, John H. and Wolin, Sheldon S., “Review Essay: Essays on the Scientific Study of Politics: A Critique,” American Political Science Review 57 (1963): 125–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 Mommsen, Wolfgang J., Max Weber and German Politics, trans. Steinberg, Michael S. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1984), p. 427.Google Scholar

13 Bruell's, Christopher discussion of the contemporary obstacles to understanding Plato is especially useful for this task. “On Reading Plato Today,” in Political Philosophy and the Human Soul: Essays in Memory of Allan Bloom, ed. Palmer, Michael and Pangle, Thomas. (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 1995), pp. 95–108.Google Scholar

14 Strauss, Leo,“The Spirit of Sparta or the Taste of Xenophon,” Social Research (6) 1939: 535.Google Scholar

15 Xenophon Cynegeticus 13.6 quoted in Strauss, Leo, Persecution and the Art of Writing (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952), 29n.Google Scholar

16 Strauss, , Persecution and the Art of Writing, p. 147.Google Scholar

17 Löwith, Karl, “Max Weber's Position on Science” in Max Weber's Science as a Vocation, ed. Lassman, Peter, Velody, Irving and Martins, Hermino (London: Unwin Hyman, 1989), 153.Google Scholar

18 Aron, Raymond, History, Truth, Liberty: Selected Writings of RaymondAron, ed. Draus, Franciszek (Chicago: University of Chicago press,, 1985), 354.Google Scholar

19 Kennington, Richard, “Strauss's Natural Right and History,” Review of Metaphysics 35 (1981): 68.Google Scholar

20 Ibid., pp. 69–70.

21 Strauss, Leo, The City and Man (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), 74.Google Scholar

22 Plato, Republic 411eGoogle Scholar; Strauss, , The City and Man, pp. 74, 78, 84–85.Google Scholar

23 Strauss, , The City and Man, p. 78.Google Scholar

24 Ibid., p. 74.

25 Ibid., p. 78.

26 Strauss, , What Is Political Philosophy?, p. 10.Google Scholar

27 Ibid., p. 116.

28 Homer, The Odyssey XII 106–110.Google Scholar

29 MSS, p. 12.

30 MWES, p. 147.

31 Although Strauss is known for his insistence that one should understand a thinker as he understood himself, his work on Weber shows clearly that he does not believe that social science should confine itself to this approach, for otherwise the social scientist “would have to bow without murmur to the self-interpretation of his subjects” (pp. 55–56). This approach is merely preparatory: before judging or explaining a doctrine in sociological or other terms, one must understand it exactly as its originator understood it (p. 57). But if self-interpretations can be erroneous, understanding a thinker better than he understood himself may be the true understanding.

32 Brecht, Arnold, Political Theory: The Foundations of Twentieth-Century Political Thought (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nagel, Ernest, The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1961)Google Scholar; Bruun, H. H., Science, Values, and Politics in Max Weber's Methodology (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1972).Google Scholar

33 Strauss's contention, therefore, is not refuted by Weber's alleged personal preference for the ethic of responsibility, for according to Weber's theory of values it is permissible to reject this ethic. Similarly, Brecht's contention that for Weber “values are unequal according to their different origins, implications, and consequences” contradicts Weber's discussion of syndicalism, which shows that these considerations are not decisive ( Political Theory, p. 263; MWES, pp. 120–21). Regarding the consequences of the acceptance of this thesis by social science positivism, consider Strauss, What Is Political Philosophy?, p. 20.

34 Turner, and Factor, , Max Weber, p. 41.Google Scholar

35 Guenther Roth's interpretation of this passage testifies to the strength of these temptations. He writes: “But Strauss is fair enough to denounce Reductio ad Hitlerum, the assertion that Weber's thinking led to fascism” (Bendix, Reinhard and Guenther, , Scholarship and Partisanship: Essays on Max Weber [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971], p. 64)Google Scholar. Strauss, however, argues that even if Weber's thoughts led to fascism, one cannot dismiss them because they can still be true.

36 Weber's nice distinction between “value judgments” and “reference to values” is untenable, because “reference to values presupposes appreciation of values”, and this appreciation “enables and forces the social scientist to evaluate the social phenomena” (p. 63). Ernest Nagel sees the force of Strauss's criticism and therefore tries to defend value-free social science by making a distinction between “characterizing value judgments” and “appraising value judgments”. He admits that science cannot dispense with “characterizing judgments”, but he does not show why these judgments are more valid than appraising ones (Structure of Science, pp. 490–95).

37 But compare Strauss, , What Is Political Philosophy?, p. 22.Google Scholar

38 Ibid., p. 22.

39 Ibid.

40 Consider Weber's criticism of the attitude of “the mere ‘power politician’” for having no relation to the knowledge of tragedy with which all action is truly interwoven (MWES, pp. 116–17). Weber's belief in the supremacy of conflict is the common link that explains the otherwise mysterious connection between Weber's inaugural lecture (Gesammelte Politische Schriften, ed. Winckelman, Johannes [Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1958], pp. 1–25)Google Scholar and his later writings which are based on the notion of a value-free social science.

41 Compare this with Nietzsche's preference for tragedy (26n.) and his description of the future ruler as “the Roman Caesar with Christ's soul” (The Will to Power, trans. Kaufman, Walter and Hollingdale, R. J. [New York: Random House, 1967], p. 513)Google Scholar.

42 Strauss, , What Is Political Philosophy?, p. 23.Google Scholar

43 MSS, p. 16.

44 Charles R. Walgreen lectures delivered at the University of Chicago, 1946, III, 4; see also 70n.

45 MWES, p. 143; MSS, p. 110; Strauss, , Roscher and Knies, p. 116.Google Scholar

46 MWES, pp. 140–43.

47 MSS, p. 84.

48 Ibid., p. 110.

49 Weber, Max, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1958), 13Google Scholar; MWES, pp. 350–57. Strauss argues that Spinoza's ultimate critique of revelation was his argument that “the world and human life are perfectly intelligible without the assumption of a mysterious God”, but that Spinoza's system, and every other system, failed to give such an account. Spinoza's Critique of Religion, trans. Sinclair, E. M. (New York: Schocken Books, 1965), pp. 28–29Google Scholar. Science, therefore, came to understand itself as infinitely progressive. Weber realized that this really is an unacknowledged admission by science of its defeat: an infinitely progressive science is meaningless and leads to weariness instead of satiety (MWES, pp. 137–40,356). Whereas science presupposes that its object is accessible to reason, the infinitely progressive character of science suggests that “one can say with at least equal right that it [the object of science] is radically mysterious” (Strauss, , “Relativism”, in Relativism and the Study of Man, ed. Schoeck, Helmut and Wiggens, J. W. [Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1961[, p. 154).Google Scholar

50 MWES, pp. 152–53.

51 Ibid.; Weber, , Protestant Ethic, p. 182.Google Scholar

52 Eden, , “Why Weber Wasn't a Nihilist?”, p. 225Google Scholar; Drury, Shadia, The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1988), pp. 38–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

53 Compare Strauss's account with Weber's argument about the conflict between science and religion: being unable to answer with certainty the question of its own ultimate presupposition and being compelled in the name of intellectual integrity to regard the possession of rational culture as the highest good, the intellect not only shoulders the burden of ethical guilt, but also, and more decisively, is marked with “senselessness—if this cultural value is to be judged in terms of its own standard” (MWES, p. 355).

54 MWES, pp. 323–59. Moreover, since Strauss does not share Weber's preference for tragedy, Strauss takes more seriously both revelation's claim and philosophy's claim to be the one thing needful (compare pp. 74–75 with Weber, MWES, pp. 148–49). Whereas Weber suggests that we should combine the ethics of intention and the ethics of responsibility (MWES, p. 127), Strauss argues that we can be either philosophers or theologians but not both.

55 Perhaps, a metaphysically neutral science would not be at odds with the Bible. But Strauss suggests that the non-neutrality of social science becomes visible in its analysis of religion: “The new science uses sociological or psychological theories regarding religion which exclude, without considering it, the possibility that religion rests ultimately on God's revealing Himself to man” (Liberalism: Ancient and Modern [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968], p. 218)Google Scholar. The question is whether this apparent agnosticism is compatible with reverence for revelation or whether it “is actually doubt or distrust” of revelation. It should go without saying that the existence of pious social scientists does not affect the answer to this question.

56 Strauss, therefore, suggests that the Scholastic synthesis of philosophy and Christian revelation was really an attempt to resolve the conflict in favor of revelation. It was on account of this attempted resolution that philosophy first lost its character as a way of life and became an instrument or a department, a view which has survived Scholasticism and continues to obscure the conflict between philosophy and revelation.

57 MSS, p. 16.

58 Plato The Apology 20d–22e.

59 Strauss, Le, Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983), 172Google Scholar; Micah 6:8. This philosophic enterprise should not be confused with a polemic against religion, which seeks to discredit or weaken religion by hook or by crook.

60 Strauss, , What Is Political Philosophy?, p. 104Google Scholar. Consider also Weber's contention that those who wanted to politicize the German university were turning it “into a theological seminary—except that it does not have the latter's religious dignity” (MSS, p. 7).

61 It may be objected that Easton was not concerned with fundamental riddles, but with important political issues such as urban riots and Vietnam. Yet there is a kinship between resoluteness in following moral and political agendas and the disregard of precision, a disregard nourished by a hope based on either secular or religious faith that one's actions will prove to be correct. Consider Weber's argument that “some kind of faith must always exist” for a politician, because “the final result of political action often, no, even regularly, stands in completely inadequate and often even paradoxical relation to its original meaning” (MWES, p. 117).

62 Easton, , “The New Revolution in Social Science,” pp. 1053–55.Google Scholar

63 But must the agreement be an agreement about “ultimate values”? Has not liberalism shown that this is not necessarily the case? To respond adequately to these serious objections, one must investigate the importance of the critique of religion for liberalism. One must also consider Strauss's contention that“a society that tolerates indefinitely many Weltanschauungen does this by virtue of one particular Weltanschauung”(Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy, p. 37).

64 Strauss, , “The Spirit of Sparta or the Taste of Xenophon,” p. 532Google Scholar. Weber suggests that the harmony between religion and politics was shattered by the emergence of universalistic religions of salvation, or more precisely, by the emergence of Christianity. Christianity, however, is still a social phenomenon. Although it came into conflict with the natural sib and the political orders of the world, it did not undermine the authority of the community but sought to reformulate and strengthen its basis. Accordingly, “prophecy has created a new social community” (MWES, pp. 333, 328–29).

65 Strauss, , Spinoza's Critique of Religion, pp. 29–30.Google Scholar

66 Strauss, Leo, “An Unspoken Prologue to a Public Lecture at St. John's,” Interpretation 7:3 (1978): 2.Google Scholar

67 Kennington, , “Strauss's Natural Right and History,” p. 69.Google Scholar

68 Ibid.

69 Turner, and Factor, , Max Weber, p. 119.Google Scholar

70 Strauss argues that divine guidance originally took the form of divine laws, which informed man not only about his obligations to gods but also to other men. Concern for justice seems to be the common ground between classical philosophers and believers. If it is true “that the moral principles have a greater evidence than the teachings even of natural theology” (p. 164), one might hope that the quarrel between philosophy and revelation could be settled by an examination of the nature of justice.

71 In chapter 1 Strauss argues that in order to understand the issue between historicism and nonhistoricist philosophy we must have a nonhistoricist understanding of classical philosophy (the subject of chapter 4) and “an understanding of the genesis of historicism that does not take for granted the soundness of historicism” (the subjects of chapters 5 and 6). Political life seems to have been the original matrix of both history and divine revelation.

72 Strauss, , The City and Man, p. 10.Google Scholar

73 MSS, p. 18.

74 Strauss, , Introduction to Political Philosophy, p. 289Google Scholar; The City and Man, p. 2.

75 Compare Strauss, , An Introduction to Political Philosophy, pp. 289–90 with 309–310.Google Scholar

76 “As far as I know, the present-day arguments in favor of revelation against philosophy are based on an inadequate understanding of classical philosophy” (Ibid., p. 300, emphasis added). The classical response to revelation would not lead to the spiritual exhaustion of the individual, if it does not presuppose the solution to the riddle of being. In fact, one may argue that response is necessary so that we may become free to articulate that riddle.