What do you think of Leo Strauss? I recently bought Natural

Interesting thinking. You might also be interested in a Schmitt thread that happened a while ago. If the thread is still up when I get back I'll go ahead and post the link to that.

>>9852662
Doesn´t seem to be up anymore. Yeah, i also read the "political theology" by schmitt and some book about it.

>>9852676
I was talking about finding it if this particular thread is still up. Of course the other one is down. Just check the archiving site if you are curious. If not I'll try and post it later in the day.

>>9852866
ah, i understand. thanks!

>>9852676
Good. Read plenty of secondary sources. I know there are some good biographical type assessments of Schmitt and I'm sure there have been plenty written about Strauss and his works as well.

https://warosu.org/lit/thread/S9797463

>>9852557
As a philosopher in his own right, I find it hard to tell what's going on sometimes; he can be positively inscrutable sometimes, when it comes to his own working out of matters. Some of his students point to really bizarre elements of his thought that make it even harder to figure out what he's doing (Check out Richard Kennington's review of Natural Right and History as a spectacular example of a close reading of Strauss that makes him even more bizarre a thinker than one would otherwise imagine. Also maybe Seth Benardete's review of The City and Man and Victor Gourevitch's essays on On Tyranny and the Strauss-Kojeve debate.)

As a scholar, he's often a better reader than the vast majority, and he can be deeply insightful into a thinker one may be interested in. Even thinkers he seems to be a bit lukewarm on (such as Locke or Rousseau) he has fascinating observations about. Except among his students (obviously, and for better or for worse), he's shamefully underrated among scholars.

>>9852557
Read his essay on German nihilism. He basically gives a sympathetic description of the philosophical foundations of national socialism. Very insightful.

>>9855209
I had heard of Gourevitch but not the others. Thanks for these interesting leads.

Strauss himself I've found insightful in my few encounters with him and I want to read him more deeply.

But STRAUSSIANS, honestly, have seemed almost bizarrely shallow to me when I've looked at their translation-commentaries of Plato.

>>9855547
>The teacher is brilliant; his students are miserable.
Similar problem as Freud and Nietzsche, actually. To be fair to Straussians, though, they're the only ones doing political thought that isn't pseudo-economics quant worship on the one hand, or pie-in-the-sky Rawlsian liberal bullshitting, on the other. The calcification of any thought into dogma makes it stupid, but, as far as stupid goes, Straussians are a less wretched lot than many of their colleagues.

>>9854662
>https://warosu.org/lit/thread/S9797463
thank you

>>9855280
i will check it out