Rating: 
Summary: New York Times Writers Paranoid Over Strauss's Influence
Review: After having read Allan Bloom's brilliant testament "Closing of the American Mind" and reading Mortimer Adler's subsequent counter-attacks on Bloom, I read this AND NOT ONLY DO I HAVE NO REGRETS, BUT ALL PREVIOUS DIGESTS OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY SEEM CLEARLY INFERIOR TO STRAUSS'S AND CROPSEY'S.
Thomas Pangle (a fascinating writer and student of Strauss) writes a great epilogue for those who have just stumbled on Strauss and are intrigued by the great teacher.
You get chapter after chapter of the massive and intense sweep from Plato to Heidegger. AND THE AGES BETWEEN GREECE AND THE EUROPEAN ENLIGHTENMENT ARE NOT TREATED LIKE A BLACK HOLE.
Each Straussian scholar treats his assigned philosopher with near reverence COMPARED TO THE SNEERING POST-MODERNS AND DECONSTRUCTIONISTS.
MOST NON-STRAUSSIAN COMMENTARIES ON PHILOSPHERS DISCOURAGE THE STUDENT FROM WANTING TO UNDERSTAND THE PHILOSOPHER ON THE PHILOSPHER'S TERMS.
It's laughable to read periodically in the New York Times pieces on Strauss and his students. Their writers have this ghoulish fear that Strauss has some kind of spooky control over the dreaded neo-conservatives. Beneath it all, Strauss's real agenda was to supposedly brainwash a bunch of over-bookish chickenhawks into taking over the world through appointments in Washington.
The PERIODIC HIT PIECES ON HARVEY MANSFIELD in the New York Times are so transparent as to be laugh-out-loud funny.
You should have read the uproariously funny and paranoid Straussian conspiracy theory piece written by James Ring Atlas! Mr. Atlas, RELAX!
Rating:
Summary: Best when approached without assumptions
Review: Be careful with this book! The "History of Political Philosophy" is not a reference volume in the encyclopedic sense, with glib, editorial-style entries that can be read in five minutes or less. The essays herein tend to be heuristic treatments of the great philosophers of the West, elucidating the basic political questions as each philosopher understood them. It does not attempt to answer those questions for the reader. I have owned this volume for seven years, so I can point out things that tend to get missed at first glance:1) A & B reading lists at the end of each chapter--- The A readings give an idea of what's required for basic exposure with the political thinker's thought, while the B readings are for extended study. A wonderful time-saving tool, especially for the classroom. 2) Notes at the end of each entry--- As many of the essays are meant to get the reader to ask questions regarding a certain thinker's intentions, they are not always clear until you compare the essay with the noted passages. Remember that the essays are not to be read in isolation; the notes almost always refer to the primary sources of a philosopher and are usually limited to his general corpus (ex. Plato's "Republic", Rousseau's "Social Contract", Hobbes "Leviathan", etc.). Read the notes to understand the essays as much as the essays to understand the notes. 3) The index--- Almost every theme, idea, and subject touching upon political thought is listed here. You will be surprised at how comprehensive it is, although this index's main virtue is in forcing you to pay attention to the overall essays, which in turn force you to pay attention to the primary sources. Although most of us will never be specialists in political theory, going through the essays and the "A" readings in "History of Political Philosophy" can be a great substitute. Read to be informed, yes, but also read with an eye towards good living, which is political philosophy's constant study.
Rating:
Summary: Best when approached without assumptions
Review: Be careful with this book! The "History of Political Philosophy" is not a reference volume in the encyclopedic sense, with glib, editorial-style entries that can be read in five minutes or less. The essays herein tend to be heuristic treatments of the great philosophers of the West, elucidating the basic political questions as each philosopher understood them. It does not attempt to answer those questions for the reader. I have owned this volume for seven years, so I can point out things that tend to get missed at first glance: 1) A & B reading lists at the end of each chapter--- The A readings give an idea of what's required for basic exposure with the political thinker's thought, while the B readings are for extended study. A wonderful time-saving tool, especially for the classroom. 2) Notes at the end of each entry--- As many of the essays are meant to get the reader to ask questions regarding a certain thinker's intentions, they are not always clear until you compare the essay with the noted passages. Remember that the essays are not to be read in isolation; the notes almost always refer to the primary sources of a philosopher and are usually limited to his general corpus (ex. Plato's "Republic", Rousseau's "Social Contract", Hobbes "Leviathan", etc.). Read the notes to understand the essays as much as the essays to understand the notes. 3) The index--- Almost every theme, idea, and subject touching upon political thought is listed here. You will be surprised at how comprehensive it is, although this index's main virtue is in forcing you to pay attention to the overall essays, which in turn force you to pay attention to the primary sources. Although most of us will never be specialists in political theory, going through the essays and the "A" readings in "History of Political Philosophy" can be a great substitute. Read to be informed, yes, but also read with an eye towards good living, which is political philosophy's constant study.
Rating: 
Summary: A standard textbook on political philosophy
Review: I red this book following the advice of a friend who was a philosophy major. My interest in politics and in the formation of the political ideas in the ancient and in the medieval world led me to this book. I think that the chapters on Aristotle and Plato are excellent. I am sure that we can't substitute or even avoid reading the original works (in the original language or in the best possible translations) but this book can help introduce and clarify some parts of the most important works. For the person who wants to read about a larger number of thinkers this is not the book. But for the person who wants to follow a tested textbook and it's basic material it is very good.
Rating:
Summary: The Best Single Text On History Of Political Philosophy
Review: Leo Strauss' and Joseph Cropsey's "History Of Political Philosophy" is a great way to start to learn about "western political philosophy." The essays, which describe the Greek classical philosophers such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, are especially lucid and well written. Not surprising since Strauss spent his life teaching the virtues of "classical philosophy". Strauss points out that classical political philosophy predominated until the 16th century. Modern philosophy was an out growth of the revolution that takes place in the natural sciences during the Enlightenment. The purpose of science is the conquest of nature man is in control of human life. Philosophers from Machiavelli on become sectarian. "Everything good is due to man's labor rather than to nature's gift." Men who rely on education and modern philosophical principles alone to build a better society wind up following the path of Marx, i.e. Communism, and Nietzsche and Heidegger, i.e. Fascism. Strauss, in the aftermath of WWII, spends his life touting the virtues of classical philosophy as a way to turn back some of the harm done by modern philosophers. I especially found the A & B reading lists at the end of each chapter quite useful. The A readings give one an idea of what's required for basic understanding of the political thinker's thought, while the B readings are for in depth study. As a retired Army officer and student of political philosophy, I found this to be a great textbook to start one's journey into political philosophy.
Rating:
Summary: The Best Single Text On History Of Political Philosophy
Review: Leo Strauss' and Joseph Cropsey's "History Of Political Philosophy" is a great way to start to learn about "western political philosophy." The essays, which describe the Greek classical philosophers such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, are especially lucid and well written. Not surprising since Strauss spent his life teaching the virtues of "classical philosophy". Strauss points out that classical political philosophy predominated until the 16th century. Modern philosophy was an out growth of the revolution that takes place in the natural sciences during the Enlightenment. The purpose of science is the conquest of nature man is in control of human life. Philosophers from Machiavelli on become sectarian. "Everything good is due to man's labor rather than to nature's gift." Men who rely on education and modern philosophical principles alone to build a better society wind up following the path of Marx, i.e. Communism, and Nietzsche and Heidegger, i.e. Fascism. Strauss, in the aftermath of WWII, spends his life touting the virtues of classical philosophy as a way to turn back some of the harm done by modern philosophers. I especially found the A & B reading lists at the end of each chapter quite useful. The A readings give one an idea of what's required for basic understanding of the political thinker's thought, while the B readings are for in depth study. As a retired Army officer and student of political philosophy, I found this to be a great textbook to start one's journey into political philosophy.
Rating:
Summary: Political Philosophy's Political Philosophy for the young
Review: On the surface this book introduces the major political philosophers of the Western Tradition in historical order, Thucydides, Plato, Xenophon, Aristotle are the ancients, and the final moderns considered are Husserl and Heidegger (an epilogue dedicated to Leo Strauss is included; however, it is not particularly well written, Strauss's own writing is vastly superior). Between these two historical poles many great thinker's political works are considered discretely in independently crafted essays by world-reknown scholars. This means a student interested in Rousseau can usefully derive profit from the essay on Rousseau without necesserily reading about Machavelli, or Hobbes or Plato, for example, since each is, on the surface, wholly unto itself. Moreover, the talented student can begin to fathom out her own 'connections' in her own mind about how each philosopher may be linked to earlier or later authors (The editors never do this for you). Consequently, this book is richly superior to the standard texts that treat the 'History of Political Philosophy' like a sociological event, an event Hegel and Marx participated in but did not cause. To be overly simplistic here, this text argues that Hegel and Marx caused the sociological events. However, because this stance is explained elegantly to the reader by the editor, Leo Strauss, in the excellent 'Introduction', it would be unfair to call this an academic prejudice. Unlike the sociological approach, Strauss is able to explain himself and hence his manner of insight, which gives the reader/student/teacher an advantage in coming to their own conclusions about complex issues. One complaint I have is that there is an American bias, being Canadian I feel compelled to say that the inclusion of 'The Federalist' and 'John Dewey' depreciate the work. As well, a young reader might be bewildered and/or angered by the manner in which some philosophers are presented, most notably Struass's own treatment on Machavelli(When I first read it I thought it said next to nothing). Neverthless, as Strauss says bewilderment is the first stage of learning. Personally, after many years acquaintence with this edition, I have recently come back to discover how fruitful the essays on Husserl and Heidegger are, especially Husserl who is often overlooked. You could own this book and use it for many years, continually refreshing yourself in it's clean waters.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent, for what it is...
Review: So apparently there is a great deal of controversy surrounding this book, at least according to those who have deigned to write a review about it. I myself had no idea until I read some of them, but only after I have read the book its self. I find it amusing the charges that a certain political bias is presented in this collection of essays, but only because it seems that particular bias comes at the expense of another. Most curious. At any rate, if you, like me, would like to have a resource that covers most of the great political thinkers of Western civilization, who's names you will discover when you read any of the other reviews, then this might well be the tome you are seeking. If the essays are presented in conservative terms here, then it should balance nicely the liberal terms in which they were originally presented in your classroom (I am after all making the presumption...). I have found this book to be highly useful in my continuing study of political philosophy, and reach for it more often than say, my copy of Das Kapital, or The Wealth of Nations. This could well be a function of my laziness, but I like to think it is because of the utility of History of Political Philosophy, and not just the defense of the ramparts of a particular ideology that is not embraced by all. You have a mind, so use it. If you need a quick and rich resource into western political thought, this book may well be of use to you. If, on the other hand, you are afraid that the supposedly conservative tones of this collection of essays might threaten your outlook, then by all means avoid it, and write disparaging reviews for it.
Rating:
Summary: Good Book - Just be Aware of Strauss's Influence
Review: This book provides an excellent introduction to the main political thinkers of the West. Most essays are quite good and the book has proved remarkably resilient to change. However, readers should keep in mind that the authors chosen to submit essays are of a particular school of thought, or at least very sympathetic to a certain school of thought. This book, the Straussians' "Purple Bible" (as graduate students called it at the University of Chicago), is a kind of primer to the reading methods and especially writing styles of Strauss's students. In many ways it says as much about the Strauss School as it says about the thinkers themselves. This in no way demeans the work, but readers may be surprised to find how incredibly different the essays on Hegel or Heidegger are from those found in other source books. As this book is composed of Straussians writing about their pet philosopher, their particular prejudices, or if you prefer, the school's preconceptions, permeate each and every essay. Thus as expected, the entries on Heidegger and Marx are not very good; the one's on Plato and Aristotle are excellent. Read judiciously this is a valuable work. Read as most contemporary Straussians read it, it's just the official "party line" on how to deal with certain thinkers.
Rating:
Summary: Great survey of Political Philosophy. Bravo, Sir Strauss!
Review: This book was wonderful. I highly suggest buying it. One of this books main strengths lie in its atomized considerations of political philosophers- Strauss attempts no overarching theory, but keeps his comments and observations close cropped and relevant, making most of his characterizations accurate and excellent introducations in and odf themselves. I first came upon this book as a treaching tool as an intro book, but have since realized I liked it myself, meaning this book has much to give nearly everyone who reads it. I agree with the person below that ceretain areas were perfunctory (Machiavelli is not a philosopher to consider without much commentary, and Angelo Codevilla does a better job), but other parts I diosagree with (I had the exact opposite problem with the American considerations, and thought them perfunctory and too brief), but these are very limited criticisms of a book that was exemplary in most every other case. Get this book and give another to an intelligent friend. It is fascinating and engaging.
|
