DOI: 10.17072/2078-7898/2017-2-190-198

CRITICISM OF HISTORICISM
IN LEO STRAUSS’ POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

Demin Ilya Vyacheslavovich
Ph.D. in Philosophy, Docent,
Associate Professor of the Department
of Philosophy and History

Samara University,
34, Moskovskoye hwy., Samara, 443086, Russia;
e-mail: ilyadem83@yandex.ru
ORCID: 0000-0001-5821-3031

The article discusses the motives and foundations for criticism of historicism in Leo Strauss’ political philosophy. The major arguments against the principle of historism suggested by Strauss are identified and ordered. All objections made by Strauss are divided into two groups. The first one includes those arguments which challenge not the content of the principle of historism itself, but the value attributed to it in the context of philosophical and scientific knowledge. The other group includes substantive objections to historicism. Strauss analyzes and compares different versions of historicism philosophy, identifies their common denominator, traces the genesis of historism as a cultural and historical relativism. The core of any historicism concept are the presumption of historical dependence of philosophy and the statement on the impossibility of universal answers to philosophical questions. Historicism is regarded by Strauss as the main challenge that modern philosophy is facing. According to Strauss, the idea of progress, firmly established in modern times, played the key role in decomposition of the classical philosophical tradition and formation of historicism concepts. Strauss brings together all the major objections and arguments that were declared against historicism by representatives of various philosophical trends of the 20^th century. Strauss’ own contribution to the criticism of historicism is the substantiation of the thesis that this principle cannot have historical and empirical justification, but is a self-contradictory philosophical idea. Strauss convincingly showed that the position of historicism cannot be refuted by historical facts and arguments. It can only be rejected in the name of some other (not less fundamental than historicism) philosophical principle.

Keywords: historism, historicism, history, philosophy of history, relativism, classical philosophy, Leo Strauss.

References

1. Rickert H. Nauki o prirode i nauki o kul’ture [Natural Sciences and Cultural Sciences]. Moscow, Respublika Publ., 1998, 413 p. (in Russian).
2. Husserl E. Izbrannye raboty [Selected Works]. Moscow, Territoriya buduschego Publ., 2005, 458 p. (In Russian.).
3. Popper K. Nischeta istoritsizma [ThePovertyofHistoricism]. Moscow, Progress Publ., 1993, 185 p. (In Russian).
4. Frank S.L. Dukhovnye osnovy obschestva [The Spiritual Foundations of Society]. Moscow, Respublika Publ., 1992, 510 p. (In Russian).
5. Jaspers K. Smysl i naznachenie istorii [The Origin and Goal of History]. Moscow, Politizdat Publ., 1991, 527 p. (In Russian).
6. Demin I.V. Filosofiya istorii v postmetafizicheskom kontekste [The Philosophy of History in Post-Metaphysical Context]. Samara, Samara Academy for the Humanities Publ., 2015, 251 p. (In Russian).
7. Demin I.V. Metafizika i postmetafizicheskoe myshlenie v zerkale istoriosofii [Metaphysics and Post-Metaphysical Thinking in the Mirror of Historiosophy]. Samara, Samara Academy for the Humanities Publ., 2016, 238 p. (In Russian).
8. Demin I.V. Problema edinstva istorii v kontekste metafizicheskoy i postmetafizicheskoy filosofii [The Problem of the Unity of History in the Context of Metaphysical and Post-metaphysical Philosophy]. XXI vek: itogi proshlogo i problemy nastoyaschego plyus [XXI century: Resumes of the Past and Challenges of the Present Plus]. 2015, no. 6(28), vol. 2, pp. 44–50. (In Russian).
9. Demin I.V. Razlichenie pervichnoy i vtorichnoy istorichnosti v metafizike L.P. Karsavina i v ekzistentsial’noy analitike M. Khaydeggera [The Distinction Between Primary and Secondary Historicity in Karsavin’s Metaphysics and in Heidegger’s Existential Analytics]. Vestnik Samarskoy gumanitarnoy akademii. Seriya: Filosofiya. Filologiya [Bulletin of the Samara Academy for Humanities. Series: Philosophy. Philology]. 2015, no. 1(17), pp. 54–64. (In Russian).
10. Dmitriev T. Spor ob osnovakh politicheskogo: Leo Shtraus versus Karl Shmitt [The Debate About the Foundations of the Political; or, Leo Strauss Versus Carl Schmitt]. Sotsiologicheskoe obozrenie [Sociological Review]. 2012, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 26–40.(In Russian).
11. Norton A. Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire. Yale, Yale university press, 2004, 256 p. (In English).
12. Smith S. Reading Leo Strauss: Politics, Philosophy, Judaism. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2006, 268 p. (In English).
13. Strauss L. Vvedenie v politicheskuyu filosofiyu [Introduction to Political Philosophy]. Moscow, Logos, Praksis Publ., 2000, 364 p. (In Russian).
14. Strauss L. Germanskiy nigilizm [On German Nihilism]. Politiko-filosofskiy ezhegodnik Vyp. 6 [Political philosophy Yearbook. Iss. 6]. Moscow, IPh RAS Publ., 2013, pp. 182–205. (In Russian).
15. Strauss L. Estestvennoe pravo i istoriya [Natural Law and History]. Moscow, Vodoley Publ., 2007, 312 p. (In Russian).
16. Rutkevich A.M. Politicheskaya filosofiya L. Shtrausa [The Political Philosophy of Leo Strauss]. Strauss L. O tiranii [Strauss L.On Tyranny]. Saint Petersburg, SPbSU Publ., 2006, pp. 7–38. (In Russian).

The date of the manuscript receipt 24.11.2016

Please cite this article in English as:

Demin I.V. Criticism of historicism in Leo Strauss’ political philosophy // Perm University Herald. Series «Philosophy. Psychology. Sociology». 2017. Iss. 2. P. 190–198. DOI: 10.17072/2078-7898/2017-2-190-198