Abstract
The end of the 1930s marked a turning point in Strauss’s thought that Daniel Tanguay has aptly called his “Farabian Turn.”1 Although Strauss’s most extended work on Farabi, Maimonides, et al. in the 1930s is Philosophy and Law (1935),2 the turn Tanguay identifies is more evident in the smaller pieces that came out in the wake of Philosophy and Law—including “Some Remarks on the Political Science of Maimonides and Farabi” (1936)3 but especially “The Place of the Doctrine of Providence according to Maimonides” (1937).4 In these two pieces, Strauss evinces a growing awareness of the depth of Maimonides’s debt to Farabi. Tanguay identifies two main features of the Farabian Turn: the focus on the political in Maimonides and a growing awareness of the centrality of esotericism. Prior to the Turn, in Philosophy and Law, Strauss elevated two features in his interpretation of Maimonides that fade into the background as early as the two pieces written in 1936 and 1937: the importance of Avicenna’s account of prophecy and Maimonides’s apparent reliance on supernatural resources for knowledge of things beyond the limit of natural human knowledge. Beginning in 1936, Strauss avoids any suggestion that the supernatural plays such a role.5
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Daniel Tanguay, Leo Strauss: An Intellectual Biography, trans. Christopher Nadon (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007), 80.
Parens, “Strauss on Maimonides’s Secretive Political Science,” in Leo Strauss ’s Defense of the Philosophic Life: Reading “What Is Political Philosophy?” ed. Rafael Major (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012), 116–36.
Tanguay, Leo Strauss, 56, and Joshua Parens, “Escaping the Scholastic Paradigm,” in Encountering the Medieval in Modern Jewish Thought, ed. Aaron Hughes and James Diamond (New York and Leiden: Brill, 2012), 207–27.
Shlomo Pines, “Aristotle’s Politics in Arabic Philosophy,” Israel Oriental Studies 5 (1975): 150–60.
Parens, “Strauss on Maimonides’s Secretive Political Science,” in Leo Strauss’s Defense of the Philosophic Life (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012), 116–36.
W. Z. Harvey, “Why Maimonides Was Not a Mutakallim,” in Perspectives on Maimonides, ed. Joel L. Kraemer (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 105–14, cited in Sarah Stroumsa, Maimonides in His World: Portrait of a Mediterranean Thinker (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009), 37n47.
Heinrich Meier, Leo Strauss and the Theologico-Political Problem (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006).
Haggai Ben Shammai, “Kalam in Medieval Jewish Philosophy,” in History of Jewish Philosophy, ed. Daniel H. Frank and Oliver Leaman (London: Routledge, 1997), 127–32.
Editor information
Copyright information
© 2014 Martin D. Yaffe and Richard S. Ruderman
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Parens, J. (2014). Leo Strauss on Farabi, Maimonides, et al. in the 1930S. In: Yaffe, M.D., Ruderman, R.S. (eds) Reorientation: Leo Strauss in the 1930s. Recovering Political Philosophy. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137381149_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137381149_9
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-37423-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-38114-9
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political Science CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)