The site hosting Hardt & Negri's Empire has been down so I will turn back to Leo Strauss. What initially attracted me to him was his critique of positivist social (political) science.
From memory Strauss argued that positivist science had divorced itself from philosophy, celebrated the fact/value distinction, presupposed the detached observer, and was divorced from "pre-scientific' understanding--common sense or the civic opinion of political life. It failed to look at political life from the perspective and experiences of the citizen or the statesman engaged in civic debate.
Positivist social science was attacked instransigently to make room for philosophy to leave its secluded academic haven, enter the marketplace and engage in political debate. Philosophy as a way of life helps others by doing what is possible to ameliorate their conditions; to defend good opinions, prudential judgements and sound practices; and to challenge misguided opinions and bad theory that undermine democracy as a good regime.
Is this a naive attempt to return to the ancient Greek polis that has little relevance to contemporay liberal democracy? Or is it an attempt to contest the strong current of "the abolition of the political" that still flows through our cultural life; an attempt to defend the political---a serious conflict and confrontation over the nature of the good life for Strauss?
Does it act as a mitigated scepticism towards the liberalism that is nurtured and practised by our political regime?
Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at July 14, 2004 10:56 PM | TrackBack