Abstract: One of the pivotal works for the creative path of Carl Schmitt became “The Concept of the Political” that provokes a number of controversies. Having withstood three revisions, caused also by criticism from the colleagues, “The Concept of the Political” appears to multiple researchers as one of the most vivid manifestations of realpolitik in the XX century. However, this article defends a different point of view. The conducted analysis demonstrates that the positions expressed by Schmitt in his work strongly depend on the classical liberalism, and particularly the thought of Thomas Hobbes. Schmitt, whose verve, in essence, is anti-liberal, remains within the limits of liberalism. At the same time, another frame for theses narrated in “The Concept of the Political” is Nietzscheanism. Namely due to the impossibility of synthesizing liberal and anti-liberal positions, Schmitt’s work remains incomplete. It seems that the author was could not follow to its logical end none of the claimed theses: definition of politics, representation on the state, or position on non-moralism of the political. Thus, “The Concept of the Political” could not suffice any ideological position and remained practically incomplete as an alternative to the liberal view on politics.  

Abstract: This article of Leo Strauss – Professor at the University of Chicago that summarizes two lectures read by him in 1966, is dedicated to the initial description of the problem of the relation between mind and faith within the questions of social and political life, which is also known as the problem of “Athens and Jerusalem”. The subject field of this work consists in the two cultural heritages, represented in the works of Greek poets and philosophers on one hand, and Biblical traditions, particularly, Torah – on the other. Strauss attempts to elucidate the picture of the world – the beginning of world – in perception of the prophets and philosophers. For achieving the set goal, he used the historical critical and hermeneutic methods, discussing the creation of the world describe in the Bible, and origination of the world and gods presented in the Greek sources. The scientific novelty of this work consist in sequential application of the revised by Strauss hermeneutic method of “attentive reading”. The main conclusion lies in the idea of incompatibility of Athens and Jerusalem, in other words, the necessity to choose a single way of explanation of the world, and this, only one way towards resolution of the issues of social and political life.

Abstract: This research by the renowned American political philosopher Leo Strauss is dedicated to the preservation of tradition of the division of philosophical texts into esoteric (public) and esoteric (hidden) within the work of Gotthold Ephraim Lessing. This work continues the cycle of articles on the questions of exo- and esoteric, introducing new criteria of distinction between them, and therefore – renewing and enriching the “rules of careful reading” advanced by Strauss in the “Persecution and the Art of Writing” and the “On a Forgotten Kind of Writing”, as well as in some of his other works. Strauss attempts to comprehend the cause that forced the researches of XIX century, including such prominent researcher of antiquity as Friedrich Schleiermacher, to refuse the traditional division of philosophical teachings into exo- and esoteric. He finds it in the liberalization of the “modern” views – in the thought on almightiness of reason that has infiltrated the ranks of historians of philosophy, and the resulting equality between the cognitive abilities of all people. The division into exo- and esoteric initially proposes division of audience of the philosophical text into readers capable to comprehend its meaning and capable of such effort. The antique philosophy, followed by Lessing, supports this division; the modern philosophy rejects it.
 

Abstract: In the present article Leo Strauss touches upon the problem of the relationship between political philosophy and politics. In the modern age political philosophy has lost its universal nature while politics, on the contrary, has gained it. Strauss refers this fundamental shift to the influence of the philosophy of Martin Heidegger and his 'radical historicism'. Heidegger's radical historicism responds to the challenges of those times, i.e. the times when the idea of the borders of history prevailed. In these terms, Strauss mentions Hegel and his conception of the end of history as well as Nietzsche and Marx and their idea of the begining of history. Just like Nietzsche and Marx, Heidegger took his philosophy as the prelude to the beginning of history or, how Strauss calls it, the 'absolute', i.e. the turning point of history. However, such approach deprives the previous philosophy in general and political philosophy in particular of all their aspirations. Radical historicism makes philosophy dependent on historical conditions starting from the very moment when it appears. Trying to avoid the 'end of history', Strauss starts to move backwards. In our cuse, he directly appeals to Heidegger's teacher, Edmund Husserl and his work 'Philosophy as Rigorous Science'. 

Abstract: The present work consists of the two parts. The first part is the translation of Leo Strauss' article 'On the Minos', a classical example of Strauss interpretation of ancient texts. The second part is devoted to the analysis of the aforesaid work in which Strauss raised one of the most important questions of classical political philosophy - what is the law? The analysis is focused on the main aspect of legislation - public consent described by Strauss as the agreement between Socrat, the philosopher who possessed knowledge, and his nameless interlocutor who did not possess knowledge. In order to provide an insight into Strauss philosophy, the author of the article uses the method of attentive reading described by Strauss that allows to avoid superficial or trivial interpretation of the text. Leo Strauss is the philosopher who created grounds of non-conservative political ideology and is not so well known in Russia. Very few of his works have been translated into Russian and very scarcely analyzed. The question whether an agreement (i.e. law) is possible between two different types of people is quite a usual one because quite often people have to obey rules of incompetent legislators who were elected by incompetent electors. Strauss gave quite an unusual and original answe to that question. 

Abstract: This article is some kind of continuation of Leo Strauss' article 'Persecution and the Art of Writing' and his eponymously named book the aforesaid article is the part of. In his article the political philosopher Leo Strauss describes his hermeneutic method which he called the method of 'careful reading'. In the book Leo Strauss gave a few examples of how this method can be used based on the analysis of works written by Maimonides, Halevi and Spinoza. The article 'On a Forgotten Kind of Writing' is the response to critical comments received by Strauss after he published his 'Persecution and the Art of Writing'. Strauss analyzes the two examples of such critical comments, the critical review written by D. Sabin and the article written by Y. Belaval. The philosopher rejects Sabin's critics by successively analyzing it and pointing out the minuses, inaccuracies and errors. He seems to be more disposed to Belaval who bases his critics mostly on the argument that Strauss is wrong being oriented at Medieval Eastern philosophy. According to Belaval, representatives of Medieval Eastern philosophy were more of scientists or analysts than philosophers. Belaval also states that Strauss' method is not quite accurate. Generally speaking, this article is neither 'breakthrough' nor fundamental. The main purpose of the article is to clarify several issues that haven't been covered in 'Persecution and the Art of Writing'.