Strauss on Machiavelli, Luther and Calvin

1) With regard to Leo Strauss' treatment of Machiavelli in "History of Political Philosophy", Strauss' comment regarding "the elimination of orders" reveals the thinking as "annihilatory", or a philosophy of annihilation of the governing structures of the sovereign. This is again properly a wartime Ideology, from a "thinking under siege", of making the sovereign "enemy". This is not the basis for a philosophy of governing of a population.

2) As far as the essay on Luther and Calvin goes, the overemphasis Strauss' places on the nature of man as "totally depraved" follows from the logic of a wartime ideology. The individual human being is the recipient of the transference and becomes the image of the "ideal enemy". In these two thinkers- Luther and Calvin- there is "justification through faith" alone, and not works. But this is because the comparison made is between the sinner and GOD, and thus all acts are depraved in comparison with the infinite nature of GOD's greatness. This does not mean there is no goodness however in relationship with other men. (A replay "Challenge flag" has been thrown as to the source of this thought, and upon review and reflection it appears that the challenge is correct . This part of the argument was formed by Paul Ricoeur and conveyed in informal conversations with myself, Marcello Villaverde and others during a break in a seminar on the work of Han Jonas at the University of Chicago Divinity School in 1989- 18 years ago. Ricoeur called this viewpoint that of the "abject suppliant", and I believe referred to the quote from the book of Job- "my god, my god, why hast thou forsaken me"- to indicate the proper perspective of this view)

This type of feeling of the sublime is characterized in the Critique of Judgment as "the dynamically sublime", in the comparison of 'might' , 'dominion', or power. But again this stance is not that of the relationship of man to fellow man, but of man in relationship to the infinite in nature(or GOD). It is therefore a properly religious stance of humility and consciousness of the weakness of man in comparison with the greatness of the power of nature/god.

Kant does not explore this idea religiously, but finds it in aesthetic judgment.

3) In the Hans Jonas seminar on a break when Ricoeur talked to us about the work of Strauss, he indicated with puzzlement the presence of a "numerology". It befuddled him how it even made it into the book, and so he said he separated it from the rest of Strauss' admirable work. Again when he came to Chicago, I believe in 68, Ricoeur said that he and Strauss bonded because Strauss had been on the blacklist and Ricoeur had spent time in a concentration camp in WWII.

My response to the inclination of some toward numerology is found in the chapter "Unity.." in the Variations. Numbers are the objectification/sublimation into a concept of "the object of our desire". It is objectification of the basic impulse in human life of calculating "how to get" what "we want", and "how many" "do we need". It is this sublimated desire in the concept of numbers that leads minds to figure some other innate relationship of meaning between the numbers themselves, and the outside world. It is the effect of superstitious thinking. Numbers themselves do have an innate relationship with the outside world- through "what we want or need".

I therefore have no desire whatsoever to explore this aspect of Strauss' work any farther.