FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W86978416> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W86978416 startingPage "615" @default.
• W86978416 abstract "Was there ever a pupil, wise or foolish, who in fact agreed with his master in every point? --Leo Strauss, Liberalism Ancient and Modern STANLEY ROSEN'S CRITIQUES OF HIS TEACHER, Leo Strauss, are invariably brisk and stylish philosophic polemics. Over the course of more than forty years they have ranged in tone from the pugnacious to the laudatory. As critiques of Strauss go they are consistently in the highest philosophic echelon. What, then, are we to make of their frequent rough-handling of their subject? Even at their most temperate and even-handed--as in Rosen's chapter on Wittgenstein and Strauss in The Elusiveness of the Ordinary--Rosen ' s interpretations of Strauss rely on unsympathetic, distorting readings of Strauss. (1) A number of scholars have interpreted Rosen's critiques of Strauss as unfair. While they are not dismissive of Rosen, they present an account of his relationship to his teacher that makes him seem either careless, ungenerous in his manner of reading Strauss, or both. (2) These interpretations of Rosen correctly report a litany of false inferences, misplaced claims, forced conclusions, strident pronouncements, and in one case, an important misquotation. Surely the unique combination of brusqueness and celerity that characterizes Rosen's treatments of Strauss gives them warrant. (3) These accounts fail, however, to credit the genuinely philosophical character of Rosen's encounter with Strauss and Rosen's manner of writing. Those who have written on Rosen's philosophical thought are closer to the mark. (4) They remark on Rosen's differences with his teacher but do not at any length account for the extreme peculiarity of Rosen's critiques of Strauss. Without sufficiently addressing themselves to these critiques, these authors have not successfully answered the charge that Rosen's discussion of Strauss rests on a series of willful exaggerations and distortions. Rosen distorts Strauss because according to his own understanding of the nature of philosophy, such a distortion is required. This mode of speech is, for Rosen, an intrinsic element of philosophy. At the same time, paradoxically, Rosen's distortion of Strauss is the mark of respect shown by one thinker of high rank for another. Rosen claims that philosophers do not really argue with other philosophers, they instead distort and them for their Rosen writes, Fair-mindedness and objectivity are (sometimes) the traits of scholars, not of thinkers of the highest rank. Philosophers educate nonphilosophers; they punish other philosophers for their mistakes. (5) Philosophers, on Rosen's account, do not speak to one another, they punish one another: No great philosopher that I am familiar with has ever done justice to his great teacher. The same could be said of Hegel's critique of Kant, Heidegger's critique of Husserl, Derrida's critique of Heidegger and so on. All major thinkers, all people of the highest standing, the first thing they want to do is to destroy their teachers. Aristotle is very respectful towards Plato, but he always presents Plato's view in such a way as to make it implausible, or indefensible, in his own, Aristotelian terms, which makes it possible for him to establish how superior his own doctrines are to those of Plato. I can understand that. (6) The same could be said of Rosen's critique of Strauss. Rosen distorts Strauss, presents Strauss in Rosenian terms, to punish him. Someone could object, in sympathy with those writers who present Rosen's critique of Strauss as a cataract of misinformation and distortion, that Rosen's remark on philosophers getting other philosophers wrong is a back-handed attempt to certify his own classification with thinkers of the highest rank. This objection fails to account for the consistency of Rosen's distortion of Strauss. As we shall discuss presently, in Rosen's most interesting, even-handed, and temperate critique of Strauss, presented as the fourth chapter of Rosen's book, The Elusiveness of the Ordinary, the features of Rosen's various points of critique all derive from the same principle: Rosen's distortion of Strauss on the issue of opinion. …" @default.
• W86978416 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W86978416 creator A5003495128 @default.
• W86978416 date "2010-03-01" @default.
• W86978416 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W86978416 title "Stanley Rosen's Critique of Leo Strauss" @default.
• W86978416 hasPublicationYear "2010" @default.
• W86978416 type Work @default.
• W86978416 sameAs 86978416 @default.
• W86978416 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W86978416 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W86978416 hasAuthorship W86978416A5003495128 @default.
• W86978416 hasConcept C106159729 @default.
• W86978416 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W86978416 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W86978416 hasConcept C161191863 @default.
• W86978416 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W86978416 hasConcept C2524010 @default.
• W86978416 hasConcept C2776916960 @default.
• W86978416 hasConcept C2777855551 @default.
• W86978416 hasConcept C2780583480 @default.
• W86978416 hasConcept C2780861071 @default.
• W86978416 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W86978416 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W86978416 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W86978416 hasConcept C554936623 @default.
• W86978416 hasConceptScore W86978416C106159729 @default.
• W86978416 hasConceptScore W86978416C111472728 @default.
• W86978416 hasConceptScore W86978416C138885662 @default.
• W86978416 hasConceptScore W86978416C161191863 @default.
• W86978416 hasConceptScore W86978416C162324750 @default.
• W86978416 hasConceptScore W86978416C2524010 @default.
• W86978416 hasConceptScore W86978416C2776916960 @default.
• W86978416 hasConceptScore W86978416C2777855551 @default.
• W86978416 hasConceptScore W86978416C2780583480 @default.
• W86978416 hasConceptScore W86978416C2780861071 @default.
• W86978416 hasConceptScore W86978416C33923547 @default.
• W86978416 hasConceptScore W86978416C41008148 @default.
• W86978416 hasConceptScore W86978416C41895202 @default.
• W86978416 hasConceptScore W86978416C554936623 @default.
• W86978416 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W86978416 hasLocation W869784161 @default.
• W86978416 hasOpenAccess W86978416 @default.
• W86978416 hasPrimaryLocation W869784161 @default.
• W86978416 hasRelatedWork W1440887091 @default.
• W86978416 hasRelatedWork W194285312 @default.
• W86978416 hasRelatedWork W1965068128 @default.
• W86978416 hasRelatedWork W1980428293 @default.
• W86978416 hasRelatedWork W1993651536 @default.
• W86978416 hasRelatedWork W2022550684 @default.
• W86978416 hasRelatedWork W2029924576 @default.
• W86978416 hasRelatedWork W2041249190 @default.
• W86978416 hasRelatedWork W2050101238 @default.
• W86978416 hasRelatedWork W2108701055 @default.
• W86978416 hasRelatedWork W2129638388 @default.
• W86978416 hasRelatedWork W2162107438 @default.
• W86978416 hasRelatedWork W2265561774 @default.
• W86978416 hasRelatedWork W2316093883 @default.
• W86978416 hasRelatedWork W2321848518 @default.
• W86978416 hasRelatedWork W2728758142 @default.
• W86978416 hasRelatedWork W2978722066 @default.
• W86978416 hasRelatedWork W2993980042 @default.
• W86978416 hasRelatedWork W3148102952 @default.
• W86978416 hasRelatedWork W87572651 @default.
• W86978416 hasVolume "63" @default.
• W86978416 isParatext "false" @default.
• W86978416 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W86978416 magId "86978416" @default.
• W86978416 workType "article" @default.