Alasdair MacIntyre and Leo Strauss on the Activity of Philosophy
Followers of Leo Strauss have criticized Alasdair MacIntyre's account of the activity of philosophy as historicist. MacIntyre himself has been dismissive of Strauss. I argue that these apparent disagreements obscure their deeper agreements about the activity of philosophy. Rather than holding t...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | The Review of politics 2020-01, Vol.82 (1), p.97-122 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 122 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 97 |
| container_title | The Review of politics |
| container_volume | 82 |
| creator | Pinkoski, Nathan J. |
| description | Followers of Leo Strauss have criticized Alasdair MacIntyre's account of the activity of philosophy as historicist. MacIntyre himself has been dismissive of Strauss. I argue that these apparent disagreements obscure their deeper agreements about the activity of philosophy. Rather than holding to historicism, MacIntyre's account of philosophy has a strong symmetry with Strauss's. To counter modern dogmatism, both Strauss and MacIntyre argue for a balanced mixture of history and philosophy to contend that philosophy's task is to gain knowledge of natural reality. Yet both place similar epistemic limits on philosophy, arguing that philosophy's gains are modest and always open to revision. Moreover, both hold that no authority other than human reason can direct the activity of philosophy. Putting MacIntyre and Strauss in a more careful conversation enriches the account of the fundamental philosophical problems that each addresses. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1017/S0034670519000779 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2328571416</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2328571416</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c140t-6599614d0a6ada912a21f817045e3202f02d20eaf89d798fae9b53f11554bded3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNplkE1LAzEURYMoWKs_wF3A9eh7mXzuLEVroaJQXQ_pJKFT6qQmqTD_3pa6c3UX53AvXEJuEe4RUD0sAWouFQg0AKCUOSMjVFxXUgt9TkZHXB35JbnKeXNwQDM5Io-Trc3Odom-2nbelyF5antHFz7SZUl2nzONPS1rTydt6X66MtAY6Pu628Ycd-vhmlwEu83-5i_H5PP56WP6Ui3eZvPpZFG1yKFUUhgjkTuw0jprkFmGQaMCLnzNgAVgjoG3QRunjA7Wm5WoA6IQfOW8q8fk7tS7S_F773NpNnGf-sNkw2qmhUKO8mDhyWpTzDn50OxS92XT0CA0x6Oaf0fVv2KeWTw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2328571416</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Alasdair MacIntyre and Leo Strauss on the Activity of Philosophy</title><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><source>Cambridge University Press Journals Complete</source><creator>Pinkoski, Nathan J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Pinkoski, Nathan J.</creatorcontrib><description>Followers of Leo Strauss have criticized Alasdair MacIntyre's account of the activity of philosophy as historicist. MacIntyre himself has been dismissive of Strauss. I argue that these apparent disagreements obscure their deeper agreements about the activity of philosophy. Rather than holding to historicism, MacIntyre's account of philosophy has a strong symmetry with Strauss's. To counter modern dogmatism, both Strauss and MacIntyre argue for a balanced mixture of history and philosophy to contend that philosophy's task is to gain knowledge of natural reality. Yet both place similar epistemic limits on philosophy, arguing that philosophy's gains are modest and always open to revision. Moreover, both hold that no authority other than human reason can direct the activity of philosophy. Putting MacIntyre and Strauss in a more careful conversation enriches the account of the fundamental philosophical problems that each addresses.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0034-6705</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1748-6858</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S0034670519000779</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Notre Dame: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Conversation ; Dogmatism ; Historicism ; History ; Knowledge ; Nature ; Philosophy ; Politics ; Rationalism ; Relativism ; Symmetry ; Theory ; Traditions</subject><ispartof>The Review of politics, 2020-01, Vol.82 (1), p.97-122</ispartof><rights>Copyright Cambridge University Press Winter 2020</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c140t-6599614d0a6ada912a21f817045e3202f02d20eaf89d798fae9b53f11554bded3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,12843,27922,27923</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Pinkoski, Nathan J.</creatorcontrib><title>Alasdair MacIntyre and Leo Strauss on the Activity of Philosophy</title><title>The Review of politics</title><description>Followers of Leo Strauss have criticized Alasdair MacIntyre's account of the activity of philosophy as historicist. MacIntyre himself has been dismissive of Strauss. I argue that these apparent disagreements obscure their deeper agreements about the activity of philosophy. Rather than holding to historicism, MacIntyre's account of philosophy has a strong symmetry with Strauss's. To counter modern dogmatism, both Strauss and MacIntyre argue for a balanced mixture of history and philosophy to contend that philosophy's task is to gain knowledge of natural reality. Yet both place similar epistemic limits on philosophy, arguing that philosophy's gains are modest and always open to revision. Moreover, both hold that no authority other than human reason can direct the activity of philosophy. Putting MacIntyre and Strauss in a more careful conversation enriches the account of the fundamental philosophical problems that each addresses.</description><subject>Conversation</subject><subject>Dogmatism</subject><subject>Historicism</subject><subject>History</subject><subject>Knowledge</subject><subject>Nature</subject><subject>Philosophy</subject><subject>Politics</subject><subject>Rationalism</subject><subject>Relativism</subject><subject>Symmetry</subject><subject>Theory</subject><subject>Traditions</subject><issn>0034-6705</issn><issn>1748-6858</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AVQMV</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>K50</sourceid><sourceid>M1D</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNplkE1LAzEURYMoWKs_wF3A9eh7mXzuLEVroaJQXQ_pJKFT6qQmqTD_3pa6c3UX53AvXEJuEe4RUD0sAWouFQg0AKCUOSMjVFxXUgt9TkZHXB35JbnKeXNwQDM5Io-Trc3Odom-2nbelyF5antHFz7SZUl2nzONPS1rTydt6X66MtAY6Pu628Ycd-vhmlwEu83-5i_H5PP56WP6Ui3eZvPpZFG1yKFUUhgjkTuw0jprkFmGQaMCLnzNgAVgjoG3QRunjA7Wm5WoA6IQfOW8q8fk7tS7S_F773NpNnGf-sNkw2qmhUKO8mDhyWpTzDn50OxS92XT0CA0x6Oaf0fVv2KeWTw</recordid><startdate>20200101</startdate><enddate>20200101</enddate><creator>Pinkoski, Nathan J.</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88F</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AVQMV</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DPSOV</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K50</scope><scope>KC-</scope><scope>M1D</scope><scope>M1Q</scope><scope>M2L</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20200101</creationdate><title>Alasdair MacIntyre and Leo Strauss on the Activity of Philosophy</title><author>Pinkoski, Nathan J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c140t-6599614d0a6ada912a21f817045e3202f02d20eaf89d798fae9b53f11554bded3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Conversation</topic><topic>Dogmatism</topic><topic>Historicism</topic><topic>History</topic><topic>Knowledge</topic><topic>Nature</topic><topic>Philosophy</topic><topic>Politics</topic><topic>Rationalism</topic><topic>Relativism</topic><topic>Symmetry</topic><topic>Theory</topic><topic>Traditions</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Pinkoski, Nathan J.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Military Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>Arts Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Politics Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Art, Design & Architecture Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Politics Collection</collection><collection>Arts & Humanities Database</collection><collection>Military Database</collection><collection>Political Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>The Review of politics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Pinkoski, Nathan J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Alasdair MacIntyre and Leo Strauss on the Activity of Philosophy</atitle><jtitle>The Review of politics</jtitle><date>2020-01-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>82</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>97</spage><epage>122</epage><pages>97-122</pages><issn>0034-6705</issn><eissn>1748-6858</eissn><abstract>Followers of Leo Strauss have criticized Alasdair MacIntyre's account of the activity of philosophy as historicist. MacIntyre himself has been dismissive of Strauss. I argue that these apparent disagreements obscure their deeper agreements about the activity of philosophy. Rather than holding to historicism, MacIntyre's account of philosophy has a strong symmetry with Strauss's. To counter modern dogmatism, both Strauss and MacIntyre argue for a balanced mixture of history and philosophy to contend that philosophy's task is to gain knowledge of natural reality. Yet both place similar epistemic limits on philosophy, arguing that philosophy's gains are modest and always open to revision. Moreover, both hold that no authority other than human reason can direct the activity of philosophy. Putting MacIntyre and Strauss in a more careful conversation enriches the account of the fundamental philosophical problems that each addresses.</abstract><cop>Notre Dame</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/S0034670519000779</doi><tpages>26</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0034-6705 |
| ispartof | The Review of politics, 2020-01, Vol.82 (1), p.97-122 |
| issn | 0034-6705 1748-6858 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2328571416 |
| source | Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing; Cambridge University Press Journals Complete |
| subjects | Conversation Dogmatism Historicism History Knowledge Nature Philosophy Politics Rationalism Relativism Symmetry Theory Traditions |
| title | Alasdair MacIntyre and Leo Strauss on the Activity of Philosophy |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-10T01%3A07%3A48IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Alasdair%20MacIntyre%20and%20Leo%20Strauss%20on%20the%20Activity%20of%20Philosophy&rft.jtitle=The%20Review%20of%20politics&rft.au=Pinkoski,%20Nathan%20J.&rft.date=2020-01-01&rft.volume=82&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=97&rft.epage=122&rft.pages=97-122&rft.issn=0034-6705&rft.eissn=1748-6858&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S0034670519000779&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2328571416%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2328571416&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |