Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Leo Strauss - How To Study Medieval Philosophy

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 10
At a glance
Powered by AI
The document discusses how one must study medieval philosophy and intellectual history as exactly and intelligently as possible while maintaining an overall understanding and avoiding getting lost in details.

Strauss says we touch upon a controversial issue when saying our understanding of medieval philosophy must be historical understanding.

According to Strauss, people frequently reject an account of the past, not simply as unexact or unintelligent, but as unhistorical.

Lecture to be delivered on May 16, 1944 at the Fourth Institute of Biblical and Post-Biblical Studies.

How To Study Medieval Philosophy


LEO STRAUSS
How To Study Medieval Philosophy was available to the editors in Professor Strausss original typescript, with additions, corrections and alterations added in pencil in his own hand. We are grateful to Heinrich and Wiebke Meier for their most generous help in deciphering Professor Strausss handwriting and to Hillel Fradkin for help with regard to Hebrew and Arabic words. A few minor changes by the editors in spelling and punctuation have not been noted. We raise the question of how to study medieval philosophy. We cannot discuss that question without saying something about how to study earlier philosophy in general and indeed about how to study intellectual history* in general. In a sense, the answer to our question is self-evident. Everyone admits that, if we have to study medieval philosophy at all, we have to study it as exactly and as intelligently as possible. As exactly as possible: we are not permitted to consider any detail however trifling, unworthy of our most careful observation. As intelligently as possible: in our exact study of all details, we must never lose sight of the whole; we must never, for a moment, overlook the wood for the trees. But these are trivialities, although we have to add that they are trivialities only if stated in general terms, and that they cease to be trivialities if one pays attention to them while engaged in actual work: the temptations to lose oneself in curious and unexplored details on the one hand, and to be generous as regards minutiae on the other, are always with us. We touch upon a more controversial issue when we say that our understanding of medieval philosophy must be historical understanding. Frequently people reject an account of the past, not simply as unexact or unintelligent, but as unhistorical. What do they mean by it? What ought they to mean by it? According to a saying of Kant, it is possible to understand a philosopher better than he understood himself. Now, such understanding may have the greatest merits; but it is clearly not historical understanding. If it goes so far as to claim to be (he true understanding, it is positively unhistorical. [The most outstanding example of such unhistorical interpretation which we have in the field of the study of Jewish medieval philosophy, is Hermann Cohens essay on Maimonides ethics. Cohen constantly refers statements of Maimonides, not to

You might also like