In the current article I discuss the different ways in which Leo Strauss and Jacob Klein interpret the need of reopening the hoary quarrel between the ancients and the moderns. Their task is to response to the crisis of reason characterizing European thought and the style of life after the First World War. This provides me with the opportunity to address the issue of how philosophy should face the problem of its naturalness and historicity. I argue that Strauss’s position can be understood as the mirror-image of that of Klein. Strauss thinks that the return to the ancients could overcome the historicist approach to fundamental issues characterizing modern philosophy, and consequently arise the problem of the nature of things over again. Klein thinks that the return to the ancients can lead modern man back to the hidden roots of its typical philosophical approach. The model for Strauss’s approach to philosophical eternal issues is the medieval commentary. On the contrary, Klein holds that the philosopher should devote himself, or herself, to doing history of philosophy, by reconstructing how philosophical paradigms changes over the centuries.

Nell'articolo si esaminano i diversi modi in cui Leo Strauss e Jacob Klein interpretano il bisogno di riaprire l'annosa disputa tra antichi e moderni. Il loro obiettivo è di rispondere alla crisi della ragione sancita dalla Prima Guerra Mondiale. Ci si sofferma in particolare sul modo in cui la filosofia intende la propria dimensione naturale e la propria dimensione storica. Le posizioni di Strauss e Klein appaiono a riguardo speculari. Mentre Strauss pensa che il ritorno al pensiero antico possa superare l'approccio storicistico che ha spesso caratterizzato la filosofia moderna e riscoprire l'attenzione per la natura delle cose, Klein pensa invece che il ritorno al pensiero antico possa condurre l'uomo moderno a riscoprire le origini sedimentate del proprio approccio filosofico. Il modello filosofico di Strauss è quello del commentario medievale, che riconosce l'autorevolezza di Platone e Aristotele, mentre Klein pensa che si possa fare teoria attraverso un'analisi storico filosofica di come nel corso delle epoche cambiano i paradigmi filosofici di riferimento

Naturalness and Historicity: Strauss and Klein on the Quarrel between the Ancients and the Moderns

MANCA D
2017-01-01

Abstract

In the current article I discuss the different ways in which Leo Strauss and Jacob Klein interpret the need of reopening the hoary quarrel between the ancients and the moderns. Their task is to response to the crisis of reason characterizing European thought and the style of life after the First World War. This provides me with the opportunity to address the issue of how philosophy should face the problem of its naturalness and historicity. I argue that Strauss’s position can be understood as the mirror-image of that of Klein. Strauss thinks that the return to the ancients could overcome the historicist approach to fundamental issues characterizing modern philosophy, and consequently arise the problem of the nature of things over again. Klein thinks that the return to the ancients can lead modern man back to the hidden roots of its typical philosophical approach. The model for Strauss’s approach to philosophical eternal issues is the medieval commentary. On the contrary, Klein holds that the philosopher should devote himself, or herself, to doing history of philosophy, by reconstructing how philosophical paradigms changes over the centuries.
2017
Manca, D
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
8.Manca_Naturalness_Historicity.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Versione finale editoriale
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 321.57 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
321.57 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11568/1059485
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 1
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 4
social impact