To understand the problem of natural right, one must start, not from the "scientific" understanding of political things but from their "natural" understanding, i.e., from the way in which they present themselves in political life, in action, when they are our business, when we have to make decisions. This does not mean that political life necessarily knows of natural right. Natural right had to be discovered, and there was political life prior to that discovery. It means merely that political life in all its forms necessarily points toward natural right as an inevitable problem. Awareness of this problem is not older than political science but coeval with it. Hence a political life that does not know of the idea of natural is necessarily unaware of the possibility of political science and, indeed, of the possibility of science as such, just as a political life that is aware of the the possibility of sicence necessarily knows natural right as a problem.

Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History

Syndicate

Syndicate content

User login

Navigation

<i>The New Republic</i> "sacks up" yet again.

Everyone knows that I love The New Republic. This is an uncontroversial postulation.

Everyone also knows exactly how I feel about Richard Dawkins. Scientists should learn that it's called "metaphysics," ta meta ta phusika, for bloody reason.

It is therefore with great glee that I link to an article where Dawkins gets slapped as only he deserves to be.

-dx

Dude, that is for

Dude, that is for subscribers only! :-)