In this new interpretation of Plato's Phaedo, Paul Stern considers the dialogue as an invaluable source for understanding the distinctive character of Socratic rationalism. First, he demonstrates, contrary to the charge of such thinkers as Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Rorty, that Socrates' rationalism does not rest on the dogmatic presumption of the rationality of nature. Second, he shows that the distinctively Socratic mode of philosophizing is formulated precisely with a view to vindicating the philosophic life in the face of these uncertainties. And finally, he argues that this vindication results in a mode of inquiry that finds its ground in a clear understanding of the problematical but enduring human situation. Stern concludes that Socratic rationalism, aware as it is of the limits of reason, still provides a nondogmatic and nonarbitrary basis for human understanding.

In this new interpretation of Plato's Phaedo, Paul Stern considers the dialogue as an invaluable source for understanding the distinctive character of Socratic rationalism. First, he demonstrates, contrary to the charge of such thinkers as Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Rorty, that Socrates' rationalism does not rest on the dogmatic presumption of the rationality of nature. Second, he shows that the distinctively Socratic mode of philosophizing is formulated precisely with a view to vindicating the philosophic life in the face of these uncertainties. And finally, he argues that this vindication results in a mode of inquiry that finds its ground in a clear understanding of the problematical but enduring human situation. Stern concludes that Socratic rationalism, aware as it is of the limits of reason, still provides a nondogmatic and nonarbitrary basis for human understanding.

Dramatic changes have occurred in Europe in the past quarter century. The fall of communism and the expansion of liberal democracy, together with the desire to project a new “Europa” that is united, peaceful and prosperous into the future, illustrate that political philosophy is what grounds European political discourse and identity. Thus, an understanding of Europe’s political past and potential future directs us to the question: What is political philosophy? An exploration of the question of political philosophy points us back to Socrates, widely regarded as the first political philosopher, or the first philosopher to make human beings central to philosophic inquiry. Scholars such as Thomas Pangle suggest that a revival of the study of Socratic political philosophy will revive serious consideration of the questions of justice or how one ought to live, and demonstrate that classical rationalism is the essential dialectical partner and interrogator of the political theology of Scripture/scripture(s). Classical rationalism in this context is understood as a necessary alternative to modern liberalism, inadequate to the task of taking questions of justice seriously as it insists on regarding all religious claims and understandings of virtue as private preferences rather than definitive of the public sphere, and contemporary postmodernism, which has abandoned rationalism altogether by rejecting any truth claims not understood as relative. This volume explores Socratic rationalism, the major alternatives to it in the history of political philosophy, the potential impact of returning to it in contemporary times, and related themes. It takes a multifaceted approach with contributions from scholars in the fields of philosophy and political science.

This concise and accessible introduction to Strauss's thought provides, for wider audience, a bridge to his more complex theoretical work. Editor Pangle has gathered five of Strauss's previously unpublished lectures and five hard-to-find published writings and has arranged them so as to demonstrate the systematic progression of the major themes that underlay Strauss's mature work. "[These essays] display the incomparable insight and remarkable range of knowledge that set Strauss's works apart from any other twentieth-century philosopher's."—Charles R. Kesler, National Review

In this book, Peter Ahrensdorf examines Sophocles' powerful analysis of a central question of political philosophy and a perennial question of political life: should citizens and leaders govern political society by the light of unaided human reason or religious faith? Through an examination of Sophocles' timeless masterpieces - Oedipus the Tyrant, Oedipus at Colonus and Antigone - Ahrensdorf offers a sustained challenge to the prevailing view, championed by Nietzsche in his attack on Socratic rationalism, that Sophocles is an opponent of rationalism. Ahrensdorf argues that Sophocles is a genuinely philosophical thinker and a rationalist, albeit one who advocates a cautious political rationalism. Ahrensdorf concludes with an incisive analysis of Nietzsche, Socrates and Aristotle on tragedy and philosophy. He argues, against Nietzsche, that the rationalism of Socrates and Aristotle incorporates a profound awareness of the tragic dimension of human existence and therefore resembles in fundamental ways the somber and humane rationalism of Sophocles.

Focusing on the speeches and actions of the Platonic Socrates, this book argues that Plato's political philosophy is a crucial source for reflection on the hazards and possibilities of democratic politics.

Socrates is widely regarded as the first philosopher to investigate not simply the natural world but to make human and political questions concerning justice, virtue and the good life central to rational inquiry. Thus, Socratic philosophy is often viewed as taking a rationalist approach to human narratives and becomes a narrative itself. After Socrates the prevailing view of what defines the Greeks and those commonly regarded as their descendents, the Europeans, is their civilizational foundation in philosophic rationalism. The Socratic conception of Greek and European identity has not gone unchallenged however. In antiquity the comic poet Aristophanes lampooned Socrates as impious and unjust and cast doubt on whether the Socratic way of life was an appropriate basis for politics. Examples from more recent times include the ambiguous place that Socratic philosophizing holds in the philosophies of Hegel, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. The re-assessment of Socratic rationalism in the 19th century has led a to a “post-modern” suspicion of “grand narratives.” The radical critique of Socrates as the remote but powerful source of the priority assigned to reason in the 17th and 18th century Enlightenment(s) has shaken European faith in scientific, social and political progress. The European mind is left longing for a unifying narrative that crystallizes the European identity. Can Socratic philosophy survive the powerful challenges made in the name of history, faith and art? Does Socratic philosophizing adequately sustain political life in the face of such challenges, and does it prioritize reason over other human ways of knowing and representing their world? Alternatively, do the positions of later thinkers offer superior ways to understand the human person and develop political communities? This volume addresses these and related questions as it seeks to recover and revise our understanding of Socratic philosophy as an appropriate paradigm for European identity. It takes an interdisciplinary and international approach with contributions from scholars in the fields of philosophy, classics, religion, English and political science. The contributors teach and research in Europe, Canada, the United States and Iran.