Leo Strauss and Reinhold Niebuhr represent two giants of twentieth century political philosophy. The Jewish classicist and Christian theologian contemporaries articulated profound thoughts on political philosophy and earned recognition for their work on the subject of international relations. Indeed, their prominence within the field of international relations continues into modern times and contemporary debates. The Bush administration’s Straussian policy and President Obama’s favoring of Niebuhrian ideals emphasize the radical differences between Strauss’ invocation of natural right and Niebuhr’s cautious and engaged approach to international relations. Ultimately, despite the strengths of Strauss’ political philosophy, its rigidity and focus on natural right – which contemporary Straussians avidly espouse in foreign policy proposals – makes it a less successful as a contemporary international relations paradigm than the more flexible and cautious paradigm that developed from Niebuhr’s political philosophy. Strauss’ works focused heavily on the concept of natural right as the “one universal and uniform goal... set up for all men: the natural right of each individual... a right uniformly belonging to every man as man.”1 Strauss grounded his appeal for natural right by insisting that the crisis of modernity was that man no longer knew right from wrong and lacked an absolute moral foundation.2 He refuted historicist and positivist opposition to natural right, showing how historicism could not provide a universally valid answer to the question of right and wrong, and neither could it provide an absolute basis on account of its continually changing nature.3 Strauss also challenged the positivist scientific approach, astutel... ... middle of paper ... ...ons; A Classicist's Legacy: New Empire Builders," New York Times, May 4, 2003, http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/04/weekinreview/the-nation-leo-cons-a-classicist-s-legacy-new-empire-builders.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm.10 Strauss qtd. in Ibid.11 Strauss, Introduction to Political Philosophy, 115.12 Ibid, 96-98.13 Ibid, 19.14 Strauss qtd. in Atlas, "The Nation: Leo-Cons; A Classicist's Legacy: New Empire Builders." 15 Reinhold Niebuhr, The Irony of American History (University of Chicago Press, 2010), 118, Kindle.16 Ibid, 73.17 Ibid, 38, 73-74.18 Ibid, 132.19 Ibid, 118.20 Ibid, 5.21 Ibid, 5, 40.22 Ibid, 40.23 Ibid, 7.24 Ibid, 133, 145.25 Ibid, 7.26 Ibid, 7.27 Ibid, 133-138.28 Ibid, 79.29 Ibid, 38, 73-74.30 Ibid, 3.31 Ibid, 138.32 Ibid, 40.33 Ibid, 334 Strauss, Introduction to Political Philosophy, 104.35 Niebuhr, The Irony of American History, 62.
In pursuit of the education and experience that will lead us to our chosen profession, it is important, if not vital, that we carefully choose a path that will take us where we want to go. As we journey down this path, we will most likely encounter obstacles or opportunities that will take us in different directions, possibly leaving us at the end of the trail in a place quite different from that which we set out for. Like us, both Edward Zigler and Howard Gardner set out on career paths that ended in much different places than those they anticipated, both for very different reasons.
The United States has a long history of great leaders who, collectively, have possessed an even wider range of religious and political convictions. Perhaps not unexpectedly, their beliefs have often been in conflict with one another, both during coinciding eras, as well as over compared generations. The individual philosophies of William Jennings Bryan, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, with regard to America’s roles in world affairs and foreign diplomacy; are both varied and conflicted. Despite those conflicts however, each leader has left his own legacy behind, in terms of how the U.S. continues to engage in world affairs today.
George Browm Tindall, David Emory Shi. American History: 5th Brief edition, W. W. Norton & Company; November 1999
The books Brave New World by Aldus Huxley and Anthem by Ayn Rand are both valuable twentieth-century contributions to literature. Both books explore the presence of natural law in man and propose a warning for what could happen when man's sense of right and wrong is taken from him. In this essay, I hope to show how these seemingly unrelated novels both expound upon a single, very profound, idea.
98-176. 5 Robert H. Ferrell, America as a World Power, 1872-1945, (New York: Harper & Row Publishers Inc., 1971), p. 265. 6 Arthur Meier Schlesinger, p. 46. 7 Hamilton Fish, FDR: The Other Side of the Coin, (New York: Vantage Press 1976), pp.
Frieden, Jeffry A., David A. Lake, and Kenneth A. Schultz. World Politics. New York: W.W. Norton &, 2013. Print.
"The New Republic Faces a New Century." American Passages. 4th ed. Vol. 1. N.P.: Ayers 179, n.d. 179. Print
Strauss, Leo, and Joseph Cropsey. History of Political Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
Foner, Eric and John A. Garraty. The Reader’s Companion to American History. (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1991).
Several people have attempted to answer the above questions among them Rousseau, the writers of French Revolutionary documents, the authors of the United States Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and Hume in the context of morality. All persons seem to agree that man is born with some semblance of "natural rights" though they disagree on exactly what these rights are and their relevance. They also see the need for society and social contracts, yet they argue the point on exactly what should be included in such contracts and their conditions. ...
"We could describe (Heinrich) Schliemann's excavations on the hill of Hissarlik and consider their results without speaking of Troy or even alluding to it," Georges Perrot wrote in 1891 in his Journal des Savants. "Even then, they would have added a whole new chapter to the history of civilization, the history of art" (qtd. in Duchêne 87). Heinrich Schliemann's life is the stuff fairy tales are made of. A poor, uneducated, and motherless boy rises through his hard work and parsimonious lifestyle to the heights of wealth (Burg 1,2). He travels the world and learns its languages ("Heinrich Schliemann"), takes a beautiful Greek bride, and together they unearth the treasures of Troy and the citadel of Agamemnon, thereby fulfilling the dream he has chased since childhood (Calder 18,19; Burg 8). Indeed, by presenting his life in romantic autobiographies as a series of adventures, starring Heinrich Schliemann as the epic hero (Duchêne 14), he ensured his status as a lasting folk hero and perennial bestseller (Calder 19).
... An American History of the World. 4th ed. of the book. W.W. Norton, 2012, 671. 2.)
The liberalism and the realism approaches the international relations from very different perspective, and even though many of its views contrast from each other, the ...
Kant’s moral philosophy is very direct in its justification of human rights, especially the ideals of moral autonomy and equality as applied to rational human beings. John Stuart Mills’ theory of utilitarianism also forms a solid basis for human rights, especially his belief that utility is the supreme criterion for judging morality, with justice being subordinate to it. The paper looks at how the two philosophers qualify their teachings as the origins of human rights, and comes to the conclusion that the moral philosophy of Kant is better than that of Mills. Emmanuel Kant Kant’s moral philosophy is built around the formal principles of ethics rather than substantive human goods. He begins by outlining the principles of reasoning that can be equally expected of all rational persons, regardless of their individual desires or partial interests.
In conclusion realist and liberalist theories provide contrasting views on goals and instruments of international affairs. Each theory offers reasons why state and people behave the way they do when confronted with questions such as power, anarchy, state interests and the cause of war. Realists have a pessimistic view about human nature and they see international relations as driven by a states self preservation and suggest that the primary objective of every state is to promote its national interest and that power is gained through war or the threat of military action. Liberalism on the other hand has an optimistic view about human nature and focuses on democracy and individual rights and that economic independence is achieved through cooperation among states and power is gained through lasting alliances and state interdependence.