Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T01:31:17.167Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Reply to Rothman

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Joseph Cropsey
Affiliation:
The University of Chicago

Extract

Readers of Stanley Rothman's article “The Revival of Classical Political Philosophy: A Critique” will be aware that the title he has chosen does not indicate the full scope of his endeavor. He has in fact attempted to state and criticize the grounds of classical political and natural philosophy, and to state and in a certain measure defend the grounds of modern social and natural science. Exceptional resources of scholarship and analytic power would be needed to dispose of those tremendous themes, which I believe Rothman has not succeeded in doing. A prominent purpose of Rothman's paper is to criticize the work of Professor Leo Strauss and of some of his students, on the view that he, and after his instruction they, are the animators of the attempted revival of classical doctrines concerning natural right. The attempt to revive natural right is presented as complementary with a belief in the weakness of social science as now understood by the majority of academic and other professionals. The purpose of the present reflections on Rothman's article is to see how far he has made a valid criticism of the classics and of the men he regards as their attempted restorers; and to consider the soundness of his views on the received sciences.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1962

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The reader should consult Walter Berns' Communication in this Review, Vol. 52 (September, 1958), entitled “On Robert Dahl's ‘Important Questions.’”

2 See Rothman's footnote 26.

3 Pp. 348, 349, 350 for example.

4 Ethics, III, introduction.

5 P. 122.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.