Metapolítica
articles
by Eduardo Hernando Nieto
Recently I purchased the English edition of this great work of Leo Strauss (On Tyranny: Chicago University Press, 1961), which has been translated by the English publisher Ediciones - Meeting (Madrid, 2005). This text includes little dialogue on which Strauss's comment part of Xenophon, entitled "Hiero or Tyranny", which "plays" an interesting conversation between the tyrant Hieron of Syracuse and the poet Simonides about the nature of tyranny and the advantages and disadvantages of it. In the same study also included comments from the philosopher Hegel Kojève Alexander, who then developed a famous controversy with Strauss just above the text of that Xenophon and finally there is also a brief reception Strauss's commentary written by Eric Voegelin.
is not my focus at this time to devote to comment on the huge debate between the two authors - I will then - or the reception of Voegelin, but I would point out some important aspects of Strauss and commentary also dwell around the concept of tyranny.
Strauss
As you noted from the beginning of modernity, tyranny has been a term that was excluded from the political vocabulary, despite its relevance, and who began this task of exclusion was modern political thought, beginning with Machiavelli, " Machiavelli's The Prince (as opposed to his discourses on Livy) is characterized by deliberate indifference to the distinction between king and tyrant, the Prince implies tacit rejection of the traditional distinction "(Strauss: 2005, p.42). The reason for this undoubtedly was the refusal of modern science to issue any value judgments, so he started using terms like dictatorship, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, etc., that although indirectly referred to a negative value judgments could be however, used by modern political science to take them as concepts categories of political analysis.
While Xenophon's dialogue - in the first part - apparently trying to show the difficulties that have to spend the tyrant (fear of being poisoned, lack of close human relationships, isolation, etc.). So much so that the best we could the tyrant is to hang [1] , however, in the second part of the work, but believes more Simonides that the option with the tyrant to have enormous power that it could well become a great benefactor of society can become the tyrant the happiest man on earth (p. 49). This reading suggests Simonides is very interesting because a large account would be closer to the vision set forth at the beginning of modernity by Machiavelli himself (if the same perspective the notion of tyranny) to the extent that the tyrant would transform into a being benevolent thus the association of tyranny with evil would no longer be feasible. Also, this reading could help then erase the line between the king of the tyrant. Nevertheless, we must recognize that Simonides ("Xenophon?) Finally has an ambiguous position on tyranny because as I mentioned one side seems to indicate that the tyrant can be happy but then comes also indicate that individual's life may be preferable to that of the tyrant (pp. 126 - 127) also highlights the fact that the tyrant does not seem to make much attention to the advice of Simonides. In summary, the position of Xenophon seems to be located between Socratic political science and political science Machiavellian. (P.44), hence the relevance of his work for Leo Strauss, who as we tried by every means to recover the classical political knowledge in order to understand the reality of politics.
So if Strauss believes that even the moderns like Machiavelli and his followers strive to blur the distinction between good and evil, this however is not fully achieved (terms like dictatorship and authoritarianism eventually carry a huge load value) but what if you get to the final - and this is my view and my concern - is that you can understand the essence of tyranny. Thus, it apparently can only be seen in so-called authoritarian regimes but not in other political systems (like contemporary liberal democracy itself.) That is, while ignoring the nature of tyranny and considered as a archaic it may not be placed in this and also any of its features could be seen in modern political regimes - especially in today's democracies - which not only help to avoid any criticism of the regimes of today but also obscure a this great truth in contemporary politics: the accumulation of power, with the help of the technique is in the hands of contemporary democracies generate the same power hundreds of thousands of times the power of the Hiero.
From there then the need to recover the meaning of tyranny and not to lose sight of their presence, perhaps now more present - but also more hidden - in the past.
[1] Hiero curious claim because it goes against the grain of common readings rather argue the opposite, namely that what characterizes the tyranny is just the happiness of the tyrant at the expense of pain and suffering of the people.
is not my focus at this time to devote to comment on the huge debate between the two authors - I will then - or the reception of Voegelin, but I would point out some important aspects of Strauss and commentary also dwell around the concept of tyranny.
Strauss
As you noted from the beginning of modernity, tyranny has been a term that was excluded from the political vocabulary, despite its relevance, and who began this task of exclusion was modern political thought, beginning with Machiavelli, " Machiavelli's The Prince (as opposed to his discourses on Livy) is characterized by deliberate indifference to the distinction between king and tyrant, the Prince implies tacit rejection of the traditional distinction "(Strauss: 2005, p.42). The reason for this undoubtedly was the refusal of modern science to issue any value judgments, so he started using terms like dictatorship, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, etc., that although indirectly referred to a negative value judgments could be however, used by modern political science to take them as concepts categories of political analysis.
While Xenophon's dialogue - in the first part - apparently trying to show the difficulties that have to spend the tyrant (fear of being poisoned, lack of close human relationships, isolation, etc.). So much so that the best we could the tyrant is to hang [1] , however, in the second part of the work, but believes more Simonides that the option with the tyrant to have enormous power that it could well become a great benefactor of society can become the tyrant the happiest man on earth (p. 49). This reading suggests Simonides is very interesting because a large account would be closer to the vision set forth at the beginning of modernity by Machiavelli himself (if the same perspective the notion of tyranny) to the extent that the tyrant would transform into a being benevolent thus the association of tyranny with evil would no longer be feasible. Also, this reading could help then erase the line between the king of the tyrant. Nevertheless, we must recognize that Simonides ("Xenophon?) Finally has an ambiguous position on tyranny because as I mentioned one side seems to indicate that the tyrant can be happy but then comes also indicate that individual's life may be preferable to that of the tyrant (pp. 126 - 127) also highlights the fact that the tyrant does not seem to make much attention to the advice of Simonides. In summary, the position of Xenophon seems to be located between Socratic political science and political science Machiavellian. (P.44), hence the relevance of his work for Leo Strauss, who as we tried by every means to recover the classical political knowledge in order to understand the reality of politics.
So if Strauss believes that even the moderns like Machiavelli and his followers strive to blur the distinction between good and evil, this however is not fully achieved (terms like dictatorship and authoritarianism eventually carry a huge load value) but what if you get to the final - and this is my view and my concern - is that you can understand the essence of tyranny. Thus, it apparently can only be seen in so-called authoritarian regimes but not in other political systems (like contemporary liberal democracy itself.) That is, while ignoring the nature of tyranny and considered as a archaic it may not be placed in this and also any of its features could be seen in modern political regimes - especially in today's democracies - which not only help to avoid any criticism of the regimes of today but also obscure a this great truth in contemporary politics: the accumulation of power, with the help of the technique is in the hands of contemporary democracies generate the same power hundreds of thousands of times the power of the Hiero.
From there then the need to recover the meaning of tyranny and not to lose sight of their presence, perhaps now more present - but also more hidden - in the past.
[1] Hiero curious claim because it goes against the grain of common readings rather argue the opposite, namely that what characterizes the tyranny is just the happiness of the tyrant at the expense of pain and suffering of the people.
