English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

What connection with institutional religion ought modern political states promote? As they developed their political thinking in the early years of the Weimar Republic, Leo Strauss and Edith Stein came up with opposite answers to this question. While Strauss discerned in Carl Schmitt’s maximalist concept of the theopolitical a possible remedy against the flaws of liberal democracy, Stein ascribed democracy’s chance of survival to a renewed distinction between the political and religious spheres. Here, Strauss can be viewed as an heir to the ancient and medieval Jewish understanding of the ideal state, whereas Stein appears rooted in the critical legacy of the German Haskalah. At a fundamental level, the contrast between the two thinkers has to do with a difference in their respective philosophical epistemé. While Strauss, walking in the footsteps of Heidegger, thinks in terms of Geschichlichkeit (“historiality”), Stein applies a phenomenological method based on the intuition of essences and very much indebted to Adolph Reinach’s philosophy of law. That Stein's essentialism succeeds where the 'historial' thinking of the young Strauss fails; that is, in diagnosing the nature of the political threat that would soon engulf European Jewry, is the main conclusion of the present paper.

Leo Strauss and Edith Stein in the Grip of the Theopolitical