English summary: Stephan Steiner presents a historical-biographical study of Leo Strauss, in which he brings the contexts and genesis of Strauss' political philosophy to light. In order to do this, it is crucial to look at the transformation of Strauss' philosophical position in the USA while also placing it in perspective against the background of the conditions during the Weimar Republic. Taking Strauss' position on the sociology of knowledge, on historicism and on dialectical theology into account, Steiner shows how Strauss (...) brought a specifically German criticism of modernism to America, which he developed during his first years in New York. In order to explore this in more detail, Strauss's understanding of revelation, his criticism of historicism and the philosophical-historical preconditions of his image of Antiquity have been reconstructed. Instead of presenting one-dimensional philosophical narratives and autobiographical self-staging, this makes accessible the history of experience in Strauss' thinking. German description: Stephan Steiner prasentiert eine historisch-biographische Studie zu Leo Strauss, in der er die Kontexte und Genese seiner Politischen Philosophie sichtbar macht. Neben der Verortung in den Konstellationen der Weimarer Republik ist dafur der Blick auf die Transformation von Strauss' philosophischer Position in den USA entscheidend. An dessen Verhaltnis zu Wissenssoziologie, Historismus und dialektischer Theologie zeigt Steiner, wie Strauss eine spezifisch deutsche Kritik der Moderne nach Amerika brachte, die er wahrend der ersten Jahre in New York ausarbeitete. Um dies im Detail zu verfolgen, werden Strauss' Offenbarungsverstandnis, seine Historismuskritik sowie die philosophiehistorischen Voraussetzungen seines Antikebildes rekonstruiert. Anstelle philosophischer Einheitserzahlungen und autobiographischer Selbstinszenierungen wird darin die Erfahrungsgeschichte von Strauss' Denken lesbar gemacht. (shrink)

My aim in this article is to explore ways in which American thought influenced and transformed European understandings of nature. The framework of such an attempt is a transatlantic history of ideas. I focus on two examples, in which I turn to texts by Friedrich Nietzsche and Rudolf Otto. My argument consists of four parts.From as early as the end of the nineteenth century, Nietzsche has been read as a critic of naturalism and his philosophy of art as a defense (...) of radical subjectivity.1 While the diagnosis of a philosophy of radical subjectivity is appropriate, the purported opposition to naturalism is a fallacy. Because Nietzsche only expresses himself in aphoristic or essayistic forms, however, it is not an easy .. (shrink)

SummaryThis essay aims to discuss the historiographical implications and premises of Peter Gordon's masterly book Continental Divide, in which he re-evaluates the Davos meeting between Ernst Cassirer and Martin Heidegger. This impressive reminder of the prospects of intellectual history deserves to be paid serious attention, particularly in European philosophy departments. Gordon's book exemplifies how problems of systematic philosophy can be clarified by a detour through history.I want to highlight three aspects of Gordon's book that fundamentally transform and deepen our understanding (...) of intellectual history in general and the Davos meeting in particular. First, I highlight one of the main merits of Gordon's study: his emphasis on the plurality behind the term ‘continental philosophy’. This opens up a whole new perspective on a seemingly well-known event within the history of twentieth-century philosophy. Second, I address Gordon's methodological premises, which challenge and fundamentally transform our understanding of intellectual history. Third, I attempt to summarise, from an intellectual history perspective, Gordon's argument about Cassirer's relevance. Here we are faced with the task of realigning and legitimising philosophy in a radically historicised world. To adumbrate the core of my comment I should say that I am thrilled by Gordon's book. I agree with nearly everything he says apart from his conclusions. In a closing remark I will try to explain the reasons for this surprising divergence. (shrink)