Charles E. Butterworth
Getting Islam Straight
2
myopia and relativism. He then turns to a careful examination of
classical and early modern political philosophy in order to show
that while ancient rationalism was decisively rejected at the
onset of the modern age, it was never adequately refuted. After
a thorough-going critique of historicism as presented in the
work of Martin Heidegger and a detailed refutation of the social
science positivism that can be traced to the influence of Max
Weber, he turns to a new account of ancient political philosophy
and of early modern political philosophy. Natural Right and
History stands on its own, to be sure, but it also serves as the
grounding for Strauss’s subsequent interpretations of political
philosophy within the Western tradition.
Voegelin, persuaded that “the existence of man in political
society is historical existence,” strives for “a theory of
politics” that “penetrates to principles” and is, consequently,
“a theory of history” (Voegelin, 1952; 1). He therefore views
the task of the political scientist to be that of building a new
political theory, perhaps even a new science of politics:
Much can be learned, to be sure, from the earlier
philosophers concerning the range of problems, as well as
concerning their theoretical treatment; but the very
historicity of human existence, that is, the unfolding of
the typical in meaningful concreteness, precludes a valid
reformulation of principles through return to a former
concreteness. Hence, political science cannot be restored
to the dignity of a theoretical science in the strict sense
by means of a literary renaissance of philosophical
achievements of the past; the principles must be regained by
a work of theoretization which starts from the concrete,
historical situation of the age, taking into account the
Convention