IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v100y2006i02p279-295_06.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Esotericism and the Critique of Historicism

Author

Listed:
  • MELZER, ARTHUR M.

Abstract

“The relation of history to reason,†observes Jurgen Habermas, “remains constitutive for the discourse of modernity—for better or worse†(1987, 392). The worse of it is: the modern premise of reason's imbeddedness in history means that unless we can demonstrate—through an increasingly suspect “grand narrative†of “reason in history†—that history is fundamentally rational, we must accept that reason is fundamentally historical and that all our “knowledge†is merely temporary, local, and arbitrary.To avoid this collapse into historical relativism, we must reassess the crucial premise: reason's historicity. Why is the modern mind so utterly captivated by the idea that every mind is a prisoner of its times? This question receives its most probing treatment in the work of Leo Strauss. His rediscovery of the theory of esotericism—which is the premodern understanding of the relation of reason to history—poses important new challenges to the whole historicist paradigm. It points the way to a “posthistoricist†relegitimation of reason through a return to Socratic rationalism.

Suggested Citation

  • Melzer, Arthur M., 2006. "Esotericism and the Critique of Historicism," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 100(2), pages 279-295, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:100:y:2006:i:02:p:279-295_06
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055406062162/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Robert Devigne, 2009. "Strauss and ‘Straussianism’: From the Ancients to the Moderns?," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 57(3), pages 592-616, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:100:y:2006:i:02:p:279-295_06. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.