1G0xxeB

1 6 0 I n t e r p r e t a t i o n Volume 41 / Issue 2so that, in this sense, Christ remains the model that he seeks to overcome,the philosopher follows Socrates in his pursuit of knowledge and is calmlyindifferent to the fate of his fellow human beings, just as he is indifferent topleasures and public honors, caring instead only for the acquisition of wisdomand its transmission to the few who are capable of being philosophers. 168But although indifferent to individual human beings, indirectly, the philosopherdoes care for the city, for its proper order, because the philosophical lifedepends on the city. From this point of view, we must stress that in his debatewith Alexandre Kojève concerning tyranny, Strauss argued that if the modernattempt to make man “feel completely at home in this world” were to endin a universal and perpetual tyranny supported by the power of technology, atyranny such as the one depicted in the Legend, then not only authentic faithbut authentic philosophy as well would become impossible on earth. 169 Whatalternative would be left for the lover of wisdom in the socialist state of theInquisitor, if he wanted to pursue his philosophical vocation? To “join forceswith…the clever people?” 170 Strauss denies that the philosopher would acceptsuch a role 171 and in several instances he insisted that, in practical terms, inthe modern age, the best political alternative, for the philosopher as well asfor society as a whole, and the alternative that comes closest to the classicalsolution, has been and remains liberal democracy. 172 Hence, as scandalousas it may seem to us from the perspective of a culture shaped by the biblical168Strauss, “Restatement,” 198–200.169Ibid., 211.170Dostoyevsky, Brothers Karamazov, 340.171Strauss, “Restatement,” 211.172Leo Strauss, “Liberal Education and Responsibility,” in An Introduction to Political Philosophy. Seealso “Restatement,” 193–94; “The Three Waves,” 98. Others, like Shadia Drury, accuse Strauss and hisdisciples of deliberately “subverting” American democracy with the intention of replacing the decadentdemocratic regime with a shadowy militarized tyranny modeled, at least up to a certain point,on the political system of Dostoyevsky’s Inquisitor. In this sense, comparing Strauss with the GrandInquisitor, Drury argues that, like the latter, Strauss believes that strict hierarchical order and theuse of “pious fraud” are necessary for the functioning of society. But, according to Drury, while theInquisitor’s tyranny is a compassionate tyranny tributary to the compassion preached by the ChristianGod whom the Inquisitor imitates, the tyrants supposedly produced in Strauss’s academic laboratoryand responsible, according to Drury, for America’s invasion of Iraq not only have no compassion forordinary men, but, like the “pagan gods,” are even “entertained” by “the pain, suffering and tragediesof the mortals” (Shadia Drury, “Leo Strauss and the Grand Inquisitor,” http://secularhumanism.org/library/fi/drury_24_4.htm. Accessed November 20, 2014). In this context it is worth mentioning that,characterizing Dostoyevsky as a “Russian Jesuit,” much more subtle than any Western Jesuit, someinterpreters of his work such as Masaryk have argued that Dostoyevsky’s position is in fact that of theGrand Inquisitor (Paléologue, Sous l’œil du Grand Inquisiteur, 181–83). For more details on Drury’scritique of Strauss see The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss (New York: St. Martin’s, 2005); for a defenseof Strauss against Drury’s attacks see Peter Minowitz, Straussophobia: Defending Leo Strauss andStraussians against Shadia Drury and Other Accusers (Plymouth: Lexington Books, 2009).