列奥·施特劳斯(Leo Strauss，1899—1973)可以说是20世纪最重要的政治思想家之一，他本人及其创立的政治哲学学派(或称施特劳斯学派)以回归西方古典思想的认识旨趣和学术路径在20世纪的政治哲学领域独树一帜。但是，当今的西方世界是一个由“科学”和“历史”观念所统治的现代智识世界，施特劳斯偏偏逆“历史潮流”而动，独辟蹊径地选择复兴古典政治哲学，尤其是复兴古典政治哲学的源头——苏格拉底—柏拉图式古典政治哲学，这无疑给其身后的学人留下了发人深思的“施特劳斯问题”。因此，本文所试图探讨的主要问题就在于:施特劳斯为什么要称其理论为“政治哲学”?或者说，什么是施特劳斯意义上的政治哲学?什么又是其所谓的古典政治哲学，尤其是柏拉图路向的政治哲学?这几者是什么关系?它们的理论基础和理论内涵是什么?它们是如何超越性地批判和救治“现代性的危机”的?其独特性何在?其地位和意义又何在?同时，施特劳斯托古典先哲来重建的政治哲学真的能够“立”得住吗?其根基是否经得起推敲和验证?它有无任何现实的或经验的支撑?它会同其他理想主义方案一样面临“袪魅”的危险吗?抑或是会在现实政治层面上走向其反面?这些都是本文试图研究并回答的问题。本书第一章首先分析施特劳斯政治哲学产生的理论背景和现实关怀。施特劳斯的思想特征虽带有明显的“复古”倾向，但其“古典研究”绝不是为古典而古典的学究式研究，而恰恰是由强烈的现实政治关怀出发的，这个现实政治关怀就是施特劳斯所一直强调的最重大的时代问题——“现代性的危机”和“西方文明的危机”。因此，本文第一章主要试图揭示施特劳斯对“现代性的危机”的批判:首先，由施特劳斯与当代西方两大主导智识力量——历史主义与实证主义之间的争论出发，阐明施特劳斯关于“现代性的危机原本是现代政治哲学的危机”这一基本判断;然后，经由施特劳斯对现代政治哲学演进过程中“三次浪潮”的独特理论建构，揭示施特劳斯现代性批判的最深刻、最与众不同之处——“现代性的危机”乃是由现代政治哲人最彻底的“知性的真诚”所引发的虚无主义危机;最后，通过施特劳斯对现代性症结的诊断，分析施特劳斯重开“古今之争”、重归古典政治哲学的可能性、必要性与意义。本书第二章主要试图对施特劳斯的政治哲学作一个理论回溯，阐明施特劳斯回归古典政治哲学所选择的独特路径及目的。施特劳斯之所以要回归古典政治哲学，主要是因为他对基于“启蒙运动”的现代思想及其结果的不满与批判。施特劳斯看待“启蒙”问题的核心观点是理性、哲学、知识、科学或真理不应该通过公开的启蒙而实现社会化。由此，本章首先通过分析施特劳斯对现代启蒙的奠基人物——马基雅维利与霍布斯的批判，揭示现代启蒙所肇始的“政治哲学化”和“哲学政治化”的弊端;然后再通过分析施特劳斯对区别于现代启蒙思想的传统正宗思想的重新思考，阐明施特劳斯理论回溯的独特路径，揭示他绕过基督教进路而以中世纪伊斯兰教与犹太教先哲(主要是阿尔法拉比与迈蒙尼德)为媒介所重新解释的柏拉图式古典启蒙传统;在此基础之上，本章还进一步分析了施特劳斯对政治与哲学之间紧张关系的理论预设，揭示了施特劳斯最重要的理论发现——“隐微教导”与“显白教导”之间区分的重要性与意义。第一、第二章分别介绍了现实背景和理论路径的基础，本书第三章则试图在详述施特劳斯政治哲学的具体内容之前对其哲学前提作一基本把握。主要包括施特劳斯以古典“整全”观念为基础的目的论的宇宙论和其独门解释的“政治现象学”式认识论，以及施特劳斯在这种本体论与认识论基础上所重建的哲学基准意义上的古典“自然正当”观念。在前三章的理论准备之下，本书第四章开始正式阐释施特劳斯政治哲学的理论内涵，这也是全文的核心内容。本章主要试图说明施特劳斯所力图重建的政治哲学或者说施特劳斯意义上的政治哲学其实就是古典意义上的政治哲学，更明确地说就是柏拉图意义上的政治哲学(或称“柏拉图路向的政治哲学”)。这种“政治哲学”主要不是针对政治的哲学讨论，而是针对哲学的政治或公开流常的讨论，或是哲学的政治入门，它主要关注哲学的政治问题，或者说，它主要检讨哲学与政治社会的关系问题。因此，本章在这种以“哲学社会学”研究为导引的特殊“政治哲学”形态之下，论析了施特劳斯所独门解释的“苏格拉底问题”，主要包括“两个苏格拉底”的区分及其意义，哲学与政治的本然冲突以及哲人在这种冲突中的生存方式，重塑柏拉图意义上的“自然洞穴”及其对“政治哲学化”和“哲学政治化”的治疗作用，以及恢复以宏大政体观为落脚点的古典政治哲学的主要内容。本书的第五章一方面主要试图对施特劳斯政治哲学的思想功绩做一个正面评价。主要通过施特劳斯对政治哲学之声誉、地位与意义的恢复和重建，阐明“为什么要政治哲学?”的重要性，阐明政治哲学作为哲学“自知、自辩、自卫、自育”的四重内在更新机理的重要性，阐明在政治哲学的“显白”层面上重建人类政治基本秩序、重塑政治共同体的基本价值与公共之“善”、重构人类“正当”生活与恒常意义世界的重要性。这对当今的学术理论和现实世界都无疑具有重要的意义。另一方面，本章亦试图将“超越施特劳斯视野”(借用施特劳斯所谓“超越自由主义的视野”)的批判反身用于施特劳斯本人之上，揭示其思想中存在的缺陷、悖论和不足，从而更全面、客观、持中地看待施特劳斯政治哲学的理论地位。在结束语部分，本文提请读者注意，施特劳斯通过对政治哲学及其普遍原则的重建，敦促我们正视这样一个基本问题，即政治共同体生活的传承与延续本身就意味着人类世界具有某种超越历史时空的同一性价值，它是人之为人的根本要件，是区别人与兽的基本准则，从这个意义上说，它是超验的、“天赋”的，甚至是不证自明的，亦是理性所无法检验，也不应撼动的隐含前提。借用波兰尼的说法，人类的基本道德价值本身就是一种“默会的知识”或“缄默的知识”、“内隐的知识”，它是作为“类”而存在的所有人的“前见”，具有在先性和根源性，无法真正加以批判性的反思。因此，施特劳斯恢复并重建“政治哲学”与“自然正当”在人类自然秩序中的基准性作用，其理论与意义也就在于此。最后，本书亦试图指明施特劳斯的理论本身也是现代性焦虑的产物和反映，尽管它处处逆潮流而动，却仍有其无法回避的历史情境。因此，在深刻批判历史主义的同时，施特劳斯对普适性原则的重塑在多大程度上是成功的，仍是个见仁见智的问题。尤其是，对某种恒久不变之原则的重建，与神秘的启示、信仰之间有无分别?它怎样经验化?在现实中的可践履性又如何?这都是几千年来各大文化系统中争论已久的问题。如果认真思考施特劳斯的价值的话，也只能说他是在现代性危机的语境下，重提了一个古老而持久的哲学论争。 关键词:施特劳斯;政治哲学;现代性;危机

Leo Strauss(1899—1973) is one of themost important political thinkers in 20th century．Strauss and the Straussians are identified with their unique purport and academic path in returning to western classical thought off the beaten track．As we know，currentwestern world is amodern intellectual society dominated by the concept of“science”and“history”，but contrary to“the tide of history”，Strauss chooses to re-establish the classical political philosophy，especially the source of it—Socratic-Platonic classical political philosophy，which leaves us a thought-provoking“Strauss Issue”．Therefore，themain purpose of this dissertation lies in the following questions: Why did Strauss designate“political philosophy”to his own theory? In other words，what is political philosophy in Strauss' sense? What is classical political philosophy，especially platonic political philosophy in his view? What is the relationship between them? What is the theoretic foundation and content of them? How do they criticize，treat and cure“the crisis ofmodernity”? What is the uniqueness，status and significance of Strauss' treatment? Meanwhile，can this kind of political philosophy based on Strauss' ancient philosophers stand firmly? Can it be deliberated tested and verified? Does ithave any realistic or experienced support? Will it face the danger of“disenchantment”like other idealistic plans? Orwill ithead to the opposite in political reality? These are all the questions that the dissertation tries to study and answer．The first chapter of the dissertation tries to analyse the theoretical background and practical care of Strauss'political philosophy．Although the features of Strauss'thought have a retro tendency，its“classic study”is by nomeans a pedantic study for classic only．It is guided by an intensive political concern which is continuously emphasized as the most significant problem of our time by Strauss—“the crisis ofmodernity”and“the crisis of western culture”．Therefore，this chaptermainly tries to reveal the criticism of“the crisis ofmodernity”by Strauss: Firstly，Clarifying the basic conclusion of which“the crisis ofmodernity is primarily the crisis of modern political philosophy”from the quarrel between Strauss and the dominate intellectual power of contemporary western world—historicism and positivism; secondly，reveal the most profound and distinctive perspective of Strauss'criticism on modernity by the unique theoretical construction of“the three waves of modernity”in the evolutionary process of modern political philosophy by Strauss—“the crisis ofmodernity”is a crisis of nihilism caused by the radical“intellectual probity”ofmodern political philosopher; thirdly，analyse the possibility，necessity and significance of reopening “the quarrels between the ancients and moderns”and the returning to classical political philosophy by Strauss though his diagnosis ofmodernity crux．The second chapter tries tomake a theoretical backtracking of Strauss'political philosophy so as to clarify the unique approach and purpose of his returning to classical political philosophy．The reason why Strauss makes this return mainly lies in his dissatisfaction and criticism of themodern thoughtand its resultswhich are based onmodern Enlightenment．The core point that Strauss regards the problem of Enlightenment is that reason，philosophy，knowledge，science or truth should not be socialized by public enlightenment．Thus，this chapter firstly tries to reveal the abuse of“the philosophize of politics”and“the politicize of philosophy”by analysing Strauss'criticism on the founders ofmodern Enlightenment—Machiavelliand Hobbes; secondly tries to clarify the Platonic enlightenment tradition re-interpreted by Strauss through his rethinking of the Orthodox distinguished from the modern Enlightenment，which mediates through the sage of Islam and Judaism(mainly Alfarabi and Maimonides) in Middle Ages instead of the approach of Christianity; on the base of the above，this chapter further analyses the Strauss'assumption of the tension between politics and philosophy and reveals the importance and significance of his greatest discovery of“esoteric teaching”and“exoteric teaching”．After introducing the realistic background and theoretical approach in chapter one and two，the third part tries to grasp the philosophical premise of Strauss' political philosophy before dissertating its concrete content．Mainly including the teleological cosmology of Strauss based on classical concept of“the whole”，his unique explanation of“politically phenomenological epistemology”，and the classical concept of“natural right”based on such ontology and epistemology，which Strauss tries to rebuild in the sense of philosophy standard．Under the theoretical preparation of the first three chapters，the fourth chapters starts to explain the content of Strauss'political philosophy，which is also the essential part of the dissertation．This chaptermainly tries to illustrate that the very political philosophy Strauss attempts to rebuild or the political philosophy in Strauss'sense is classical political philosophy，more specifically，platonic political philosophy．Such“political philosophy”means primarily not the philosophic treatment of politics，but the political or popular treatment of philosophy，or the political introduction to philosophy．Itmainly concerns the political problem of philosophy，or，itmainly reviews the relationship between philosophy and political society．Therefore，under the special form of such political philosophy which is directed by the study of“sociology of philosophy”，this chapter analyses the specific explanation of“socratic question”，mainly including the distinction and its significance of“two Socrates”，the inherent conflictbetween philosophy and politics and the survival of the philosophers in such conflict，the returning to“natural cave”in platonic sense and its role in curing the“the philosophize of politics”and“the politicize of philosophy”，and the main content of classical political philosophy in restoration the grand concept of regime．The fifth chapter firstly tries to give an appraisal to themerits and contributions of Strauss'political philosophy．Via the restoration and rebuilding of political philosophy in its reputation，status and significance by Strauss，this chapter illustrates the importance of“why political philosophy?”，of the four-dimensional inner updatingmechanism of“self-knowledge，self-defence，self-protection and self-education”in philosophy，and of the rebuilding of basic human political order，the remodeling of the ultimate values and common good in political community，and the reconstruction of the“right”way of life and the constantlymeaningfulworld．All of the above are of great significance to the academic and real world．Secondly，this chapter also tries to use the criticism of“a horizon beyond Strauss”　(borrowed from the wording of“a horizon beyond liberalism”by Strauss) on Strauss himself，in order to reveal the defect，paradox，dilemma，and shortage of his thought and give amore comprehensive，objective，and fair evaluation on the theoretical status of Strauss'political philosophy．In the final part of the dissertation，the readers are required to notice that，we are urged to face the following basic issues that the inheritance and continuousness of political community itself indicates the identity values beyond history and space．They are the fundamental elements ofman asman，and the basic criteria to distinguish betweenman and beast．In this sense，they are transcendent，natural and even self-evident．In otherwords，they are the implicitpremisewhich cannot be examined or should notbe shaken by reason．Using the statementof Polanyi，the basic moral values of human beings are some sort of“Tacit Knowledge”，which are the“foresight”of allmen as amankind and have the characteristic of priority which cannot be critically reflected．Thence，the significance that Strauss restores and rebuilds the benchmark role of“political philosophy”and“natural right”in the natural order of human lies just upon it．Finally，the dissertation tries to point out that Strauss'political philosophy itself is also the reflect and result ofmodern anxiety．Although it tries tomove against the tide，it still has a un-avoided historical situation．Thence，compared to criticizing historicism，the extent of success in rebuilding the universal principles by Strauss still remains amatter of opinion．Especially，how can we distinguish the constant principles from mysterious revelation or faith? How can it get to experience? These are questions that have been discussed amongmajor cultural systems for thousands of years．If we seriously consider the value of Leo Strauss，we can only come to a conclusion that he revisited an old and lasting quarrel of philosophy in the context ofmodernity． Key Words: Strauss; political philosophy; modernity; crisis