{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02183803457688808, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006369426751592357, 'mean_word_length': 5.041208791208791, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Leo Strauss and Arab Philosophy

Critique of the modern Enlightenment is at the heart of leo Strauss’s thought. motivated by the obligation to seek ways of escaping from the crisis of modern times, this critique rejects the break with the past and the excessive trust placed in human beings. That is how nihilism, which is seen as the greatest feature of the modern Enlightenment and against which Strauss fought constantly, may be combated only by returning to ancient philosophy, an inaugural moment that witnessed the foundation of a discourse on humanity, its nature and how living together can be thought. however this emphasis on the ancients (Socrates, Plato) has to be seen through reading medieval authors, for instance Fârâbî (870–950) and maimonides (1138–1204). This essential detour comes from the fact that the medieval thinkers are emblematic of the ‘good’ reception given to Plato’s teachings and an excellent application of ancient philosophy to a different context, societies dominated by the monotheistic religions. This is the purpose of this turn in the overall economy of Strauss’s thought: it does not stem from nostalgia for lost eras or from a backward-looking reaction to the confusion caused by modernity’s mistakes; he is looking for a stable founding discourse that takes account of the permanence transcending time. Strauss’s aim is to remind us that humans have not changed and that they are still full of the same questioning. So awareness of this fact invites us to grasp the essence of this questioning when it was initially formulated. In its turn the detour through the medieval thinkers shows us the success of a thought that avoids the catastrophes to which the founders of political modernity would lead, notably Spinoza, machiavelli and hobbes. Behind these three figures, who conceptualized the main changes affecting modern times, stretch out the various crises that led to nihilism and the intellectual strategies that supported it, such as historicism and relativism. If machiavelli is the author who undermined any link between morality and politics, thus opening the way to a divorce between the notions of ‘good’ and ‘politics’, it was hobbes who fin-