No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2009
* Faith and Political Philosophy: The Correspondence Between Leo Strauss and Eric Voegelin, 1934–1964. Edited by Emberly, P. and Cooper, B.. (University Park, PA.: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1993. $45.00.)Google Scholar
1. See, for example, p. 66: “we are in more fundamental agreement than I believed”; p. 72: “I fully agree”; p. 76: “We will not be in ‘agreement’... ”; p. 98: “Externally, our efforts are to a surprising degree extensively in accord.”
2. On the “inconceivability and practical impossibility of an order of pure nature” and the passionate debate to which de Lubac’s defense of this view gave rise in the 1940s and 1950s, see, most recently, Lubac’s, De own Memoire sur I’occasion de mes écrits [Namur: Culture et Vérité, 1989], pp. 262fGoogle Scholar; English translation, At the Service of the Church (San Francisco: Communio Books/ Ignatius Press, 1993), pp. 260f.Google Scholar
3. I note in passing that a similar objection to de Lubac’s position was raised by the distinguished French philosopher Maurice Blondel in a letter to de Lubac, which Lubac, De, himself subsequently published in his Mémoire, pp. 189–90Google Scholar (English translation, pp. 185–86).
4. Sandoz, Ellis, ed., Autobiographical Reflections (Baton Rouge and London: Louisiana State University Press, 1989), pp. 30, 39, et passim.Google Scholar