ResumenLeo Strauss, en un ambiente filosófico adverso, tuvo la osadía de interrogarse acerca de la mejor forma de vida. Sin embargo, no parece haber alcanzado acabadamente su meta. El carácter zetético de su gnoseología, el abandono de conceptos metafísicos indispensables para alcanzar la unidad de ser, su énfasis en la «negatividad» del método socrático que limita la «positividad» propia de la mayéutica: el amor a la verdad, etc. le han conducido a la aporía consistente en la imposibilidad de alcanzar una (...) síntesis entre razón y revelación, consideradas como «totalidades» incompatibles entre sí. Por ello, no llega a dar respuesta a su interrogante más profundo.Palabras claveLeo Strauss, razón-revelación, escepticismo moderado, mayéutica.AbstractIn philosophical adverse times, Leo Strauss dared question about the best way of life. However, he does not seem to have achieved his objective completely. His zetetic epistemology; the abandonment of key metaphysical concepts necessary to comprehend the unity of being; his stress on the negativity stage of the Socratic method, limiting the conclusive positive stage of the maieutic (love of wisdom) have led him to an aporia. This is the impossibility of reaching a synthesis between reason and revelation, considered as «wholes» incompatible with each other. Hence he doesn’t find a convincing answer to his deepest inquiry about the best way of life.KeywordsLeo Strauss, reason-revelation, moderate scepticism, mai. (shrink)

Strauss claims that the general crisis in Western world is closely related to the crisis which political philosophy as such is undergoing. Apart from that, the latter is the result of the revolutionary changes introduced by the creators of modern political philosophy, whose conclusions insist that it is necessary to break with tradition in order to construe a new political science. The article examines the straussian’s vision of Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke and finally, Nietzsche. Based on this description, Strauss proposes that (...) a "return" is needed as an adequate response to failure -or maybe triumph?- of the modern utopia. But the “return”, would not take into account the changes which have affected the world and humanity until the present, as it is just impossible to simply reconstruct the past. In this context, the article poses the question about at which moment of history should the "return" begin and, particularly which elements of the complex thinking heritage should be claimed. In this respect, Strauss suggests that the reform of political philosophy (the intent to base it on some new rules, though known in the past) is necessarily equivalent to an amendment of totality. This is so because political philosophy is a part of philosophy which, at the same time, "means the search to know God, the world and the man”, furthermore, it means the search to know the essences of all things. In this way, it is stated here that the great problem about the return lies mainly in that it is not clear where the return aims at. (shrink)