While remaining rooted in a comparison of some of the primary texts of the thinkers under scrutiny, my thesis also discusses several issues which arise in the mutual consideration of Heidegger and Strauss, specifically the questions of the ontological and political status of nature, the problem of ‘first philosophy,’ and the method by which to interpret philosophical texts, as well as a continuous analysis of Strauss’s appellation of ‘modern,’ as opposed to ‘ancient,’ and ‘religious,’ as opposed to ‘philosophical,’ to Heidegger’s thought. I first consider every moment in Strauss’s corpus where he discusses Heidegger’s thought. From this discussion, I identify four main lines of critique which may be extracted from Strauss’s writings on Heidegger. Then, I turn to Heidegger’s texts themselves in order to determine if Strauss’s critique indeed finds purchase there, addressing each of the lines of critique in turn. Finally, I consider Strauss and Heidegger in tandem, in light of the three questions identified above. I show that many of what Strauss determines to be Heidegger’s errors arose as a result of the way that Heidegger read ancient philosophical texts, and I suggest that Strauss’s approach, i.e., to consider the possible esoteric meaning of a text, in fact permits the reader to access an interpretation that is truer to the textual phenomena. This claim, however, is not intended to obscure the remarkable similarities between each thinker’s respective interpretive methods. I conclude that Strauss’s critique of Heidegger, vehement as it is, also indicates Strauss’s dependence on Heidegger’s thought for the inspiration of Strauss’s own philosophical project. The relation between Strauss and Heidegger, then, remains profoundly ambiguous.

While remaining rooted in a comparison of some of the primary texts of the thinkers under scrutiny, my thesis also discusses several issues which arise in the mutual consideration of Heidegger and Strauss, specifically the questions of the ontological and political status of nature, the problem of ‘first philosophy,’ and the method by which to interpret philosophical texts, as well as a continuous analysis of Strauss’s appellation of ‘modern,’ as opposed to ‘ancient,’ and ‘religious,’ as opposed to ‘philosophical,’ to Heidegger’s thought. I first consider every moment in Strauss’s corpus where he discusses Heidegger’s thought. From this discussion, I identify four main lines of critique which may be extracted from Strauss’s writings on Heidegger. Then, I turn to Heidegger’s texts themselves in order to determine if Strauss’s critique indeed finds purchase there, addressing each of the lines of critique in turn. Finally, I consider Strauss and Heidegger in tandem, in light of the three questions identified above. I show that many of what Strauss determines to be Heidegger’s errors arose as a result of the way that Heidegger read ancient philosophical texts, and I suggest that Strauss’s approach, i.e., to consider the possible esoteric meaning of a text, in fact permits the reader to access an interpretation that is truer to the textual phenomena. This claim, however, is not intended to obscure the remarkable similarities between each thinker’s respective interpretive methods. I conclude that Strauss’s critique of Heidegger, vehement as it is, also indicates Strauss’s dependence on Heidegger’s thought for the inspiration of Strauss’s own philosophical project. The relation between Strauss and Heidegger, then, remains profoundly ambiguous.

Thesis--Lund. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 185-190).

While remaining rooted in a comparison of some of the primary texts of the thinkers under scrutiny, my thesis also discusses several issues which arise in the mutual consideration of Heidegger and Strauss, specifically the questions of the ontological and political status of nature, the problem of ‘first philosophy,’ and the method by which to interpret philosophical texts, as well as a continuous analysis of Strauss’s appellation of ‘modern,’ as opposed to ‘ancient,’ and ‘religious,’ as opposed to ‘philosophical,’ to Heidegger’s thought. I first consider every moment in Strauss’s corpus where he discusses Heidegger’s thought. From this discussion, I identify four main lines of critique which may be extracted from Strauss’s writings on Heidegger. Then, I turn to Heidegger’s texts themselves in order to determine if Strauss’s critique indeed finds purchase there, addressing each of the lines of critique in turn. Finally, I consider Strauss and Heidegger in tandem, in light of the three questions identified above. I show that many of what Strauss determines to be Heidegger’s errors arose as a result of the way that Heidegger read ancient philosophical texts, and I suggest that Strauss’s approach, i.e., to consider the possible esoteric meaning of a text, in fact permits the reader to access an interpretation that is truer to the textual phenomena. This claim, however, is not intended to obscure the remarkable similarities between each thinker’s respective interpretive methods. I conclude that Strauss’s critique of Heidegger, vehement as it is, also indicates Strauss’s dependence on Heidegger’s thought for the inspiration of Strauss’s own philosophical project. The relation between Strauss and Heidegger, then, remains profoundly ambiguous.

The popular musico-historical image of Richard Strauss misrepresents both the composer and his music. As this thesis shows, such misrepresentation results from a failure to recognise the significance of Romantic heroic idealism to Strauss's compositional aesthetic. In his aesthetic, heroism operates at a fundamental level where musical self-representation exists as the expression of the Romantic heroic self and its subjectivity. This thesis, presented in two parts, examines firstly the concept of Romantic heroism, itself a misunderstood phenomenon, and, secondly, the ways that a deeper understanding of heroism functions as the underlying impetus for apprehending Strauss's approach to creativity. This creativity is tantamount to the composer's invention of a musical self. Chapter One examines nineteenth-century heroism as an ideological, aesthetic, and philosophical phenomenon, looking at how the early Romantics defined the hero and the centrality of notions of self-identity and self-consciousness to this definition. These notions legitimised subjectivity and realistic artistic self-portrayal. Chapters Two to Four examine literature, painting, and photography, respectively, as artistic spheres in which the idea of self became particularly pronounced. This is seen in the adoption of Romantic irony expressed as extreme realism. As a remedy for self-consciousness, this realism signalled the development towards the acute subjectivity of later nineteenth-century auto-heroism. Part Two, Chapters Five to Eight, considers Strauss's heroic allegiance, understood as an auto-heroic stage of heroism. His aesthetic notion of self is shown to have been specifically derived from social, national, and cultural spheres, all of which reinforced and demonstrated the realistic and auto-heroic expression of the musical self. Having established Strauss's historical reputation (Chapter Five) for the purpose of presenting the image which heroism amends, the idea of self obtaining from the social sphere of education (Chapter Six), and from the broader cultural and national outlooks suggested by Goethe (Chapter Seven) and Wagner (Chapter Eight), are considered. Within these chapters, the ways that these ideas of self are translated into the music itself are explored particularly in relation to the tone poems from Also sprach Zarathustra through to Eine Alpensinfonie. Romantic heroism enables Strauss's music to be understood as the product of a well-defined aesthetic theory within which self-representation is fully justified, thereby challenging the composer's predominating image.

Zugl.: Berlin, Humboldt-Univ., Habil.-Schr., 2001

Zugl.: Berlin, Humboldt-Univ., Diss., 2005

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Sydney, 2003. / Title from title screen (viewed 16 April 2008). Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy to the Discipline of Government and International Relations, School of Economics and Political Science, Faculty of Economics and Business. Degree awarded 2003; thesis submitted 2002. Includes bibliographical references. Also available in print form.

Thesis (M. Mus.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1938. / Typescript; ms. musical examples. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (1 leaf at end).

Zugl.: Aachen, Techn. Hochsch., Diss., 2007