Horkheimer starts his essay directly by asking what a theory is. Then he explains what it actually is comparing the differences between traditional theory and critical theory throughout. He defines the traditional theory as the theory of natural sciences - mathematical physics. It’s role is to make generalisations using mathematical symbols in the sense of universal sciences without limitations, embracing all kinds of subjects. Horkheimer then claims that social sciences like sociology and history are also defined within these generalisations and symbols just like the natural sciences. Social scientists such as Durkheim, Weber, Liefmann and Merkel work on historical elements and their connections for historical and sociological continuity. Thus the traditional theory in this sense processes historical events with “conditional propositions.” Meaning that certain given circumstances will probably lead to certain results with given conditions. Just like a scientific experiment. According to Horkheimer traditional theory is then a modern world theory specially designed for the status quo or the capitalist productivity. It aims this perfect “harmony” in Horkheimer’s words without any contradictions. However it’s far away from happening.
Horkheimer then defines critical theory as a society based human activity emerging from social structure. It rejects notions like useful, better, productive, valuable since these terms are applicable within the present order. The modern era expects the society to accept the conditions of the status quo and do their duties without any questions. On the other hand a critical perspective rejects such a manly created world and opposes with it. The subject of the critical theory does not have a “mathematical point” like the capitalist economy, it seeks to line up critical factor with thinking in order to create an environment where an individual is in relation with other individuals developing a social present.
Leo Strauss starts off by defining philosophy as a quest for the truth and then moves on to the political philosophy. According to him political philosophy has been destroyed by science and history. Positivist approach aiming to know How instead of Why kills political philosophy. He believes that positivism should turn into historicism since it’s the main concept that contradicts with political philosophy.
Both of the philosophers criticise positivism. Strauss thinks that it’s no longer what August Comte started while Horkheimer tries to underline a critical approach. Although having some difficulties understanding the arguments and criticisms of Strauss I agree with his approach that the classical political philosophy sees things clearly before there was a traditional politics. However only addressing the enlightened may cause difficulties to the society even though it speaks both about the political theory and political skills.
When it comes to Horkheimer I totally agree with his critique of the traditional, modern era, capitalist design of a society and a status quo. Even our current failing capitalism/global economies era is a proof to this.
