<DIV>Strauss and Fukayama claim(ed) to be "political theorists" rather than philosophers, though I see no point in drawing definitional lines tightly. I'm a lawyer now partly because my learned colleagues (nameless assholes) in philosophy decide that my work was "not philosophy" in view of the fact that it engaged with real world politics and sociology. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I think Strauss should "count" as a philosopher. He wrote interesting commentaries on important philosophers (Maimonides, Hobbes, Plato, etc.), contributed several original works that are still in print and readable and influential outside the field (Natural Right and History), and if he was often wrong, he was at least was thought-provoking. I can think of lots of philosophers who are wrong without being even that. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As for Fukayama, I haven't read anything but The End of History and The Last Man, and actually thought that to be pretty good, kind of idealist, but he's on to something. Perry Anderson has a long paper on Fukayama that suggests the left ought to take him seriously. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Bennett, no one would imagine was any kind of philosopher.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>jks (a failed philosopher himself!)<BR><BR><B><I>joanna bujes <joanna.bujes@sun.com></I></B> wrote:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">At 07:26 PM 05/05/2003 -0700, you wrote:<BR>>Philosophers ought to be concerned when their field is misrepresented in<BR>>the media: why should the public be led to believe that non-philosophers<BR>>like Strauss and Fukuyama, or failed philosophers like William Bennett,<BR>>represent our field? (As Burnyeat put it: "</BLOCKQUOTE><p><hr SIZE=1> Do you Yahoo!?<br> <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/search/mailsig/*http://search.yahoo.com">The New Yahoo! Search</a> - Faster. Easier. Bingo.