Originally published in Polish in 2019 by The Lethe Foundation, this book demonstrates the relevance and importance of Paul Elmer More (1864–1937) and Irving Babbitt (1865–1933). Their collective legacy is one of responsible and truly thoughtful living. Their treatment of Humanists and their diagnosis of modernity is an important theme in this work, and the indication of the political consequences of humanism. This is a protreptic book. Its main goal is to encourage people to undertake independent studies or more generally, simply to think independently. If we want to think for ourselves, and not like preprogrammed humanoids, we can’t do so in a vacuum. We have to lean on something. In the Author’s view, the more than century-old writings of Paul Elmer More and Irving Babbitt are perfectly suited to the role of such a support for us, living in the here and now. They make it possible for us to dig ourselves out from underneath the heaps of opinions, “principles� or “theories� that allegedly can’t be rejected, that we’re obliged to follow, but that have a paralyzing and dumbing-down effect on us, making our lives from the outset seems like the dream of a childish old man." ––Taken from the Preface by Pawel Armada

Modernity and What Has Been Lost comes out of a conference held at the Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Poland, on June 4-5, 2009 that sought to identify Leo Strauss's intellectual background in re: the repudiation of a modern idea of homogenous, universal state (considered as an illegitimate synthesis of Jerusalem and Athens, i.e., the claims of Reason and Revelation). The world we live in, molded by science and historical relativism, may be described as hostile to human dignity or perfection, or abhorrent to those who love the search for wisdom. Straussian teaching consisted in the steady effort to reopen "the quarrel between the Ancients and the Moderns," and refers to the esoteric way of writing practiced by the most profound thinkers of the past which has been apparently forgotten in the last three centuries. Strauss binds the concept of natural right with the question of maintenance of conditions for philosophizing, and it probably seems to him that such defense of philosophy is the highest task in our times. However, one must be well aware that philosophizing always means a perilous way of life. Indeed, it may be destructive of the city (polis) itself as far as the city exists due to some crucial beliefs the philosopher might put in doubt. Reflecting on those issues, Strauss engaged in several highly important debates with his contemporaries, in an open way with, e.g., Carl Schmitt, Karl Loewith and Alexandre Kojeve, and more tacitly with Martin Heidegger.