Introduction
The present study seeks to answer two questions. First, what does Strauss’s invitation to connect with the ancient form of philosophy and politics—or at least to take this ancient form as a starting point for its wise application in today’s society—teach us about the relationship between the philosopher and the politician? Second, what does it tell us about the gentlemanly character that was nurtured within the ancient form of the party? In other words, if Strauss believes that the ancients considered true human happiness to lie in the philosophical life (vita contemplativa), how did political life (vita activa), which was inherently oriented toward the city, relate to this philosophical life in Strauss’s view? Who was responsible for the administration of the city, and how did that person relate to the philosopher?
Our understanding of modern philosophy, according to Strauss, is shaped by the de-politicization of modern philosophy. On the surface, the theory of philosophy does not become positive in politics, or at least it seems to prevent philosophy from becoming ambitious and political, as occurred in the modern era. In a sense, the gentleman is the presence and manifestation of the philosopher in the city. From Strauss’s perspective, the gentleman exists at the dawn of the city, whereas Platonic philosophy was formed at the sunset of the city. Therefore, the gentleman has a more natural view of the nature of the city and political matters than anyone else. The philosopher approaches the city through moderation and wisdom from the perspective of a gentleman, not a partisan. Given the lofty interpretation that Strauss gives to the function or service of ancient political philosophy to philosophy, the city and politics become noble politicians or educated gentlemen who exist in the light of the possibility of philosophy. These gentlemen are not only free from the clamor of the masses, who are unaware of the nature of politics, but are also familiar with the concerns of philosophers and do not fundamentally conflict with philosophical life. Thus, it seems that the gentleman is the political reflection of the philosopher.

Conclusion
Strauss, with the poise and insight of the classics, invites us to read the past in order to illuminate the path of our present, though not as the final solution to the crisis of the times. He does not claim that we should return to the past, for he knows that the structural situation of the city differs from that of ancient Athens. Nevertheless, he consistently affirms the fundamental and constitutive truth of the city and politics that the ancients held, and he wishes to keep this truth in mind. It is because of this neglect of fundamental truth that he considers the politicization of philosophy in the modern era—carried out with the aim of creating a rational world and city—to be dangerous. This politicization not only rendered the ancients’ concept of philosophical life irrelevant to us but also revealed itself through radical programs that claimed to uncover the true nature of man, the world, and the city. Furthermore, when philosophy becomes politicized, it is accompanied by the suppression of the element of belief in the city, which contradicts the common sense of both sages and gentleman politicians. In other words, while philosophy and the philosopher seek truth, in matters of the city and politics, philosophy shares and agrees with the worldview of an enlightened politician who combines reason and madness to shape the city. Strauss argues that no philosophy should neglect the materialist thinking of the man of action—the foresight that remains oblivious to the lord of this lower world. He contends that philosophy in this age has been enslaved and captured by the masses and, under the slogan of universal enlightenment, tries to rationalize the whole, including the city and politics. This program did not bear fruit in the political arena, where the masses were moved through propaganda. For this reason, Strauss recommends that we examine philosophy and politics as understood by the ancients, and he calls this approach the restoration of natural intelligence to political phenomena.