The problem of political philosophy is usually widely discussed in the historical context. However, little is known about other approaches toward this issue. The influence of philosophy on politics and vice versa is undoubted. What is political philosophy? What can it be? Is it satisfying? These are the questions one must ask when discussing such a complicated topic. Unfortunately, there are no precise answers to any of the most important queries. It seems that the only possible solution is to consider political philosophy according to different standpoints and perspectives. The Author emphasizes the specific relations between political philosophy and philosophy as such. These relations seem quite problematic in the context of modern discourse and its aporetic character. Moreover, the questions of definition and the meaning of words as well as the understanding of attitudes towards the philosophical tradition, compel us to reconsider our notion of political philosophy. Investigating the alleged role and aim (or aims) of political philosophy, the case of Leo Strauss’ thought is stated as an example of a suggested solution to its crisis caused by postmodern nihilism and relativism. Although the main statement is clear: a return to the classical understanding of political philosophy as an attempt to overcome those problems – the whole thesis is sufficiently controversial. On the other hand, the social expectations from political philosophy unavoidably bring the question of the philosopher’s activity within a state. Facing the position of the death of traditional metaphysics as well as being deprived of certainty in the light of modern science, a philosopher has to defend the case of philosophy. Of course that is if one assumes that the position of so-called philosopher is necessary at all. Instead of conclusion, the Author asks the fundamental question whether political philosophy would find its proper place among modern social sciences.