Tuesday, November 06, 2007

Persecution and the Art of Writing

Started reading Leo Strauss' Persecution and the Art of Writing. So far I am about half way through the Introduction. It is not light reading. Some observations thus far:

The introduction is operating on at least three levels. Strauss is writing about al-Farabi, who is writing about Plato. It is a little challenging to keep track of who is talking about whom.

Philosophers were essentially persecuted in Greece. They were not popular with the people nor with the government. This persecution created a duality in writing, an esoteric and exoteric message, one for the common people, and one for fellow philosophers who know the code. Interestingly, in Judaism, this idea is supported both by philosophers such as the Rambam in his Guide to the Perplexed and the mystical Kabbalists with their ideas of nigleh and nistar. Once again, at another level, it is possible that Strauss' work itself is written at both levels, containing hidden messages to his initiates.

Interestingly enough, the persecution of philosophers had led Plato and his disciples to the belief that it is the philosophers that represent the highest ideal of mankind. This seems to me very similar to the idea of the Jews viewing themselves as God's special people even as they were being degraded and persecuted by the Gentiles.

I hope to finish the Introduction in the next couple days and move on to the actual meat of the book.

7 Comments:

Blogger Shoshana said...

I can understand why philosophers weren't so popular in Greece, if it's based on Plato's writing. I always have said that while Socrates brings up interesting points, he's way annoying - I sure wouldn't want to get in a conversation with him!

November 07, 2007 5:59 AM  
Blogger e-kvetcher said...

During his defense when on trial for his life, Socrates, according to Plato's writings, pointed out that dissent, like the tiny (relative to the size of a horse) gadfly, was easy to swat, but the cost to society of silencing individuals who were irritating could be very high. "If you kill a man like me, you will injure yourselves more than you will injure me," because his role was that of a gadfly, "to sting people and whip them into a fury, all in the service of truth."
wiki

November 07, 2007 7:32 AM  
Blogger Shoshana said...

Good point. His annoying-ness was partly because he liked to bring up all the things that people didn't want to think about, or that he pointed out that we don't really know that which he assume we do. But I always wondered if all his questions really got anyone anywhere, since all the discussion I did on the subject led us to many more questions than answers, if we came up with any answers at all.

November 07, 2007 8:13 AM  
Blogger e-kvetcher said...

led us to many more questions than answers, if we came up with any answers at all.

That's why I can never become a philosopher!

November 07, 2007 8:32 AM  
Blogger Shoshana said...

That's why I can never become a philosopher!

I think it's too late for that ;)

November 07, 2007 8:45 AM  
Blogger Miri said...

"His annoying-ness was partly because he liked to bring up all the things that people didn't want to think about, or that he pointed out that we don't really know that which he assume we do."

Right; also because a lot of his conclusions were not necessarily reached by any of the rules of logic, that I could recognize; but he spoke with such conviction, and said things like "But is it not true that...and surely anyone who is not a fool would assure you with complete confidence that..." such that those who debated him became confused and could not refute him.

November 07, 2007 3:05 PM  
Blogger Tobie said...

I hate reading Socrates because we only read the conversations with people that he ran intellectual circles around- not one of them even slightly capable of giving him a run for his money. I'd love to read a dialog that he had with another philosopher of another school or something.

November 09, 2007 12:29 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home