The works of Leo Strauss about the phenomenon of esoteric writing in a context of persecution is probably one of the most fascinating aspects of his legacy. The readers learn with him how to read political philosophy as a “detective story” The assumption that classical text should be « read between lines » proceeds directly from Strauss’s interest in the theologico-political question. The philosopher needs to justify himself, and the right of free enquiry, both in the eyes of the city and in the eyes of religion. To the extent that he deviates from orthodoxy or social accepted view he will have to conceal his real teaching, practice esoteric writings. Only a certain type of reader will be able to crack the code, to understand his real intention...
For Leo Strauss, it is because Liberalism has gradually come to prevail in western societies after the Enlightenment, that the phenomenon of esoteric writings has been progressively forgotten (and even denied by historicists). The beginning of modernity was characterized by a progressive collapse of the boundaries between esoteric and exoteric writings. The result is that most readers, even academics, will tend to remain at an exoteric understanding of the classics. The liberal dogma of public transparency has been extended even to those who could not afford it.
I want to take this thought up:
If Strauss is right about esoteric texts then the question becomes: what was it that required being kept secret? What was it that was so dangerous, so distruptive, so potent, that philosophers had to keep it secret or had to encode it into their works?
Whatever it was, Strauss reasons, then it must have been revealed by now because modernity, by definition, is the collapse of the distinction between esoteric and exoteric texts. We don't write esoteric texts anymore because whatever the secret was it doesn't need to be kept secret anymore. In our age, whatever it was, it must now be right before our noses out in the open. What, in modernity, did philosophers need to keep secret in the past?
Strauss concludes that the "great secret" hidden in esoteric texts must be the modern realisation that the universe is a godless, unrelentingly cold, hostile place that has no meaning and no comfort. In other words, materialistic nihilism. Religion, Strauss thinks, is a mask for this grim truth. But an entirely necessary mask. Because only philosophers - people rightly trained - are really capable of dealing with the horrible truth. The whole of civilization, Strauss thinks, is a systematic denial of the grim truth. For civilization to exist most people - non-philosophers - must believe the 'Noble Lie' of religion. So Strauss is that fascinating combination: an atheist who believes in religion.
This doctrine resembles Freud, doesn't it? Religion as sublimation. Society as repression. The oedipal horror. The truth is so ugly we just can't face it so we invent a 'Noble Lie' and conceal the ugly truth except from a small elite few.
The question becomes: if not this nihilistic vision, then what? If we agree there are esoteric texts, then what was it that was esoteric and why was it esoteric? What is this terrible truth that must be kept from the common man? Whatever it is, Strauss reasons, it must now be exposed, because that is what modernity is. Do we have an answer to these questions? If not the wasteland, what?
- Harper McAlpine Black
I want to take this thought up:
If Strauss is right about esoteric texts then the question becomes: what was it that required being kept secret? What was it that was so dangerous, so distruptive, so potent, that philosophers had to keep it secret or had to encode it into their works?
Whatever it was, Strauss reasons, then it must have been revealed by now because modernity, by definition, is the collapse of the distinction between esoteric and exoteric texts. We don't write esoteric texts anymore because whatever the secret was it doesn't need to be kept secret anymore. In our age, whatever it was, it must now be right before our noses out in the open. What, in modernity, did philosophers need to keep secret in the past?
Strauss concludes that the "great secret" hidden in esoteric texts must be the modern realisation that the universe is a godless, unrelentingly cold, hostile place that has no meaning and no comfort. In other words, materialistic nihilism. Religion, Strauss thinks, is a mask for this grim truth. But an entirely necessary mask. Because only philosophers - people rightly trained - are really capable of dealing with the horrible truth. The whole of civilization, Strauss thinks, is a systematic denial of the grim truth. For civilization to exist most people - non-philosophers - must believe the 'Noble Lie' of religion. So Strauss is that fascinating combination: an atheist who believes in religion.
This doctrine resembles Freud, doesn't it? Religion as sublimation. Society as repression. The oedipal horror. The truth is so ugly we just can't face it so we invent a 'Noble Lie' and conceal the ugly truth except from a small elite few.
The question becomes: if not this nihilistic vision, then what? If we agree there are esoteric texts, then what was it that was esoteric and why was it esoteric? What is this terrible truth that must be kept from the common man? Whatever it is, Strauss reasons, it must now be exposed, because that is what modernity is. Do we have an answer to these questions? If not the wasteland, what?
- Harper McAlpine Black
No comments:
Post a Comment