Anyone else notice that both Hannah Arendt and Leo Strauss espouse the virtue of solitude? (Thread)
It seems like Arendt faults mass culture’s tendency to thoughtlessness for sewing the seeds for totalitarianism and mob mentality. Eg Eichmann didn’t know how to be alone with his own thoughts...to maintain a dialogue with himself.
Interestingly, Strauss defines the philosopher as a person apart from the times. The thinker has more in common with other thinkers than with his or her contemporary society.
To be a philosopher one must hold society at a distance, cultivating a sense of solitude and also of independent mindedness.
Where Arendt and Strauss seem to diverge is on this:
For Arendt, everyone must aspire to solitude. The absence of solitude as a cultural value is politically catastrophic.
For Strauss, only philosophers need be solitary. And in fact Machiavellian statecraft may require “reading the room” more than “building the future”: we should expect only rare souls to be solitary and to see the value of solitude.
Basically, Arendt thinks that if we don’t all become philosophers we are doomed. While Strauss thinks that we are sort of doomed and sort of not, no matter what, but that we are more doomed when we try to make everyone a philosopher.
The role that religion or revelation or law play in Strauss—as the foil to Reason—is this: those things require conformity; if everyone became a philosopher the world would stop running. Philosophy is the second story that rests on a non philosophical foundation.
Thus even solitary philosophers must go along to get along. And the problem with modern philosophers is that they lack respect for the importance of the non philosophical in holding society together. (Fin)
PS—where they agree (and where I might walk Strauss back) is on the importance of liberal (arts) education. Ironically, Arendt was skeptical of the endeavor, bc reading great books guarantees little. Strauss, thought that “gentlemen” ie ruling class, would be well formed by it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It's time to honor Maimonides (1138-1204) with a @threadapalooza.
The "Rambam" (Rabbi Moses ben Maimon) was one of the most daring & revolutionary (Jewish) thinkers of all time. He was not only a philosopher, but a community leader, jurist, legal theorist, and medical doctor.
Maimonides was born and raised in Cordoba (Andalusia), but fled persecution to Morocco, and then, to Egypt. Besides a life of geopolitical exile, Maimonides suffered the traumatic losses of both his brother and his son. One of Judaism's greatest minds was also a sensitive soul.
Since this is a tribute, I'm going to focus on what I find inspiring and transformative about Maimonides, rather than an overview of his thought--which is hotly contested, as is the thought of every great thinker. 3
The time has come for a @threadapalooza about Heraclitus, an Ancient Greek thinker (Ephesus, 500 BCE) whose fragments read as a contemplation on our inability to say what is.
If I were being cheeky, I'd tweet "you can't step into the same tweet twice" and retweet 99x...
Heraclitus did not write fragments, but like most work from that time, his fragments are what remain. Anne Carson, though would say that these works find their completion in their fragmentation, are more whole in their wrecked, elliptical form. 2
The notion that a fragment can be whole precisely because it is broken is a theme commonly found amongst the German romantics who wrote fragments as a genre (just as they adored ruins). 3
Time for a @threadapalooza about Spinoza, a giant thinker and iconoclast ahead of his time whose criticisms of religion and traditional theology in 17th century Amsterdam earned him censorship and excommunication. A would-be-rabbi, he made a living as a lens grinder.
Spinoza, whose family had fled the Spanish Inquisition, held many contrarian views, but he was not a contrarian because he wanted to annoy.
He believed that a serene, good life was one ruled by reason rather than passion, superstition or chance experience. 2
His magnum opus is called "Ethics" which is significant, because he makes many claims in the book that are not about ethics but about metaphysics and the nature of the world. Why call the book ethics? 3
If correct moral reasoning doesn’t follow a bell curve pattern, but is instead what @nntaleb would call a black swan, the chances are even higher that the average person gets it wrong. A saint or a sage would be 1000x more moral than the median moral reasoner.
Jewish law exempts the shoteh, the crazy person, from many divine commandments. Empirically, the shoteh is a rare case. Theoretically, he’s a vanishing point against which jurists can define what it means to have knowledge and intent.
"Plato didn’t have a typewriter. Aristotle didn’t have an iPad. Plotinus didn’t have a smartphone. Descartes didn’t use a note taking app. Heidegger wasn’t on academia.edu Hannah Arendt wasn’t on Twitter."
I wonder if a culture that treats thinkers as “knowledge workers” and optimizes for “productivity tools” rather than “discernment tools” ends up leading to an intellectual culture that is superficial and fleeting.
I don’t blame the abysmal academic job market even though Hegel, Schelling, Strauss, and Arendt were professors. Marx managed to write Das Kapital without tenure. Kant made a living as a tutor. Thales traded options.