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
 

Keep Current with Zohar Atkins

Zohar Atkins Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ZoharAtkins

1 Jul
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
Read 100 tweets
17 Jun
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
Read 102 tweets
25 May
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
Read 100 tweets
23 May
If most moral and political questions are ultimately binary, it stands to reason that the average person is wrong about fifty percent of the time.

Are People With The Right Views Lucky?, by @ZoharAtkins whatiscalledthinking.substack.com/p/are-people-w…
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.
Read 6 tweets
16 May
I’m going to swerve out of my lane and make an observation about crypto culture:

It’s founded on a paradox:
On one hand, the belief in the idea that truth is best discovered through a process that is anonymous, rule-based, unbiased.

On the other hand, a desire for recognition—to status signal oneself as a HODler, a believer, a person with laser eyes.
In the elevation of anonymity and depersonalization we see the ideal of instrumental rationality.

In the swag and identity politics of crypto pride we see the Hegelian return of the agonistic model of politics (a struggle for recognition)
Read 11 tweets
16 May
"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."

whatiscalledthinking.substack.com/p/why-has-tech…
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.
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(