Who is ready for my Straussian reading of “Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You See?”
Ok, first look at the pictures closely. What do YOU see?
All the animals are looking AWAY from the animals preceding them. Nobody is looking at anyone. It’s all projection! The brown bear sees the red bird and thinks the red bird is looking at him.
But the red bird is actually looking at the yellow duck, who is looking at the blue horse, etc.
Basically, it’s the original “jealous girlfriend meme.” The Brown Bear wants to be looked at, but is ignored.
Alternatively, it’s the spotlight effect. We think we are being looked at when we’re not. The brown bear suffers social anxiety, but the gaze of the red bird is all internalized, all the way down, to the children, the only ones who see but aren’t seen (except by the reader).
The esoteric read, the point that is shocking and thus to be guarded, is that the animals who are depicted as related are atomized. They fantasize that they are seen by one another when they are not.
More cynically still, the author-reader relationship is a stand-in for the animal-animal relationship. The book is about the impossibility of intersubjectivity between writer and reader.
Yet ironically, those who grasp this truth make contact with the author, a kind of Zen paradox.
The author sees us looking at him, but we are looking elsewhere. We see the author looking at us, but the author is looking elsewhere. But when we see THIS, we meet.
Alternatively altogether, the animals really do see each other, but they pretend not to by looking away. The text and the image contradict, in consonance with how we experience everyday life as a contradiction between official doctrine (politics, myth) and truth (philosophy).
The animals are philosophers, The Brown Bear is Plato, the Red Bird is Aristotle, etc. and the Children are the students of philosophy, ie Straussians.
We are animals with language, says Aristotle. The book literalizes this, posing a question-how will we manage our duality as beasts bound by necessity and world builders open to the clearing? (End)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Disclaimer: I'm writing this not for people who know the joy of reading great books, or who find it to be a devotional or joyful act in itself, but for the skeptics, especially those who say that reading has "diminishing returns."
1. Reading greats books sharpens the mind. It teaches you how others have thought, and gives you more agency, more terms, more range, in how you self express, how you discern. It is a kind of power. The canon is the gym of the mind.
All critics of modernity, on both the left and the right, hold that the invention of the individual is iatrogenic.
The best, most honest responses to the critics of modernity is not to deny the side-effects of this invention, but to argue that, net-net, the damage caused is worth it.
Both the critique and the defense of the individual make use of evidence. Both commit one to a certain path that becomes self-fulfilling.
Social contract theory is but the first of many interventions needed to sustain the invention of the individual.
Let's go! My @threadapalooza on Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1908–1961), phenomenologist of perception and embodiment, whose work has influenced everyone from cognitive scientists to feminists to theologians to AI engineers. MMP was in the "Resistance" before it was cool.
MMP grew up Catholic, studied under Husserl and Kojeve, was influenced by Heidegger, was friends with Beauvoir and Sartre. He was a hard core Marxist, possibly even a Stalinist sympathizer. (He was formed by his experiences fighting against the Nazis.) 2
And no doubt, for him, his thought was all of one piece. But like any great thinker, his insights are not reducible to the conclusions he himself drew, political or otherwise. 3
It's time for a @threadapalooza on Hans Jonas (1903-1993), a brilliant and under-appreciated philosopher, theologian, and scholar of "Gnosticism," who fled Nazi Germany to teach at the New School, and who was a pioneer in the fields of bioethics and environmentalism.
Jonas was a Jewish student of Heidegger's, whose thought, like Arendt's and Levinas's, is at once oppositional to and indebted to Heidegger's. 2
One way to think of the difference between philosophy and theology is to compare Simone Weil and Kant. (Thread)
For Kant, the universe/God is unknowable and that is all that can be said.
For Weil, not only is God unknowable to us, but we are unknowable to God.
How does Weil know that we are unknowable to God? Strictly speaking, she doesn't. But her poetic imagination/faith allows her to transcend her not knowing. She feels the noumenal realm to be knocking on our wall as much as we are knocking on its. 2/x
The theologian and philosopher here agree on the boundaries of knowledge. But they diverge in how they react to this boundary. For Weil, a boundary implies or conjures up a real sense of longing. For Kant, it is what it is. 3/x