Dividing time into periods may be even harder than dividing the earth into nation states. Within this general problematic, defining modernity may be the most difficult.
The exercise of dating modernity collapses on itself, just as the task of the macro-historian ultimately collapses into the task of speculative theology and poetry (which is why the oldest works of literature are works not of chronicles, but of poetry and folklore).
Bruno Latour says “We have never been modern.” But the flipside of his provocation is that we have always been modern, and that modernity is not something we can undo, so much as a chronic condition.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If academia rewards decorum, maintaining a distinction between oneself as a secondary source and the text as a primary source, Midrash is the art of blurring the two into one, what Gadamer calls "horizon fusing," and what relationship experts call "romance."
What would cause people of high status to oppose Moses? Were the “men of repute” genuinely interested in destroying social hierarchy, or simply redistributing power from the 1% to the 10%?
The fundamental conflict turns on the word “holy." Does being holy entitle one to formal leadership? Is that the correct category to think about holiness? Or is holiness less a right, less a badge of honor, less a talent, than a call to serve, no matter one’s station?
As a longtime fan and reader of Bible scholar, Avivah Zornberg, it was a great pleasure and honor to talk with her on my podcast. I hope this episode brings joy and inspiration to fans, newcomers, and readers of all stripes. Avivah is the real deal.
If I had to sum up her position it is something like: "Life is anguish. Acknowledge it, hold it, let it deepen you; seek God in it. Great literature, and especially Torah, offers us a way to open our hearts to this existential anguish. It is the axe to the frozen sea within."
Many remarkable things about Zornberg's work to note. Here are a few observations.
1. Her range of sources, traditional and modern, is considerable.
Schmitt: The pundit class loves to spew on about polarization, but it’s theatrics. cc: @MacaesBruno Consumerism is a stronger force in the digital age than conviction. Liberalism has turned the noble fight into just another slogan to put on one’s coffee mug: politics as “merch.”
Kojeve: social media is a site where we see the master-slave dialectic play out. Masters have no need for social media; slaves, who lack recognition IRL, turn to social media to have their personhood affirmed...
Who is the leading living virtue ethicist of our time?
(A thread of questions.)
Why is there no virtue ethics (VE) community in the same way that there is an effective altruist (EA) community?
EA says it cares about problems that are neglected. Isn't the problem of virtue massively neglected? Thus, by its own lights, it should care not just about making the world more utilitarian but also making our character more virtuous?
What would Leo Strauss, Martin Heidegger, Hannah Arendt, Carl Schmitt, Walter Benjamin, Gershom Scholem, Theodor Adorno, and Alexander Kojeve, and Emmanuel Levinas say about #Bitcoin and crypto?
Leo Strauss: To the extent that the blockchain succeeds in escaping the political it becomes irrelevant, and to the extent that it does not, it proves just as vulnerable as the next thing. There is no way to be a good philosopher without accepting the risk of persecution.
Carl Schmitt: Schmitt: Diamond hands. I will Hodl until the world ends. Not because I believe in crypto, but because I believe in tribalism...