5 ms·

Leo Strauss wrote "Persecution and the Art of Writing" where he argued, among other things, that many ancient and early-modern writers would hide their true bel

by Naga 4y ago

Leo Strauss wrote "Persecution and the Art of Writing" where he argued, among other things, that many ancient and early-modern writers would hide their true beliefs in their works underneath all of the publicly acceptable stuff. This has implications for how we read those texts now: if you're reading a summary, did the summarizer pick up on the esoteric meanings? Did the translator? If we stick to what was said in the text, we're missing what the writer really said. If Hume retracted essays, the Straussian reading of this would be that that's what he probably truly believed, or at least closer to that. Is this something the HN might care about? Not sure, but that's some of the implied context here.

scns 4y ago
> many ancient and early-modern writers would hide their true beliefs Still true today. To reveal your true thought needs courage. You could get doxxed, beheaded, lose your job or else...
- catach 4y ago
  Depends on if, in what directions, and how far your beliefs stray from the local accepted ranges.
- carrja99 4y ago
  Or (gasp!) called out on Twitter! Which in this day and age, people pretend is a fate worse than beheading.
  - mounceyboy 4y ago
    Kierkegaard said that in the old days you would lose your head, but nowadays you're allowed to talk your head off in Hyde park.
    - 082349872349872 4y ago
      Alt.wittgenstein: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGksgZKecKE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGksgZKecKE Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be singing.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- Naga 4y ago
  Oh agreed, 100%. I was trying to summarize Strauss's point in the book. But really, you've hit on the Straussian interpretation of Strauss!
Waterluvian 4y ago
With enough layers of thought abstraction, combined with uttering the correct philosopher’s names, we can make anything mean anything.
smitty1e 4y ago
I don't doubt that Strauss has a strong point. However, that point could lead down Deconstructionist roads where the reader starts injecting nin-existent personal will-o'-wisps into source material. Suddenly, "Blessed are the cheesemakers" refers to an entire dairy industry, where that may not be supported in the original.
- orwin 4y ago
  Not 'could'. This point lead to Derrida quite explicitly. Blind spot in any philosophy essay can be deconstructed, sometimes within the text itself, without external reference (the Derrida way). And I know nowadays, with the American political discourse trying to sell Derrida like he tried to kill older authors, it's controversial, but his method allows anyone to at least appreciate Bentham even more (I only deconstructed Bentham, so I cannot say for other authors, but to me it makes his philosophy even more revolutionary and visionary).
  - smitty1e 4y ago
    Some of this is interesting, but mind-reading is not a thing. Or maybe mind-reading is a thing when one is French.
    - orwin 4y ago
      It's not mind reading. It's opposing a book against itself. The author himself is irrelevant. If you're successful, you can then emit theories on why. Those aren't scientific but a new way of reading the book. If you can't find any 'key' or if the theories you emit makes you read the book the same way, it's a solid theory.
      - smitty1e 4y ago
        > you can then emit theories on why And therein lies the rub. Derrida didn't really write "Speech and Phenomena" as a subliminal manual on the joys of Emacs; I just pulled that line of nonsense from an unlikely place. Yet we are beset everywhere with abject folly passed of as some Hermetic wisdom. If it sells books, fine. But let us not claim an author said things that are simply not in view. Label "Pulp Fiction" as such.
tropicaljacket 4y ago
The problem is this is very prone to confirmation bias, where you would see and likely find 'evidences' to prove your prior guess of what the authors actually wanted to say.
Nomentatus 4y ago
I've done this. Re Occam's Razor when that principle was sacrosanct. Wouldn't do it again, I think. Those willing to reword what I wrote more strongly, got the credit, for one thing. In the end if any one view got me kicked out of Philosophy, it was prematurely defending String Theory - just as a possibility. Politics and my being drugged and assaulted by a Professor were larger factors, though.
m463 4y ago
that makes me think of research papers I thought I read that newton (or another famous scientist or mathematician) published something that was clear enough for non-scientists to read, and the unexpected amount of controversy and hounding he received caused him to withdraw and he didn't write clear papers afterwards. So - research papers now - I wonder if they are written for peers instead of the general public by design (maybe subconsciously)

by Naga 4y ago

scns 4y ago

> many ancient and early-modern writers would hide their true beliefs Still true today. To reveal your true thought needs courage. You could get doxxed, beheaded, lose your job or else...

catach 4y ago
Depends on if, in what directions, and how far your beliefs stray from the local accepted ranges.
carrja99 4y ago
Or (gasp!) called out on Twitter! Which in this day and age, people pretend is a fate worse than beheading.
- mounceyboy 4y ago
  Kierkegaard said that in the old days you would lose your head, but nowadays you're allowed to talk your head off in Hyde park.
  - 082349872349872 4y ago
    Alt.wittgenstein: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGksgZKecKE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGksgZKecKE Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be singing.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
Naga 4y ago
Oh agreed, 100%. I was trying to summarize Strauss's point in the book. But really, you've hit on the Straussian interpretation of Strauss!

Waterluvian 4y ago

With enough layers of thought abstraction, combined with uttering the correct philosopher’s names, we can make anything mean anything.

smitty1e 4y ago

I don't doubt that Strauss has a strong point. However, that point could lead down Deconstructionist roads where the reader starts injecting nin-existent personal will-o'-wisps into source material. Suddenly, "Blessed are the cheesemakers" refers to an entire dairy industry, where that may not be supported in the original.

orwin 4y ago
Not 'could'. This point lead to Derrida quite explicitly. Blind spot in any philosophy essay can be deconstructed, sometimes within the text itself, without external reference (the Derrida way). And I know nowadays, with the American political discourse trying to sell Derrida like he tried to kill older authors, it's controversial, but his method allows anyone to at least appreciate Bentham even more (I only deconstructed Bentham, so I cannot say for other authors, but to me it makes his philosophy even more revolutionary and visionary).
- smitty1e 4y ago
  Some of this is interesting, but mind-reading is not a thing. Or maybe mind-reading is a thing when one is French.
  - orwin 4y ago
    It's not mind reading. It's opposing a book against itself. The author himself is irrelevant. If you're successful, you can then emit theories on why. Those aren't scientific but a new way of reading the book. If you can't find any 'key' or if the theories you emit makes you read the book the same way, it's a solid theory.
    - smitty1e 4y ago
      > you can then emit theories on why And therein lies the rub. Derrida didn't really write "Speech and Phenomena" as a subliminal manual on the joys of Emacs; I just pulled that line of nonsense from an unlikely place. Yet we are beset everywhere with abject folly passed of as some Hermetic wisdom. If it sells books, fine. But let us not claim an author said things that are simply not in view. Label "Pulp Fiction" as such.

tropicaljacket 4y ago

The problem is this is very prone to confirmation bias, where you would see and likely find 'evidences' to prove your prior guess of what the authors actually wanted to say.

Nomentatus 4y ago

I've done this. Re Occam's Razor when that principle was sacrosanct. Wouldn't do it again, I think. Those willing to reword what I wrote more strongly, got the credit, for one thing. In the end if any one view got me kicked out of Philosophy, it was prematurely defending String Theory - just as a possibility. Politics and my being drugged and assaulted by a Professor were larger factors, though.

m463 4y ago

that makes me think of research papers I thought I read that newton (or another famous scientist or mathematician) published something that was clear enough for non-scientists to read, and the unexpected amount of controversy and hounding he received caused him to withdraw and he didn't write clear papers afterwards. So - research papers now - I wonder if they are written for peers instead of the general public by design (maybe subconsciously)