Persecution and the Art of Writing

Rating:
Summary: An excellent source for readers of philosophy
Review: An excellent text, Strauss explicates on his views of how philosophers in times of persecution will "hide" their most stunning and important ideas "between the lines" of their works. In this way, the authors avoid death, and also provide the deepest insight to only those intelligent enough to find it in the texts. Pay special attention to Strauss's chapter on the "Guide for the Perplexed:" not only is it an interesting read, but one can see Strauss himself using some of the same techniques that he claims authors of the past used. It's all a matter of trying to understand what he truly wants to tell us.

Rating:
Summary: An excellent source for readers of philosophy
Review: An excellent text, Strauss explicates on his views of how philosophers in times of persecution will "hide" their most stunning and important ideas "between the lines" of their works. In this way, the authors avoid death, and also provide the deepest insight to only those intelligent enough to find it in the texts. Pay special attention to Strauss's chapter on the "Guide for the Perplexed:" not only is it an interesting read, but one can see Strauss himself using some of the same techniques that he claims authors of the past used. It's all a matter of trying to understand what he truly wants to tell us.

Rating:
Summary: Humbling
Review: First of all, I'd like to recommend that the writer of the review above this one, I. Godfrey, delete his review before he embarrasses himself any more. He apparently has confused political philosopher Leo Strauss with the classical composer of the same last name. (Is Godfrey preparing a scathing review of novelist Peter Carey's last book because it doesn't discuss any of Mariah Carey's groovy Top 40 hits?).

Anyway, my review is as follows:

I can't really do justice to this little number - it would be like Eminem trying to review the Beatles' Revolver, or Gail Sheehy trying to review "Anna Karenina"; so out of my league as to only make me look ridiculous.

All I'd like to say is that the most profitable thing about reading Mr. Strauss's books isn't finding out what his insights and opinions are, though that can be a life-changing benefit itself; it is that one cannot take him seriously, that is, follow his lines of reasoning, without dramatically improving one's own reading/critical thinking skills. As this happens, it becomes increasingly impossible to encounter the great thinkers and their works without all sorts of previously hidden gems revealing themselves to you.

Nietszche proclaims that humans exist within artifical horizons, or ideologies; if so, Strauss's quest appears to consist of utilizing his natural reason to achieve something virtually supernatural - transcend his own humanity (with all its prejudices and baggage and desires) in order to find and comprehend fully and objectively, Absolute Truth.

Strauss shows how he goes about this in this volume, by treating with the utmost respect and reverence the authors he discusses. Since I have just finished reading the Bible, I particularly appreciated his incisive comments on Spinoza. I feel like I got more from that one short little essay than I've gotten from entire books on the same subject.

But I've probably said enough.

Rating:
Summary: Who knew this book could say all this?
Review: I bought PERSECUTION AND THE ART OF WRITING because I wanted an easy approach to whatever contribution Leo Strauss might be able to make to the understanding of political philosophy, and the idea that writers might be persecuted is fundamental to my understanding of what separates social thinking from what a philosopher might be capable of. The second chapter, which covers the topic "Persecution and the art of writing," is only from page 22 to page37 of this book. The Introduction attempts to provide a basis for understanding all the essays in this book "within the province of the sociology of knowledge." (p. 7). The final chapter, "How to Study Spinoza's THEOLOGICO-POLITICAL TREATISE," is the culmination of a series of articles, which first appeared in 1941, 1943, and 1948, that is primarily concerned with understanding the works of a few philosophers in a manner which might be helpful "for a future sociology of philosophy." (p. 7).

The particular work of Spinoza discussed was an attempt "to refute the claims which had been raised on behalf of revelation throughout the ages." (p. 142). Studying the Treatise is primarily philosophical because "the issue raised by the conflicting claims of philosophy and revelation is discussed in our time on a decidedly lower level than was almost customary in former ages." (pp. 142-3). Later it is admitted that Spinoza's own age did not have Spinoza's books to discuss. "The only book which he published under his own name is devoted to the philosophy of Descartes." (p. 152). "But Spinoza, who wrote for posterity rather than for his contemporaries, must have realized that the day would come when his own books would be old books." (p. 153). My own understanding of Spinoza is not helped by the fact that the longest quotations, in note 2 on page 143 and note 19 on page 153, are in latin. Note 13 on page 149 quotes Carl Gebhardt (Spinoza. OPERA, vol. II, p. 317) in German. I thought I was going to be able to understand it best when Strauss wrote, "To ascertain how to read Spinoza, we shall do well to cast a glance at his rules for reading the Bible." (p. 144). Philosophy itself might demand that the most modern conclusion on that effort would be: "For the same reason it is impossible to understand the Biblical authors as they understood themselves; every attempt to understand the Bible is of necessity an attempt to understand its authors better than they understood themselves." (p. 148). In the case of the Bible, the idea of revelation offers the consolation to people who never wanted to be considered its authors that the book was written by someone else, as the angel who dictated the Koran to its prophet is the ultimate target of the book THE SATANIC VERSES by Salman Rushdie in the most modern comic edition of this conflict. The only escapes which Spinoza would offer is "to potential philosophers, i.e., to men who, at least in the early stages of their training, are deeply imbued with the vulgar prejudices: what Spinoza considers the basic prejudice of those potential philosophers whom he addresses in the Treatise, is merely a special form of the basic prejudice of the vulgar mind in general." (p. 184). Given the facts of life for most people, this seems to be particularly bad news for the political, which could use a few intellectual connections.

Rating:
Summary: A curious piece of writing from this 20th century master
Review: I came upon this book not without any prejudices as to what to expect from this 20th century classical master and was thus somewhat disappointed. The reason being is that Strauss directs very little attention, in fact none at all, towards the subject of music and instead parlays into politics. His naivity and inexperience with the subject matter is quite blatant and I felt at times embarassed for him. With that taken into consideration this still stands as a rather engaging curio from a remarkable figure in modern music, albeit an unsubstantial one with very little insight into his music and craft. I recommend instead Salome In Full Score.

Rating:
Summary: Humbling
Review: I can't really do justice to this little number - it would be like Eminem trying to review Revolver, or Gail Sheehy trying to review "Anna Karenina"; so out of my league as to only make me look ridiculous.

All I'd like to say is that the most profitable thing about reading Mr. Strauss's books isn't finding out what his insights and opinions are, though that can be a life-changing benefit itself; it is that one cannot take him seriously, that is, follow his lines of reasoning, without dramatically improving one's own reading/critical thinking skills. As this happens, it becomes increasingly impossible to encounter the great thinkers and their works without all sorts of previously hidden gems revealing themselves to you.

Nietszche proclaims that humans exist within artifical horizons, or ideologies; if so, Strauss's quest appears to consist of utilizing his natural reason to achieve something virtually supernatural - transcend his own humanity (with all its prejudices and baggage and desires) in order to find and comprehend fully and objectively, Absolute Truth.

Strauss shows how he goes about this in this volume, by treating with the utmost respect and reverence the authors he discusses. Since I have just finished reading the Bible, I particularly appreciated his incisive comments on Spinoza. I feel like I got more from that one short little essay than I've gotten from entire books on the same subject.

But I've probably said enough.

Rating:
Summary: Humbling
Review: I can't really do justice to this little number - it would be like Eminem trying to review Revolver, or Gail Sheehy trying to review "Anna Karenina"; so out of my league as to only make me look ridiculous.

All I'd like to say is that the most profitable thing about reading Mr. Strauss's books isn't finding out what his insights and opinions are, though that can be a life-changing benefit itself; it is that one cannot take him seriously, that is, follow his lines of reasoning, without dramatically improving one's own reading/critical thinking skills. As this happens, it becomes increasingly impossible to encounter the great thinkers and their works without all sorts of previously hidden gems revealing themselves to you.

Nietszche proclaims that humans exist within artifical horizons, or ideologies; if so, Strauss's quest appears to consist of utilizing his natural reason to achieve something virtually supernatural - transcend his own humanity (with all its prejudices and baggage and desires) in order to find and comprehend fully and objectively, Absolute Truth.

Strauss shows how he goes about this in this volume, by treating with the utmost respect and reverence the authors he discusses. Since I have just finished reading the Bible, I particularly appreciated his incisive comments on Spinoza. I feel like I got more from that one short little essay than I've gotten from entire books on the same subject.

But I've probably said enough.

Rating:
Summary: Contra the Neo-Cons...
Review: Now that certain of his followers have risen to such unpredictably high prominence and stuck around, Leo Strauss is getting more attention. This is good. Strauss is a good reader of good books (esp. Spinoza and Aristophanes), but his legacy is more ambivalent than one might expect. He is more than simply the intellectual architect behind Reaganism. Here are some observations that give an idea of what I mean in Persecution and the Art of Writing:

First, something to like about Strauss: He proceeds from the beginning of this study with the assumption that knowledge has a social basis, that social factors produce "truth." This position actually puts Strauss much closer to Foucault, the Frankfurt School, and the Cultural Studies crowd than to, say, Paul Wolfowitz and others who seek to engineer social circumstances by force if necesary to meet their proclaimed truths; thus, "freedom" must be "spread" to Iraq. Strauss was not stupid, like these saps. (We'll leave non-Senator Alan Keyes out of this.)

In fact, Strauss saw the right-wing shouters and their exercise of free speech at the expense of everyone else's coming: "What is called freedom of thought...for all practical purposes consists of--the ability to choose between two or more different views presented by the small minority of people who are public speakers or writers." (23). Nuance be damned. "We made the right decision on Iraq." "Ignorance is strength..."

Second, a disturbing view. Strauss assumes that the suppression of ideas by those in power and the persecution of dissenters and intellectuals is okay. Why? "Persecution...cannot prevent independent thinking. It cannnot prevent even the expression of independent thought" (23), never mind that this contradicts the statement Strauss makes above that independent thinking doesn't really exist anyway unless you have an AM talk radio show. Strauss's thesis: "Persecution cannot prevent even public expression of the heterodox truth, for a man of independent thought can utter his views in public and remain unharmed, provided he moves with circumspection. He can even utter them in print without incurring any danger, provided he is capable of writing between the lines" (24). What follows from this? Because the savvy socialist can write allegorically, then, it's alright to oppress socialists, or feminists, or any other kind of grownup. One can also argue from Strauss that religious minorities may also be persecuted, since they ought to find a way to "behave" between the lines. This is disgusting, obviously.

History teaches us the danger inherent in this attitude. The case of Walter Benjamin is a good place to start inquiring, if you're interested. I'd rather find a way to do without persecution at all. A more productive vision might be: Free Inquiry and the Art of Listening.

May Allegory Strike Back, and "fit audience find, though few."

Rating:
Summary: How to write between the lines
Review: The title essay is a masterpiece I read once a month in the course writing journalism by day and reading of political comedy by night. By day it is extremely helpful keeping my job in a political environment not particularly conducive to complete freedom of expression at times. By night, coupled with Strauss's superb "Socrates and Aristophanes" is has proved a wonderful tool for unveiling meaning in Aristophanes, Rabelais, Cervantes, Sterne, Hasek, Garcia-Marquez, Kundera and the rest of the European comic tradition. I think his idea of a literary criticism "between the lines" based on ancient rhetoricians would be an extremely useful study for younger graduate students to follow - whenever such studies become possible again. The rest of the essays apply the theory of reading between the lines in interesting limit cases of persecution of political philosophy. They may lead the general reader to try such authors as Maimonides and Spinoza. Can't speak for specialists, not being one.