[MD] irony and socrates

[Matt Kundert]

Hey John,

John said:
So we have Greek thought and influence upon early 
christian thinking, and then much later we have christian 
reinterpreting of greek texts;  back and forth, the 
pendulum swings.

Matt:
It's not just a religious thing, but the language itself.  
Christianity was created when Paul translated the Hebrew 
religion into Greek.  The Semitic religious tradition 
became contaminated by Hellenism, both became 
transmogrified into Latin, and the influence of Hebrew 
through Latin began extending back over into the Greek, 
contaminating our understanding of them.  It's a real 
clusterfuck.

The best book that is amazingly accessible on the subject 
is Pierre Hadot's What Is Ancient Philosophy?  He isolates 
what he calls "spiritual exercises" as the centerpiece of 
Greek philosophy, and in the final chapters blames 
Christianity for the "over-theoreticization" of modern 
philosophy.  I don't swallow his blaming wholesale, but it's 
the best introduction to Greek philosophy available.

Matt said:
Like saying that the Republic is neither about the City nor 
the Soul, but just the Philosopher.  That's a pretty 
extravagant claim, and fairly needless.

John said:
I would agree the claim is needless, but not because it's 
extravagant but because it's obvious.

The Republic is about a fantasyland existing in the mind 
of the writer. It is about the philosopher, his world, his 
times, his observations.  Show me a man's world and you 
show me the man.

Matt:
Yeah, but that's not what Allan Bloom or Strauss are 
arguing.  The obviousness of your claim is matched it's 
weakness--well, of course every writer is responding to 
his environment.  The Straussians are making a 
_stronger_ claim: yes, Plato was responding to his 
environment, but what he was _actually saying_ is esoteric, 
and not on the surface.  Every claim Plato makes, on this 
interpretation, is about the Philosopher--never about, say, 
Athens.  The weak claim requires reading below the surface, 
but not as deeply as the way the Straussians require.

If you're willing to follow Strauss in saying that every claim 
is a disguised remark about the Philosopher, and contains 
no real political remarks about the make-up of a State and 
whatnot, then I'd suggest that your sense of "obviousness" 
might need to be retuned.  Because most people disagree 
with you, making it thus _not obvious_ and in need of 
argumentation (hence all the writing Strauss and Bloom 
spilled on the subject).

Matt
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/