Read on Twitter
The other commonality is the concern for how to read. I'm only just getting this, and it's beginning to explain to me why I love Strauss despite everything. In his 1940 paper on the Cave, Heidegger writes: https://twitter.com/suzania/status/1288153076906577920
"The knowledge that comes from the sciences is usually expressed in propositions and laid before us as conclusions that we can grasp and put to use.
"But the 'doctrine' of a thinker is that which remains unsaid within what is said, that to which we are exposed so that we might expend ourselves on it."
This question of what a philosopher's doctrine is is ofc central to Strauss
This question of what a philosopher's doctrine is is ofc central to Strauss
(as the question of what Strauss' own doctrine is is central for Straussians.)
What *is* it about this mode of reading, this teaching-about-teaching, that is so compelling? I'm not even getting at what the teaching itself turns out to be.
What *is* it about this mode of reading, this teaching-about-teaching, that is so compelling? I'm not even getting at what the teaching itself turns out to be.
I'll try to describe what it is *for me*-- what this mode of being taught is.
It's a desire for ... well yes, secret knowledge, I suppose. But more, the desire for wisdom, for truth, even a craving for it,
It's a desire for ... well yes, secret knowledge, I suppose. But more, the desire for wisdom, for truth, even a craving for it,
and this starts, above all, with the thought that… I might be wrong, and my interlocutor - this teacher, this auctor – might be right, and the only way that I’ll know if he is is to stick with him, lay myself open to reading,
and in a way that is far less defended than one can do if one reads "critically" in the first instance, or if one is reading what Heidegger calls scientific propositional writing.
Right. So obviously there is a bad version of this. And that bad version is what Eve did.
Right. So obviously there is a bad version of this. And that bad version is what Eve did.
It was not her craving for wisdom, for knowledge, that was wrong. It was that in her craving for wisdom, her craving to be taught, *she chose the wrong teacher.*
Many, as they say, such cases. Hannah Arendt might in fact be one of them.
Many, as they say, such cases. Hannah Arendt might in fact be one of them.
So what is the solution, for women like Eve and like Hannah who have the craving for wisdom, and even for secret knowledge?
The solution is to choose the right teacher. Eve already *had* a teacher-- in God, and ought to have had one in Adam, except that he flaked out.
The solution is to choose the right teacher. Eve already *had* a teacher-- in God, and ought to have had one in Adam, except that he flaked out.
But the dynamic-- the dynamic that Heidegger describes-- is the same, when you have a good teacher. And that's why it's so appealing. That's why it seems so right.
It takes trusting yourself to the right teacher; it takes, too, a trust in the unity of the transcendentals.
It takes trusting yourself to the right teacher; it takes, too, a trust in the unity of the transcendentals.
That is what Eve did not do. She didn't trust that God, who was the unity of the transcendentals, was both true and at the same time good *for her,* or beautiful enough.
And sometimes it takes sticking with things through confusion, trust without sight. That's why it can be said that one thing that Eve lacked was *faith.* She was unfaithful, in more ways than one.
And that is why it was *faith* that Simon Peter was demonstrating when, presented with the ultimate aporia of the Eucharist, when Jesus asked if he too wanted to leave-- he said "To whom can we go, Lord? You have the words of eternal life."
He was sticking with his teacher, his auctor. He was committed to reading closely.
Jesus rebuffs the Caananite woman. Another aporia, another puzzle. “Yes, Lord," she says, "yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.”
Jesus rebuffs the Caananite woman. Another aporia, another puzzle. “Yes, Lord," she says, "yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.”
And he says to her: “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” She, too, is a close reader.
This is of course the meaning of the parable about parables, the parable about reading: The parable of the Sower.
This is of course the meaning of the parable about parables, the parable about reading: The parable of the Sower.
On the one hand it is a terrifying parable. How can I make myself into good soil? How can I tell if I am?
You are, if you are a close reader. You are, if you are confused by the parable, by all the parables, by everything, and yet if when everything is murky,
You are, if you are a close reader. You are, if you are confused by the parable, by all the parables, by everything, and yet if when everything is murky,
you *stick with the Master* and allow the confusion, in his own time, to be resolved. "Let he who has ears to hear, let him hear."
It is usually the case (properly, of course, of COURSE) that we see Our Lady as the anti-Eve, the one who unties what Eve had tied. She IS.
It is usually the case (properly, of course, of COURSE) that we see Our Lady as the anti-Eve, the one who unties what Eve had tied. She IS.
But there's a way in which the other Mary is as well. She is the one who sits at Jesus' feet; she calls him Rabboni. She chose the one thing that is necessary: "the good portion, which will not be taken away from her." She, unlike, Eve, chose the right teacher, the right auctor.
And the secret knowledge that he gives-- the knowledge given in parables, the wisdom that must be read out of old books and new, from the books of Scripture and the book of Nature, is not knowledge that kills but that which gives life.
tl;dr Jesus also invites you to read between the lines.
