II. It should be perfectly possible to believe 1) some philosophic texts are esoteric 2) Strauss's own esoteric analysis was perverse
-
-
Replying to @HeerJeet
III. Theory that philosophers have to write carefully and sometimes in code was widely accepted prior to 19th century.
2 replies 3 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
IV. So, Strauss, in his rediscovery of the esoteric, was, as he claimed, retuning to a forgotten kind of reading.
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
V. But Strauss's own way of reading, relying on counting chapters, looking for gaps in argument, isn't the only way to read esoterically.
2 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
VI. In general, my problem with Strauss's esotericism is he makes all philosophers sound the same (like him).
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @HeerJeet
VII. It turns out every great thinker was a secret atheist who believed in elite rule by alliance of gentlemen & philosophers.
3 replies 2 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
VIII. Funny how every great thinker was a precursor to Strauss. What are the odds of that?
4 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
IX. MT
@JZBleiberg Richard Tuck: "Strauss let his fanciful reading of the ancients [elitism] mar his analysis"1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
X. That is it for Strauss tweeting for tonight. By the way, I used roman numerals to add a classical touch.
5 replies 2 retweets 7 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.