That’s another what is question that makes me laugh and which it’s difficult to find a book about- what is a scholar? They’re all too busy being scholars and writing books about things that aren’t themselves. Am I the only one who finds that funny? I reflect on this when reading Lampert, because he isn’t Strauss, and Strauss isn’t Plato. So what is that activity? It’s clearly some kind of respect for elders. It’s a monkey-rangordnung, really. People pretend it’s not. You’re lost without it though. You need to be connected to the geniuses of history. “I don’t need that, I think my own thoughts” – okay so why do you seem like such a conformist to modern times then?
The main point I think is that some thinkers “got it right” or mostly right. You probably can’t even remember the breaking news from a week ago. We’re talking about like actual revelations that happened more than a week ago. “Scholars” are people who remember those. What happened in the world a week ago, tell me. You probably live in an eternal present. Aww you’re like a fawn or something.
So, if someone like Badiou for instance is merely a scholar of Plato why not just read Plato and not Badiou at all? It’s because having someone similar to you around is nice. Plato is not similar to us. At least not as similar as a Frenchman in his 80s. We and these elder scholars are a lot closer to each other than either of us is to Plato himself. Scholars can be like google translate in a way. They put centuries-old geniuses into more contemporary parlance. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t directly read the geniuses yourself, no that would be a terrible mistake. They can help you understand them. For instance I’m certain that if some kid after reading my thoughts on Nietzsche went and read his corpus directly he’d have all kinds of disagreements with me about interpretation. That’s great if that happens, I’m only trying to help. What we think of as “scholars” typically can’t be trusted because they interpret these geniuses while working for the state. That’s a polite way of saying they make them stupid for popular consumption. Do they all do that? I think “even” Strauss does that, so I can’t expect much better from scholars who are lesser than him (which is pretty much almost all of them). Just trying to show you what this elaborate monkey-order is about. Laruelle tries to get around Plato. So did Nietzsche. I admire the attempts, I just think it’s a joke if they truly believe that they did that. No, you’re still scholars, Plato is the chief elder. I wish our techlords would put all their might into doing that, and we know that they are themselves servants of the state. Whatever dudes, Plato is the genius of earth’s history that no one is able to create a paradigm-shift beyond, who cares about that though? Most of them are still working with neurologies based on “platonism for the mob” i.e. Christianity, so can’t expect much from them. And anyone who puts both Athens and Jerusalem into question is of course perceived as a demon. That’s just normal for “Athenians”, putting things into question, so it’s not the Athens side of the occident that is hostile to “questioning everything”. Athens is allowed to question itself all it wants. What Athens is not allowed to do is question Jerusalem. No “scholar” is able to do that, and thus our scholars don’t even deserve that title in my opinion. Can’t even apply the geniuses to that question, what good are you? “Athenians” are mostly not what they are, they have faith in Jerusalem. So it’s a Jerusalemic monolith of “scholars of geniuses” today.