Still on that Straussian Dante book (from 1981) – you don’t see people write like this today
They could enunciate the premises of an argument without saying a word of the consequences which flow from it once one starts to think about the matter.
He spends the first three chapters rarely even mentioning Dante. He talks about reconciling philosophy with the political order before that. Again, this another one of those “concealments of the concealment” of the present day. You know those “whites are racists” books they keep churning out? Imagine if one of those began with three chapters like that, that would be amusing.
Rabelais was on to this as well
These words are indeed strange: they turn into ice
They thaw when the seasons change, i.e. at a different phase of the political cycle, possibly centuries after they are written.
the words, preserved in ice, will speak again
Realizing that some writings from the past are ice is itself a type of ice that thawed. Strauss himself says that Nietzsche is the one who rediscovered it. So many single aphorisms in neech that one could write a book on.
And why is there ice? Here’s one reason, which is counter-intuitive to see from this revolutionary scientist
People are educated, at least in our time, to not be able to understand many of the Great Books. They always have to bring their suspiciously modern framework to their interpretation of it.
This Fortin book is a goldmine so far though if you want to know more about all this.
Similar to the idea of needing to understand Vico in order to understand Joyce, I’m learning today that one might need to understand the Islamic Golden Age to understand Dante
in political philosophy… al-Farabi and all his successors without exception turned not to [Aristotle] but to Plato…
Now pair that with this idea
As Avicenna observes, it is in effect Plato, and not Aristotle, who inquires into the origin of divine and human laws
Good to know, right, if Dante, the author of one of the greatest classics in the western canon, actually believed in hell?
In the present day how does this apply? One could say that many of our elites don’t truly believe in equalism and impose illusions about it on us through the media and academy. This is clear as day to me. Or think how Jack bans people who make light of the holocaust. That’s like exiling someone who was going around saying that “Dante didn’t really believe in hell!”
Others can hear a thousand refutations to the standard historiography and they’ll never stop being this little gorl from Schindler’s List, they’ll be her forever
In the same way, medieval people might have read Dante when they were young and kept their image of hell in their mind until the day they died. It doesn’t matter if you know it’s fictional, it still affects you. Would it affect you differently if you learned that Spielberg himself believed the real numbers of the shoah were a hoax, and that he made the movie anyway as if they were real?
I’m on this Islamic philosophy chapter and I again get the feeling of “illuminati Farabi” – when people talk about him it seems like they’re getting to “the essence of it all”. It is more of a political science with him than it is a political philosophy, and can’t say that about many. His reception in the west is still relatively new. The Muslims called him “the Second Teacher” after Aristotle, and not many here know anything about him. Playing the telephone game between the different Abrahamisms. (It was the Talmudist(?) Strauss who introduced me to him.) And let’s say Farabi was cynical about the Abrahamisms. “Yep, we need to have this talk outside of all this.” Insha’Allah.
For those with a fondness for RAMBAM for instance, can you understand him without knowing the influence Farabi had on him? He doesn’t really talk much about politics, the religious law supposedly took the place of political science for him. Farabi talks all about foundations, theo-philosophical-legislator founders- and what is Rambam to the Jewish tradition? He didn’t talk politics, he did politics. And when he did briefly touch upon it in his Logic he gave political philosophy the right to judge even divine things. I’m sure this was the operation also of the scribes of the Talmud, which is arguably a “mythological” representation of Judaism next to Rambam. Did he “believe it” himself? If he didn’t then he certainly refined it into something more believable to him, and without getting into trouble like Spinoza did later. So I can respect the Rambams out there I guess. I just prefer Spinoza myself, personally.
If I had to play mindreader I’d have to say that the great majority of Jids today are more of the cursers than the ones that might want to say something that would get them cursed. And same with goyim. Most don’t even tolerate moderates like Rambams.
I bet you weren’t expecting to hear all this from someone using a book on Dante as a muse? Strange to me too. Thawing ice.