Pangle, of course
I realized what it is about the Birds. Nietzsche’s Revaluation of All Values is never depicted in art. Aristophanes might respond “Nietzsche depicted the Birds in philosophy.”
Anyway, in the same way I was talking yesterday about how seriousness precedes laughter, that there’s a primordial causal connection between the two, this is also interesting
the Platonic (or Xenophontic) Socrates is to some extent a reaction or response to the Aristophanean Socrates.
Gravity, levity, philosophy, boom, boom, boom.
You worshipers of the optics god are Aristophanic, know your precursor
[the Clouds] as Aristophanes’s powerful, exoteric criticism of any purely theoretical philosophy that feels no need to explain or accommodate its pursuit to political life.
9 years after the Clouds, the Birds was performed – this is arguably his “Socratic politics”, i.e. exoteric Socratism. In Plato’s Symposium when Alcibiades enters the dialogue he is surprised Socrates isn’t sitting next to Aristophanes, where he believes he is meant to be.
We need to up the ante on Aristophanes in my opinion and create a play titled the Air.
“No, I’m Aristophanic, why would I do that?”
The brain of the west is on full display in this post and you’re probably just used to it. Spoiled I tell you.
You think I’m joking about the air?
This first study I click on talks about critiquing the swastika on the first page
Almost everyone who studies the Great Tradition flies in the air.
You can be 100% certain that the producers of all those “funniest movies of all time” had no idea about any of this.
“Those are our versions of the Birds!” Yeah right… Not even close.
Anyway, like it or not, THIS scholar who I’m very fond of referencing is considered–and I believe rightly so–to be at the forefront of Aristophanes studies
One of the first political philosophers to examine Aristophanes’ plays was Leo Strauss in Socrates and Aristophanes (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966). The debt to Strauss is evident in the majority of contributions – a fact noted by the editors
Just because his name isn’t in the title of a book doesn’t mean it isn’t based on his interpretations. Many editors wouldn’t even note that much, as they do in this one. You’ll find that’s the case in books about many other writers besides Aristophanes. Strauss was the type that probably could’ve been a philosopher and he decided to put his mind mostly toward scholarship instead, which is very rare. Hence his interpretations of various thinkers are considered authoritative. Being concerned with this type of stuff is one of the ways I understand “traditionalism”.
Again I note that my interest here in particular is in the idea of an artistic rendering of the Revaluation of All Values. That isn’t so easy to find throughout history. It is present in Aristophanes. This can be interpreted kabbalistically if you wish- the Ein Sof or Kether needs to be filtered through drama, i.e. the Revaluation of All Values, perhaps the highest philosophical project, needs to be filtered through drama. That’s the only way it’s able to “descend into the world”. Air cannot be seen. Birds can be seen. This is about a “revolution” on the plane of ideas. That needs to take place before a revolution occurs concretely.
Funny to think that all of Strauss’s books are birds. This is his revolution. His books are birds that are about birds. And they point to the air. That is their secret. A play titled Air would have to be a bird itself. And I think that’s Aristophanes’ secret. All this revolves around the question of how to bring the demos to a higher level. Has my “air” done that for you at all? In most cases they only resent it, which I take to be a lesson in ontology.