Salutary lies and noble truths

“Philosophy Between the Lines” is a book by Arthur M Meltzer, a professor of political science at Michigan State University. The book was a pleasant surprise in more ways than one. Meltzer writes from a broadly “Straussian” perspective, but in contrast with many other Straussians (not to mention Leo Strauss himself), his style of writing is perfectly understandable. Indeed, “Philosophy Between the Lines” might be the closest thing Strauss' thought will ever come to a popularized introduction. The book also feels convincing!

This was perhaps the biggest surprise, since I previously posted a number of critical, even scathing, reviews of Straussian material, based on Shadia Drury's polemics. By “convincing”, I don't necessarily mean proving that old devil Strauss “right”. Rather, Meltzer convinced me that the problems delineated by Strauss are real and important, and that his solutions are at least worth a hearing or two. Perhaps the solution to the Straussian enigma is, as a reviewer of Anne Norton's “Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire” puts it, that Strauss had both “students” and “disciples”. The students studied him, took what was worthwhile and then moved on. The disciples created a bizarre cult. As usual, the master is judged by the quality of his disciples, and here we are today. Hopefully, Arthur Meltzer is one of the “students”…

“Philosophy Between the Lines” covers so much ground, that it's impossible to give it justice in a customer review. I would simply recommend the interested person to buy it and start reading! Many chapters should be of interest even to students of philosophy who couldn't care less about Strauss.

Meltzer argues in some detail that many pre-modern and early modern philosophers wrote “esoterically”, and that any interpretation of, say, Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes or Rousseau which doesn't take this into account, is bound to badly distort their message, and with it the character of philosophy itself. Meltzer distinguishes between different forms of esotericism, some being obvious and perhaps uncontroversial (defensive esotericism to protect the philosopher from persecution by the secular or religious establishment of the day), others being more contentious (“noble lies” to protect society from the dangerous truths of philosophy, pedagogical esotericism, political esotericism). One well known form of esotericism is mentioned only in passing: the religious, whereby a mystical or controversial spiritual message is carefully hidden away or only expressed in allegory. The author discusses why the modern world is incredulous or even hostile to the notion of philosophical esotericism, preferring to interpret ancient, medieval and early modern philosophers “literally”. Modern egalitarianism and the idea of Progress are two of the culprits. Later chapters deal more specifically with Strauss and his interpretations of intellectual history, including his attempts to defend reason from modern (we would say “postmodern”) nihilism. Meltzer seem to think that he succeeded, while Drury believes that he failed and became a nihilist himself. Meltzer's interpretation of Strauss is largely apolitical, and he denies that the old man had a hidden partisan agenda. Rather, Meltzer sees Strauss as an “erotic” or “zetetic” skeptic in the Socratic vein. Such a skeptic acknowledges that reality is forever mysterious, elusive and indeed esoteric, but takes great delight in this fact. I was struck by the curious similarity between this outlook and certain mystical schools of thought. Osho or even Adi Da comes to mind!

Important issues touched on in “Philosophy Between the Lines” include the following. Is philosophy, with its relentless questioning and skepticism, compatible with a well-ordered polity, which is based on deference to tradition and/or authority? Must philosophy always be in conflict with poetry or revelation, the two main non-philosophical sources of (real or purported) knowledge about man? Are certain forms of modern philosophy, with their political emphasis on changing the world rather than merely interpreting it, actually dangerous? Is the counter-Enlightenment really an alternative to the Enlightenment, or have both strayed from the philosophical method of the ancients? Has the modern world, for all its progress, missed something truly important by rejecting (and even refusing to acknowledge) the esotericism of earlier periods? Lurking in the background is the *really* contentious question of whether noble lies and salutary truths are necessary, and if so, for whom and why?

To be honest, few “moderns” cares about what a small coterie of incomprehensible philosophers think about the elusive character of reality. Let them “erotically” enjoy it best they can! What really worries people is whether or not some philosopher teaches the politicians or “the 1%” to lie in order to protect the system – that's why the Straussians got a bad reputation during the Iraqi War, while few people gave a damn about Strauss' interpretations of Socrates or Thucydides.

Which brings me to the following observations.

Could it be that we must deny esotericism the better to rebuke the politicians, who everyone knows are lying through their teeth? Thus, a politician who is “economical with the truth” isn't involved in a (perhaps misguided) salutary endeavor. Quite the contrary, he is breaking with a long-standing tradition of noble truth-telling. This would be a reason for dissidents to deny esotericism. There is also an obvious reason for the establishment to deny it, however. Our system is supposedly based on democracy, liberty, transparency, human rights, etc. Perhaps the establishment denies ancient esotericism for the same reason that they deny current conspiracy theory: it raises too many awkward questions about whether or not we really are democratic. The best way to cover up the lies of the present, is to claim that nobody in the past ever lied, at least not the noble souls known as philosophers, some of whom died for free speech, etc. The modern denial of esotericism is itself part of an esoteric cover up. I don't think Meltzer ever makes this point, but it goes a long way to explain the intense suspicion of Strauss, who is seen as a defender of the Establishment.

Meltzer does make another point, however. The dissident also uses esotericism. He is not referring to the trivial fact that dissidents must lie or dissimulate in order to escape the persecution of authoritarian regimes. Few people would quarrel with that, provided that the real message of the dissidents is available somewhere, perhaps in the form of samizdat. No, he is referring to the fact that a political reformer or revolutionary must often hide parts of his message from the people he wants to liberate, since they “wouldn't understand” (until later). A classical example is cloaking atheism or Deism in Christian garb, or using Deism as a front for atheism. Communism turned this kind of political esotericism into a fine art (and later into a sick joke). Thus, dissidents have an additional motif for denying the existence of philosophical esotericism: it's not simply a way of attacking the lies of the establishment, but of covering up their own dissimulation.

Of course, this raises an even more disturbing question. If even dissidents habitually dissimulate, what if *all* movements and systems (including those created by dissidents) must be based, to some extent at least, on “noble lies” or salutary truths? Of course, even to pose the question that way, is to admit that Leo Strauss might have had something interesting to add…

Since I don't think you can bear the answer, I will end here. I fear I have already said too much!

“Philosophy Between the Lines” is comprehensible, comprehensive and immensely stimulating. It´s also strangely enchanting. Clearly, you're reading it at your own risk.