Esotericism: Should Philosophers Always Say What They Mean?
The Greek "Secret School"
Persecution
Philosophers have paid the price in the past for declaring their beliefs openly. Socrates’ legacy derives not only from his dialogues immortalized by Plato, but also rests in his martyrdom. Sentenced to death for ‘corrupting the youth’ and ‘impiety’, Socrates is symbolic as a victim of persecution. He was killed for philosophizing. His relentless questioning of accepted truths angered enough people in Athens to see him stand trial and be executed in 399 B.C. As philosophy’s first martyr, Socrates’s fate marks the beginning of centuries of persecution for other freethinkers.
Aristotle would later face similar threats in Athens. He would flee Socrates’ fate “lest the Athenians sin twice against philosophy”, as the anecdote goes. Many, however, would not be so lucky, and the list of martyrs grew. Though Aristotle fled Athens by foot, there were other measures available to philosophers. Persecutors could also be outwitted through deception.
Death of Socrates
Esotericism
What was an aspiring philosopher who wanted to share radical, even dangerous, ideas to do? As the 20th century German-American philosopher Leo Strauss suggested, one had the option of “writing between the lines”.
In Persecution and the Art of Writing, Strauss argued that persecution was not able to entirely prevent the public expression of prohibited ideas. Someone could share their beliefs safely, so long as they did so carefully and cleverly.
How do you discover that a philosopher is hiding a message ‘in between the lines’? There are a number of possible indicators. First, imagine a philosopher advocating for dictatorship despite having once fought for democracy. Is it hypocrisy or self preservation under a new regime? Or what if a thinker with expert knowledge of their subject matter misquotes a philosopher? Is it a blunder or a hint? What about a text which presents the argument it supposedly tries to refute better than the argument it supposedly tries to defend? If an author appears to contradict themself - what then?
Strauss argues that many philosophers did hide heterodox ideas with clues in their texts for the clever to follow. As a shield against persecution, authors could tell the authorities and the public what they wanted to hear while, with the same stroke of the pen, pass on ideas for only a few to discover. By hiding a message in this way, one passes it only on to the close and careful readers, curious, patient, and thoughtful. In doing so, the life of an idea is handed to those who can make the most use of it, cultivate it, and spread it themselves. With luck, the idea can propagate until the day comes that it can be expressed in the open.
Strauss lists medieval theologians like Maimonides and Renaissance political philosophers like Machiavelli as masters of esotericism - the art of writing that evades persecution. The list goes on however, and the door Strauss opens can leave us constantly asking ourselves, “...but what did this philosopher really mean?”
The Art of Writing After Persecution
Persecution of the kind that led to the death of Socrates, the flight of Aristotle, and the secrecy of Maimonides and Machiavelli has been overcome in some countries. In many nations, citizens with Socratic spirits and ‘dangerous’ ideas can even stand on soap boxes, literal and digital, without fear of imprisonment or execution. Anarchists can argue for the abolition of the state, monarchists for the return of kings, pacifists for an end to war, jingoists for more wars, and anti-natalists for an end to the human race entirely.
Where and when persecution ends, philosophers may write freely without fear. But should they? Though spared the gallows and the stocks, they remain subject to the judgement of their colleagues, students, readers, and the public. Who will get funding for their projects? Careers rise or fall depending upon the graces of publishers, academic departments, media, and public opinion. Ideas too, their acceptance, rejection, or obscurity, hinge on these forces. How many philosophers alive today shall be known in a century as “ahead of and unappreciated in their own time”? I hesitate even to give an example here of a philosopher I suspect may someday be vindicated, lest I out myself as an adept of a contemporary heretic and lead you the reader to think I am an idiot.
A popular optimism is that in the market of ideas, given time and deliberation, the best wins out. If you share that optimism, then the esoteric art of writing should be laid to rest. Such optimists want ideas to be delivered in clear, plain, and accessible language. These optimists might even condemn the act of concealing one’s true intentions. Knowledge is meant to be shared, they say.
Who are we to hide ideas? The Pamphlet’s vision hinges on an enthusiastic desire to make them accessible. In a post-persecution era, is esotericism ethical?
Is Esotericism Still Useful, Justified?
Should you be a cynic, doubtful that ideas become prominent on their merits alone, then you may yet find a use for concealment. For example, progressive ideas are by definition those which are new, untried, and unpopular. To gain a foothold, should one broadcast an idea, in the now usual way, openly? Or might the art of writing formed in the age of persecution yet have use?
Persuasion is not as straightforward as philosophers may like. We would like to say we rely on logic, reason, well formed arguments, and the force of thought experiments, with rhetoric as our assistant. Yet psychology’s findings repeatedly undermine our optimism. Successful persuasion depends on many variables and faces myriad obstacles. We humans, it turns out, don’t like being told we are wrong. Not only psychology, but history also attests to our stubbornness. Socrates’ death is a reminder of human viciousness when confronted with hard questions and uncomfortable truths.
So what is the philosopher’s task? Is it to speak the truth, loudly and proudly, come what may? Does a philosopher’s devotion to truth demand that they proclaim it openly even if it ends their career or life? This was the heroism of Socrates, to question openly in the public square, and pay the price. Yet what is a philosopher to do if it is more expedient to partially conceal it? Can one be committed to truth while at the same time obscuring it? It’s easier to defend a philosopher who hides their meaning if their life's on the line. For those who are free of persecution today, the question is harder.
Could the love of wisdom require us to hide it from time to time, leaving it only for a few to find?