The truth will set you free, but not before it's finished with you."

I'm reading Sarah Bakewell's book At The Existentialist Cafe (2016) in preparation for a book discussion I will be joining on August 4th (if time allows. That's the same day Dan and I are going to get our marriage certificate!). The book is absolutely fascinating, helpful, and informative. Review to come.

Just a few nights ago I learned what I thought was just a rumor before - that one of my favorite philosophers, Martin Heidegger, was a supporter of the Nazi party before and after WWII. This, as written about with striking objectivity in Bakewell's book, turns out to be evidentially true - and not only that, but he was a declared member of the Nazi Party. I read parts of Heidegger's most famous work, Being and Time, years ago as an undergrad. I really loved it. Can I still go back to it, get something out of it, and appreciate one of my favorite philosophical treatises now having the knowledge that it's writer later joined the Nazis? 

As a graduate student I discussed something similar. Prior to writing his quirky and fun children's novels, Dr. Seuss created racist cartoons. Can I still read Dr. Seuss through a clear, objective lens now that I have the knowledge of his previous political views? 

I think not. 

(This brings up an even bigger question of authenticity.)

If an artist's work is honest and truthful, not hiding anything (even in the most abstract form), then I believe it can be appreciated for that very idea of honesty, truthfulness, authenticity. But, if the artist is hiding, obscuring, or even unconsciously portraying questionable ideas that emerge (sooner or later) in his or her work, then the art immediately becomes contextualized within social, political, and economic values of production. And isn't artistry at it's highest when it can be free from these boundaries? This is why self-deprecating artists are, most of the time, appreciated and more easily "forgiven" (think Woody Allen and comedians like Louis C.K.).

Both Heidegger and Dr. Suess were "in the closet" (please excuse my language) about their politics, especially Dr. Seuss. And later in his life, Heidegger wasn't even attempting to deny his affiliation with the Nazi Party. However, this was less clear in his philosophical work. His views were subtle and never direct (except within The Black Notebooks, which were published last, and which contain stomach-churning words by Heidgger). 

How is directness achieved in art? That's rhetorical. Directness in art, no matter the form or content, is so crucial to authenticity, I would say that this "directness" is almost, if not as important as skill itself. I might go back to that later... 

(Honestly, I wasn't big on Dr. Seuss as a child. It was Behelman's Madeline, The Very Hungry Caterpillar, and then The Baby Sitter's Club. His sense of humor didn't sit well with me as a child - I'm more likely to laugh at his books now than I was then! Even knowing what I know!)

I'll end with this quote from one of the great fiction writers of our time, David Foster Wallace:

"The truth will set you free, but not before it's finished with you."

- F