Thesis advisor: John Sallis / Plato’s interlocutors discuss at length about psychology, politics, poetry, cosmology, education, nature, and the gods, in short, about the things that inscribe the transcendent and the grounding poles of human life. It stands to reason that what we wish to glean from Plato’s thinking will show itself more readily if we remain attentive to the self-undermining and the subversive elements of the dialogues. I call the interpretation, which follows the shape- and, hence, meaning-shifting structure of Plato’s writing, “paradigmatic procedure.” By this I do not mean that we ought to find, explain, and then interpretively apply to the whole of Plato’s thought any particular passages from the Republic, the Timaeus, or the Statesman, which mention paradigms. However, I, following Benardete, propose that “Plato must have learned from poets” who produced epos, tragedy, comedy, and myth. This means that Plato borrows these poetic elements and form when he writes the philosophical dialogues. Paradigmatic method of interpretation is conscious of the dramatic form. It situates and analyzes the arguments made both through speeches and through actions as these arise out of the play of literary images. The latter, in their turn, are made up of the tripartite convergence between the dialogical characters, their speeches, and their deeds. Depending on the colorations that the three impart to one another, the images of Plato are comic, tragic, or, which is most often the case, they are tragicomic. The dramatic tone of a given image, once it is detected, reflects back onto the dialogical discussion or account and presents the argument in this newly discovered light. It often happens that the difference between the initial and the paradigmatic reading is so drastic that the straightforward meaning of the studied passage is undone as Plato’s writing begins to show its self-undermining nature. This does not mean that Plato’s philosophizing, also, is undone. On the contrary, when we begin to think together with and through Plato’s subversive writing, instead of retrofitting our lives to some systems that may arise out of it and instead of forcing it to substantiate our views, then we begin to get a sense for the liberating force of Plato’s philosophy. In chapter one, I explain the relationship between paradigms and the tragicomic character of Plato’s writing. Consequently, I offer a reading of select passages from the Timaeus and from the Republic. My discoveries showcase how paradigms inform and how the paradigmatic reading uncovers the tragic dimension of the Timaeus. I show how comedy shines through the, seemingly, most serious passages in the Republic. Plato’s dialogues do not strictly divide into the tragic, comic, epic, mythic, sophistic, or pre-Socratic ones, but rather, most are woven out of all of these orientations. Nonetheless, it is safe to say that within parts or passages, such as those from the Republic, for example, a given form and theme is most pronounced. I turn to the examination of tragedy in the second chapter. There, I first argue that Sophocles’ Oedipus is a tyrant and then I expose the relationship between the psychopathology of tyranny, tragedy, and poetry in books VIII and IX of the Republic. The third chapter carries on the exploration of pathology and offers an examination of tyranny and the soul in the Timaeus. Paradigmatic analysis plays up the theatricality of the Timaeus and identifies several axes around which the dialogical accounts revolve. The three main horizons are made up of nous, necessity, and dream or choric logic. These are fleshed out by the distention given to the dialogical arguments through the enmeshment of φύσις, μῦθος, and πόλις. The fourth kind of emphasis, senselessness, ushers the dialogue’s grotesquely humorous ending and prepares the readers for the considerations of comedy in the fourth chapter of the present work. The comedy of divisions, mythic tall tales, the halving and the fitting cuts, with which Plato’s Statesman is woven through and through, reveal statesmanship’s sinister underbelly. If it were not for the comedic tone, the fourth chapter argues, the monstrousness of tyranny, which is interred in all of the paradigms entertained as models of rule in the Statesman, would have remained unseen. Attunement to the comical passages and references, in the Statesman, is made expedient by an analysis of tyranny in Aristophanes’ Lysistrata. The fifth and final chapter sees to the convergence of the speciously opposite forms and themes. Tragedy is brought together with comedy, poetry with philosophy, and theater with ordinary life under the auspices of the twice-born god, Dionysus. The Dionysian, duplicitously evasive, nature is shown to be contemporaneous with the double-edged nature of shame. The contemplation of shame in Sophocles’ Oedipus and Aristophanes’ Clouds, aids the investigation of the humanity preserving and the corrupting role of shame in Plato’s Gorgias. The findings of the final chapter serve to locate the pressure points of pathology and tyranny as these recede into the tragicomic dramas of our lives. / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2017. / Submitted to: Boston College. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: Philosophy.

No description available.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-27T17:27:23Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Claudiano Avelino dos Santos.pdf: 478639 bytes, checksum: 1bd902942114910c2e499d53bb42faca (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008-05-16 / This paper intends to show the sophist Gorgias of Leontini s thought (ca. 480-380 B.C.); it emphasizes the Rhetoric and Plato s presentation of this sophist in his dialogue Gorgias. To achieve this purpose. We will see the historical contextualization of Greece in V and IV centuries B.C. and give special attention to the importance of lógos for póleis organization. After, the contrast between orality and literacy is studied, pointing the birth of Rhetoric and the effort of sophists in spreading it. The Gorgias thought will be presented based on the investigation of his main works: On the Nonbeing or On Nature, the Apology of Palamedes, the Encomium on Helen. In the first work, Gorgias shows the weakness of lógos to talk about the Being. In the second, he shows the ambiguity of lógos and in the third the power of speech concatenated and with sense upon listener souls. The Plato s thought about the Sophist of Leontini will be presented based on the dialogue Gorgias. In this play Plato shows Gorgias as a skilful master on Rhetoric and make evident the gape of this activity as practiced in Athens, for it doesn t have knowledge about the themes which talk in the court and assembly: the just and unjust. This works also analyzes the reason why Rhetoric is not a téchne for Plato and its character of mimicry / Objetiva-se estudar o pensamento do sofista Górgias de Leontinos (ca. 480-380 a.C.), dando destaque à Retórica e a apresentação feita por Platão deste sofista em seu diálogo intitulado Górgias. Para tanto, se fará a contextualização histórica da Grécia nos séculos V e IV, destacando a importância do lógos na organização das póleis. Em seguida, se tratará da passagem do surgimento e divulgação da escrita em contraste com a oralidade e, nesse contexto, o surgimento da Retórica, destacando os sofistas por sua preocupação em divulgar a arte oratória. O pensamento de Górgias é apresentado a partir da investigação de suas principais obras: O Tratado do Não Ser, A Defesa de Palamedes e O Elogio de Helena. Em cada uma dessas obras se destacará o modo como Górgias percebeu o lógos. Na primeira, destacou os limites do discurso para tratar do Ser, no segundo, a ambigüidade do lógos e no terceiro, a força do discurso encadeado e com sentido sobre a alma dos ouvintes. O pensamento de Platão a respeito do Sofista de Leontinos é apresentado a partir do diálogo Górgias. Nesse diálogo, Platão toma Górgias como mestre hábil de Retórica e mostra a lacuna da arte oratória praticada em Atenas, pois não tem conhecimento do justo e do injusto, temas a que se dedicam nos tribunais. Analisa-se também porque a Retórica não pode ser considerada téchne e seu caráter imitativo

Platão constrói sua argumentação filosófica no Górgias sobre um pano de fundo dramático intenso, em que Sócrates discute, ao longo de três \"atos\", questões que versam sobre a natureza da retórica, da justiça, da felicidade e do prazer. Sócrates discute com três interlocutores que defendem a prática da retórica; ao levá-los, pela vergonha, à refutação de suas posições, o protagonista do diálogo deslegitima a prática, relacionando-a ao prazer, em detrimento do bem, e defendendo a filosofia como a única prática política legítima. Esta dissertação tem como objetivo analisar o papel dos elementos dramáticos e literários presentes no Górgias. Defendo a tese de que ao considerar a integração entre os procedimentos literários e dramáticos e os argumentos no texto, notada, por exemplo, a partir da centralidade do tema da vergonha, somos capazes de oferecer uma compreensão mais completa sobre a definição da filosofia enquanto boa retórica alternativa. / Plato constructs his philosphical argument in the Gorgias upon an intense three-act sctructured dramatic backgroud, in which Sorates discusses questions regarding the natures of rhetoric, justice, happiness and pleasure. Throughout the dialogue, Socrates debates with three interlocutors that defend rhetoric as a social practice. He refutes their positions through shame, deslegitimizes rhetoric by showing its intrisic relation with pleasure and argues that philosophy is the only legitimate and true political pratice. This work intends to analyze the role of the dramatic and literary elements found in the Gorgias. I argue that the integration between literary and dramatic devices and the arguments in the text leads us to a better comprehension about the definition of philosophy as an alternative good rhetoric and its power of acting through shame, which is displayed in the dramatic confrontation between Socrates and his opponents.

I will address the issue of Plato’s use of myths concerning the afterlife in the context of the ethical arguments of the Gorgias, Phaedo and Republic, and I will contend that while the arguments in each dialogue are aimed at convincing the rational part of the self, the myths are aimed at persuading the non-rational part of the self. In support of this interpretation, I will examine Plato’s views on the relation between the different parts of the soul and the relationship that poetry and myth have to philosophy. I will argue that Plato’s use of myth is a legitimate tactic in his project of moral education, given his views concerning the role that the non-rational parts of the self play in one’s moral life.

Platão constrói sua argumentação filosófica no Górgias sobre um pano de fundo dramático intenso, em que Sócrates discute, ao longo de três \"atos\", questões que versam sobre a natureza da retórica, da justiça, da felicidade e do prazer. Sócrates discute com três interlocutores que defendem a prática da retórica; ao levá-los, pela vergonha, à refutação de suas posições, o protagonista do diálogo deslegitima a prática, relacionando-a ao prazer, em detrimento do bem, e defendendo a filosofia como a única prática política legítima. Esta dissertação tem como objetivo analisar o papel dos elementos dramáticos e literários presentes no Górgias. Defendo a tese de que ao considerar a integração entre os procedimentos literários e dramáticos e os argumentos no texto, notada, por exemplo, a partir da centralidade do tema da vergonha, somos capazes de oferecer uma compreensão mais completa sobre a definição da filosofia enquanto boa retórica alternativa. / Plato constructs his philosphical argument in the Gorgias upon an intense three-act sctructured dramatic backgroud, in which Sorates discusses questions regarding the natures of rhetoric, justice, happiness and pleasure. Throughout the dialogue, Socrates debates with three interlocutors that defend rhetoric as a social practice. He refutes their positions through shame, deslegitimizes rhetoric by showing its intrisic relation with pleasure and argues that philosophy is the only legitimate and true political pratice. This work intends to analyze the role of the dramatic and literary elements found in the Gorgias. I argue that the integration between literary and dramatic devices and the arguments in the text leads us to a better comprehension about the definition of philosophy as an alternative good rhetoric and its power of acting through shame, which is displayed in the dramatic confrontation between Socrates and his opponents.

"Thèse en cotutelle : Université Laval, Québec, Canada, Philosophiæ doctor (Ph. D.) et Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France" / Tableau d'honneur de la Faculté des études supérieures et postdoctorales, 2019-2020 / Si Platon a choisi d’écrire des dialogues, c’est parce qu’ils illustrent le mouvement de la pensée et de la connaissance dans l’âme. Questionner et répondre permettent de réaliser sa propre ignorance. Toutefois, l’accès au savoir par le dialogue est plus difficile dès que l’on s’adresse à des âmes récalcitrantes ou à une foule, car un tel procédé prend du temps et nécessite la bonne volonté des participants. C’est le constat de cette difficulté à transmettre la vérité en politique que pose le Gorgias et auquel Platon cherche à remédier. Si le dialogue est impossible avec la foule, alors que la politique repose sur le soin des âmes de la cité, comment dès lors éduquer la masse ? Il faudrait développer un usage légitime de la rhétorique pour transmettre la vérité en politique. On considère souvent que ce projet de fondation ne s’effectue que dans les dialogues du Phèdre et des Lois. Pourtant, le Gorgias, qui se déroule pendant la guerre du Péloponnèse, ne se réduit pas à une critique de l’enseignement du célèbre rhéteur, Gorgias de Léontinoi. Au contraire, la remise en question épistémologique et morale de son « art oratoire » est la condition de possibilité de l’émergence d’une belle dêmêgoria (503a7). Le présent travail propose d’en faire l’étude en accordant une attention particulière au mouvement du dialogue et aux différents visages de la rhétorique qu’incarnent les personnages. On discernera trois étapes fondamentales dans le dialogue : la réception, la réfutation et la refondation dialectique de la rhétorique qui sont finalement reproduites à une échelle plus réduite et métaphorique dans le mythe eschatologique qui conclut l’oeuvre. Le premier moment permet de dégager les raisons de l’émergence de l’art oratoire à Athènes par une analyse du contexte polémique dans lequel le Gorgias a été écrit en tenant compte des multiples références qui ont été transposées par Platon (l’Éloge d’Hélène de Gorgias, les Cavaliers d’Aristophane, les Traités hippocratiques, le Contre les Sophistes d’Isocrate, La guerre du Péloponnèse de Thucydide et l’Antiope d’Euripide). La deuxième étape permet de saisir le double dévoilement de la rhétorique et du dialogue. D’un côté, Gorgias se révèle incapable de définir sa propre pratique et apparaît inconscient des conséquences dramatiques qu’elle engendre sur ses disciples. De l’autre, Socrate instaure un espace discursif dans lequel il peut réduire la rhétorique à une empirie en dégonflant ses prétentions épistémologiques (celle d’être un art) et politiques (celle d’être une puissance qui vise le plus grand des biens). Cette mise en parallèle de deux manières de parler permet d’opposer la maîtrise d’un savoir dialogique par Socrate à l’incompétence de Gorgias. Cette réfutation appelle un renversement complet de la conception de la justice, de la politique, et de l’existence. Affrontant ensuite Pôlos et Calliclès, Socrate analyse à la fois les conséquences néfastes de la rhétorique sur leurs âmes et sur la Cité, mettant en parallèle leur dégénérescence morale avec celle d’Athènes. Ce faisant, il s’attaque à deux confusions majeures qui sous-tendaient la pratique gorgianique du discours : penser que faire ce que l’on veut est un pouvoir qui rend libre et prendre le plaisir pour le bien. Le maître de Platon devient ainsi historien et juge de la politique corruptrice menée par les figures illustres d’Athènes que sont Thémistocle, Miltiade, Cimon et Périclès, livrant au passage une interprétation opposée à celle de Thucydide sur l’impérialisme athénien. Ce travail de sape de l’édifice rhétorique mène finalement à sa refondation. À partir de ces réfutations, Socrate théorise une nouvelle rhétorique dont il fait par ailleurs usage sur la personne de Calliclès. Ce nouvel emploi philosophique émerge à partir d’un ordre naturel. En effet, alors que Calliclès rejetait l’égalité imposée par la démocratie et appuyait sa thèse de l’homme fort sur une certaine vision de la nature, Socrate fondera précisément son renversement politique et judiciaire sur une conception naturelle et ordonnée, en considérant le cosmos. De l’ordre et de l’harmonie mathématique, il dégagera une égalité géométrique, proportionnelle, qui permettra de redonner sa juste place à la rhétorique. Ce renversement sera ultimement réalisé métaphoriquement dans le mythe eschatologique clôturant le dialogue. / If Plato chose to write dialogues, it is because they illustrate the movement of thought and knowledge in the soul. The form of question and answer allows the recollection, beginning with the recollection of one’s own ignorance. The access to knowledge through the practice of dialogue, however, is made more difficult once we take on recalcitrant souls or a crowd as interlocuters, for such a practice takes time and demands the goodwill of all concerned. It is this difficulty of transmitting truth in politics that the Gorgias lays bear and that Plato attempts to remedy. If dialogue is impossible with the crowd, even though politics rests on the care of citizens’ souls, how then to educate the masses? One must develop a legitimate way of using rhetoric to transmit truth in politics. We often consider that this foundational project is carried out only in the Phaedrus and the Laws. Nevertheless, the Gorgias, which unfolds during the Peloponnesian War, cannot be reduced to a critique of the teachings of the celebrated rhetor, Gorgias of Leontini. On the contrary, by calling his “oratorical art” into question, both morally and epistemologically, one establishes the conditions for the emergence of a good dêmêgoria (503a7). This study proposes to examine Plato’s questioning of Gorgias’ art by affording particular attention to the movement of the dialogue and to the different faces of rhetoric embodied by its characters. We will set out three fundamental steps in the dialogue: the reception, refutation, and dialectical refoundation of rhetoric, which are finally reproduced metaphorically, though on a smaller scale, in the eschatological myth that concludes the work. The first moment allows us to identify the reasons for the emergence of the art of rhetoric in Athens through an analysis of the polemical context in which the Gorgias was written, taking into account the many literary references woven into the dialogue by Plato (e.g. to Gorgias’ In Praise of Helen, Aristophanes’ Knights, the Hippocratic Treatises, Isocrates’ Against the Sophists, The Peloponnesian War of Thucydides, and Euripides’ Antiope). The second step allows us to grasp the double unveiling of rhetoric and dialogue. On the one hand, Gorgias is revealed to be incapable of defining his own practice and appears unconscious of its dramatic effects on his disciples. On the other hand, Socrates creates a discursive space in which he can reduce rhetoric to set of empirical data by deflating its claims, both epistemological (i.e. that of being an art) and political (i.e. that of being a power that aims at the highest of goods). This paralleling of two ways of speaking allows us to contrast Socrates’ mastery of dialogical knowledge with Gorgias’ incompetence. This refutation calls for a complete reversal of our conception of justice, politics, and of existence itself. In his subsequent confrontations with Pôlos and Callicles, Socrates analyses both the harmful consequences of rhetoric on their souls and on the City, comparing their moral degeneracy with that of Athens. In doing so, he tackles two major confusions that underpinned the Gorgianic practice of oratory, namely, that freedom is to be found in doing what we want and that the good is to be found in pleasure. Plato’s master thus becomes both historian and judge of the corrupting policies pursued by the great figures of Athenian politics, including Themistocles, Miltiades, Cimon, and Pericles, offering an interpretation of Athenian imperialism opposite to that of Thucydides. This work of undermining the rhetorical edifice ultimately leads to its re-foundation. From these refutations, Socrates theorises a new rhetoric, one that he puts into practice in his exchange with Callicles. This new philosophical use of rhetoric emerges from the natural order of things. Indeed, while Callicles rejects the equality imposed by democracy and bases his thesis of the strong man on a certain vision of nature, Socrates founds his own reimagining of politics and justice on a natural and ordered conception of the cosmos. From order and mathematical harmony, he will produce a geometric and proportional equality that will finally allow rhetoric to be restored to its rightful place. This last twist will be realized metaphorically in the eschatological myth that closes the dialogue.

[pt] O presente trabalho tem por objetivo promover uma discussão baseada em diferentes abordagens do pensamento de Górgias, tentando compreendê-lo a partir da seguinte divisão: no primeiro capítulo, analisamos os principais elementos atribuídos à retórica de Górgias por Platão, através da análise do diálogo Górgias. No segundo capítulo, fazemos uma análise teórica de seus principais textos: Elogio de Helena, Tratado do Não Ente e a Defesa de Palamedes, com base numa leitura que neles reconhece uma unidade de pensamento. Lançamos mão, em seguida, de uma importante análise da tradição retórica, dando ênfase aos principais aspectos referentes à criação e ao desenvolvimento da Retórica na Grécia dos séculos V e IV ac. Em suma, retiramos das três principais abordagens apresentadas e analisadas ao longo do trabalho as questões que nos permitem identificar o pensamento de Górgias, e atribuir à sua atividade o nome de retórica, embora numa concepção alargada desse conceito. / [en] The aim of this work is to promote a discussion based on differents approaches to Gorgias’s thought, trying to understand it through the following divisions: in the first chapter, we analyze the most important elements attributed to Gorgias’s rhetoric by Plato, through the analysis of Plato’s Gorgias. In the second chapter we undertake a theoretical analysis of his most important texts - Encomium to Helen, On Not Being and Palamedes - based on a reading that recognizes a unity of thought in them. After that, we make use of an important analysis of a rhetoric tradition, emphasizing the principal aspects regarding the creation and the development of rhetoric in Greece in the Vth and IVth centuries BC. In summary, we have taken, from the three main approaches showed and analyzed during this work, the questions that allow us to identify Gorgias’s thought, and to attribute to his activity the name of rhetoric, although in an enlarged conception of this concept.

On considère souvent que le projet de fondation d’une rhétorique philosophique chez Platon ne s’effectue que dans les dialogues du Phèdre et des Lois. Pourtant, la puissance du Gorgias tient dans le fait qu’il articule à la fois l’appréhension du nouveau phénomène social, politique, éducatif que représente la rhétorique, sa critique et sa refondation par le philosophe idéal, Socrate, tout en apportant un nouvel éclairage à l’histoire d’Athènes. Le présent travail propose d’en faire l’étude en accordant une attention particulière au mouvement du dialogue et aux différents visages de la rhétorique qu’incarnent les personnages. On discernera trois étapes fondamentales dans le dialogue : la réception, la réfutation et la refondation dialectique de la rhétorique qui sont finalement reproduites à une échelle plus réduite et métaphorique dans le mythe eschatologique qui conclut l’œuvre. / We often consider that the Platonic project of founding a philosophical rhetoric is carried out only in the Phaedrus and the Laws. However, the force of the Gorgias lies at once in its presentation of the new social, political, and pedagogical phenomenon of rhetoric, the dialogue’s critique and refoundation of this new phenomenon by the ideal philosopher, Socrates, as well as the light it sheds on the history of Athens. The following study proposes to examine these features of the Gorgias by affording a particular attention to the movement of the dialogue and to the different faces of rhetoric embodied by its characters. We will set out three fundamental steps in the dialogue: the reception, refutation, and dialectical refoundation of rhetoric, which are finally reproduced metaphorically, though on a smaller scale, in the eschatological myth that concludes the work.

This thesis examines the role appearances play, with notable continuity, in the psychology and ethics of Plato's Protagoras, Gorgias, and Republic. Common to these dialogues is the claim that evaluative appearances are almost invariably false: what appears to be good or bad is typically not in fact so and what is good or bad typically does not appear so. I argue that this disparity between apparent and real value forms the basis of Plato's diagnoses of a wide range of practical errors: psychological phenomena like akrasia, mistaken conceptions of the good like hedonism, and the influence of cultural sources of corruption like oratory, sophistry, and poetry. It also, relatedly, forms the basis of his account of lower passions like appetite, anger, or fear. Such passions are especially prone to lead us astray because their objects -- appetitive pleasures like food, drink, or sex, for example -- present especially deceptive appearances. One of the principal aims of this thesis is to show that this presents a significant point of agreement between the psychologies of the Protagoras, Gorgias, and Republic. In all three dialogues, I argue, motivational errors result from a specific kind of cognitive error: the uncritical acceptance of appearances. Plato's early and middle psychologies differ in their account of the subject of this error -- in the Protagoras and Gorgias, the whole person; in the Republic, the appetitive or spirited part of a person's soul -- but not in their basic theory of how our passions arise or, crucially, why they are liable to motivate us towards harmful ends.