引言:言语约束

Jill Frank
{"title":"引言:言语约束","authors":"Jill Frank","doi":"10.1515/9780823294251-001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Jill Frank introduces Berger’s argument by addressing the ethicalities of Plato’s proposed Klinopolis—his “Couch City”—whether it promises to be the good city, the bad city, or perhaps something else, while highlighting Protagoras’s insistence on teaching a fixed program for making good decisions. Socrates names Protagoras’s stance “the political art.” Performing “political art” virtuously sits in the heart of Berger’s couch city. Although the Protagoras has traditionally been read as a resounding victory for Socrates over Protagoras’s claims of virtue, Berger, as Frank notes, sees the outcome differently. For Berger, Socrates, in “beating Protagoras at his own game,” becomes Protagoras’s double. This doubling of speech, however, fails to produce an ethical resolution from either Protagoras or Socrates; instead, their speeches become “occasions for weaponizing virtue” and evading responsibility for their words. According to Berger, both Socrates and Protagoras fail. But as Frank suggests, their failures prompt “readers of the dialogue to do otherwise”—to “open a different ethics, rhetoric, and politics of responsibility.”","PeriodicalId":348422,"journal":{"name":"Couch City","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Introduction: Speech Bonds\",\"authors\":\"Jill Frank\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/9780823294251-001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Jill Frank introduces Berger’s argument by addressing the ethicalities of Plato’s proposed Klinopolis—his “Couch City”—whether it promises to be the good city, the bad city, or perhaps something else, while highlighting Protagoras’s insistence on teaching a fixed program for making good decisions. Socrates names Protagoras’s stance “the political art.” Performing “political art” virtuously sits in the heart of Berger’s couch city. Although the Protagoras has traditionally been read as a resounding victory for Socrates over Protagoras’s claims of virtue, Berger, as Frank notes, sees the outcome differently. For Berger, Socrates, in “beating Protagoras at his own game,” becomes Protagoras’s double. This doubling of speech, however, fails to produce an ethical resolution from either Protagoras or Socrates; instead, their speeches become “occasions for weaponizing virtue” and evading responsibility for their words. According to Berger, both Socrates and Protagoras fail. But as Frank suggests, their failures prompt “readers of the dialogue to do otherwise”—to “open a different ethics, rhetoric, and politics of responsibility.”\",\"PeriodicalId\":348422,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Couch City\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Couch City\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/9780823294251-001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Couch City","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9780823294251-001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

吉尔·弗兰克介绍了伯杰的论点,通过阐述柏拉图提出的klinopolis(他的“沙发之城”)的伦理性——无论它承诺成为好城市、坏城市,还是其他什么,同时强调了普罗泰戈拉坚持教授一个做出正确决策的固定程序。苏格拉底将普罗泰戈拉的立场称为“政治艺术”。表演“政治艺术”在伯杰的“沙发城”中占据着核心地位。尽管普罗泰戈拉的作品传统上被解读为苏格拉底对普罗泰戈拉的美德主张的彻底胜利,但正如弗兰克指出的那样,伯杰对结果的看法不同。在伯杰看来,苏格拉底“在自己的游戏中打败普罗塔哥拉”,成了普罗塔哥拉的替身。然而,这种言语的双重并没有从普罗泰戈拉或苏格拉底那里产生一个伦理的解决方案;相反,他们的演讲成为“将美德武器化的场合”,并逃避对自己言论的责任。根据伯杰的说法,苏格拉底和普罗泰戈拉都失败了。但正如弗兰克所言,他们的失败促使“对话的读者做出不同的选择”——“开启一种不同的伦理、修辞和责任政治”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Introduction: Speech Bonds
Jill Frank introduces Berger’s argument by addressing the ethicalities of Plato’s proposed Klinopolis—his “Couch City”—whether it promises to be the good city, the bad city, or perhaps something else, while highlighting Protagoras’s insistence on teaching a fixed program for making good decisions. Socrates names Protagoras’s stance “the political art.” Performing “political art” virtuously sits in the heart of Berger’s couch city. Although the Protagoras has traditionally been read as a resounding victory for Socrates over Protagoras’s claims of virtue, Berger, as Frank notes, sees the outcome differently. For Berger, Socrates, in “beating Protagoras at his own game,” becomes Protagoras’s double. This doubling of speech, however, fails to produce an ethical resolution from either Protagoras or Socrates; instead, their speeches become “occasions for weaponizing virtue” and evading responsibility for their words. According to Berger, both Socrates and Protagoras fail. But as Frank suggests, their failures prompt “readers of the dialogue to do otherwise”—to “open a different ethics, rhetoric, and politics of responsibility.”
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信