{"title":"苏格拉底与说不的声音:聆听柏拉图的《道歉》","authors":"Sarah H. Nooter","doi":"10.1353/aim.2022.0021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Plato’s Apology, Socrates describes himself as being guided by a voice (phônê) that prevents him from doing the wrong thing. This voice is also a “sign” (sêmeion), whose absence is “proof” (tekmêrion) of correct action. Moreover, it is a “divine” (theion) and “spiritual” (daimonion) phenomenon (see Apology in Fowler, 1966, 31c–d, 40a–b).1 In contrast to scholars who refer to this phenomenon as Socrates’s daimonion (“spiritual thing”) or as a “sign” that implicitly signifies something else, in this article I suggest that it is not truly a signifier, but is rather better understood as a sign that resists symbolization.2 In other words, I aim to take this “voice” seriously as a voice: one that is irreducible to language (it says nothing), representative of no one (its speaker is not identified), non-dialogic, acousmatic, and unknowable except by the act of negation or the nonperformance of this act. In these features, it resembles the negative capability of Jacques Lacan’s object a, and, in a similar way, dwells almost outside of social existence, the symbolic order, a trace of the Real, as defined here:","PeriodicalId":44377,"journal":{"name":"AMERICAN IMAGO","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Socrates and the Voice that Says No: Listening to Plato's Apology\",\"authors\":\"Sarah H. Nooter\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/aim.2022.0021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In Plato’s Apology, Socrates describes himself as being guided by a voice (phônê) that prevents him from doing the wrong thing. This voice is also a “sign” (sêmeion), whose absence is “proof” (tekmêrion) of correct action. Moreover, it is a “divine” (theion) and “spiritual” (daimonion) phenomenon (see Apology in Fowler, 1966, 31c–d, 40a–b).1 In contrast to scholars who refer to this phenomenon as Socrates’s daimonion (“spiritual thing”) or as a “sign” that implicitly signifies something else, in this article I suggest that it is not truly a signifier, but is rather better understood as a sign that resists symbolization.2 In other words, I aim to take this “voice” seriously as a voice: one that is irreducible to language (it says nothing), representative of no one (its speaker is not identified), non-dialogic, acousmatic, and unknowable except by the act of negation or the nonperformance of this act. In these features, it resembles the negative capability of Jacques Lacan’s object a, and, in a similar way, dwells almost outside of social existence, the symbolic order, a trace of the Real, as defined here:\",\"PeriodicalId\":44377,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AMERICAN IMAGO\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AMERICAN IMAGO\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/aim.2022.0021\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AMERICAN IMAGO","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/aim.2022.0021","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Socrates and the Voice that Says No: Listening to Plato's Apology
In Plato’s Apology, Socrates describes himself as being guided by a voice (phônê) that prevents him from doing the wrong thing. This voice is also a “sign” (sêmeion), whose absence is “proof” (tekmêrion) of correct action. Moreover, it is a “divine” (theion) and “spiritual” (daimonion) phenomenon (see Apology in Fowler, 1966, 31c–d, 40a–b).1 In contrast to scholars who refer to this phenomenon as Socrates’s daimonion (“spiritual thing”) or as a “sign” that implicitly signifies something else, in this article I suggest that it is not truly a signifier, but is rather better understood as a sign that resists symbolization.2 In other words, I aim to take this “voice” seriously as a voice: one that is irreducible to language (it says nothing), representative of no one (its speaker is not identified), non-dialogic, acousmatic, and unknowable except by the act of negation or the nonperformance of this act. In these features, it resembles the negative capability of Jacques Lacan’s object a, and, in a similar way, dwells almost outside of social existence, the symbolic order, a trace of the Real, as defined here:
期刊介绍:
Founded in 1939 by Sigmund Freud and Hanns Sachs, AMERICAN IMAGO is the preeminent scholarly journal of psychoanalysis. Appearing quarterly, AMERICAN IMAGO publishes innovative articles on the history and theory of psychoanalysis as well as on the reciprocal relations between psychoanalysis and the broad range of disciplines that constitute the human sciences. Since 2001, the journal has been edited by Peter L. Rudnytsky, who has made each issue a "special issue" and introduced a topical book review section, with a guest editor for every Fall issue.