First, my thanks to Ed for continuing and refining this discussion! Second, I can't resist what may seem to be a small quibble:
From: Ed Lamoureux <ell@hilltop.bradley.edu> Reply-To: air-l@aoir.org Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 07:01:26 -0500 (CDT) To: air-l@aoir.org Subject: RE: [Air-l] Plato meets the Blogroll
Like all ancient "authors," Plato can be read many different ways. I teach oral rhetoric, so read the PHEADRUS (and other Platonic works) for their commentary about speech making. It is, for many rhetoricians, a foundational text proposing an "ideal" rhetoric (or presenting a rhetoric so idealized that none can aspire to it, thereby following Plato's normal habit of denigrating the art/practice).
By all means, Plato can be read in many different ways, and one of the upshots of the reading I suggested earlier is that the apparent denigration of arts/practices - including rhetoric as well as _poesis_ in the broader sense - is just that, i.e., apparent. Rather, connecting Plato's allegory of the cave with the _analogy_ of the line in the Republic - coupled with some background understanding of the use of analogy in both Greek mathematics prior to Plato and then subsequently in the Western philosophical tradition - leads to a quite different understanding of the relationship between theory and praxis / ideal and real in Plato. In contrast with what is really a modernist/Cartesian reading that stresses a dualistic opposition between theory and praxis / ideal and real (leading to just the denigration of the latter that you are concerned about [and rightly so, if this were indeed Plato's intention]) - the older readings stress instead, via analogy, the inextricable and inviolable _connection_ between these domains. Again, the upshot is an understanding of the connection and complementarity between these domains - a complimentarity manifested precisely in Plato's own use of rhetoric, poetry, myth, and writing itself as superb vehicles within which to portray and encourage philosophical reasoning and critique (including, of course, critique of rhetoric, poetry, myth, and writing - insofar as these are divorced from philosophy in the first place by the Sophists). Of course,I realize that the AoIR list, in the end, is probably not the place for extended discussions of readings of Plato - but I think this quibble is worth passing on to the list at large, first of all as it suggests an alternative understanding of Plato that, in my view, argues for a highly "interdisciplinary" understanding of the relationships between, say, rhetoric and philosophy, as well as between orality / literacy / print / electronic technologies. Further, such non-dualistic understandings of important figures in Western philosophy have the advantage of establishing greater resonance (alongside irreducible contrasts) between "Western" and "Eastern" views (terms themselves highly contested, but perhaps still useful in a shorthand kind of way). Such resonances, in my view, are fruitful and promising especially for folk interested in not only interdisciplinary but also genuinely global approaches - i.e., the sorts of approaches I believe AoIR-ists are most interested in. In any case, I hope this has been helpful, and I look forward to further discussions! Thanks again, Ed - all best wishes, and cheers, Charles Ess Distinguished Research Professor, Interdisciplinary Studies Drury University 900 N. Benton Ave. Voice: 417-873-7230 Springfield, MO 65802 USA FAX: 417-873-7435 Home page: http://www.drury.edu/ess/ess.html Co-chair, CATaC: http://www.it.murdoch.edu.au/catac/ Exemplary persons seek harmony, not sameness. -- Analects 13.23