Socrates – Plato – Aristotle.
Phronēsis in Greek Theory of Language and
Communicative Acts.
The Classical Period.
Dr Anna Olejarczyk
The University of Wroclaw
[email protected]; [email protected]
Annual AT.IN.E.R. Conference in Philosophy,
Athens 23-26.05.2016
Phronēsis in Greek Theory of Language and Communicative Acts.
THE PRELIMINARY REMARKS.
The missleading title.
• „Socrates – Plato – Aristotle” as marking points of the borders between
paradigms (bouth external and internal).
• „Socrates” – (1)the oral tradition and written secondary evidence; (2)as a
marking point for all sophistical movement, and in the same time (3)as
borderline of difference between him and Gorgias (aretē as universal
knowledge).
• „Plato” – (1)as the Corpus Platonicum; (2)as continuation of Pythagorean
tradition; (3)as bordeline of paradigm ʽmythos=false narrationʼ and
ʽtheōria=reasoning, philosophical thinkingʼ; (4)as marking point of importance of
writing / criticism of writing as philosophical medium.
• „Aristotle” – (1)mainly as Protreptikos; but also (2)as marking point of
continuation of Platonic thought and (3)the starting point of new system (on
knowledge: theōria – praxis; on language: connected with logical equire); (4)as
a new thought on tragedy.
The main thesis
• The reconstruction of Greek theory of language and
communicative acts is possible, but only in broad cultural
context. This context helps (1) to avoid the catch of modern
perspective/ paradigm; (2) to find the primodial paradigm.
• The notion phronēsis lays in the core of Greek theory of
language and communicative acts.
• Contextual analysis of Greek culture shows that semantic field
of notion phronēsis is connected with three others: agōn,
logos, and theōria.
• The same connection is eminent in Plato’s and Aristotle’s
works; the emphasis on theōria=reasoning, abstract thinking.
1.
Methodology. Main terms
and notions:
• Bachelard: the epistemological
brake, shifts in scientific
perspective, the prism of
notion;
• Foucault: archaeological and
genelogical methods;
• Eco: Dictionary, Encylopaedia,
Library, semiosis, the possible
worlds (see: Hintikka)
1.1.
The Modern Primary
Bibliography (on
method):
• G. Bachelard, The Philosophy of the No:
A Philosophy of the New Scientific Mind,
trans. by G. C. Waterson, Orion Press, NY
1968.
• M. Foucault, The Order of Things: An
Arceaology of the Human Sciences,
Pantheon Books, NY 1970.
• M. Foucault, Archeology of Knowledge,
trans. by A. M. Sheridan Smith,
Routledge, London 2002.
• M. Foucault, A History of Sexuality, trans.
by R. Hurley, Random House, London
1978.
• U. Eco, The Role of the Reader:
Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts,
Indiana University Press, Bloomington
1979.
• U. Eco, A Theory of Semiotics, Indiana
University Press, Bloomington 1976.
2.
The Ancient Primary
Bibliography (on
phronēsis):
• Plato’s: Meno [88b4, 88d6, 89a1,
97c1,98d10, 98d12], Euthydemus
[281d8], Pheadrus [250d4],
Cratylus [411a3, 411d4], Phaedo
[69a10, 69c2,79d6],Philebus
[12a3, 13e4, 20e4, 59d1, 65d5];
• Aristotle’s Protrepticos;
• Aeschylus’ The Libation Bearers
(lines 152-153)
• Sophocles Trag., Fragmenta
(fragm. 922 line 2);
• Euripides Trag., Supplices (line
post 17)
3.
The Secondary
Bibliography:
• H.D.F. Kitto, Greek Tragedy. A Literary
Study,Methuen &Co. Ltd 1939 (1st reprinted by
Routledge 1986).
• Greek Ritual Poetics, [edit. by:] D. Yatronolakis and
P. Railos, Harvard University Press 2004.
• B. Kowalzig, Singing for the Gods. Performances of
Myth and Rituals in Archaic and Classical Greece,
Oxford University Press 2007.
• Derek Collins, Master of the Game: Competition
and Performance in Greek Poetry, Harvard
University Press 2004.
• A. Wilson Nightingale, Spectacles of Truth in
Classical Greek Philosophy. Theoria in its Cultural
Context, Cambridge University Press 2004.
• Plato and Hesiod, [edit. by:] G. R. Boys – Stones
and J. H. Haubold, Oxford University Press 2010.
• J. Strauss Clay, Hesiod’s Cosmos, Cambridge
University Press 2003.
• D. Tarn Steiner, The Tyrant’s Writ: Myths and Images
of Writing in Ancient Greece, Princeton University
Press, New Jersey 1994.
Phronēsis in Greek Theory of Language and Communicative Acts.
LANGUAGE BEFORE WRITTING
The Crucial Difference
• We are living in centro-liquistic culture and the
writting is eminent in every aspect of our life.
• In Plato’s time the memory of world before writting
was still fresh:
- communication had not to be verbal;
- the first medium of language was sound;
- writting was only recording.
Communication by signs
(1) Tokens (eng.):
(a) describing identity itselfs
(b) describing identity by graphic sign
(c) describing identity by written letter
(2) Semata (gr.):
(a) natural signs (e.g. smoke as a sign of fire, mark of the foot in the wet
sand)
(b) divine signs (e.g. lightinig as a sign of Zeus’ ire)
(c) graphic sign
(d) letter
Testymonies of pre-writting comunication
• Homer’s Iliad [7]: Ajax and the other Achaean
heroes mark their tokens and put the lots to
Nestor helmet – it is controversial if sema meant
letter here.
• Homer’s Iliad [6]: Proteus sends Belerofont to
Lycia carrying a tamblet inscribed with grievous
signs [semata lygra], Lycean king understants
the semata (not only the recognition of object
descripted by sign, but also the understanding
of meaning; Lycean king is a reader).
D. Tarn Steiner, The Tyrant’s Writ: Myths and Images of Writing in Ancient
Greece, Princeton University Press, New Jersey 1994.
Phronēsis in Greek Theory of Language and Communicative Acts.
ARTEFACT AS SIGN
Ostrakon as a token
Artefact as‘The Stone of Rosetta’’ – the gold wreth from British
Museum: GR 1908.4.14.1 (Jewellery 1628)
Artefact, which is
stylisticaly bi-lingual,
is – probably – multi-lingual from
symbolic and mythical point of
view.
Museum of
Acropolis
Hero on
the Sandal
Phronēsis in Greek Theory of Language and Communicative Acts.
SOME EXAMPLES OF IMPORTANCE OF AGŌN
AND THĒORIA IN GREEK CULTURE. ARTEFACTS.
1.
Agōn [Middle Liddell]:
• I: a numer of people brought together, a
gathering, assembly, esp. an assembly
met to see games [Hom.]; 2. a place of
contest, the arena, etc. [Hom.];
• II: an assembly of Greeks at their great
national games [Hdt., Ar.]; 2. the contest
for a prize at the games [Hdt.], in which
the chorus was composed [Dem.];
• III: generally, any struggle, trial, or danger
of Hercules [Soph.]; hard or dangerous
to do a thing [Hdt.]; a struggle for life
and death, for one’s highest interests
[Eur.]; 2. a battle, action [Thuc.]; 3. an
action at law, trial [Plat.]; 4. metaph.
Now is not the time for speaking [Eur.], ʽtis
no time for sitting still [Eur.]
• sport games on the tomb of hero;
2.1.
Agōn (contextual cultural
meaninig):
• poetic or tragic contest;
• contest of chorai;
• sophistic, philosophic method of
conduct the debate;
• structure, part of tragedy
[Euripides]
A.
I.
3.
Logos [Middle Liddell]
Lat. vox, oratio; that is said or spoken:
a word, words, language, talk [Hom.]; merely for
taking’s sake [Plat.]; in word, in pretence (opp. in
deed, in reality) [Hdt]
II.
a word, saying, statement, [Thuc.]: an oracle, [Pind.],
[Plat.], [Aesch.]: a saying, maxim, proverb; 2. an
assertion, promise [Soph.]; 3. a resolution by common
sense [Hdt.]; a condition [Hdt.]; 5. a command
[Aesch.]
III.
Speech, discourse, conversation [Hdt.], beyond
expression [Hdt, Thuc.], worth mention [Hdt.]; 2. right of
speech, power to speak [Thuc.]; talk about one,
report, repute [Hdt.], so the story goes… [Hdt.]; 4.
speech, language, [Plat.]
IV. a saying, tale, story opp. on one hand to mere fable
[mythos], on the other, to the regular history
[ʽistoria][Hdt.],[Thuc.], then a fictitious story, fable, like
those of Aesop [Hdt.], [Plat.]; 2. a narrative, and in pl.
histories, history [Hdt.], in sing. one part of such work
[Hdt.]
V.
generally, prose-writing, prose [Xen.]
VI. a speech, oration [Oratt.]
VII. like rhēma, the thing spoken of, the subject or matter
of the logos [Hdt.]
VIII. that which is stated, a proposition, position, principle
[Plat.], also = ʽorismos, a definition [Plat.]
3a.
Logos [Middle Liddell]
B. Lat. ratio, thought, reason, admits
not of reason [Soph.]; agreebly to
reason [Plat.], [Dem.]; 2. an opinion,
expectation [Hdt.]; 3. a reason,
ground, plea [Soph.], on what
ground? [Aesch.]; 4. it stands to reason
that… [Hdt.]
II. account, consideration, esteem,
regard [Aesch.], [Hdt.], to be of no
account [Hdt], to make account of a
person or thing [Hdt]
III. due relations, proportion, analogy:
kata logon [Hdt]
C. the Logos or the Word, comprosisng
both senses of Thought and Word
I. a looking at, viewing, beholding,
to go abroad to see the world
4.
[Hdt.], [Thuc.], [Plat.], of the
mind, contemplation,
Thēoria [Middle Liddell]
speculation [Plat.]; 2. pass. =
theōrema, a sight, show,
spectacle [Aesch.], [Eur.]; esp.
at a theatre [Ar.], [Xen.]
II. the being a spectator at the
theatre or the public games
[Soph.], [Plat.]
III. the theōroi or stateambassadors sent to the office
of theōros, a mission [Plat.],
[Xen.]; 2. the office of theōros,
discharge of that office [Thuc.]
4.1.
The importance of
thēoria:
• on the level of polis,
• on the level of group of polai,
• on the Pan-Hellenic level
Thēoria as ʽa glueʼ working in
political, social, cultural, religious
(mystheria)fields by giving the
reason and explaining the
purpose
thēoria
cosmical
aetiology
social aetiology
paideia
Semiotic field of phronēsis
agōn
phronēsis
theōria
logos
Phronēsis in Greek Theory of Language and Communicative Acts.
THE IMPORTANCE OF WRIT – THE
MYTHOS/LOGOS DISCLOSURE
mythos - logos
Parmenides
Hesiod
• introduction to godess
•godess tells on true
and false ways
•Theogony : song given
by Muses
•Works and days : tale
concerns on ‘etetuma’
Plato’s Cratylus: the source of names
• 388e1: nomothetoi – the „givers of names”, the
„rulers of names”, the „words smiths” prepare the
names as the tools for specific purpose
• 397e-398a: qoutation from Hesiod – the myth of
Golden Age: two types of speech
(1)
the high one (divine) verified by god’s
authority;
(2)
the low one (erthy) verified by man’s
experience
•
398a: the litteral and methaphorical
meaning
Jane Strauss Clay, Hesiod’s Cosmos, Cambridge University Press 2003.
Plato and Hesiod, edit. G. R. Boys-Stones & J. H. Haubold, Oxford University Press
2010.
Corpus Platonicum: on relation and
proportion
• Cratylus 384b2: it is said: ‘It is hard to comprehence
[μάθεἶν]the magnitude of beauty’ and the
knowlegde on names it is not the small thing
• Philebus, 16c3-e (everything that exists consisits of
some unity and some plurality and everything has
natural element of limitation and element of
indetermination) & 17c-e (vocal chords and
proportion, the number) & 18b-d (types of letters/
phones)
• Gorgias, 507e7-508b: cosmic order, proportion and
harmonia, ‘geometric understanding’- the proper
understanding of thing in connection with
everything else, the proper fundation for ethical
acting
Conclusion: the Plato’s conception of language
• Close connection between: name/sign – notion – thing
(the same essence)[>>> structuralism];
• Essence is noticed during the dialectical examination
(two ways: synopsis and diairesis work together) names,
notions and meanings should be examined in these
ways[>>>structuralism];
• There are any evidence of nominalistic/ realistic division;
• Truth discuessed on the level of sign and sentence;
• The division on high (inspiration) and low speech
(experience)
• The division on mythos (common, from image given by
phanthasia or eikasia) and logos (elitist, from
knowlegde);
• name (onoma), definition (logos), model (eidolon) – the
exinting non-beings [Sophistes i VII Letter open the door
to independence of to logon and to semeion propossed
by Stoics];
• Notion and image have different sources: the notion is
connected with noesis, epistēmē and dianoia; the
image - with doxa, pistis, eikasis and phantasia
1.
Coclusion (Pre-Aristotelian
Conception of Language
and Communicative Acts):
• to think is to speek; there is no
thought without the discourse or
debate;
• to speek is to act – language is
conected with music, rhythm, and
movement;
• to speek is to operate, to take part in
life of polis, to be a zōon politikon;
• to speek is to take part in agōn;
• to communicate is to choose
between truth and false;
• to communicate is to give an
evidence, a testimony;
• writ – the best evidence and
testimony.
Phronēsis in Greek Theory of Language and Communicative Acts.
PHRŌNESIS AND COMMUNICATION.
1.
Phronēsis in Aeschylus:
• Aeschylus didn’t use term
ʽphronēsisʼ as such;
• in the pray of Electra (in
Oresteia): autē te moi dos
sōphronestera polu/ mētros
genesthai, cheira t’eusebesteran;
• hubris of gods and hubris of
heros;
• [phronēsis] and the suffering (of
gods – see Zeus, and people);
• [phronēsis] and noticing/
understanding of signs (Queen in
Agamemnon and the fiery signs;
Electra and mark of Orestes foot)
2.
• The main topic/ theme of his work;
Phronēsis in Sophocles:
• kat’ anthrōpon phronein [Aias,
lines 758-759, 775]
• all’ hē phronēsis agathē theos
megas [Sophocles Trag.,
Fragmenta, fragm. 922 line 2]
• = minding to do so, purpose,
intention
3.
Phronēsis in Euripides:
• all’ hē phronēsis tou theou meizon
othenein [Euripides Trag., Supplices
line post 17]
• = arrogance
Vertical relations of phronēsis
gods,cosmic rule,
great reason,
Dike/dike
hubris
Horisontal relations of phronēsis
hubris
polis laws
and rules
4.
The final conclussion:
• Phronēsis as eusebeia of gods and
ancestors (enshrining, honoring,
revering, worshiping);
• Phronēsis as a way of quelling the
hubris;
• Phronēsis as a way of achieving the
good life, happiness;
• Phronēsis as a way of staying human
being against all odds, in spite of
anagkaia tychē;
• Phronēsis as a way to cope with Dike/
dike;
• Phronēsis as noticing the signs and as
the proper way of interpreting them;
• Phronēsis as a knowledge of sb true
value, his/her proper place in the
stucture of kosmos.
5.
The final final conclussion
(old and new thoughts
on phronēsis in Corpus
Platonicum and in
Protreptikos):
• Plato: (1) Meno: phronēsis and
didakton, phronēsis and aretē;
(2)Euthydemus: ean de phronēsis te
kai sophia, meizō agatha [281d8];
(3) Pheadrus: sōmatos erchetai
aistheseōn, hē phronēsis ouch
oratai [250d4]; Philebus: phronēsis
and phronēseōs hēdonē; Cratylus:
phronēsis and noēsis are similar
[411d4].
• Aristotle: practical phronēsis as
providing knowledge – universal
phronēsis (theōrētikē phronēsis) as
commending knowledge (selfsufficient; it is a reason and a case
on it’s own).