Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

CASTIGLIONE, OUR CONTEMPORARY

CASTIGLIONE, OUR CONTEMPORARY WE ARE NOT OBLIGED TO ACCEPT the traditional set of oppositions that stems from the originary pair of rhetoric and philosophy and that extends from the conflict between Plato and the Sophists all the way down to current debates about the necessity or dangers of antifoundationalist theories of knowledge. By now we are accustomed to the idea that such binary oppositions hide a buried desire to suppress a region where the terms share a secret identity. Indeed, like all mythical distinctions (using the term "mythical" here not in a derogatory but in a descriptive sense), the "rhetoric/philosophy" distinction quickly dissolves into a mass of contradictions. This is why the least "rhetorical" world-views such as the Platonic dialogues are radically dependent on rhetorical form, and why the effect of the rhetorical text seems to do away with rhetoric, producing a "realist" effect: this is how it is, down here in the lawless flux o/everyday life. There is a history of philosophers along the Nietzsche-Foucault axis who have identified rather than opposed philosophy and rhetoric, and who have reduced philosophical truth to an effect of language. On the other hand, we should not forget that as disparate philosophical schools as http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Explorations in Renaissance Culture Brill

CASTIGLIONE, OUR CONTEMPORARY

Brown, Nicholas
Explorations in Renaissance Culture , Volume 27 (1): 113 – Dec 2, 2001
Download PDF
16 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/castiglione-our-contemporary-dJ3uIxawRx

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
© Copyright 2001 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
0098-2474
eISSN
2352-6963
DOI
10.1163/23526963-90000232
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

WE ARE NOT OBLIGED TO ACCEPT the traditional set of oppositions that stems from the originary pair of rhetoric and philosophy and that extends from the conflict between Plato and the Sophists all the way down to current debates about the necessity or dangers of antifoundationalist theories of knowledge. By now we are accustomed to the idea that such binary oppositions hide a buried desire to suppress a region where the terms share a secret identity. Indeed, like all mythical distinctions (using the term "mythical" here not in a derogatory but in a descriptive sense), the "rhetoric/philosophy" distinction quickly dissolves into a mass of contradictions. This is why the least "rhetorical" world-views such as the Platonic dialogues are radically dependent on rhetorical form, and why the effect of the rhetorical text seems to do away with rhetoric, producing a "realist" effect: this is how it is, down here in the lawless flux o/everyday life. There is a history of philosophers along the Nietzsche-Foucault axis who have identified rather than opposed philosophy and rhetoric, and who have reduced philosophical truth to an effect of language. On the other hand, we should not forget that as disparate philosophical schools as

Journal

Explorations in Renaissance Culture – Brill

Published: Dec 2, 2001

There are no references for this article.