Writing as Pharmakon and the Limits of Law in Plato’s Statesman, Phaedrus, and Laws

IF 0.3 3区 历史学 0 CLASSICS POLIS Pub Date : 2023-09-20 DOI:10.1163/20512996-12340415
Leo Trotz-Liboff
{"title":"Writing as Pharmakon and the Limits of Law in Plato’s Statesman, Phaedrus, and Laws","authors":"Leo Trotz-Liboff","doi":"10.1163/20512996-12340415","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In the Statesman and Phaedrus Plato addresses the problem inherent to law of how a general rule can be applied appropriately to particular circumstances. Previous scholarship has shown the connection between these dialogues’ critiques of written law and writing, a similarity this paper argues extends to the comparison of writing to a pharmakon (‘drug’) in both dialogues. Furthermore, close textual analysis shows that the Stranger’s discussion of measure in the Statesman parallels Socrates’ concept of ‘logographic necessity’ in the Phaedrus according to which the parts of a perfect writing cohere like limbs within an organism. Logographic necessity and measure raise the possibility of overcoming the weakness of writing and written law respectively. Ultimately, the Laws recapitulates these issues to reveal an insuperable gap between legal and philosophic writing. Envisioning the ideal of perfect law is, however, necessary to see how law falls short of what philosophy as Platonic dialogue achieves.","PeriodicalId":43237,"journal":{"name":"POLIS","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"POLIS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/20512996-12340415","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"CLASSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract In the Statesman and Phaedrus Plato addresses the problem inherent to law of how a general rule can be applied appropriately to particular circumstances. Previous scholarship has shown the connection between these dialogues’ critiques of written law and writing, a similarity this paper argues extends to the comparison of writing to a pharmakon (‘drug’) in both dialogues. Furthermore, close textual analysis shows that the Stranger’s discussion of measure in the Statesman parallels Socrates’ concept of ‘logographic necessity’ in the Phaedrus according to which the parts of a perfect writing cohere like limbs within an organism. Logographic necessity and measure raise the possibility of overcoming the weakness of writing and written law respectively. Ultimately, the Laws recapitulates these issues to reveal an insuperable gap between legal and philosophic writing. Envisioning the ideal of perfect law is, however, necessary to see how law falls short of what philosophy as Platonic dialogue achieves.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在柏拉图的《政治家、费德鲁斯和法律》中,作为药魔的写作和法律的限制
在《政治家》和《费德鲁斯篇》中,柏拉图探讨了法律固有的问题,即一般规则如何恰当地适用于特定情况。以前的学术研究表明,这些对话对成文法的批评与写作之间存在联系,本文认为,这种相似性延伸到两个对话中对写作与药物(“药物”)的比较。此外,仔细的文本分析表明,《政治家》中《陌生人》对尺度的讨论与苏格拉底在《费德鲁斯篇》中提出的“语域必然性”概念相似,根据这一概念,完美写作的各个部分就像有机体中的四肢一样紧密相连。意义的必要性和意义的措施分别提出了克服文字和成文法弱点的可能性。最后,《法律》总结了这些问题,揭示了法律和哲学写作之间不可逾越的鸿沟。然而,有必要设想完美法律的理想,以了解法律如何达不到哲学作为柏拉图式对话所达到的目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
POLIS
POLIS CLASSICS-
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
33
审稿时长
7 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Concept of Partnership in Book II of the Republic Socratic Contempt for Wealth in Plato’s Republic Praxis as Property: the Concept of Justice in Plato’s Republic Political Performativity in Performance Culture: Xenophon’s Hipparchikos and the Dithyrambic Chorus The King’s House or the Tyrant’s Palace? Rethinking Persia in Herodotus’s History
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1