The Wrath of Thrasymachus: A Thought on the Politics of Philosophical Praxis based on a Counter-Phenomenological Reinvestigation of the Thrasymachus-Socrates Debate in Plato’s Republic

IF 1.1 2区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY JOURNAL OF THE BRITISH SOCIETY FOR PHENOMENOLOGY Pub Date : 2020-07-30 DOI:10.1080/00071773.2020.1799544
Yusuk
{"title":"The Wrath of Thrasymachus: A Thought on the Politics of Philosophical Praxis based on a Counter-Phenomenological Reinvestigation of the Thrasymachus-Socrates Debate in Plato’s Republic","authors":"Yusuk","doi":"10.1080/00071773.2020.1799544","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The phenomenological vision, particularly, Husserl’s idea of critique as an infinite vocational theoria and Patočka’s as an enduring programme, view Platonic logic and Socratic act as the paradigms for a normative justification of the idea of universal science and philosophy. In light of that, the Thrasymachus-Socrates debate is interpreted as a case to testify the critical power of philosophy successfully exercised over sophistic tyrannical non-philosophy. This paper criticizes the phenomenological idealization of the Socratic victory as an ethico-teleologically anticipated success of philosophy and rewrites the defeat of Thrasymachus as a political failure in warring with philosophy during which Thrasymachus questions the legitimacy of the act of philosophizing to decide its legitimacy and thereby exposes the politics played out in that act.","PeriodicalId":44348,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF THE BRITISH SOCIETY FOR PHENOMENOLOGY","volume":"52 1","pages":"203 - 222"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00071773.2020.1799544","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF THE BRITISH SOCIETY FOR PHENOMENOLOGY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00071773.2020.1799544","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT The phenomenological vision, particularly, Husserl’s idea of critique as an infinite vocational theoria and Patočka’s as an enduring programme, view Platonic logic and Socratic act as the paradigms for a normative justification of the idea of universal science and philosophy. In light of that, the Thrasymachus-Socrates debate is interpreted as a case to testify the critical power of philosophy successfully exercised over sophistic tyrannical non-philosophy. This paper criticizes the phenomenological idealization of the Socratic victory as an ethico-teleologically anticipated success of philosophy and rewrites the defeat of Thrasymachus as a political failure in warring with philosophy during which Thrasymachus questions the legitimacy of the act of philosophizing to decide its legitimacy and thereby exposes the politics played out in that act.
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
特拉西马库的愤怒:基于柏拉图《理想国》中特拉西马库与苏格拉底之争的反现象学再考察的哲学实践政治思考
现象学视野,特别是胡塞尔的批判思想作为一种无限的职业理论,帕托卡的批判思想是一种持久的纲领,将柏拉图逻辑和苏格拉底行为视为普世科学和哲学思想规范性论证的范式。有鉴于此,Thrasymachus Socrates辩论被解释为一个案例,证明哲学的批判力量成功地战胜了诡辩的专制非哲学。本文批评了苏格拉底胜利的现象学理想化,认为这是一种伦理目的论上预期的哲学成功,并将Thrasymachus的失败改写为与哲学交战的政治失败,在此过程中,Thrasymakus质疑哲学化行为的合法性以决定其合法性,从而揭露了这一行为中所表现出的政治。
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
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊最新文献
Husserl’s Notion of Solitary Speech Reconsidered: In Conversation with Vygotsky What Makes Natural Language “Natural”? A Phenomenological Proposal Infinity, Ideality, Transcendentality: The Idea in the Kantian Sense in Husserl and Derrida Sartre on Action: Decentring the Will Ontologically Interactive Painting: On Susan Rothenberg’s Three Heads
×
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