{"title":"Polykoiranie III ( John of Salisbury, Aquinas, Dante, Marsilius of Padua)","authors":"","doi":"10.2307/j.ctv119918b.9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv119918b.9","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":371657,"journal":{"name":"Scatter 2","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115509789","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Plato’s characterisation of democracy in terms of to poikilon (multiplicity, variegation, motley) is rehearsed, reinforced with reference to Alfarabi, and shown to persist in contemporary thinkers such as Badiou. The persistent analogy between the State and the human body, in Plato and beyond, is shown to be tendentially incoherent, and its incoherence stressed. Aristotle’s more hospitable treatment of motifs of multiplicity and diversity is explored, and his apparent belief in the superiority of Absolute Monarchy or the One Best Man is shown, contra Derrida, to rely on an unduly hasty reading of the Politics. Rather, the One Best Man’s affinity with the undecidable pair of Beast and God introduces a complication into the structure of sovereignty that is read against Heidegger’s understanding of a line in Sophocles’ Antigone that Derrida strangely ignores.
{"title":"To Poikilon (Plato, Alfarabi, Aristotle)","authors":"Geoffrey Bennington","doi":"10.2307/j.ctv119918b.11","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv119918b.11","url":null,"abstract":"Plato’s characterisation of democracy in terms of to poikilon (multiplicity, variegation, motley) is rehearsed, reinforced with reference to Alfarabi, and shown to persist in contemporary thinkers such as Badiou. The persistent analogy between the State and the human body, in Plato and beyond, is shown to be tendentially incoherent, and its incoherence stressed. Aristotle’s more hospitable treatment of motifs of multiplicity and diversity is explored, and his apparent belief in the superiority of Absolute Monarchy or the One Best Man is shown, contra Derrida, to rely on an unduly hasty reading of the Politics. Rather, the One Best Man’s affinity with the undecidable pair of Beast and God introduces a complication into the structure of sovereignty that is read against Heidegger’s understanding of a line in Sophocles’ Antigone that Derrida strangely ignores.","PeriodicalId":371657,"journal":{"name":"Scatter 2","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127813548","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-05DOI: 10.5422/fordham/9780823289929.003.0005
Geoffrey Bennington
Although John of Salisbury does not quote the Homer-Aristotle line Scatter 2 is following, his Policraticus does contain complex reflections on reading that resonate with a deconstructive approach. After the thirteenth-century Latin translations of Aristotle, the line reappears in influential but tendential accounts of the supposed superiority of monarchy in Aquinas and Dante, and in the more complex reflections of Marsilius of Padua.
{"title":"Polykoiranie III (John of Salisbury, Aquinas, Dante, Marsilius of Padua)","authors":"Geoffrey Bennington","doi":"10.5422/fordham/9780823289929.003.0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5422/fordham/9780823289929.003.0005","url":null,"abstract":"Although John of Salisbury does not quote the Homer-Aristotle line Scatter 2 is following, his Policraticus does contain complex reflections on reading that resonate with a deconstructive approach. After the thirteenth-century Latin translations of Aristotle, the line reappears in influential but tendential accounts of the supposed superiority of monarchy in Aquinas and Dante, and in the more complex reflections of Marsilius of Padua.","PeriodicalId":371657,"journal":{"name":"Scatter 2","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125357210","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-05DOI: 10.5422/fordham/9780823289929.003.0001
Geoffrey Bennington
Following Derrida, it is argued that the inherited nature of our language and concepts means thinking always involves reading if that inheritance is to be criticized and perhaps resisted. Among inherited concepts, “politics” (as much as philosophy’s traditional adversary poetry) seems a promising one for such a process of reading.
{"title":"Politics in Deconstruction","authors":"Geoffrey Bennington","doi":"10.5422/fordham/9780823289929.003.0001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5422/fordham/9780823289929.003.0001","url":null,"abstract":"Following Derrida, it is argued that the inherited nature of our language and concepts means thinking always involves reading if that inheritance is to be criticized and perhaps resisted. Among inherited concepts, “politics” (as much as philosophy’s traditional adversary poetry) seems a promising one for such a process of reading.","PeriodicalId":371657,"journal":{"name":"Scatter 2","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124468072","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The chapter begins from Derrida’s quoting of Aristotle quoting a line from Homer as to the superiority of a single ruler over many. Derrida’s use of this line to align Aristotle with Plato in his treatment of the One God is challenged by careful consideration of many ambiguities that arise once the Homer line is read in the context from which it emerges. The complexity of the relation between the One God and the many gods of polytheism is introduced via Xenophanes’ theology.
{"title":"Polykoiranie I (Derrida, Homer, Aristotle, Xenophanes)","authors":"Geoffrey Bennington","doi":"10.2307/j.ctv119918b.7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv119918b.7","url":null,"abstract":"The chapter begins from Derrida’s quoting of Aristotle quoting a line from Homer as to the superiority of a single ruler over many. Derrida’s use of this line to align Aristotle with Plato in his treatment of the One God is challenged by careful consideration of many ambiguities that arise once the Homer line is read in the context from which it emerges. The complexity of the relation between the One God and the many gods of polytheism is introduced via Xenophanes’ theology.","PeriodicalId":371657,"journal":{"name":"Scatter 2","volume":"108 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122894073","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The chapter pursues invocations and quotations of the same line from Homer in Philo Judaeus’s On the Confusion of Tongues, and subsequently among the second-century CE Christian apologists Clement of Alexandria, Tatian, pseudo-Justin, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the pseudo-Dionysius, and their various attempts to Christianize pagan and Judaic sources. The complexity of the “One” in the concept of “one God” is analysed in Christianity, Judaism, and Islamic thought, and shown to have a significant stylistic presence in Derrida.
{"title":"Polykoiranie II (Philo Judaeus, Early Christian Apologists, Pseudo-Dionysius)","authors":"Geoffrey Bennington","doi":"10.2307/j.ctv119918b.8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv119918b.8","url":null,"abstract":"The chapter pursues invocations and quotations of the same line from Homer in Philo Judaeus’s On the Confusion of Tongues, and subsequently among the second-century CE Christian apologists Clement of Alexandria, Tatian, pseudo-Justin, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the pseudo-Dionysius, and their various attempts to Christianize pagan and Judaic sources. The complexity of the “One” in the concept of “one God” is analysed in Christianity, Judaism, and Islamic thought, and shown to have a significant stylistic presence in Derrida.","PeriodicalId":371657,"journal":{"name":"Scatter 2","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126484502","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：