From: "Diane Davis" <ddd-AT-mail.utexas.edu>
Subject: RE: Gorgias and the fragility of reality
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 10:54:09 -0500


Just fyi, eric: in addition to Vitanza's pathbreaking work on Gorgias
and Helen, you might be interested in Michelle Ballif's excellent book,
_Seduction, Sophistry, and the Woman with the Rhetorical Figure_, the
second chapter of which is titled "Seduction and Sacrificial Gestures:
Gorgias, Helen, and Nothing."  Michelle was Victor's student, and on
this question of Helen, they each got a world of inspiration from the
other. ~ddd



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu [mailto:owner-
> lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu] On Behalf Of gvcarter-AT-purdue.edu
> Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2003 9:37 AM
> To: lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu; Eric
> Cc: lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> Subject: RE: Gorgias and the fragility of reality
> 
> 
> Eric,
> 
> Right, Lyotard is already--or, probably better to say "will have
been"--an
> important part of the Rhetoric discussion.  Again, Vitanza is probably
the key
> figure in the field to forward his work (and many, many others), and
if you're
> interested in his wide scope, I highly recommend his Negation,
Subjectivity and
> the History of Rhetoric (1997).
> 
> Now the Gorgias debate might be characterized in the following
fashion:
> 
> Edward Schiappa has attempted to do rhetorical historiography by
recovering
> what the words mean in the context in which they were written
(ipissima
> verba).  That is, there is some kind of discoverable translation of
certain
> words, and that these words cannot cross certain historical boundaries
that can
> be delineated.
> 
> John Poulakos, by way of contrast, has attempted to read the sophists
as the
> other party involved in the formulation of Platonic/Aristotliean
thinking.
> That is, his rhetorical historiography attempts to generate "so what?"
> arguments about the tension early sophists had with figures who are
now more
> widely known.  This work seeks, as you put it, to look at the "latent
> possibility of denial" in now canonized works vis-a-vis the
pre-socratics.
> 
> Schiappa and Poulakos locked horns over whether one can interpret
history along
> the lines of denial or whether the words only "mean what they mean"
(to which
> one asks, rhetorically, "What does that mean?!"=) semi-famously, in
the journal
> Philosophy and Rhetoric back in 1983.
> 
> Yet a third part of this discussion is Scott Consigny's recent work
Gorgias:
> Sophist and Artist (2001). He sees Gorgias as a key figure in
realizing the
> dynamic of "Agonistic Communities," and he suggests that Gorgias
philosophizes
> on the necessary tensions.  (In some ways, Consigny accounts for
facets of the
> Poulakos/Schiappa debate, though it's worth noting that Consigny
positions
> himself against both of them.  He sees Schiappa has too hung up on the
actual
> words, and Poulakos being too "application" oriented.  Consigny views
the
> community as the sole arbitrator, and since this opinion must be won,
it can
> never be known in advance.
> 
> Consigny's argument, though hitting upon quasi-Lyotardian notions of
the
> differend, at times, does not reference his work.  In many respects,
Vitanza's
> spin on Gorgias that tries to recognize the ethics of pre-socratic
moves is
> more interesting.  He stretches Gorgais's Encomium of Helen across
feminist
> lines and attempts to denegate EVEN THOSE lines via Cixous and Judith
Butler.
> This feminist may seem odd to outsiders, but, really, if I had to
characterize
> the tensions of the field, I see Gorgias's Helen essay as very
important to how
> Rhetorical studies current positioning--despite the fact that
Vitanza's work is
> sometimes (unfortunately) dismissively put aside.
> 
> That's the best I can do as far a nutshell is concerned.  Hope this
serves as
> something of a sketch of a debate that is, of course, more complicated
than
> I've rendered here.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Geof
> 
> 
> Quoting Eric <ericandmary-AT-earthlink.net>:
> 
> > Geof,
> >
> > I really would like to hear more about this, especially if you could
> > give a kind of thumbnail sketch of this debate.
> >
> > Let me just make this one comment for right now, since my fingers
> > already have blisters from typing.
> >
> > Yes, Gorgias was certainly in the background of what I wrote, the
> > Gorgias section of Chapter 1 of the "The Differend."  Maybe I am
just
> > stating the obvious, but I am surprised no one explicitly made that
> > connection.
> >
> > The differend is obviously concerned with conflict, but I find it
> > interesting that Lyotard begins his discussion talking about the
kind of
> > epistemological denial practiced by historical revisionists and, as
> > Gorgias shows, this latent possibility of denial is contained in
every
> > assertion of existence as a kind of ontological shadow.
> >
> > It would be interesting to connect the arguments in Rhetoric with
> > Lyotard. (or is that already a part of the discussion?)
> >
> > eric
> >
> >
> >
> >
>