From: "Eric" <ericandmary-AT-earthlink.net> Subject: RE: Gorgias and the fragility of reality Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 11:05:47 -0500 Diane, This is very weird. You sent out this message to me during the same minute I sent out a message about you. This is ALMOST COSMIC! Thanks for the info! By the way, how do you see the Helen text? To use modern parlance, it seems feminist to me since Gorgias undertakes to defend Helen, which was probably a bold and controversial undertaking back then. At the same time, he posits Helen in such a way that she seems almost like a kind of badminton birdie tossed about by Fate, the Gods, Male Seduction, Language, and Love. eric -----Original Message----- From: owner-lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu [mailto:owner-lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu] On Behalf Of Diane Davis Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2003 10:54 AM To: lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Subject: RE: Gorgias and the fragility of reality 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 > > > > > > > > >
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005