Alain Badiou, Conditions Reviewed by

In this article, I take up Alain Badiou's theory of poetry as the starting point for a broader critique of his systematic metaphilosophical framework. The first half of my article is devoted to examining two passages where Badiou renews Plato's call to banish poets from the ideal city. Although in the earlier instance (from 1989), Badiou appears to endorse this view in toto, when interpreted along with the second passage (from 1998), it becomes clear that what is really being banished is a philosophical discourse on poetry, for reasons having to do with the comparative ontological statuses Badiou assigns mathematics and poetry. The reason why I begin with this explicitly Platonic gesture is that it gives us the clearest account of how Badiou understands the difference between his and his contemporaries' approaches to philosophy. I then offer a reading of Paul Celan to show that Badiou's interpretation of his French Heideggerian contemporaries misses what is at stake for them in the notion of the Gespräch zwischen Dichter und Denker. Beginning by using Badiou’s writing on Celan to reconstruct what would be entailed in Badiou’s own reading of the crucial poem “Todtnauberg,” I show that although the framework that undergirds Badiou’s interpretation may seem at first to be consistent with Celan’s poetics, it involves imposing a very heavy-handed set of interpretive assumptions, ones which may not be the most natural fit with Celan’s poetics. Indeed, there is good reason to suppose that despite the initial appearance of consistence, adopting it as an interpretation of Celan would lead to untenable conclusions. I end by showing that the problems this poses for Badiou’s account of the Age of the Poets are problems for his understanding of the history of philosophy more generally.

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2013

theoretical views on poetry that show the manner in which the Western culture had outlined the idea of literature. Admittedly, one of the most important moments in theoretical views on poetry (as presented in Apology of Socrates, Ion and Republic) in connection with an analysis of the ry denies tradition and its role, while trad represents the birth of an analytical perspective on poetry, seen as a particular cultural phenomenon.

theoretical views on poetry that show the manner in which the Western culture had outlined the idea of literature. Admittedly, one of the most important moments in theoretical views on poetry (as presented in Apology of Socrates, Ion and Republic) in connection with an analysis of the ry denies tradition and its role, while trad represents the birth of an analytical perspective on poetry, seen as a particular cultural phenomenon.

Drawing on Plato as paradigmatic philosopher and, to a large extent, the intellectual architect of subsequent Western philosophy, the essay examines the definite limits of philosophical discourse and explores the conditions of its legitimacy. Taking Plato's treatment of the poets in the Republic as an example, the essay argues that poetry and philosophy are autonomous discourses, "separate magisteria"; that rational foundations are the conditions of meaningful philosophical discourse; and that poetic discourse is a form of dramatic wisdom which becomes meaningful precisely at the point at which philosophical discourse breaks down.

Athletics, Gymnastics, and Agon in Plato, 2020

In Republic 607b, in the context of justifying the exclusion of a certain kind of poetry from the city, Socrates refers to an old quarrel between philosophy and poetry. In this agonistic dispute, which involved harsh words from both parties, Plato himself played a major role and the extensive restrictions Socrates imposes on poetry in the Republic would denounce his view that philosophy, and not poetry, should have the final word when it comes to molding Greek education. When one analyses Socrates’ arguments against traditional poetry, one serious accusation he seems to be open to is that of selectively choosing his quotations from the poets and intentionally distorting their meaning, sometimes by presenting them out of context and supposing that a regular reader/hearer would also do the same. However, in the Republic, before Socrates imposes his restrictions on poetry, Plato introduces Glaucon’s and Adeimantus’ initial speeches, which play a key role in understanding why Socrates distorts the poets. A thorough reading of the brother’s speeches intended to present the “majority’s” views on justice will reveal that they also distort and interpret the poets in a way that fits their own purposes. This seems to be Plato’s strategy to make the reader understand that a distorted reading and appropriation of the contents of poetry is not a far cry from what can actually happen if poetry is not purified of its ambiguities, precisely the sort of ambiguities some of Socrates’ restrictions aim to prevent.

The subordination of poetry to rational guidance has been denounced as a symptom of a specifically Western sickness, with its origin in Plato’s Republic. But Plato’s disposition to the poets is more complex than is often supposed. Although Book Three’s education in civic virtue includes a call for an austere, civic poetry, in Book Ten Socrates finds the wisdom of this provision to need a serious reconsideration, one made necessary because philosophy has emerged as the true answer to the search for a genuinely fulfilling, happy life. Book Ten’s reconsideration quietly shows that great poets likeHomer are wiser than the earlier examination had suggested, especially about death, and are even indistinguishable from Socratic philosophers in their understanding of and disposition toward death and so in the related matter of the best human life.

International Journal on Integrated Education

The present paper attempts at estimating the legacy of two of the seminal philosophical minds, Plato and Aristotle. Their ideas have been so instrumental in shaping western critical literary tradition that any discussion on literary theory and criticism has to have them as a point of reference. Plato’s negative conception of mimesis is juxtaposed with Aristotle’s affirmative stand. The paper also examines the various philosophical and pragmatic charges labelled against poetry by Plato in his works such as Republic, Phaedrus and Ion. The paper concludes with a general overview of critical responses to Plato by succeeding men of letters.

The quarrel between philosophy and poetry has implications for our lives as both citizens and ordinary human beings. By closely reading and interpreting Book X of Plato’s Republic, which judges poetry by the standard of truth, and Aristophanes’ Clouds, which provides a comic critique of philosophy, we may see that the philosopher and the poet seem to engage in conversation, addressing similar points from opposing views and outlining the terms of their disagreement. This thesis aims to point to questions raised and answered by the poet and the philosopher about the status of reason in governing the soul and the city, the best life for human beings according to their nature, and the role of laws and convention in our lives and relationships. It also applies the discussion of these topics to issues of free expression today, and explores moral authority as both the philosopher and the poet see it.