نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 گروه فلسفه، دانشکده ادبیت فارسی و زبانهای خارجی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، تهران، ایران.
2 استاد، گروه فلسفه، دانشکده ادبیات و زبان های خارجی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، تهران، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
This article examines the problem posed by Plato’s critique of writing in the Phaedrus (274b-278b), namely the apparent tension between Socrates’ rejection of writing as a medium of philosophical knowledge and Plato’s composition of philosophical dialogues. It analyzes the two principal approaches in modern Plato scholarship that seek to resolve this tension. The textualist approach argues that the distinctive Platonic dialogue form exempts Plato’s dialogues from the critique, whereas the meta-textual approach maintains that the critique extends to the dialogues themselves and therefore requires reference to Plato’s unwritten doctrines (agrapha dogmata).
The article argues that, despite their fundamental disagreement, both approaches rest on a shared interpretation of the critique of writing, namely that its target is writing as such. Through an internal textual critique of this assumption, the article demonstrates the inadequacy of both approaches and, more broadly, challenges the dominant interpretation of the critique of writing on which they depend. Its primary aim is not to develop an alternative interpretation but to reopen the problem on a broader and deeper level by showing that, if the critique is not directed exclusively at writing but concerns logos itself, the question extends beyond Plato’s written dialogues to the status of logos as such. In this way, the article invites renewed reflection not only on how Plato’s writings should be approached, but also on the relation between philosophy and logos, thereby preparing the ground for a renewed inquiry into the nature of philosophy itself.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)