Results found: 2

Search results

Search:
in the keywords: silent reading

Sort By:

Limit search:

Tιμιώτερα Books, Talking Objects, Honour and Shame in the Phaedrus

100%

Caserta C.

Peitho. Examina Antiqua

2015

vol. 6

issue 1

113-146

In the Phaedrus, the expression τὰ γεγραμμένα φαῦλα ἀποδεῖξαι, „to demonstrate the inadequacy of its own written” could mean „to make a palinody.” The requirements to define someone as a philosopher that Socrates provides (Phdr. 278) describe in theoretical and normative form what the dialogue has already represented in its dramatic form. Plato has targeted the speech of Lysias and the first speech of Socrates as belonging to a literary genre that is still in statu nascendi: a sophistic conference in which the writing is supposed to be read aloud and there is established a particularl emotional relationship between the reader and listener with the subordination of the latter to the former. For Socrates this relationship should be different and the speeches as well as books should have a completely different intent, content and form: philosopher must offer to the one whom he loves a chaste and virtuous conduct: such conduct, in its imitation of the divine, is precisely what distinguishes him from other scholars: τιμιώτερα. The philosophical relationship must involve a different kind of reading: a silent one that can neutralize the deleterious and seductive effects of the voice. This does not imply, however, that all books are the same. Philosophical writing is not a palindrome on a statue, like a picture. Its qualifying element is the linear and irreversibile sequence. Time flows between one segment and the next. Thus, thoughts presented in writing move in space, whereas characters that have thoughts in them also move over time, changing and modifying themselves. That is precisely how philosophical writing, such as the platonic dialogue, can reproduce logos.

Znovu k Vachkově teorii psané formy jazyka

100%

Kodýtek V.

Slovo a slovesnost: časopis pro otázky teorie a kultury jazyka (Slovo a slovesnost: A journal for the theory of language and language cultivation)

2011

vol. 72

issue 2

118-129

The key points of Josef Vachek’s theory of written language (Vachek, 1939, rev. 1959) can be summarized as follows: (1) Speech and writing are complementary, i.e., for a given communicative situation, one is more convenient than the other. Writing serves, as a rule, more specialized functions (purposes) than speech does, which makes it the marked member of the pair. (2) Writing is (a) governed by a norm of its own (social aspect), and (b) no longer a second-order semiotic system for experienced readers (cognitive aspect). Quite recently, Adam (2009) has criticized Vachek’s approach as being old-fashioned and empirically inadequate, and has suggested replacing it with a theory based “on the substance only”. The purpose of the present paper is to recall Vachek’s theory and to demonstrate that most of Adam’s arguments are irrelevant or misleading

Refine search results

1 Peitho. Examina Antiqua

1 Slovo a slovesnost: časopis pro otázky teorie a kultury jazyka (Slovo a slovesnost: A journal for the theory of language and language cultivation)

1 Caserta C.

1 Kodýtek V.

1 2015

1 2011

Search results

Tιμιώτερα Books, Talking Objects, Honour and Shame in the Phaedrus

Znovu k Vachkově teorii psané formy jazyka