• Home
  • IDEAS
  • GROUPS
    • Classical German Philosophy and Phenomenology
    • The quarrel between the ancients and moderns
    • The quarrel between philosophy and poetry
    • Theories of Emotions
    • Philosophies of Image and Imagination
    • Utopia, the Political Myth, and Rebellion
    • The Philosophy of Nature
  • EVENTS
  • PEOPLE
  • ADMISSION
  • CONTACTS
  • CONFERENCES
    • 2016
      • Il tragico nella letteratura tedesca
      • Dialectic and the Ends of Reason
        • Schedule
    • 2015
      • CONVEGNO MELANCOLIA
        • Introduction
        • Schedule
      • CONFERENCE ON THE ANCIENTS
        • Introduction
        • Schedule
      • Immaginazione e Giudizio In Kant
        • Schedule
    • 2014
      • Hegel and the phenomenological movement
  • ODRADEK Journal

Tag Archives: rhetoric

ODRADEK, Vol. I, no. 2: The Quarrel between Poetry and Philosophy

16 Thursday Jun 2016

Posted by Stella Ammaturo in Odradek

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

aesthetics, albert camus, Alessandra Aloisi, Andrew Benjamin, Danilo Manca, David Roochnik, Edoardo Raimondi, Franco D'Intino, Grace Whistler, Leo Strauss, Leopardi, logique de la philosophie, Lorenzo Serini, Marco Menon, Marco Piazza, Nietzsche, novel, Odradek rivista online, Paolo Godani, philosophical self-criticism, Plato, Political Philosophy, quarrel poetry philosophy, reflection, rhetoric, rivista filosofia e letteratura, Walter Benjamin

È con immenso piacere che segnaliamo la pubblicazione del secondo numero della nostra rivista online Odradek sul tema

The Quarrel between Poetry and Philosophy

 

Di seguito trovate l’indice degli articoli con il link diretto alla pagina della rivista.

Vol I, no 2 (2015):
The Quarrel between Poetry and Philosophy,quarrel-poetry-phil-ct
edited by Alessandra Aloisi and Danilo Manca

Table of contents

Introduction
Alessandra Aloisi and Danilo Manca

 

The Quarrel between poetry and philosophy Poetry as Philosophical Self-Criticism
David Roochnik

Leopardi and Plato (Drama and Poetry vs Philosophy)
Franco D’Intino

Furor Divinus: Creatuvity in Plato’s Ion
Andrew Benjamin

From Rhetoric to Reflection: Albert Camus and the «Ancient Quarrel»
Grace Whistler

Where Philosophy Meets Poetry in Nietzsche’s Writings from 1872-1873
Lorenzo Serini

An Unpolitical Political Philosophy? Some Remarks on Leo Strauss’ «Notes on Lucretius»
Marco Menon

Poesia e Filosofia nella Logique de la Philosophie
Edoardo Raimondi

The Individual between Aesthetics and the Novel
Paolo Godani

Walter Benjamin tra redenzione e rammemorazione, via Proust
Marco Piazza

Share this:

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Print
  • Twitter

Like this:

Like Loading...

Extended Deadline CFP: “Like a novel”: Crossing Perspectives between Knowing, Story and Digression

22 Sunday May 2016

Posted by Stella Ammaturo in CFA-CFP

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Alessandra Sarchi, Alessandro Cinquegrani, cfp, Davide Bondì, Emmanuelle Danblon, encyclopaedia, fictional way of knowing, History, Knowledge, Matteo Bensi, Matteo Marcheschi, novel, Paolo Rossi, rhetoric, science

CALL FOR PAPER

Like a novel:
crossing perspectives between knowing,
story and digression

New deadline: 15th July 2016.

Editors: Matteo Bensi (matteobensi@gmail.com)
Matteo Marcheschi (marcheschimatteo@gmail.com)

How is it configured and what is nowadays the relationship among novel, story and knowing? What are the conditions, the access paths and starting points of scientific, historical and philosophical research? Which are those of the novel? How are novel and philosophy intertwined, not outwardly but theoretically,? And what about romance and history, novel and epistemological reflection?

The purpose of this issue is to investigate the ways of addressing the problem of the relationship between narration, truth and fiction in the novel, in historical research, in philosophy and in science.

Other questions are the following: What would be the differences between a novel and a scientific paper? What kind of narrative models are available to the historian or to the scientist? What is the cognitive effect for the researcher and for the narrator stemming from the choice of one or the other model?

The problem to be solved is still to find a way to the universal, to a temporary synthesis, hard to get to without recasting the relationship and the interaction between the true, the false and the fiction (Ginzburg, Mazzarella). The path of scientific research is not very different from that of the novelist, littered as it is of false and fake, fragments, traces and spies (Ginzburg); all these elements are all seemingly insignificant details, but they are often able to open new scenarios and perspicuous representations (Wittgenstein), they set generalizations that do not lose the concreteness of their starting point. The universal element to explore appears more similar to the part for the whole than to the whole for one of its parts.

Against such background, the third issue of Odradek aims to question the possibility that the study of the novel, of its means and its techniques, could provide an easy way to answer the questions posed above: if the meta-narration – the auto-reflection of novel itself on its knowing status – it is not only a characteristic of postmodern narrative, but a constitutive element of the novel tout court (Shklovkij, Bachtin), then the possibility of an inquiry on the “novel” as a “a way of knowing” is open.

This call encourages papers focusing on the question of the poetic origin of the novel by adopting a multidisciplinary perspective: at issue will be not only a historical reconstruction of the genesis of the novel, but an investigation into its theoretical value, into the contribution novel gives, can give and has given to philosophical, artistic, historical and scientific knowledge.

Influenced by the Nietzschen genealogical critique of the truth, the 20th century thought has questioned the possibility of a form of human knowledge characterized by clarity and certainty. The boundaries between subject and object, observer and observed object, cause and effect have become blurred. This leads to reaffirm the value of the cognitive processes by analyzing the detriment of their outcome. The 20th-century novel sees the affirmation of metaphors and rhetoric at the expense of rigorous logical argumentation.

In light of this, 20th-century epistemology reflected on the constitutive role of metaphors in scientific thought (T.S. Kuhn) and on that of autobiographical stories in the biological constitution of living (Gould; Bocchi-Ceruti); history, even without coming to the radical conclusions of Metahistory (H. White), has tried to stage the image of its gears, by emphasizing the traits of a study made of detours, blocked roads, prejudices and errors (Ginzburg and Prosperi); fiction revealed its genetic processes, combining and messing up, in the manner of Borges and Calvino.

Moreover, by recognizing themselves in the dizzying analogy of truth and fiction (Diderot), the different fields of knowledge had to deal with what really owns the novel: the power to create knowledge avoiding the coarse mesh of true and false, by ranking instead in terms of what is neither true nor false but plausible (Halliwell).

In this perspective, the novel ceases to be placed on the ground of absolute otherness in comparison to higher knowledge, patching up a wound that the history of philosophy has always sought to heal and, at the same time, to reproduce. Thus, one can bring forward the hypothesis that narration and philosophical inquiry are getting closer when knowledge has made itself rhetorical and logological knowing (Cassin). Such knowing would be human because of its restless, always reversible and temporary, provincial (local) and atmospheric way of being (Ortega y Gasset; Mazzoni), able to catch a glimpse of the universal in the particular (Auerbach).

We feel the philosophical necessity, on the basis of studies of Perelman, Garin and Fumaroli among others, that history and philosophy, science and literature, focus on their possible poetic (Vico) and artisanal (Sennett) origins – plausible and always changing – by investigating their proximity to the novel as a form of knowledge.

Starting from the perhaps fictional nature of human knowledge, we propose to investigate the encyclopaedic character of this knowledge.

In the manner of Sterne’s Tristram Shandy, human knowledge is made of rewritings – translations and betrayals (Kundera) – and narrations that accompany the main story, subverting the order of what is a priority and what is not. Details become a fruitful path of research, now dead end. Nevertheless, they provide a clear picture of a knowledge always referring to something else, .for proximity and morphological distance (Goethe, Wittgenstein). The final result is that the detail, the individual, the fictional, are the only point of view suitable for generalisation.

The topics of the issue may include, but are not limited to:

  1. The origins of the novel: the fictional way of knowing
  2. Novel and History: debts, contamination and epistemological proximity
  3. Fiction and science: a cognitive proximity
  4. Novel and rhetoric: proximity and theoretical distances
  5. Novel and fiction: the work questioning the genre, the genre shining through the work
  6. Knowledge, novel and encyclopaedia
  7. Concept-interpretation and representation (mimesis), the representation-interpretation (mimesis) of the concept
  8. Like a novel: the whole emerging from the detail; or the possibility of telling the general by starting from the particular

 

Share this:

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Print
  • Twitter

Like this:

Like Loading...

CFP – Odradek “Like a novel: crossing perspectives between knowing, story and digression”

25 Friday Mar 2016

Posted by Stella Ammaturo in CFA-CFP

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Alessandra Sarchi, Alessandro Cinquegrani, cfp, Davide Bondì, Emmanuelle Danblon, encyclopaedia, fictional way of knowing, History, Knowledge, Matteo Bensi, Matteo Marcheschi, novel, Paolo Rossi, rhetoric, science

CALL FOR PAPER

Like a novel:
crossing perspectives between knowing,
story and digression

Editors: Matteo Bensi (matteobensi@gmail.com) Matteo Marcheschi (marcheschimatteo@gmail.com)

How is it configured and what is nowadays the relationship among novel, story and knowing? What are the conditions, the access roads and starting points of scientific, historical and philosophical research? Which are those of the novel?How are intertwined, not outwardly but theoretically, novel and philosophy? And what about romance and history,novel and epistemological reflection?

The purpose of this issue is to investigate the ways of addressing the problem of the relationship between narration, truth and fiction in the novel, in historical research, in philosophy and in science.

Other questions are the following: What would be the differences between a novel and a scientific paper? What kind of narrative models are available to the historian or to the scientist? What is the cognitive effect for the researcher and for the narrator stemming from the choice of one or the other model?

The problem to be solved is still to find a way to the universal, to a temporary synthesis, hard to get to without recasting the relationship and the interaction between the true, the false and the fiction (Ginzburg, Mazzarella).The path of the scientific research is not very different from that of the novelist, littered as it is of false and fake, fragments, traces and spies (Ginzburg);all this elements are all seemingly insignificant details, but they are often able to open new scenarios and perspicuous representations (Wittgenstein) letting set generalizations that do not lose the concreteness of their starting point. The universal element to explore appears as more similar to the part for the whole than to the whole for one of its parts.

In the background of all this, the third issue of Odradek aims to question the possibility that the study of the novel, of its means and its techniques, could provide an easy way to answer the questions posed above: if the meta-narration – the auto-reflection of novel itself on its knowing status – it is not only a characteristic of postmodern narrative, but a constitutive element of the novel tout court (Shklovkij, Bachtin), then the possibility of an inquiry on the “novel” as a “a way of knowing” is open.

This call encourages papers focusing on the question of the poetic origin of the novel, by adopting a multidisciplinary perspective: at issue will be not only a historical reconstruction of the genesis of the novel, but an investigation into its theoretical value, into the contribution novel gives, can give and has given to the philosophical, artistic, historical and scientificknowledge.

Influenced by Nietzschen genealogical critique of the truth, the 20th thought has questioned the possibility of a form of human knowledge characterized by clarity and certainty.The boundaries between subject and object, observer and observed object, cause and effect have become hazy. This leads to reaffirm the value of the cognitive processes by going to the detriment of their outcome. The 20th century novel sees the affirmation of the metaphor and rhetoric at the expense of rigorous logical argumentation.

In light of this, the 20th century epistemology reflected on the constitutive role of metaphor in scientific thought (T.S. Kuhn) and on that of the autobiographical story in the biological constitution of living (Gould; Bocchi-Ceruti);history, even without coming to the radical conclusions of Metahistory (H. White), has tried to stage the image of its gears, by emphasizing the traits of a study made of detours, blocked roads, prejudices and errors (Ginzburg and Prosperi);fiction revealed its genetic processes, combining and messing up, in the manner of Borges and Calvino.

Moreover, by recognizing themselves in the dizzying analogy of truth and fiction (Diderot), he different fields of knowledge had to deal with what really owns the novel: the power to create a knowledge avoiding the coarse mesh of true and false, by ranking instead in terms of what is neither true nor false but plausible (Halliwell).

In this perspective, the novel ceases to be placed on the ground of absolute otherness comparing to higher knowledge, sewing up a wound that the history of philosophy has always sought to heal and, at the same time, to reproduce. Thus, one can advance the hypothesis that narration and philosophical inquiry are getting closer when knowledge has made itself rhetorical and logological knowing (Cassin). Such a knowing would be human because of restless, always reversible and temporary, provincial (local) and atmospheric (Ortega y Gasset; Mazzoni), able to catch a glimpse of the universal in the particular (Auerbach).

We feel the philosophical necessity, on the basis of studies of Perelman, Garin and Fumaroli among others, that history and philosophy, science and literature, focus on their possible poetic (Vico) and artisanal (Sennett) origins – plausible and always changing – by investigating their proximity to the novel as a form of knowledge.
From this, from the perhaps fictional nature of human knowledge, we propose to investigate the encyclopaedic character of this knowledge.

In the manner of Sterne’s Tristram Shandy, human knowledge is made of rewritings – translations and betrayals (Kundera) – and narrations that accompany the main story, subverting the order of what is a priority and what is not. The detail now becomes fruitful path of research, now dead end. Nevertheless, it gives the clear picture of a knowledge always referring to something else, for proximity and morphological distance (Goethe, Wittgenstein). It finally results that the detail, the individual, the fictional, are the only point of view suitable for a generalisation.

The topics of the issue may include, but are not limited to:

1. The origins of the novel: the fictional way of knowing

2. Novel and History: debts, contamination and epistemological proximity

3. Fiction and science: a cognitive proximity

4. Novel and rhetoric: proximity and theoretical distances

5. Novel and fiction: the work questioning the genre, the genre shining through the work

6. Knowledge, novel and encyclopaedia

7. Concept-interpretation and representation (mimesis), the representation-interpretation (mimesis) of the concept

8. Like a novel: the whole emerging from the detail; or the possibility oftelling the general by starting from the particular

Invited Keynote Authors:
Davide Bondì, Università degli studi di Milano
Alessandro Cinquegrani, Università Cà Foscari di Venezia
Emmanuelle Danblon, Université Libre de Bruxelles
Paolo Rossi, Università di Pisa
Alessandra Sarchi

 

Full papers of accepted abstracts cannot be longer than 40 000 characters (footnote and references included). They should be submitted by 15th June 2016 and prepared for blind peer review.

The full paper must be submitted online via OJS – Open Journal System:

zetesis.cfs.unipi.it/Rivista

Authors can find submission guidelines at the following link:

zetesis.cfs.unipi.it/Rivista/index.php/odradek/about/submissions#onlineSubmissions

All papers will be reviewed according to our peer review process policy:

zetesis.cfs.unipi.it/Rivista/index.php/odradek/about/editorialPolicies#peerReviewProcess

Languages: English, French, German, Italian

Share this:

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Print
  • Twitter

Like this:

Like Loading...

CFP: ODRADEK, vol. I, no. 2: The Quarrel between Poetry and Philosophy

13 Sunday Sep 2015

Posted by Danilo Manca in CFA-CFP

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Aristotle, Borges, Dante, dichtende Vernunft, imagination, intellectual poetry, Leo Strauss, Leopardi, logos, Metaphernbildung, myth, Nietzsche, Omero, philosophy of literature, philosophy of poetry, Plato, politics, prose, Quarrel between Poetry and Philosophy, Rancière, rhetoric, Schiller, Schlegel, sentimental poetry, Shakespeare, style of philosophy, thought, transcendental poetry, Valéry

Siamo lieti di annunciare l’uscita della call for paper per il secondo numero di Odradek, che sarà dedicato al tema “The Quarrel between Poetry and Philosophy” e curato da Danilo Manca e Alessandra Aloisi.

Submission open: 13th September 2015

Submission deadline: 15th December 2015

Call for papers

 The Quarrel between Poetry and Philosophy

Editors: Danilo Manca and Alessandra Aloisi

 

When in Book Ten of The Republic Plato proscribes poetry from the city and refers to a long-standing quarrel between poetry and philosophy, he raises an issue that has since made its mark in the history of Western thought. The aim of this call for papers is to delve deeper into the original meaning of this quarrel, to evaluate the implications it has had for the Western way of thinking and writing, and to explore the different forms the quarrel has assumed, between poetry and philosophy, between literature and philosophy.

Plato’s treatment of poetry looks as resolute as ambiguous. Plato claims that the mimetic art is essentially an imitation of imitation. Accordingly, the work of art is a mere copy of the ideal model that nature already reproduces. Art is therefore seen as twofold far from the truth, whereas philosophy is the love for truth. Nevertheless, this does not hinder Plato from expressing his philosophical arguments by means of dialogues and myths. Could this ambiguity be solved? Is poetry, in Plato’s view, just an extrinsic aspect that the philosopher has at disposal to have a talk with the ordinary people, namely with the men who are still in the cave? Or, rather, is poetry a fundamental dimension belonging to philosophy itself?

Throughout history of Western thought many thinkers took a position on the Quarrel. For instance, Hegel claimed that Plato’s mode of representation belongs to an earlier stage of the concept’s development. By contrast, by employing the notions of “dichtende Vernunft” and “dichtende Denken” respectively, Nietzsche and Heidegger endorsed the idea that philosophy is essentially connected with the poetic production, that is with Metaphernbildung. Another way of understanding the Quarrel is to consider philosophy one of the tools the poet and the writer employ in order to reflect upon their artistic activity. Philosophy plays an important role in the compositional activity of the poet: such role would consist in making possible a meta-literature, that is, a poetry whose point at issue is its own nature. Examples of this are Schiller’s “sentimental poetry”, Schlegel’s “transcendental poetry”, and Borges’s “intellectual poetry”.

Thus, what is at stake in the quarrel between poetry and philosophy is the distinction between myths and logos, thinking in images and thinking in concepts, between the picturing and the inferential arguing, between the imitation of and the reflection upon reality.

To what extent could the poet’s activity be distinguished from the philosopher’s one? To put it in Aristotle’s terms, what does it mean to say that poetry is more philosophical than history because it deals with the universals? And, consequently, what is the relationship between the universals used by philosophy and the ones used by poetry?

In Phaedo, Socrates admits to have often been suggested in dreams to cultivate the art of the Muses. Even though he had always taken it to be an exhortation to do philosophy, only at the end of his life he understands that he was required «to compose myths, not simply to elaborate arguments». On a similar note is Giacomo Leopardi who claims that the greatest poets are also philosophers (e.g. Omero, Dante and Shakespeare) and that the greatest philosophers are poets (e.g. Plato), since imagination is an essential component of poetry as well as of philosophy.

Thus, if poetry and philosophy are activities that stand on the same footing, one may argue that Plato’s thesis against art and poetry, far from dealing with the problem of truth and its representation, has nothing but a political meaning.

By banishing poetry from the polis that is ruled according to philosophical principles, Plato was trying to prevent a free circulation of words and discourses that may divert bodies from their social and intellectual destination. As Jacques Rancière would put it, the reason why Plato himself told stories and invented myths was to justify a hierarchical order and to provide a foundation for a distribution of knowledge and positions which has no foundation itself. From this point of view, the “ancient quarrel” between poetry and philosophy, between falsehood and truth, appears to be nothing but the expression of the never-ending quarrel between equality and inequality, between democracy and hierarchical order. Not differently from philosophy, poetry is a way of using language and of “making” the truth; in other words, a way of thinking and of organizing reality that can rival the one that philosophy promotes.

Consider otherwise the political issue in Strauss’s terms: the genuine quarrel between philosophy and poetry is not concerned with “the worth of poetry” as such, but with the order in which philosophy and poetry should be ranked. According to Socrates, poetry is legitimate only as ministerial to the user par excellence, namely to the king who is a philosopher, and not as an autonomous enterprise. In this sense, the greatest example of ministerial poetry would be the Platonic dialogue because of its capacity to present the non-philosophical life as ministerial to the philosophical one.

The topic of the proposals might include, but need not to be restricted to:

  1. Any philosophical and/or poetic experience which has nourished and/or questioned the distinction between imagination and thought, myths and logos, and so on.
  2. The problem of the style of philosophy and the role of rhetoric in philosophy
  3. Limits and potentialities of a philosophy of poetry
  4. Features of a literature aiming to be philosophical
  5. Any political aspects entailed in the Quarrel.
  6. The distinction between verse and prose as decisive or not to distinguish poetry from philosophy.

Languages: English, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish.

The paper can be submitted online via OJS – Open Journal System:

http://zetesis.cfs.unipi.it/Rivista/index.php/odradek/index

Authors can find submission guidelines at the following link:

http://zetesis.cfs.unipi.it/Rivista/index.php/odradek/about/submissions#onlineSubmissions

All papers will be reviewed according to our peer review process policy:

http://zetesis.cfs.unipi.it/Rivista/index.php/odradek/about/editorialPolicies#peerReviewProcess

 

Share this:

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Print
  • Twitter

Like this:

Like Loading...

Archivio notizie

Menu

  • ADMISSION
  • Una testimonianza per il futuro dopo la tragedia del coronavirus
  • GROUPS
    • Classical German Philosophy and Phenomenology
    • Philosophies of Image and Imagination
    • The Philosophy of Nature
    • The quarrel between philosophy and poetry
    • The quarrel between the ancients and moderns
    • Theories of Emotions
    • Utopia, the Political Myth, and Rebellion
  • CONFERENCES
    • 2019
      • Gli spazi e i tempi della forma: storia naturale delle rovine
    • 2018
      • Sellars e la filosofia post-kantiana
    • 2017
      • Dialettica della ragione, teleologia e idea di mondo in Kant.
      • La filosofia e il tragico
      • La leggibilità della natura
    • 2016
      • Dialectic and the Ends of Reason
        • Schedule
      • Il tragico nella letteratura tedesca
    • 2015
      • Immaginazione e Giudizio In Kant
        • Schedule
      • MELANCOLIA. Metamorfosi dell’umor nero
        • Introduction
        • Schedule
      • THE WISDOM OF THE ANCIENTS. The German-Jewish Revaluation of Ancient Philosophy
        • Introduction
        • Schedule
    • 2014
      • Hegel and the phenomenological movement
  • CONTACTS
  • EVENTS
  • IDEAS
  • ODRADEK Journal
  • PEOPLE
  • PRESS REVIEW
  • RICORDANDO BARALE

Zetesis FanPage

Zetesis FanPage

Seguiteci su Twitter

My Tweets

I nostri eventi

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Follow Following
    • zetesisproject.com
    • Join 26 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • zetesisproject.com
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d bloggers like this: