AccScience Publishing / BIJP / Volume 14 / Issue 4 / DOI: 10.29228/beytulhikme.76303
Cite this article
2
Views
Related Info Links
More by Authors Links
Journal Browser
Volume | Year
Issue
Search
News and Announcements
View All
RESEARCH ARTICLE

Foucault's Definition of Parrhêsia and Its Relation to Rhêtorikê

N. Petek Boyacı1
Show Less
1 İstanbul Medeniyet Üniversitesi, Edebiyat Fakültesi, Felsefe Bölümü 34720, İstanbul, Türkiye
BIJP 2024, 14(4), 1171–1190; https://doi.org/10.29228/beytulhikme.76303
Received: 30 April 2024 | Published online: 29 December 2024
© 2024 by the Authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution -Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC-by the license) ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ )
Abstract

In this article, Foucault's approach to the concept of parrhêsia will be examined, highlighting that this concept actually possesses a dual aspect like rhêtorikê and can be used both positively and negatively, and sometimes can even resemble rhêtorikê. Therefore, parrhêsia can also be seen as a part of rhêtorikê. Foucault, in some of the sources supporting his thoughts on parrhêsia, overlooked the connection of this concept with rhêtorikê, and even omitted discussing the thoughts of who established this connection. In this article, Foucault's explanation of parrhêsia will be analysed and it will be argued that, contrary to his approach, parrhêsia is not in direct opposition to rhêtorikê, and that this duality in rhêtorikê can also be seen in parrhêsia depending on the way it is used. By drawing attention to the characteristics that Foucault doesn’t mention for parrhêsia, it will be discussed why he needs such a distinction.

Keywords
Truth
free speech
persuasion
flattery
blabbering
Ancient Greece
democracy.
References
  1. Aristotle. (1959). Ars Rhetorica (W. D. Ross, Çev.). Clarendon Press.
  2. Arnold I. Davidson. (2005). Ethics as Ascetics: Foucault, the History of Ethics, and Ancient Thought. İçinde The Cambridge Companion to Foucault (ss. 123-148). Cambridge University Press.
  3. Beatrice Han. (2006). The Analytic of Finitude and the History of Subjectivity (ss. 176-209). Cambridge University Press.
  4. Cengiz Mesut Tosun & Mehmet Berk. (2018). Foucault’nun Felsefesinde Bir “Sözel İlişki Etiği”: Parrhesia. Kaygı, 30, 145-157.
  5. Cicero. (1964). Ad Herenium (H. Caplan, Çev.). Harvard University Press.
  6. Coleman, J. (2000). A History of Political Thought. Blackwell Publisher.
  7. Dyrberg, T. B. (2014). Foucault on the Politics of Parrhesia. Palgrave MacMillan.
  8. Foucault, M. (2001a). Doğruyu Söylemek (K. Eksen, Çev.). Ayrıntı Yayınları.
  9. Foucault, M. (2001b). Fearless Speech (J. Pearson, Ed.). Semiotext.
  10. Foucault, M. (2005). The Hermeneutics of the Subject, Lecturs at the College De France 1981-82 (G. Bruchell, Çev.). Palgrave MacMillan.
  11. Foucault, M. (2011). The Courage of Truth (Government of Self and Others II) Lectures at The College De France 1883-1884. (G. Bruchell, Çev.). Palgrave MacMillan.
  12. Liddell&Scott. (1996). Greek-English Lexicon. Clarendon Press.
  13. Plato. (1903). Platonis Opera, Republic (J. Burnet, Ed.). Oxford University Press.
  14. Plato. (1967). Gorgias (W. Lamb, Çev.). Harvard University Press.
  15. Quintilian. (1959). The Institutio Oratoria III (H. E. Butler, Çev.). Harvard University Press.
  16. Tell, D. (2010). Rhetoric and Power: An Inquiry into Foucault’s Critique of Confession. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 43 (2), 95-117. https://doi.org/10.5325/philrhet.43.2.0095
  17. Walzer, A. E. (2013). Parrêsia, Foucault, and the Classical Rhetorical Tradition. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 43 (1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/02773945.2012.740130
Share
Back to top
Beytulhikme An International Journal of Philosophy, Print ISSN: 1303-8303, Published by AccScience Publishing