|
Hannah Arendt and Reiner Schürmann Symposium in Political
Philosophy Tyrants,
Kings, Emperors, and Philosophers: Philosophy and Political Power in Antiquity New
School for Social Research, New York, May, 10-11 2013 55 W 13 St Room I 202
May
10 9:45: Introduction – Dmitri Nikulin (NSSR) 10:00-11:30: Andreas Kalyvas (NSSR), The
Dictator is a Tyrant: Dionysius of Halicarnassus' Critique of Roman
Republicanism and its Significance Today Chair: Chiara Bottici (NSSR) Abstract:
My
presentation focuses on Dionysius of Halicarnassus' original and critical
reinterpretation of the Roman institution of dictatorship as a form of
consensual or voluntary tyranny. After a close reading of his "Roman
Antiquities" (Ρωμαικής Αρχαιολογίας), I discuss his interpretation's
present significance for contemporary debates on the state of emergency, the
revival of neo-republican doctrines of politics, and the irreconciliable
differences between democracy and republicanism (around questions of conflict,
agonism, power, and participation).
11:45-1:15: Dmitri Nikulin (NSSR), Telling Truth in the Face of a
Tyrant: Diogenes the Cynic as a Political Thinker Chair: Banu Bargu (NSSR) Abstract: The
article considers the role of performance and conversation in Diogenes of
Sinope, with reference to the extant fragments, as well as to Dio Chrysostom's Discourses.
By speaking in public and acting through personal example, a Cynic philosopher
is not assertingan abstract true proposition or a rational theory but
is rather engaged in truth-telling and thus in a provocative, critical and
subversive act that challenges conventional codes of behavior. Enacted as
literature and theater, philosophy invites, then, for the creation of a new
vocabulary and action suitable for liberating political practice. 3:00-4:30: Cinzia
Arruzza (NSSR), Philosophical Dogs and
Tyrannical Wolves in Plato’s Republic Chair: Omri Boehm (NSSR) Abstract: In Books VIII and IX,
tyranny is presented as the most degenerated regime, and the tyrant as the
unhappiest man, a miserable slave of his lawless desires. However, the tyrant
also appears to have an exceptional nature, which – uncannily enough – has some traits in common with the
philosopher. Moreover, we learn from Letter
VII that Plato traveled to Syracuse in order to try to reform its
tyrannical regime. How to make sense of this apparent contradiction? The aim of
this paper is to show that the philosopher and the tyrant of the Republic are like the two faces of
Janus: theyhave a common nature and
are both driven by eros, but they
look at opposite directions. Recognizing the kinship between the philosopher
and the tyrant helps shed some light on the relationship between philosophy and
political power in the Republic, and
on the issue of the feasibility of the beautiful city. 4:45-6:15: Chris
Bobonich (Stanford University), What’s
the Good of Knowing the Good? Chair : Ross Poole (NSSR) Abstract: In the Republic, it is clear that the
philosopher benefits from knowing the Forms. But what is such knowledge
good for? In particular, I examine the relation between knowing Forms and
(i) making good laws, (ii) making good political judgments not embodied in law,
and (iii) engaging in good individual ethical deliberation.
|
