Talk:Parrhesia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments 2005[edit]

This is good so far but I think it attributes too much to Foucault. The concept is there in the ancient Greek texts, and one could argue that Foucault's lecture on the topic is merely an elaboration of what is there in the Greek (Foucault likely would have made that claim himself). Many scholars have treated the topic over the years, especially in German. I'm not an expert on this topic and I can't read German, so I'm not going to dive in with edits just yet, but I think it is incorrect to make "parrhesia" into a purely Foucaultian project. Foucault puts parrhesia alongside isegoria and isonomia in Greek political and philosophical culture. I think this may be correct, at least to the extent that it deserves consideration apart from Foucault's meditation on the topic. --csloat 20:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 2022[edit]

The first citation, attempting to define Parrhesia, is a very poor description. Parrhesia embodies the antonym of apology for speech. It is the sentiment of speaking truthfully without apology for the sake of honesty and conviction. An example; whoever here is strong-arming this wikipedia page and ruining it's accuracy with their incompetence, should be restricted from doing so.


You guys really dont understand Parrhesia. This text is completely wrong. It is an important subject in all social sciences, in which I am graduated with extra philosophy minor. I tried to improve this text but it was removed. I really think you are ruining Wikipedia this way. It is not about literally quoting Faucault nor the Greek text: something that is also done wrong here: you don't capture the essense. But it is also about explaining what the whole concepts means in today's world. And it's completely the opposite: it is not apologetic nor rhetoric at all. You are totally missing the plot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C02:2B05:D800:19FA:945B:1362:FF1D (talk) 10:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers Parrhesia as a concept from long before Foucault discussed the subject. Trying to narrow it down to a singular philosophical version by disparaging other legitimate works on the subject over centuries, especially while waving around a "minor" in philosophy, is charming but would need to be backed up with a weight of reliable sources that would indicate the interpretation of the word has changed, or historic use no longer has relevance. Koncorde (talk) 08:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Diogenes[edit]

I concur that the emphasis is heavy on Foucault, although he is the center of the modern use of the term and the concept. It would be good to broaden this with at least some mention of the Cynics, esp. Diogenes of Sinope aka the Cynic aka the Dog, as it was Cynical "frankness" that Foucault was thinking of when he discussed the term parrhesia. See, for instance, Navia: The Man in the Tub (1998) or Branham and Goulet-Caze: The Cynics: The Cynic Movement in Antiquity and Its Legacy (2000). funkendub

Organization?[edit]

I like the recent edits by the anon ip and am glad to see other uses of parrhesia mentioned here but the article is still completely Foucault-centric... it's almost as if the new testament hermeneutics are an afterthought rather than an earlier use of the term (a usage that Foucault also cites of course). Seems we'd be better off with a historical overview of the term starting with the ancient greeks. Someone should still write the Diogenese section :) --csloat 00:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An entry should not be bold everytime it's mentioned in an article, and every other word should not be a link. -- User:Anthrospeak, 15 July 2006

Churchill?[edit]

Is the Churchill quotation really a good example of Parrhesia? My opinion is decidedly "no." Any others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingshowman (talk • contribs) 18:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My reaction as well. I tried to check the source cited, and found that the link to the citation is broken. There is a note, however, that the web page is undergoing upgrades in late 2015. I checked the wayback archive and found that from 2003 until very recently, the page did not refer to Churchil's quotation, but to the following scriptural instance where Jesus used parrhesia in response to the Pharisees:
The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto him, "Get thee out, and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee." And he said unto them, "Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected." —Luke 13:31-32
Further checking finds that the reference to Churchill was added in 2013, although with a claimed access date to the source of 2007 (which is when the source was first cited in the article). The use of the source for the Churchill claim does not seem legitimate and I have removed the passage. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3rd Paragraph?[edit]

What is with the 3rd paragraph here? Take a look at this sentence: "There were two major philosophies at the time, Sophistry and Dialectic." Neither Sophistry nor Dialectic names a "major philosophy", or is the name of any kind of Philosophy. There are other major problems here as well.Parrhesiast (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Parrhesia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Speaking Truth to Power?[edit]

Seems to be synonymous. Wegesrand (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Parrhesia&oldid=1209641149"