Abstract
In the introductory scene of Plato’s Cratylus a power game takes place that is based on an asymmetrical distribution of knowledge and which determines the dynamics of the communication. Since Cratylus claims to have greater knowledge than Hermogenes, he puts his discussion partner in an inferior position. Hermogenes strives to balance out this power differential by different strategies. One such strategy is that of including Socrates in the discussion. Socrates reacts to the power differential that Cratylus has built up in a different way from Hermogenes: by the fact that he claims no knowledge for himself but even rejects any knowledge, he succeeds in gaining a position superior to Cratylus and Hermogenes.
Verzeichnis der verwendeten Literatur
Platonis Opera, tom. I, recognoverunt brevique adnotatione critica instruxerunt E. A. Duke/W. F. Hicken/W. S. M. Nicoll/D. B. Robinson/J. C. G. Strachan, Oxford 1995.Search in Google Scholar
Platonis Respublica, recognovit brevique adnotatione critica instruxit S. R. Slings, Oxford 2003.Search in Google Scholar
Scholia graeca in Platonem, vol 1, ed. D. Cufalo, Rom 2007.Search in Google Scholar
F. Ademollo, The Cratylus of Plato. A Commentary, Cambridge 2011.10.1017/CBO9780511779022Search in Google Scholar
P. Auer, Sprachliche Interaktion. Eine Einführung anhand von 22 Klassikern, Tübingen 1999.10.1515/9783110938432Search in Google Scholar
T. Baxter, The Cratylus: Plato’s Critique of Naming, Leiden 1992.10.1163/9789004320796Search in Google Scholar
P. Brown/S. Levinson, Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage, Cambridge 21987.10.1017/CBO9780511813085Search in Google Scholar
E. Dickey, Greek Forms of Address. From Herodotus to Lucian, Oxford 1996.Search in Google Scholar
A. Eckl, Sprache und Logik bei Platon. Bd. 1: Logos, Name und Sache im Kratylos, Würzburg 2003.Search in Google Scholar
S. M. Ewegen, Plato’s Cratylus. The Comedy of Language, Bloomington (IL) 2014.Search in Google Scholar
H. P. Grice, „Logik und Konversation“, in: G. Meggle (Hg.), Handlung, Kommunikation, Bedeutung, Frankfurt 1993, 243–265.Search in Google Scholar
S. Halliwell, Greek Laughter. A Study of Cultural Psychology from Homer to Early Christianity, Cambridge 2008.10.1017/CBO9780511483004Search in Google Scholar
A. Koschorke, „Ein neues Paradigma der Kulturwissenschaften“, in: E. Eßlinger/T. Schlechtriemen/D. Schweitzer/A. Zons. (Hgg.), Die Figur des Dritten. Ein kulturwissenschaftliches Paradigma, Berlin, 2010, 9–31.Search in Google Scholar
G. Krapinger, Platon, Kratylos, Stuttgart 2014.Search in Google Scholar
M. Lane, „Reconsidering Socratic Irony“, in: D. Morrison (Hg.), The Cambridge Companion to Socrates, Cambridge 2011, 237–259.10.1017/CCOL9780521833424.011Search in Google Scholar
J. Lombardini, The Politics of Socratic Humor, Oakland (CA) 2018.10.1525/9780520964914Search in Google Scholar
A. Nehamas, The Art of Living. Socratic Reflections from Plato to Foucault, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London 1998.Search in Google Scholar
O. Ribbeck, „Über den Begriff des εἴρων“, RhM 31, 1876, 381–400.Search in Google Scholar
J. C. Rijslaardam, Platon über die Sprache. Mit einem Anhang über die Quelle der Zeichentheorie Ferdinand de Saussures, Utrecht 1978.Search in Google Scholar
D. Sedley, Plato’s Cratylus, Cambridge 2003.10.1017/CBO9780511482649Search in Google Scholar
G. Vlastos, Socrates. Ironist and Moral Philosopher, Cambridge 1991.10.1017/CBO9780511518508Search in Google Scholar
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
