Given Aristotle’s response to Plato’s views by positing a cathartic function for tragedy, it is understandable that an author opposing him through the development of a non-Aristotelian theatrical theory would spontaneously draw closer to Platonic thought. However, Brecht’s stance goes beyond this spontaneous proximity in this debate. This article challenges those critics who have overlooked the direct relationship between Plato and Brecht, and it offers a reasoned decision on Walter Benjamin’s verdict that epic theatre is a form of Platonic drama. (...) Moreover, it argues that Brecht’s endeavour aimed to create a theatre that remained impervious to Plato’s critiques. The article analyzes Brecht’s achievements in epic theatre as an expression of disenchantment, demonstrating how, through the techniques he developed, he radically dismantled the magical effect that was essential to Aristotelian theatre. (shrink)

In questa relazione suggerisco di considerare almeno la possibilità che nel Simposio Platone ci offre non una mera spiegazione della natura dell’amore, ma una spiegazione filosofica della natura del linguaggio (sull’amore). Nel Simposio Eros è una maschera di Socrate e Socrate una maschera del linguaggio. La storia di Diotima sulla nascita di Eros, figlio di Poros e Penia conferma questo punto: il linguaggio, come l’amore, non può possedere il suo oggetto come qualcosa di presente ma solo sempre in una fragile (...) bilancia tra presenza e assenza, tra oblio e memoria, tra conoscenza e ignoranza. Il linguaggio, come l’amore, è il demone della comunicazione. In questa relazione presento qualche prova, tratta dal dialogo, atta a supportare tale interpretazione. (shrink)

Performance Philosophy, at its most hopefully imagined, seems to promise to succeed where other philosophical discourses and performative practises have come up short—perhaps even failed. That is to say, far from simply announcing a relatively modest interdisciplinary venture between philosophy and performance, Performance Philosophy seems invested with a radical potential that would, if realised, reveal a paradigm of creation and/or interpretation that is quite new and distinct. Its achievements, if successful, would be beyond the compass of performance and philosophy conceived (...) independently of each other. Even the term itself, ‘Performance Philosophy’, conveys a certain paratactical momentum that seems directed towards a profound artistic, intellectual, and disciplinary miscegenation where neither performance nor philosophy would remain separate and intact and neither would be subordinated to or conditioned by the unchanged disciplinary genealogy and underpinnings of the other. Though exciting in prospect, this is far from unproblematic. Is performance, as an act of deliberate creative expression, not to some degree pulling in the opposite direction to truth-revealing, knowledge-bearing philosophy? Or does Performance Philosophy relate only to more elastic understandings and redefinitions of philosophy? More specifically, this article asks what ‘thinking’ ‘itself’ might be in the context of Performance Philosophy and what sort of ‘knowledge’ it might give rise to. It will be argued that against the usual measures of epistemological success Performance Philosophy must be judged to fail. However it will then explores whether, in a move reminiscent of the aesthetics of failure of early German Romanticism, it is precisely failure that seems to hold the promise of opening up new epistemological ground. (shrink)