After reading the Oresteia and the first two Platonic dialouges, I'm interested in what exactly Persuasion means (also the difference between Persuasion and persuasion, if there is one). In Timaeus, Plato portrays perusaion as the means by which replicas for the forms are taken to be the form itself. Persuasion can't really do any good in this sense since true intelligence is not affected by it. It has no role but to further cloud an individual's mind.
In the Oresteia, Persuasion has a more dynamic role. In Agamemnon Persuasion is the "maddening child of ruin" (ln. 390). It is destructive in nature. But skip to the end of The Eumenides and Athena says, "I am in glory! Yes, I love Persuasion; she watched my words, she met their wild refusals" (ln. 981). Not Persuasion is constructive and doing good. Not only is Persuasion doing good, but Athena relied on it to counteract the irrationality of the furies. I'm not sure where I'm going with this idea, but it seems like persuasion has now helped Athena to realize justice. It's clearing things up instead of leading people away from the truth. Is this a valid reading? Are they even talking about the same thing?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment