Vivian Meschesi (viviana.meschesi @ gmail.com) Cazzato Stefano, Dialogue with Plato. How to investigate un testo filosofico , Armando, Roma 2010
La filosofia contemporanea ci ha indicato, da diverse vie, la fecondità di ogni archeologia del pensiero e dunque non stupisce che la lettera platonica possa riservarci continuamente nuovi orizzonti e nuove angolature.
Affrontare poi i dialoghi platonici minori per tentare un ripensamento ed un rinnovamento del metodo per lo studio della filosofia, quando la retorica e la dialettica sembrano argomento quanto mai anacronistico nel bagaglio culturale dello studente odierno, ma allo stesso tempo carta da sempre vincente per chi ne fa competente uso, è la sfida di Stefano Cazzato.
Dialogo con Platone è un wise, as the author warns us, does not want to speak "of" Plato, but through him, to produce a text that both of thought and hard work at the same time: an explicit objective of the analysis "is not knowledge but know-how ". The attempt to rethink the teaching of philosophy in schools, trying to propose a serious and profitable alternative to setting historicist who for years has characterized the study of philosophy, but at the same time respects the historical context of the discipline is moving towards a multidirectional developments that philosophy to issues, problems, and languages.
This challenge is proposed by Stefano Cazzato from six Platonic dialogues (Euthyphro , Critias, Minos , Epinomide , Clitofonte , Charmides), in an attempt to put the one who "seeks to know" in a position to understand the delicate passages of dialectic and rhetoric, distinguishing statements, reviews, testing and identifying the various logic devices of the machine at the base of the dialectic Platonic dialogues.
In the firm belief that reaching the heart of philosophy and compete with the very structure of reasoning means to have a real opportunity not to be uncritically the positivity of a certain way of thinking, the author propone l’obiettivo, produttivo, di insegnare un modello che, a differenza di una nozione, sia funzionale e applicabile a diverse situazioni.
E così ogni dialogo diviene l’occasione di approfondimento delle diverse tecniche dialettiche e retoriche: dalle strategie socratiche (il dubbio, l’ironia, la dissimulazione, il paragone…) analizzate nell’ Eutifrone , alle strutture dell’argomentazione (problema, tesi, corpo argomentativo, eccezioni alla regola, conclusione) nel Crizia , al ragionamento per enumerazione nell’ Epinomide , alle varie strategie argomentative nel Minosse , sino a giungere al metodo Clitofonte in the description and the cunning of reason in Charmides.
Cazzato says: "[...] the structures are fundamental: they are interpretations of thought, do not work as irreversible and rigid containers of knowledge, but have an instrumental value; produce expectations but do not deny the multiplicity of experience; simplify the approach to the real but unpretentious reductionist, are changed in relation to new research needs and knowledge, skills are perennial, recoverable when needed, unlike the individual concepts, which have the mind so disjointed, you lose and forget "(p. 58).
Jerome Bruner, a distinguished American educator, stresses the importance of knowledge structure, and therefore a textual work such as that contained in this essay, which is aimed particularly at those who have made the transmission of the philosophy of its approach, allows us to understand "thought in the making and articulation, the identification of the process of argumentation through consistency and accuracy of an epistemological status that characterized the thought deeply greek and insists deeply into the fabric of contemporary culture.
This work is published under a Creative Commons License .
0 comments:
Post a Comment