History as Philosophy (Especially in Continental Philosophy)
The five elements of parrhesia
Criticism, parrhesia is not simple what is the objective case, but a criticizing or the sake
of another's improvement. Criticism here is to be understood as the opposite of flattery.
Flattery is precisely to make someone content with how you are. It is not simply
changing someone's mind. A big part of the point is that it is changing your mind with
the point of changing your life. The last feature is duty. Duty and freedom together. One
has a choice to speak or not. One has a duty to speak even with knowing of
repercussions. Duty to oneself, duty to the other person. Thought of as a duty to truth
itself, in the case of parrhesia, duty to oneself, duty to the other, and duty to other, are
inseparable. There's no correspondent reality of truth, there's an implied definition here,
parrhesiastic truth is that which another tells us, although it is unpleasant to us, because
it can change an aspect of our life if it is acknowledged. While it seems to be, the
questions always is to get to a definition of science, here the question is what is
courage, and what it asks for what a definition of courage is. In the end of whatever
courage is, socrates is someone who is the best person to teach it. The definition of
truth here is not a definining statement but a practical impact.
The parrhesiastic game
Recalling wittgensteins language game. Language is used in a variety of ways.
Language use is somehow rule governed. There are utterances that are purposeful in
the context, and others that won't be. In science, the the language that is used there
would not function in religious contexts, as vice versa. Not all language games are truth
games. The parrhesiastic game is a linguistic truth game but not in the sense of what
science is, the parrhesiastic game, the rhetorical, the political, and the philosophical.