So where's the action in Racine, or in Beckett's Play? And how is
Plato's Symposium any less 'dramatic' than either? Surely this is an
editorial rather than an ontological issue. You _can_ represent
Socratic dialogues as dramas, but it's up to you as editor to decide
whether that's a sensible way to represent them.
Quoting "Patrik, Linda" <[log in to unmask]>:
> Please forgive the tardiness in replying. A distinction can be made
> between a philosophical dialogue and a drama. In a philosophical
> dialogue, the arguments are most important; in a drama, the
> voiced thoughts as reflective of his/her character are important.
> though Plato originally considered the career of playwright, he
> abandoned this art for philosophy. He wrote philosophical dialogues
> which famous and less well-known thinkers of his day exchanged
> and counterarguments. But the arguments were key, not the named
> "speakers" themselves.
> I've taught philosophy courses on Plato for decades and have tried
> hand at encoding Buddhist philosophical arguments/counterarguments
> on the philosophical school's position which is being presented. I
> that it may be harder to come up with TEI codes for the arguments
> counterarguments, but it would be superficial to mark philosophical
> arguments in a way that links them to a "speaker" rather than to a
> philosophical school or position. The Tibetan canon, for example,
> hundreds of texts that include sections of philosophical argument
> counterargument as though there are unnamed "speakers" from each
> philosophical school engaged in debate. But it just wouldn't work to
> encode these texts as "drama."
> As Aristotle said, drama is an art about action. Written
> debate isn't action; it's inquiry.
> Enjoy the summer,
> Linda Patrik
> Dept. of Philosophy, Union College
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TEI (Text Encoding Initiative) public discussion list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lou Burnard
> Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 12:04 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Is a Socratic dialogue a drama?
> Martin Holmes wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > We're encoding a text which is a philosophical dialogue. It's not
> > intended to be a "proper" drama, with believable characters, and
> > intended to be performed in any way. Should we be using the drama
> > module's <sp>, <speaker> etc. to do this, or should we be encoding
> > some other way?
> > Cheers,
> > Martin
> You should be using <sp>, <speaker> etc if the text presents itself
> as a
> dramatic dialogue, irrespective of your belief in the characters or