In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

C H A P T E R 1  Introduction: The Philosopher’s Voice Voice and Philosophy Besides colors, it is especially sounds (die Töne) which evoke in us a corresponding mood (Stimmung). This is chiefly true of the human voice (Stimme); for this is the principal way in which a person shows forth his inner nature; what he is, that he puts into his voice. —Hegel, Encyclopedia1 Voice is the origin of philosophy, politics, and poetry. Voice is the medium in which persons commune with one another by communicating their thoughts. It is the conjunction of body, mind, and community. It is the material medium by which we expose ourselves to one another, by which we persuade one another, by which we pursue together the truth, and by which we create and share ideas and emotions. Voice is the mechanism by which the inner becomes outer. It is the source of dialectic and inspiration as well as the source of manipulation and coercion. Voice joins the universal and necessary laws of logic to a particular and contingent locus in space and time. All voices are embodied: they speak in concrete historically defined languages; they speak from a definite social and political position; and they address a concrete politically located audience. A voice is philosophical insofar as it is the active appearance of thinking, which aims beyond these historical contingencies toward the universal. The voice of philosophy is a mutual communication aimed at provoking thought in order to call forth truth. A voice is poetic insofar as it is actively creative. The voice of poetry sings, rejoices, mourns, and inspires. Such poetic vocalization aims at evoking a mood, feeling, or idea. Voice is political insofar as it is the mechanism for distributing social goods, for persuading others about legitimate distributions, or for invoking authority. A continual problem for philosophy is to distinguish itself from poetic and political voices. This is a problem because philosophers cannot guarantee that their voices will be heard properly amid the cacophony of political life. As Aristotle noted, there are many other species of social animals, but only 1 2 Introduction humans speak about justice. However, speaking about justice is not a simple task. Political life includes a complex web of interconnected voices. It resounds with the voices of the oppressed and the oppressors, the silenced and the silencers. Lately we have learned that political life is—and perhaps should be—polyphonic. It is both the raucous din and the harmonious symphony of a plurality of voices. Amid this polyphony, while political voices use poetic rhetoric to attain political ends at the expense of philosophical truth, the philosopher’s voice struggles to articulate the question of justice that is the heart of political philosophy. Despite the fact that philosophical thinking is expressed by particular, contingent, historically and politically located voices, the philosopher’s voice is somehow different from the other voices of political life. Most notably, the philosophical goal of critical self-consciousness demands that philosophy account for the sound of its own voice. The philosopher must locate his/her own voice within the multiple voices of political life in order to differentiate his/her voice from those others with which it is often confused. The most difficult problem for political philosophy is to speak to a political audience while also speaking differently than the political voices, which also address that audience. Political philosophers who seek the truth about justice and political life must speak of politics while not speaking politically . They must deliberately revoke the poetic flourishes of political rhetoric in order to make sure that truth is revealed. Of course this is not a simple task because philosophers are political and poetic beings who speak in a historical language to an embodied audience. Like these other voices, the voice of philosophy also seeks to inspire and persuade. However, the norms of philosophical inspiration and persuasion are different from the norms of political and poetic speech. Philosophy has struggled to defend these norms for millennia. This struggle has required philosophy to use its voice to defend itself against the voices of political interrogators. Socrates, for example, initiated his apology with the following words: “how you, men of Athens, have been affected by my accusers, I do not know.”2 His voice cried out to the crowd, addressing his audience by name, initiating and enacting the dialectic between philosophy and politics. Socrates’ apology provides us with a vivid example of the dilemma...

Share