The Problematization of Parrhesia

Parrahesia, to me, as defined by Michel Foucault, means persuasion. There are many parrhesiastes in our history, those who people believed in what they said because of their moral status, therefore they hold truth in their words, with no doubt. Take for example Plato and his mentor Socrates which were known and believed they told he truth by the use of dialogue in the search of absolute truth. But I do agree with Foucault when he questions the parrhesiastes, how can we know they are the truth tellers? They have a higher position and respect therfore we most believe on them? Take for example the goverment, they have a higher control and power over us, therefore we must believe them? Today we have a rise and society is getting more knowledgeable therefore we question the parrhesiastes in the search of our own truth. Foucault also says that when the truth is in danger, mentioning the Greek history and Plato, then it is more likely to be true. You won’t put yourself in danger by lying, therefore you must be a parrhesiastes. I also agree with this because we can tell someone the truth, which will hurt them, but in the long run we would be applaud or thanked because of speaking out, though sometimes can be used agains you to bring you down at some point. “Parrahesia is a game”

A contemporary parrhesiastes can be, for example, is Edward Snowden. He is a parrhesiastes because he was going against the majority and risking himself, putting himself in danger because he was unable to resist his desire to tell the truth as a moral obligation.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.