“What is Not to be Done”: Intellectual Politics and Ancient Tradition

Abstract

The article presents a critical study of the attempts of modern scholars to analyze the theoretical and historical aspects of the role that intellectuals play both in modern politics and in the political processes of more distant eras, including classical antiquity. The author demonstrates, as a casestudy, criticism of the theoretical position of the St. Petersburg philosopher A. V. Dyakov, trying to interpret the evolution of the political philosophy of Plato and his aspirations to implement his project of an ideal state through the prism of Michel Foucault’s theory of governmentality and a very original interpretation by the French philosopher of the Greek tradition of parrhesia (freedom of speech). Attracting a large array of the latest foreign scientific literature on the problems of modern and ancient politics and the participation of intellectuals in it, the author clearly demonstrates that the A. V. Dyakov’s refusal from investigation of the latest international analytics of intellectual policy deprives his concept of heuristic significance. Referring to authoritative scientific literature, devoted to the analysis of the interpretation of ancient politics in the philosophy of M. Foucault (for example, the work of T. B. Dyrberg and others), the author proves the inconsistency of Dyakov’s analysis of Platonic political philosophy, in particular, the Seventh Platonic Letter. The article consistently refutes the false thesis that, in M. Foucault’s works, parrhesia and the figure itself of parrhesisastes are interpreted solely in terms of extreme “life risks” to which intellectuals must necessarily expose themselves in order to confirm their right to follow the politics of truth-telling in all cases.