Faced with an evident internal chronology in Plato's dialogues, there is a need to question whether it is a chronology based on the actual facts that the author experienced or that they were reported, and thus to establish whether Plato was portraying historical facts or inventing a fiction literary. Starting from the distinction between the subject of the statement (diegese) and the subject of enunciation (lexis), as well as the variety of methods available to approach a work, we questioned whether the foundation of a work approach would not be contained in it. And by separating author and characters and knowing the relations between them, we could walk a path in which the difference between the nature of the means by which we obtain discourse of somebody can converge. Thus, as Plato practically does not "speak" in his work, we assume that his thought would be contained in the letters and that precisely because of this, we find that he, the author, understands that the human discursive reality is naturally mimetic. Therefore, we believe that his work is a poetic-mimetic work, that is, it reproduces possibly as much as historicity, events and characters can. However, the dialogues are composed of an endogenous heterogeneity clearly marked by the presence and protagonism of Socrates, also by its non-protagonism and, finally, its complete absence. We focus on the Socratic Saga and articulated to the author's discourse, we intend to show that in these dialogues we can only attest to the poetic authorship of the author.
|
