What do you think?
Rate this book
"Discourse and Truth" and "Parresia"
This volume collects a series of lectures given by the renowned French thinker Michel Foucault late in his career. The book is composed of two parts: a talk, Parrēsia, delivered at the University of Grenoble in 1982, and a series of lectures entitled “Discourse and Truth,” given at the University of California, Berkeley in 1983, which appears here for the first time in its full and correct form. Together, they provide an unprecedented account of Foucault’s reading of the Greek concept of parrēsia, often translated as “truth-telling” or “frank speech.” The lectures trace the transformation of this concept across Greek, Roman, and early Christian thought, from its origins in pre-Socratic Greece to its role as a central element of the relationship between teacher and student. In mapping the concept’s history, Foucault’s concern is not to advocate for free speech; rather, his aim is to explore the moral and political position one must occupy in order to take the risk to speak truthfully.
These lectures—carefully edited and including notes and introductory material to fully illuminate Foucault’s insights—are a major addition to Foucault’s English language corpus.
These lectures—carefully edited and including notes and introductory material to fully illuminate Foucault’s insights—are a major addition to Foucault’s English language corpus.
295 pages, Hardcover
First published November 1, 1983
About the author
Michel Foucault
813 books6,850 followersPaul-Michel Foucault was a French philosopher, historian of ideas, writer, political activist, and literary critic. Foucault's theories primarily address the relationships between power and knowledge, and how they are used as a form of social control through societal institutions. Though often cited as a structuralist and postmodernist, Foucault rejected these labels. His thought has influenced academics, especially those working in communication studies, anthropology, psychology, sociology, criminology, cultural studies, literary theory, feminism, Marxism and critical theory.
Born in Poitiers, France, into an upper-middle-class family, Foucault was educated at the Lycée Henri-IV, at the École Normale Supérieure, where he developed an interest in philosophy and came under the influence of his tutors Jean Hyppolite and Louis Althusser, and at the University of Paris (Sorbonne), where he earned degrees in philosophy and psychology. After several years as a cultural diplomat abroad, he returned to France and published his first major book, The History of Madness (1961). After obtaining work between 1960 and 1966 at the University of Clermont-Ferrand, he produced The Birth of the Clinic (1963) and The Order of Things (1966), publications that displayed his increasing involvement with structuralism, from which he later distanced himself. These first three histories exemplified a historiographical technique Foucault was developing called "archaeology".
From 1966 to 1968, Foucault lectured at the University of Tunis before returning to France, where he became head of the philosophy department at the new experimental university of Paris VIII. Foucault subsequently published The Archaeology of Knowledge (1969). In 1970, Foucault was admitted to the Collège de France, a membership he retained until his death. He also became active in several left-wing groups involved in campaigns against racism and human rights abuses and for penal reform. Foucault later published Discipline and Punish (1975) and The History of Sexuality (1976), in which he developed archaeological and genealogical methods that emphasized the role that power plays in society.
Foucault died in Paris from complications of HIV/AIDS; he became the first public figure in France to die from complications of the disease. His partner Daniel Defert founded the AIDES charity in his memory.
Born in Poitiers, France, into an upper-middle-class family, Foucault was educated at the Lycée Henri-IV, at the École Normale Supérieure, where he developed an interest in philosophy and came under the influence of his tutors Jean Hyppolite and Louis Althusser, and at the University of Paris (Sorbonne), where he earned degrees in philosophy and psychology. After several years as a cultural diplomat abroad, he returned to France and published his first major book, The History of Madness (1961). After obtaining work between 1960 and 1966 at the University of Clermont-Ferrand, he produced The Birth of the Clinic (1963) and The Order of Things (1966), publications that displayed his increasing involvement with structuralism, from which he later distanced himself. These first three histories exemplified a historiographical technique Foucault was developing called "archaeology".
From 1966 to 1968, Foucault lectured at the University of Tunis before returning to France, where he became head of the philosophy department at the new experimental university of Paris VIII. Foucault subsequently published The Archaeology of Knowledge (1969). In 1970, Foucault was admitted to the Collège de France, a membership he retained until his death. He also became active in several left-wing groups involved in campaigns against racism and human rights abuses and for penal reform. Foucault later published Discipline and Punish (1975) and The History of Sexuality (1976), in which he developed archaeological and genealogical methods that emphasized the role that power plays in society.
Foucault died in Paris from complications of HIV/AIDS; he became the first public figure in France to die from complications of the disease. His partner Daniel Defert founded the AIDES charity in his memory.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews
September 17, 2026
My relationship with Foucault and his philosophy is not straightforward. His name is associated with postmodernism, but perhaps it would be more accurate to place him within structuralism. These are labels I have often associated with self-help groups for intellectuals disillusioned by the failure of
Marxism
. But perhaps my assessment is too harsh.
My difficulties with Foucault do not stem from doubts about his merit as a philosopher, but from my lack of enthusiasm for certain themes that, in my view, tend to slide into a dangerous subjectivism and obscure the distinction between opinion and truth.
In a text particularly dear to me, “What Is Enlightenment?”, Foucault describes the scope of his work:
I believe philosophy should have the courage to reach towards the universal rather than retreat into comfortable, but often fruitless, rumination on the deeper nature of human beings.
This book, however, besides being a wonderful compendium of Greek culture, addresses the question of truth with unsurpassed depth and clarity.
Lately, an understandable impatience has emerged with that peculiar pop version of postmodernism circulating in the worlds of entertainment and culture. It is more of a caricature that defies reality and common sense. However far removed it may be from our own sensibilities, every school of philosophy has something to say.
In this book, drawn from his 1983 lectures at the University of California, Foucault takes the concept of parrhesia , freedom of expression, as his starting point and reconstructs our relationship with truth through an analysis of the Greek classics:
These few words encapsulate the Greek ideal of someone who has the courage to speak the truth even when doing so goes against his own interests, because he knows it is the truth.
We live in times when our relationship with truth has become complicated. Too many people pursue opinions they consider useful without even asking whether they are true. This book is a good antidote to an attitude that, sooner rather than later, becomes destructive.
My difficulties with Foucault do not stem from doubts about his merit as a philosopher, but from my lack of enthusiasm for certain themes that, in my view, tend to slide into a dangerous subjectivism and obscure the distinction between opinion and truth.
In a text particularly dear to me, “What Is Enlightenment?”, Foucault describes the scope of his work:
“The choice that we have to make nowadays is between a form of critical philosophy that is a philosophy of the universal, or a form of critical philosophy that is an ontology of ourselves, an ontology of the present. This second form of philosophy [...] is the form of reflection that I have sought to pursue.”
I believe philosophy should have the courage to reach towards the universal rather than retreat into comfortable, but often fruitless, rumination on the deeper nature of human beings.
This book, however, besides being a wonderful compendium of Greek culture, addresses the question of truth with unsurpassed depth and clarity.
Lately, an understandable impatience has emerged with that peculiar pop version of postmodernism circulating in the worlds of entertainment and culture. It is more of a caricature that defies reality and common sense. However far removed it may be from our own sensibilities, every school of philosophy has something to say.
In this book, drawn from his 1983 lectures at the University of California, Foucault takes the concept of parrhesia , freedom of expression, as his starting point and reconstructs our relationship with truth through an analysis of the Greek classics:
“To my mind, the parrhesiastes says what is true because he knows that it is true; and he knows that it is true because it is really true. The parrhesiastes is not only sincere and says what is his opinion, but his opinion is also the truth. He says what he knows to be true. The second characteristic of parrhesia, then, is that there is always an exact coincidence between belief and truth.”
These few words encapsulate the Greek ideal of someone who has the courage to speak the truth even when doing so goes against his own interests, because he knows it is the truth.
We live in times when our relationship with truth has become complicated. Too many people pursue opinions they consider useful without even asking whether they are true. This book is a good antidote to an attitude that, sooner rather than later, becomes destructive.
August 3, 2015
Foucault's analysis and problematization of the Greek word parrhesia is most enlightening for what it does not explicitly say, but what flows beneath its surface.
Parrhesia, speaking the truth or free-speech, is not only an ethical relation of the public, political, and personal spheres; it also plays itself out as a power-game.
To speak the truth one must be free, but to be free one must also be able to speak the truth. Parrhesia is a vicious circle of the production of freedom and truth. Those who are free, ie. the powerful, are those who speak, and create, the truth, what is true. The other is thus suppressed and stripped of power by the denial of freedom through the denial of parrhesia, which is also the denial of parrhesia due to the lack of freedom. Such a self-reproducing parrhesiastic power game allows the powerful to maintain and sustain their rule over the other. They create and hold the truth not only through the knowledge they possess and deny to the other, but through the speech which they also wield in a similar fashion.
The upheaval and displacement of this parrhesiastic power game plays itself out by playing with its rules. For it is exactly this freedom of speech, of speaking the truth, that may not be housed in law but which flows from the human being that may cut through the imposed systemization of the parrhesiastic game used for the power of the one over the other; used in order to see the fundamental untruth and groundlessness of this power game.
While such thinking is not explicitly expressed in this look at Greek culture and thought, it underlies what is said and comes forth through the saying. As Heraclitus wrote, "Physis loves to hide."
Parrhesia, speaking the truth or free-speech, is not only an ethical relation of the public, political, and personal spheres; it also plays itself out as a power-game.
To speak the truth one must be free, but to be free one must also be able to speak the truth. Parrhesia is a vicious circle of the production of freedom and truth. Those who are free, ie. the powerful, are those who speak, and create, the truth, what is true. The other is thus suppressed and stripped of power by the denial of freedom through the denial of parrhesia, which is also the denial of parrhesia due to the lack of freedom. Such a self-reproducing parrhesiastic power game allows the powerful to maintain and sustain their rule over the other. They create and hold the truth not only through the knowledge they possess and deny to the other, but through the speech which they also wield in a similar fashion.
The upheaval and displacement of this parrhesiastic power game plays itself out by playing with its rules. For it is exactly this freedom of speech, of speaking the truth, that may not be housed in law but which flows from the human being that may cut through the imposed systemization of the parrhesiastic game used for the power of the one over the other; used in order to see the fundamental untruth and groundlessness of this power game.
While such thinking is not explicitly expressed in this look at Greek culture and thought, it underlies what is said and comes forth through the saying. As Heraclitus wrote, "Physis loves to hide."
Read
May 30, 2009a beautiful essay. i particularily liked ethicial component of Diogenes masturbating.
July 15, 2018
Buku ini merupakan hasil saduran dari enam kuliah umum yang diberikan Foucault, yang membuat menarik adalah, bahasan yang diangkat oleh Foucault dalam buku ini sangat berbeda dalam rentang waktu, namun sedikit mirip perihal kontekstualitas.
Buku ini merupakan salah satu kepingan yang merangkum perjalanan sejarah pemikiran, wabilkhusus pada masa Yunani kuno, Foucault berusaha memunculkan konsep dalam buku ini dengan harapan mampu menimbulkan telaahan kritis yang baru.
Tak lupa, pendekatan yang dilakukan Foucault dalam buku ini terbilang unik, ia menggunakan pendekatan melalui karya sastra.
Buku ini merupakan salah satu kepingan yang merangkum perjalanan sejarah pemikiran, wabilkhusus pada masa Yunani kuno, Foucault berusaha memunculkan konsep dalam buku ini dengan harapan mampu menimbulkan telaahan kritis yang baru.
Tak lupa, pendekatan yang dilakukan Foucault dalam buku ini terbilang unik, ia menggunakan pendekatan melalui karya sastra.
February 15, 2023
Definitely not a bad text to have finished on my birthday.
Let’s hope this serves as a sufficient introduction to the second volume in Foucault’s lecture series which has been given the name of ‘Government of self and others’. This text stems from the first, which I did not completely read, of which I now wonder I should first. The second, ‘The Courage to Truth’, I bought in Dutch translation.
I’ll figure it out; perhaps, for once, I will not as rigidly chronological as I can be, and remain more topical for a change. Parrhesia was which I needed to embark on ‘The Courage to Truth’.
Let’s hope this clear mark in time, invites a new turn in my development, once which highlights the conscious development of my parrhesiastic capabilities.
Let’s hope this serves as a sufficient introduction to the second volume in Foucault’s lecture series which has been given the name of ‘Government of self and others’. This text stems from the first, which I did not completely read, of which I now wonder I should first. The second, ‘The Courage to Truth’, I bought in Dutch translation.
I’ll figure it out; perhaps, for once, I will not as rigidly chronological as I can be, and remain more topical for a change. Parrhesia was which I needed to embark on ‘The Courage to Truth’.
Let’s hope this clear mark in time, invites a new turn in my development, once which highlights the conscious development of my parrhesiastic capabilities.
Read
July 5, 2022Bu kitapla çok korktuğum, anlamayacağıma emin olduğum, boyumu metre metre aştığını düşündüğüm Foucault'nun düşünce dünyasına giriş yaptım. Başkalarının Foucault yorumlamalarını daha önce okumuştum ama birini tanımanın en direkt yönteminin kendisini okumak olduğuna ikna oldum bu kitapla.
İlk söyleyeceğim şey şu: başkalarının ağzından Foucault'nun söylem ve hakikat üzerine söylediklerini okumaktan kat kat kolay oldu benim için. Çünkü mükemmel akıcı ve açıklayıcı bir dili varmış meğer. Benim gibi Antik Yunan felsefesine dair bilgisi toplam 7 kelime edecek bir fen bilimci için bile, Antik metinleri yorumlarken, düşünce akımlarını anlatırken dahi internet kurcalamak, "burda bahsettiği kişi kim, kavram ne" (örn; epikürcüler, kinikler) diye araştırma yapmak zorunda bırakmadan, her şeyi akıl almaz bir açıklıkla ve sıralamayla anlatması bir şok etkisi yarattı.
Dilden içeriğe geçecek olursam da, bu tip kuramsal kitapların yalnızca konuyu merak edenler tarafından okunması gerektiğini söylerim ilk. Eğer bu konuyla ilgilenmiyorsanız işkenceye dönüşür elbette. Ben "açıkça doğruyu söyleme" anlamına gelen parrhesia kavramının Antik Yunan düşüncesinde nasıl değişim gösterdiğinin Yunan tragedyaları üzerinden analizini ne noktada merak etmeye başladım onla ilgili bir fikrim yok açıkçası :D Ama bir metodoloji de öğreniyorsunuz bu analizi yapma biçimini okurken tabi. Araştırma yönteminin kendisi, ifade biçimleri, bildiğini aktarma sürecini kurgulayışı bana tek kitapta bile, konunun kendisiyle birlikte çok fazla şey öğretti.
İnanın ben de şaşkınım çılgın bir mutlulukla Foucault okumuş olduğum için.
Bir yerden başlamak isteyen varsa buradan bence başlayabilir. Kendi üç temel ilgi konusundan diğer ikisi olan özne ve biyopolitika üzerine ilk yazılarıyla devam edicem ben. Metodolojisini pratiğe döktüğü cinselliğin tarihi, hapisanelerin doğuşu gibi kitapları da en sona bırakıcam. Aralara söyleşilerini ve konferans metinlerini sıkıştırırım gibi.
Böyle.
İlk söyleyeceğim şey şu: başkalarının ağzından Foucault'nun söylem ve hakikat üzerine söylediklerini okumaktan kat kat kolay oldu benim için. Çünkü mükemmel akıcı ve açıklayıcı bir dili varmış meğer. Benim gibi Antik Yunan felsefesine dair bilgisi toplam 7 kelime edecek bir fen bilimci için bile, Antik metinleri yorumlarken, düşünce akımlarını anlatırken dahi internet kurcalamak, "burda bahsettiği kişi kim, kavram ne" (örn; epikürcüler, kinikler) diye araştırma yapmak zorunda bırakmadan, her şeyi akıl almaz bir açıklıkla ve sıralamayla anlatması bir şok etkisi yarattı.
Dilden içeriğe geçecek olursam da, bu tip kuramsal kitapların yalnızca konuyu merak edenler tarafından okunması gerektiğini söylerim ilk. Eğer bu konuyla ilgilenmiyorsanız işkenceye dönüşür elbette. Ben "açıkça doğruyu söyleme" anlamına gelen parrhesia kavramının Antik Yunan düşüncesinde nasıl değişim gösterdiğinin Yunan tragedyaları üzerinden analizini ne noktada merak etmeye başladım onla ilgili bir fikrim yok açıkçası :D Ama bir metodoloji de öğreniyorsunuz bu analizi yapma biçimini okurken tabi. Araştırma yönteminin kendisi, ifade biçimleri, bildiğini aktarma sürecini kurgulayışı bana tek kitapta bile, konunun kendisiyle birlikte çok fazla şey öğretti.
İnanın ben de şaşkınım çılgın bir mutlulukla Foucault okumuş olduğum için.
Bir yerden başlamak isteyen varsa buradan bence başlayabilir. Kendi üç temel ilgi konusundan diğer ikisi olan özne ve biyopolitika üzerine ilk yazılarıyla devam edicem ben. Metodolojisini pratiğe döktüğü cinselliğin tarihi, hapisanelerin doğuşu gibi kitapları da en sona bırakıcam. Aralara söyleşilerini ve konferans metinlerini sıkıştırırım gibi.
Böyle.
April 11, 2018
Ah yes, Foucault's acidic philosophy has made me nostalgic for a time in which rulers amassed power and subjugated their citizens through sheer brunt honesty. The Greeks, tellin' it like it is.
January 11, 2026
Foucault je v svojih predavanjih res veliko bolj jasen kot sicer, tukaj razloži pojem parezije (iskrenega govora), da bi pojasnil, kako je v grški družbi prišlo do problematizacije tega pojma. Pri tem opravi zares zanimiv sprehod čez klasične grške tekste, še posebej Evripida in Platona, ki ju prikaže v res danes relevantni luči kot misleca razmerja med govorcem in resnico (kdo lahko iskreno govori?). Gre pa seveda za prikaz Foucaultovega širšega filozofskega projekta, ki je že sam po sebi zelo vznemirljiv:
Razlikovati želim med "zgodovino idej" in "zgodovino mišljenja" /.../ Zgodovina idej vključuje analizo pojma od njegovega rojstva prek njegovega razvoja v okviru drugih idej, ki tvorijo njegov kontekst. Zgodovina mišljenja je analiza načina, kako neproblematično izkustveno polje ali niz praks, ki so bile sprejete brez pomisleka, ki so bile znane in "tihe", zunaj razprave, postane problem, sproži razprave in debate, spodbuja nove odzive in povzroči krizo poprej tihega obnašanja, navad, praks in institucij. (str. 63-64)
October 14, 2015
Meğer doğruyu söyleyebilmek ne kadar önemliymiş.
March 7, 2023
This book of Foucault is for some reason underrated by masses, but yet it is a very good piece.
I haven't seen it around in the libraries, though I had to chance to hear about it and eventually read. I think the difficulty is that the book has lots of Latin and Ancient Greek texts that need some understanding of these languages, which I had the opportunity to know about because of my former studies along that coast.
The parrhesia, as its etymology states, means telling everything, which ends up meaning to talk frankly. And I think this word supplies us with something very valuable; unlike the freedom of speech, this word is closer to its utilitarian roots which lets us to go in further details to understand why it matters to have transparency in our societies.
Also I think, that the parrhesia is the motivational force which created the freedom of speech eventually. In some stories we see even monarchs allowing their subjects to talk openly so that governing better is possible, in some stories we see reformation in religion ending up with frankly speaking, which is quite interesting because in those areas we wouldn't be able to convince anybody for the use of freedom of speech.
The book starts with investigating parrhesia by using the same genealogy method that we are used to from Foucault's other books. The book goes deep into the ancient civilizations and investigates the relationships between mythical figures and fictional characters that reside in old plays. These all though, gives us clues about how parrhesia was perceived by the people of those times.
The book doesn't, of course, try to convince us that an escalation of parrhesia would be the best, instead, it introduces it in the golden mean way, by telling us about what could possibly go wrong without the educated mind. Telling everything under any circumstances is not a good idea.
Also there are many breakdowns that explains which cases are considered as parrhesia and which are not. Like the kings can not have parrhesia since they are not limited. Though, I am not so sure if they were really not limited. The history is full of deposed kings when they speak whatever they want. Though still I agree that parrhesia would not be suitable to define their way of speaking.
Another aspect he investigates is that, parrhesia is not only a virtue, but it is also a right that is given along with the citizenship or honestas that the family possesses. So it comes along with the intrinsic, awarded or personally gained "maturity" recognitions. Having those means you have more parrhesia, and having parrhesia means you have those recognitions. They go side by side.
I think the most useful side of all these investigations, is the part that you can actually brainstorm about the concepts that are used along with it under different contexts. As an example, Plutarch states that the measure, timing, softening would matter.
As a summary, I found the book quite enlightening and thought provoking.
I haven't seen it around in the libraries, though I had to chance to hear about it and eventually read. I think the difficulty is that the book has lots of Latin and Ancient Greek texts that need some understanding of these languages, which I had the opportunity to know about because of my former studies along that coast.
The parrhesia, as its etymology states, means telling everything, which ends up meaning to talk frankly. And I think this word supplies us with something very valuable; unlike the freedom of speech, this word is closer to its utilitarian roots which lets us to go in further details to understand why it matters to have transparency in our societies.
Also I think, that the parrhesia is the motivational force which created the freedom of speech eventually. In some stories we see even monarchs allowing their subjects to talk openly so that governing better is possible, in some stories we see reformation in religion ending up with frankly speaking, which is quite interesting because in those areas we wouldn't be able to convince anybody for the use of freedom of speech.
The book starts with investigating parrhesia by using the same genealogy method that we are used to from Foucault's other books. The book goes deep into the ancient civilizations and investigates the relationships between mythical figures and fictional characters that reside in old plays. These all though, gives us clues about how parrhesia was perceived by the people of those times.
The book doesn't, of course, try to convince us that an escalation of parrhesia would be the best, instead, it introduces it in the golden mean way, by telling us about what could possibly go wrong without the educated mind. Telling everything under any circumstances is not a good idea.
Also there are many breakdowns that explains which cases are considered as parrhesia and which are not. Like the kings can not have parrhesia since they are not limited. Though, I am not so sure if they were really not limited. The history is full of deposed kings when they speak whatever they want. Though still I agree that parrhesia would not be suitable to define their way of speaking.
Another aspect he investigates is that, parrhesia is not only a virtue, but it is also a right that is given along with the citizenship or honestas that the family possesses. So it comes along with the intrinsic, awarded or personally gained "maturity" recognitions. Having those means you have more parrhesia, and having parrhesia means you have those recognitions. They go side by side.
I think the most useful side of all these investigations, is the part that you can actually brainstorm about the concepts that are used along with it under different contexts. As an example, Plutarch states that the measure, timing, softening would matter.
As a summary, I found the book quite enlightening and thought provoking.
January 23, 2023
Thoughtful!
Michel Foucault's writing is strong and thoughtful as always.
People with Sociology, Anthropology, and Politics backgrounds may enjoy reading it.
Parrēsia is a Greek term that means to ‘say everything,’ in an unfiltered and uncensored way. Parrēsia can also be translated, according to Gros, as ‘frank speech,’ ‘courage of speech’ or ‘freedom of speech.
According to Foucault, parrēsia is a verbal activity in which the speaker has a particular relationship to truth, to danger, to law, and to other people in the form of critique.
The evolution of parrēsia from its early Greek forms to the Christian form follows three main stages:
1. parrēsia as opposed to rhetoric;
2. parrēsia in relation to the political field;
3. parrēsia as part of the art of life or ‘care of the self’.
For Foucault, parrēsia is not the only form of truth-telling. Foucault refers to the different roles of truth-tellers, such as prophetic, wise man, teacher, etc.
Comparing Euripides’s Ion with Sophocles’ Oedipus, Foucault claims that in Ion, the gods are silent, they cheat, etc. It is not the divine but the emotional reaction of the human characters that opens up the path to truth. However, truth itself requires inquiry, because inquiry is the specific human way to get to the truth.
Foucault sees in Euripides tragedy examples of two different forms of parrēsia:
a discourse of blame, which is addressed against somebody that has much more power,
and the second in which somebody tells the truth about himself.
It is the combination of these two discourses that make possible the disclosure of the total truth at the end of the play.
Foucault introduces the term Athurostōmia, as the form of speech that is the opposite of parrēsia. Athurostōmia is to speak in an uncontrolled way.
He uses the opposition to illustrate the criticism of democracy, and the emergence of a different relationship to truth, one that is not solely based on courage and frankness, but on attributes that require a process of personal development.
Foucault also remarked on the shift between a paradigm where franc speech meant being able to say the truth to other people, to a different practice, which consists of telling the truth about oneself. This new model appears as askēsis or practical training.
Michel Foucault's writing is strong and thoughtful as always.
People with Sociology, Anthropology, and Politics backgrounds may enjoy reading it.
Parrēsia is a Greek term that means to ‘say everything,’ in an unfiltered and uncensored way. Parrēsia can also be translated, according to Gros, as ‘frank speech,’ ‘courage of speech’ or ‘freedom of speech.
According to Foucault, parrēsia is a verbal activity in which the speaker has a particular relationship to truth, to danger, to law, and to other people in the form of critique.
The evolution of parrēsia from its early Greek forms to the Christian form follows three main stages:
1. parrēsia as opposed to rhetoric;
2. parrēsia in relation to the political field;
3. parrēsia as part of the art of life or ‘care of the self’.
For Foucault, parrēsia is not the only form of truth-telling. Foucault refers to the different roles of truth-tellers, such as prophetic, wise man, teacher, etc.
Comparing Euripides’s Ion with Sophocles’ Oedipus, Foucault claims that in Ion, the gods are silent, they cheat, etc. It is not the divine but the emotional reaction of the human characters that opens up the path to truth. However, truth itself requires inquiry, because inquiry is the specific human way to get to the truth.
Foucault sees in Euripides tragedy examples of two different forms of parrēsia:
a discourse of blame, which is addressed against somebody that has much more power,
and the second in which somebody tells the truth about himself.
It is the combination of these two discourses that make possible the disclosure of the total truth at the end of the play.
Foucault introduces the term Athurostōmia, as the form of speech that is the opposite of parrēsia. Athurostōmia is to speak in an uncontrolled way.
He uses the opposition to illustrate the criticism of democracy, and the emergence of a different relationship to truth, one that is not solely based on courage and frankness, but on attributes that require a process of personal development.
Foucault also remarked on the shift between a paradigm where franc speech meant being able to say the truth to other people, to a different practice, which consists of telling the truth about oneself. This new model appears as askēsis or practical training.
February 4, 2023
Is it a problem to tell the truth?
Why do people need lies or evasive answers?
What does it mean to tell the truth?
Why is what we call the right thing a risk?
why is a lie told like the truth?
On the basis of these questions, Foucault examines the act of "telling the truth" in depth in the philosophical, rhetorical and political fields. The transformation that the truth has undergone and the perceptual evolution of the truth (which has now become a lie) reveal the direct relationship of the transfiguration effect that it has finally reached with the transfiguration that man has fallen into.
Foucault identifies the act of telling the truth with parrhesia. Parrhesia means to tell the truth, the truth, in the simplest definition. The person who realizes this tells the truth directly, without resorting to any verbal art, innuendo, irony. Foucault interprets parrhesia at this point as frankness, free speech, honesty in telling the truth. Since there is no effort to convince the other person, he reveals that he has a very, very useful structure both in political, philosophical and rhetorical terms. So telling the truth doesn't just mean "the king is naked" at its simplest.
In fact, this book literally has a parallel content with the Will to Know book. Also, taking the subject from the Ancient Greek period and conducting a philosophical investigation of the act of telling the truth, Foucault conducted a Deconstructive study of the act of telling the truth, creating a connection between the use of the confession tactic, which is a method used by Christianity in the will to know, and psychoanalysis's use of it as a method of explaining human nature after a while. The general opinion of Europe accept that the gap between medieval Europe and the modern age, even though Foucault the state and the system power controllable, manageable, digestible ways and methods to be continued in the same way over to the priest to confess, keeping the path through a stroke on the field of psychoanalysis subconscious and the unconscious...
The act of telling the truth at this point, the subject's emerging self-Moral Re-creation of a verbal activity out for us as the effects of today's society and the transformations in this area, controllable, manageable, digestible gives information about the methods and revealing ways.
Read Foucault, have him read...
Why do people need lies or evasive answers?
What does it mean to tell the truth?
Why is what we call the right thing a risk?
why is a lie told like the truth?
On the basis of these questions, Foucault examines the act of "telling the truth" in depth in the philosophical, rhetorical and political fields. The transformation that the truth has undergone and the perceptual evolution of the truth (which has now become a lie) reveal the direct relationship of the transfiguration effect that it has finally reached with the transfiguration that man has fallen into.
Foucault identifies the act of telling the truth with parrhesia. Parrhesia means to tell the truth, the truth, in the simplest definition. The person who realizes this tells the truth directly, without resorting to any verbal art, innuendo, irony. Foucault interprets parrhesia at this point as frankness, free speech, honesty in telling the truth. Since there is no effort to convince the other person, he reveals that he has a very, very useful structure both in political, philosophical and rhetorical terms. So telling the truth doesn't just mean "the king is naked" at its simplest.
In fact, this book literally has a parallel content with the Will to Know book. Also, taking the subject from the Ancient Greek period and conducting a philosophical investigation of the act of telling the truth, Foucault conducted a Deconstructive study of the act of telling the truth, creating a connection between the use of the confession tactic, which is a method used by Christianity in the will to know, and psychoanalysis's use of it as a method of explaining human nature after a while. The general opinion of Europe accept that the gap between medieval Europe and the modern age, even though Foucault the state and the system power controllable, manageable, digestible ways and methods to be continued in the same way over to the priest to confess, keeping the path through a stroke on the field of psychoanalysis subconscious and the unconscious...
The act of telling the truth at this point, the subject's emerging self-Moral Re-creation of a verbal activity out for us as the effects of today's society and the transformations in this area, controllable, manageable, digestible gives information about the methods and revealing ways.
Read Foucault, have him read...
September 25, 2018
As far as I can tell, this book is identical to Discourse and Truth: The Problematization of Parrhesia, six lectures given by Michel Foucault at Berkeley, Oct-Nov. 1983, unless he gave six other lectures at Berkeley in the fall of 1983. The only difference I can see is who has packaged the thing and who is making money from it: Discourse and Truth is actually downloadable free as a PDF from various locations. This is some of Foucault’s last material delivered while he was alive, and so is significant simply as the furthest reach of that extraordinary mind’s elaborate weavings. It is a powerful, exciting work, in which Foucault introduces and explores the evolving meaning of “parrhesia.”
“To begin with, what is the general meaning of the word " parrhesia "? Etymologically,
"parrhesiazesthai" means " to say everything --from " pan " [πάυ] (everything) and " rhema "
[δήμα] [sic*] (that which is said). The one who uses parrhesia, the parrhesiastes, is someone who says everything he has in mind : he does not hide anything, but opens his heart and mind
completely to other people through his discourse. In parrhesia, the speaker is supposed to
give a complete and exact account of what he has in mind so that the audience is able to
comprehend exactly what the speaker thinks. The word " parrhesia " then, refers to a type of
relationship between the speaker and what he says. For in parrhesia, the speaker makes it
manifestly clear and obvious that what he says is his own opinion. And he does this by
avoiding any kind of rhetorical form which would veil what he thinks. Instead, the
parrhesiastes uses the most direct words and forms of expression he can find. Whereas
rhetoric provides the speaker with technical devices to help him prevail upon the minds of his
audience (regardless of the rhetorician's own opinion concerning what he says), in parrhesia,
the parrhesiastes acts on other people's mind by showing them as directly as possible what he
actually believes.” Michel Foucault, Discourse and Truth: The Problematization of Parrhesia, 2
* "rhema’ [δήμα]” should of course read “[ρήμα]”
“To begin with, what is the general meaning of the word " parrhesia "? Etymologically,
"parrhesiazesthai" means " to say everything --from " pan " [πάυ] (everything) and " rhema "
[δήμα] [sic*] (that which is said). The one who uses parrhesia, the parrhesiastes, is someone who says everything he has in mind : he does not hide anything, but opens his heart and mind
completely to other people through his discourse. In parrhesia, the speaker is supposed to
give a complete and exact account of what he has in mind so that the audience is able to
comprehend exactly what the speaker thinks. The word " parrhesia " then, refers to a type of
relationship between the speaker and what he says. For in parrhesia, the speaker makes it
manifestly clear and obvious that what he says is his own opinion. And he does this by
avoiding any kind of rhetorical form which would veil what he thinks. Instead, the
parrhesiastes uses the most direct words and forms of expression he can find. Whereas
rhetoric provides the speaker with technical devices to help him prevail upon the minds of his
audience (regardless of the rhetorician's own opinion concerning what he says), in parrhesia,
the parrhesiastes acts on other people's mind by showing them as directly as possible what he
actually believes.” Michel Foucault, Discourse and Truth: The Problematization of Parrhesia, 2
* "rhema’ [δήμα]” should of course read “[ρήμα]”
January 3, 2022
Transcription of six lectures given by Michel Focault about "Parrhesia," which is somewhere in the genealogy of our modern conception of free speech. Maybe. Best bit:
His examples left me uncertain, though. Most didn't seem to illuminate truth in a helpful way for democratic discussion or truth-to-power. It seemed more like people just sayin' stuff.
To criticize a friend or a sovereign is an act of parrhesia insofar as it is a duty to help a friend who does not recognize his wrongdoing, or insofar as it is a duty towards the city to help the king to better himself as a sovereign. Parrhesia is thus related to freedom and to duty.
To summarize the foregoing, parrhesia is a kind of verbal activity where the speaker has a specific relation to truth through frankness, a certain relationship to his own life through danger, a certain type of relation to himself or other people through criticism (self-criticism or criticism of other people), and a specific relation to moral law through freedom and duty. More precisely, parrhesia is a verbal activity in which a speaker expresses his personal relationship to truth, and risks his life because he recognizes truth-telling as a duty to improve or help other people (as well as himself). In parrhesia the speaker uses his freedom and chooses frankness instead of persuasion, truth instead of falsehood or silence, the risk of death instead of life and security, criticism instead of flattery, and moral duty instead of self-interest and moral apathy. That then, quite generally, is the positive meaning of the word parrhesia in most of the Greek texts where it occurs from the Fifth Century B.C. to the Fifth Century A.D. (19-20)
His examples left me uncertain, though. Most didn't seem to illuminate truth in a helpful way for democratic discussion or truth-to-power. It seemed more like people just sayin' stuff.
Read
April 29, 2026La parresia, l'attività di chi dice la verità, esaminata sagamente nel suo sviluppo quale cura di sé, allineamento tra pensare onesto e agire onesto. Nell'attuale parata di maschere che costituisce l'io, e sotto le quali non c'è nulla, nel gioco dei social e della politica, la parresia è ancora possibile?
March 17, 2018
kendi üzerine olan kısım daha güzel geldi İlk kısımdaki Roma ve Yunan medeniyetindeki kısım çok ayrıntı geldi
June 22, 2020
Parrhesia kelimesinin Yunan ve Roma yazınındaki yerine dair detaylı ders notları.
November 24, 2020
Brilliant history of parrhesia. Food for thought for anybody interested in free and fearless speech.
August 2, 2021
kesinlikle tavsiye ediyorum. Kitabın ilk yarısıni ezberden anlatabilirim. Parezyanin koşulları, parezyayi kullanmak ve parezyastest ile ilgili gözü kapalı sunum hazırlarım. Öyle güzel anlatmış.
February 7, 2022
He definitely didn’t read that whole thing out of the bullhorn.
May 2, 2022
le pongo 2 estrellas porque Foucault no alcanzó a analizar a Marco Aurelio :(
October 4, 2023
Spedizione velocissima grazie ai vantaggi di Goodreads Prime.
È davvero plug and play!
Peccato solo per i 4GB ( pochini :( )
È davvero plug and play!
Peccato solo per i 4GB ( pochini :( )
November 9, 2023
Amazing book. Foucault led us dig deep into the concepts like protest, confession and criticism. I think every dissident formations need to study on this work of Foucault.
September 18, 2024
Si mi alma fuera de oro, crees que me gustaría encontrar una de esas piedras con las que prueban el oro?
Read
May 29, 2026Helpful
February 10, 2016
Kitap, Foucault'nun California Üniversitesinde verdiği seminerlerdeki ders notlarından derlenerek oluşturulmuş. Kitapta "hakikati dürüstçe söyleme eylemi" yani "parrhesia" ile ilişkili düşüncelerin ortaya çıkışı ve parrhesia'nın sorunsallaştırılması sürecinin Yunan Felsefesindeki izleri sürülüyor, Yunan Edebiyatında parrhesia anlayışına ilişkin yaklaşımlar inceleniyor, parrhesianın kişisel ilişkiler, demokratik kurumlar ve bireyin kendini bilmesi ve kendini teşhisi ile ilişkisi tartışılıyor. Özellikle hakikat ile demoktarik kurumlar arasındaki ilişkinin tartışıldığı üçüncü bölümde sağlıklı bir demokrasi ve hakikati dile getirecek bireylerin varlığı arasındaki ilişkiye ilişkin tartışmalar çok güzel sunulmuş. En sevdiğim bölüm kendilik kaygısı ve hakikat arasındaki ilişkinin tartışıldığı dördüncü bölüm oldu. Kitapta Foucault ile harika bir düşünce yolculuğuna çıkıyorsunuz. Felsefi metinlerde sıkça problemli çevirilere rastlıyoruz, ama bu kitap sorunsuz, Kerem Eksen'in çevirisi harika olmuş. Kesinlikle okumanızı öneriyor, sizi kitaptan seçtiğim bir kaç alıntıyla baş başa bırakıyorum.
"..Hükümdarın kendisi parrhesiastes değildir, ama iyi yöneticinin özelliklerinden biri, parrhesia oyununu oynayabilmesidir."
"..Ve eleştiri hakkı olmazsa, bir hükümdar tarafından kullanılan iktidarın sınırı olmaz. Böylesi bir sınırsız iktidar, İokaste tarafından "delilerle deliliklerine buluşmak" olarak nitelendirilir. Zira sınırsız iktidar delilikle doğrudan bağlantılıdır."
"..Ve amathia hakkında Platon şöyle der: "Cehalet insanlar için kötü olan herşeyin kök saldığı, filizlendiği ve koparanların ağzına acı bir tat bırakan meyvelerin yetiştiği topraktır."
"..Kendi özel işlerinle ilgili tavsiye alman sözkonusu olduğunda zekaca senden üstün insanların peşine düşersin ama devlet işleri üzerine düşündüğün zaman bu tür insanlara karşı güvensiz ve hoşnutsuz bir tutum takınır ve onlar yerine bu platformda önüne gelen hatiplerin en ahlaksızıyla arkadaş olursun; ve sarhoşların ayıklardan, akılsızların bilgelerden ve halkın parasını sağa sola dağıtanların kamusal hizmetlerini kendi cebinden karşılayanlardan daha iyi birer halk dostu olduğunu söylersin. Öyle ki bizler, bu tür akıl hocalarından faydalanan bir devletin daha iyi mertebelere geleceğini düşünen insanların bulunmasını pekala hayretle karşılayabiliriz.(İsokrates'ten alıntı)"
"..Zira cesur kişinin cesuru sevmesi bir anlamda doğaldır; oysa ödlekler cesurları şüpheyle süzer ve düşmanları gibi görüp onlardan nefret ederlerken, alçakları hoş karşılayıp severler. Bu nedenle birinci gruba göre hakikat ve açıksözlülük dünyadaki en güzel şeyken, diğer grup yaltaklanmayı ve düzenbazlığı yüceltir. İkinci gruptakiler girdikleri ilişkilerde karşısındakinin gönlünü hoş tumaya çabalayanlara büyük bir istekle kulak verirlerken, birinci gruptakiler hakikati önemseyenleri kaale alırlar. (Dio'dan alıntı)"
"..Hükümdarın kendisi parrhesiastes değildir, ama iyi yöneticinin özelliklerinden biri, parrhesia oyununu oynayabilmesidir."
"..Ve eleştiri hakkı olmazsa, bir hükümdar tarafından kullanılan iktidarın sınırı olmaz. Böylesi bir sınırsız iktidar, İokaste tarafından "delilerle deliliklerine buluşmak" olarak nitelendirilir. Zira sınırsız iktidar delilikle doğrudan bağlantılıdır."
"..Ve amathia hakkında Platon şöyle der: "Cehalet insanlar için kötü olan herşeyin kök saldığı, filizlendiği ve koparanların ağzına acı bir tat bırakan meyvelerin yetiştiği topraktır."
"..Kendi özel işlerinle ilgili tavsiye alman sözkonusu olduğunda zekaca senden üstün insanların peşine düşersin ama devlet işleri üzerine düşündüğün zaman bu tür insanlara karşı güvensiz ve hoşnutsuz bir tutum takınır ve onlar yerine bu platformda önüne gelen hatiplerin en ahlaksızıyla arkadaş olursun; ve sarhoşların ayıklardan, akılsızların bilgelerden ve halkın parasını sağa sola dağıtanların kamusal hizmetlerini kendi cebinden karşılayanlardan daha iyi birer halk dostu olduğunu söylersin. Öyle ki bizler, bu tür akıl hocalarından faydalanan bir devletin daha iyi mertebelere geleceğini düşünen insanların bulunmasını pekala hayretle karşılayabiliriz.(İsokrates'ten alıntı)"
"..Zira cesur kişinin cesuru sevmesi bir anlamda doğaldır; oysa ödlekler cesurları şüpheyle süzer ve düşmanları gibi görüp onlardan nefret ederlerken, alçakları hoş karşılayıp severler. Bu nedenle birinci gruba göre hakikat ve açıksözlülük dünyadaki en güzel şeyken, diğer grup yaltaklanmayı ve düzenbazlığı yüceltir. İkinci gruptakiler girdikleri ilişkilerde karşısındakinin gönlünü hoş tumaya çabalayanlara büyük bir istekle kulak verirlerken, birinci gruptakiler hakikati önemseyenleri kaale alırlar. (Dio'dan alıntı)"
May 21, 2014
"Fearless Speech" takes the form of a series of lectures to examine the identity and role of the truth-teller, using examples from classical drama and philosophy. Using this problematic identity as a starting point, Foucault delves into the patterns by which a neutral act or identity, like truth telling, becomes socially complex and moralized.
The book is a nearly-literal transcription of Foucault's lectures and wasn't edited by him, so expect to wade through long, conversational examples to get at the gems of revelation.
The book is a nearly-literal transcription of Foucault's lectures and wasn't edited by him, so expect to wade through long, conversational examples to get at the gems of revelation.
May 9, 2012
i learned a good amount about free speech and even more about democracy. but thats not the main focus of this very academic text. unless you want to learn how ancient greeks approached truth speakers, this will be a waste of time
November 7, 2013
Michel Foucault's lectures on the evolution of the meaning of "parrhesia" - frankness in telling the truth. Interesting.
August 1, 2015
understanding of "parrhesia" and ways of actualisation during Ancient Greek
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews