著者

山川 偉也

出版者

桃山学院大学

雑誌

桃山学院大学総合研究所紀要 (ISSN:1346048X)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.33, no.1, pp.129-168, 2007-06-20

---

This article first takes a critical look at Aristotle's definition of "human being" as a "politicalanimal" (πολιτικον ζψον), as noted in his Politics 1253a2_3. Following that is a study of the correlation between Aristotle's and Diogenes' views of human beings. The author initially provokes the reader's attention to the fact that the Aristotelian term "political animal" originally had two contexts. First, according to Historia Animalium, the political animal is a species of "gregarious animal" (τα αγελαια). Therefore, it is not the case that human being is a unique species of political animal; a large group of different species described as political animals does indeed exist. Aristotle states, for example, that various forms of political animal, such as "man," "bee," "wasp," "ant" and "crane," each has a common property: the devotion to some common good in its political community. On the other hand, in Politics 1252a1_7, Aristotle identifies "the so-called city-state" (η καλουμενη πολιζ) as a "political community" (η κοινωνια η πολιτικη)_According to Historia Animalium, the human being is only one species of political animals. But, according to Politics 1253a 7_8, the human being is a "political animal" in a greater measure than bees or any other "gregarious animal". The author insists that it was precisely in this context that Aristotle needed to specify human beings by a geometrical proportion: `God :Man=Man : Animal.' The author analyzes thoroughly Aristotle's view of human being and discloses the fact that Aristotle's theory of the "natural slave" conflicts with his own definition of"man." In this way the author divulges the invisible aspects of Aristotle's political thought. The author then concentrates to clarify the meaning of Diogenes' mission "paracharaxon to nomisma" ("deface the currency") and to highlight the significance of his protest against the Aristotelian definition of human beings: God : Man=Man : Animal Thus, the author proceeds to deface the current interpretations of Diogenes of Sinope's conception of justice and cosmopolitanism, which has been regarded by scholars as almost "nothing"or at least as a "shadowy ancestor" of the cosmopolitanism of Zeno of Citium. In place of these interpretations the author is submitting another version of cosmopolitanism that is to be regarded as a defaced version of Alexander's. Following the Sinopean dog philosopher's mission"παραχαραξον το νομισμα" ("deface the currency"), the author is defacing contemporary views on Diogenes of Sinope's "character" (χαρακτηρ)_