1 0 0 0 OA それから? : 『クレイトフォン』とその先への問い
- 著者
- 三嶋 輝夫
- 出版者
- 日本西洋古典学会
- 雑誌
- 西洋古典学研究 (ISSN:04479114)
- 巻号頁・発行日
- vol.52, pp.1-12, 2004-03-05 (Released:2017-05-23)
In the following, I would like first to clarify what Cleitophon actually demands from Socrates in the eponymous dialogue Second, I sketch how Socrates is depicted in it Third, I examine the legitimacy of Cleitophon's demands and, finally, take up the vexed problem of authorship 1 What does Cleitophon demand from Socrates? Cleitophon expresses his demands in various forms Though Cleitophon does not articulate the nature of their relationship, we could take him to demand two things, namely (i) to go beyond a mere exhortation and grasp the matter fully (cf 408d3-4), that is, to define what justice is by giving its peculiar ergon (cf 409b6-c1), and (ii) to give a concrete advice concerning the next step which corresponds to the nature of Cleitophon's soul (cf 410d1-5) 2 What features does Socrates have in the Cleitophon ? Socrates here should be differentiated into two figures the Socrates in the frame dialogue, who directly speaks to Cleitophon (Sc1), and the Socrates indirectly portrayed by Cleitophon (Sc2) Most of the thoughts put into the mouth of Sc2, except for Polemarchus' thesis, can be regarded as basically Platonic, whereas Sc1 shows both Platonic and non-Platonic traits This strongly suggests that the main target of the author is the Socrates of Plato, giving some hint as to the authorship 3 Is the demand made by Cleitophon legitimate? On this, there seem to be three options A Cleitophon's demand (CD) is legitimate because he rightly sees the dangerous consequence of being merely protreptic and leaving the young at a loss without giving any positive guidance B1 CD is illegitimate because he understands neither Socrates' role as a "midwife" nor the meaning of philosophizing in a Socratic sense B2 CD is illegitimate because Socrates actually gave a definite practical principle, namely the absolute denial of doing injustice (adikein) B1 appears to be convincing, but in view of the similar demand made by Glaukon in the Republic II, it is highly likely that Plato himself felt some uneasiness about the aporetic ending of the first book, which undoubtedly stands in close connection with the Cleitophon B2 deserves serious consideration Still, it seems to me that B2 cannot satisfy CD either, so long as Socrates offers no clear definition of injustice itself From all this, I am inclined to agree with A 4 Is the Cleitophon Plato's work ? Apart from other grounds for doubt, the problem of wrongly ascribing the "Harming enemies and helping friends" principle to Socrates still remains the fatal stumbling block to claims of authenticity The only possible way to avoid this would be to regard the Cleitophon as a draft conceived before the Republic I, which seems to me very improbable It is more plausible to assume, as some scholars have already done, that somebody other than Plato wrote the Cleitophon after reading the Republic I, and that Plato, having found Cleitophon's demand to be justified, then wrote the rest of the Republic
1 0 0 0 倫理学の文化形態論的研究
哲学的概念としての「形態」に関する問題は古くて新しい。形態という概念は、内容に対して事物の表面に漂う外面的なものを指す一方で、「かたち」という和語からして、かたいもの・確固とした真理という含意もある。西洋思想では、プラトンのイデア、アリストテレスのエイドスなど、古代ギリシアに遡りうる概念である。近世以降、機械論や還元主義を特徴とする自然科学の立場から、形態概念は排斥されがちであったが、美的形態や有機体の形態を扱うカントの『判断力批判』は、近代思想における形態論の先行例といえる。その形態論的発想は、むしろ、現代では、最先端の科学において見出される。構造主義生物学、ゲシュタルト心理学、認知心理学、量子論、熱力学(シナジェティクス)、複雑システムなどの多領域において、形態論の復権の動きが認められ、自然科学と人文科学との積極的対話の可能性が開かれつつある。倫理学においても、この観点から新たに検討されねばならないだろう。本研究では、形態という概念を手がかりに、人文科学としての倫理学の独自の意義と使命とを問い直すことを意図した。倫理思想史上の諸学説を形態論の観点から再考しつつ、応用倫理学や規範学という狭い領域に限定せず、現代の科学論における形態論復権の動向に対応する新しい倫理学の可能性を探究した。(1)古代ギリシア思想(2)古代ユダヤ思想(3)中世キリスト教思想(4)カントの形態論(5)近代思想(ドイツ観念論・イギリス経験論)(6)現代思想(7)科学論(8)藝術・文藝(9)日本近代思想(和辻哲郎・西田幾多郎・三木清)。以上の分野を専門とする研究分担・協力者を(若手研究者の研究発展にも寄与すべく特に留意)組織し、毎年度数回の全体会議において、各々の個別研究をふまえた対話・討論を行った。以上の研究成果は、最終年度に論集(成果報告書)としてまとめられたほか、別項11にある各員の業績を通じて公表された。