著者

奥田 和夫

出版者

日本西洋古典学会

雑誌

西洋古典學研究 (ISSN:04479114)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.59, pp.22-33, 2011-03-23

---

In the Laws the philosopher-king argued in the Republic does not appear explicitly. So it has been maintained that Plato abandoned the idea of the philosopher-king because of experiences in Syracuse or change in metaphysical thought. But some insist that the Nocturnal Council and its systems reflect the idea of the philosopher-king. This is correct, I think. And the philosophical theology in Book X is said to be the prologue to all laws. I believe that the work is a product of the idea of the philosopher-king. In this paper I argue that there is a strong possibility that Plato has eagerness for its realization in the future and does not exchange it for thought of rule of law. Points of the argument: 1. In the Laws Plato evidently abstains from philosophical discourses. 2. Plato gives a term of legislator in place of philosopher in our text (708E-712B). 3. It is significant that a main political ability of a philosopher (or a philosopher-king) is legislation. 4. The text 709E-711D ('the young tyrant') appears to be intended to tell us that the easiest and speediest way to realize the philosopher-king is cooperation of a philosopher and a tyrant. 5. The text 711D-712A ('god-like eros in great political power') appears to be intended to tell us that eros is the philosopher-king in the meaning of the Republic, as eros is taken to be a representative of a philosopher's mind. 6. Plato has eagerness for the realization of the philosopher-king in the future and does not only hold the idea. For 2 above there is no direct support in the text, but when the legislator is said to be 'axios epainou' (710C8), 'akros' (710D7), and 'alethes nomothetes' (710E8) in conjunction with 'the young tyrant' (709E-711D), we should consider the meanings of Plato's attribution of these terms to the legislator.

著者

奥田 和夫

出版者

法政大学文学部

雑誌

法政大学文学部紀要 = Bulletin of the Faculty of Letters, Hosei University (ISSN:04412486)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.78, pp.1-10, 2019-03-18

---

E. Lask (1875-1915) said that Plato’s theory of Forms is one of two worlds theories. This opinion has been accepting vulgarly. In this note I observe that Plato certainly distinguishes aistheta(sensibles, sensible world) from noeta (intelligibles, intelligible world), but he does not tell they are on an equality with each other nor the former is independent of the latter.We read in the Symposium, the Phaedo, and the Republic that the Forms themselves do not appear as such to us but always are identical with themselves and the objects of our nous (intelligence) as “being of X”. The simile of the line of the Republic VI shows that each segment of the line is partitioned by the degrees of clearness and truth of cognition of the soul. So the simile is mainly intended to tell cognitive range of the soul rather than the kinds of objects. Generally speaking, the same object may appear severally according to the degrees of the line.A learner who imagines that the theory of Forms is one of two worlds theories at initial stage of the study can hardly emerge from incorrigible misunderstandings about the Forms.