著者
村上 正治
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.51, pp.31-44, 2003

In the Philebus, Socrates (Soc) attempts to attribute a true-false distinction to pleasure and pain On the contrary, Protarchus (Prt) insists that pleasure can never be false My aim in this paper is to make cleai what supposition underlies Prt' insistence, and how Soc undermines it I would like to show Soc' view about pleasure and pain Soc introduces an analogy between belief and pleasure, and distinguishes the mental process (believing that, being pleased that)from its content (which can be described in the that-clause) Most interpreters suppose that Soc tries to prove the falsity of being pleased depending on the falsity of its content, just as one believes p falsely when p is false However, they fail to see that Prt denies such attribution of falsity to pleasure Prt thinks that the actuality of being pleased is always true for the person in pleasure, even if the content with which one is pleased is false All Soc must prove is that one can be pleased falsely in spite of the actuality of being pleased The Book-Simile explains how belief and pleasure are differently formed in our mind When we perceive and judge something unknown, we form a belief about it We believe p in judging something If p is false, the falsity is equally, not derivatively, attributed to believing p, since we fail to judge something correctly On the other hand, we do not make a direct judgment about something, concerning whether it is pleasure or pain Once we judge something and believe p about it, we are pleased or suffer with a mental image based on judgment or belief How are pleasure and pain related with our judgment or belief? First, Soc takes the physiological form of pleasure and pain when we are thirsty (in the state of deficiency), we suffer, then, when we are drinking (getting satisfied), we are pleased This form of pleasure and pain reveals their basic features 1 Pleasure and pain function as the indications of satisfaction and deficiency in our body 11 The occurrence of pleasure and pain contributes to the restoration of our body's nature Next, anticipatory pleasure explains more clearly the occurrence of pleasure and pain When we are now suffering from deficiency in our body, and also in anticipation of what we think is satisfaction, we are already pleased with the anticipation although we are not yet satisfied The occurrence of pleasure depends on what we think is satisfaction So, if our cognition about satisfaction is false, that is, what we think is satisfaction does not really satisfy our deficiency, then, our pleasure which arose from our false cognition is false in spite of our being pleased, because pleasure and pain are supposed to contribute to the restoration of our body's nature Soc thinks that pleasure and pain are not directly given, but arise from our cognitive state about satisfaction, deficiency, and also our nature Therefore, the occurrence of pleasure and pain can be modified through revising our cognitive state about them
著者
村上 正治
出版者
Showa University Dental Society
雑誌
昭和歯学会雑誌 (ISSN:0285922X)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.13, no.2, pp.148-167, 1993
被引用文献数
6

極小未熟児・超未熟児乳歯の形態学的特徴を客観的に明らかにすることを目的として, 本研究を行った.対象は本学小児歯科外来で管理中の, 出生体重1500g未満の小児のうち, 現在全身状態に問題のない小児50名である.資料は, これら対象児が平均4歳0か月になった時点より得られた口腔内診査記録・口腔内写真, 歯列石膏模型および交換期により脱落した抜去歯である.その結果以下の結論を得た. (1) 模型分析より, 歯の大きさの平均は歯冠近遠心幅径において, 全歯で標準値の-1SD前後小さく, 歯冠唇 (頬) 舌径では, ほぼ全歯で標準値の-1SD以内の小さい値を示した. (2) 形態異常については, 癒合歯が健常児にくらべ高い発現率 (14.0%) を示した・ (3) エナメル質形成不全は, 50名中41名に認められ, その発現率は, 82.0%であった. (4) エナメル質形成不全における減形成の発現部位は, 上顎前歯部に多く, 石灰化不全は上下顎の臼歯部に多く認められた. (5) 歯の平均微小硬度数は, エナメル質で308.4, 象牙質で42.9で, ともに健常児にくらべ低い値を示した・ (6) 光顕的観察では, エナメル質新産線の発現位置が健全歯に比較して切端寄りに認められ・Retzius線が明瞭に認められた.以上の結果から極小・超未熟児の乳歯の大きさは小さく・形態異常・形成異常が多く, 歯質の硬さは低く, 石灰化不良な状態であることが示唆された.