- 著者
-
東谷 優希
- 出版者
- 日本倫理学会
- 雑誌
- 倫理学年報 (ISSN:24344699)
- 巻号頁・発行日
- vol.69, pp.129-143, 2020 (Released:2021-05-24)
About 60 years ago, in his essay “Socrates, Callicles, and Nietzsche,” E. R. Dodds argued that Nietzsche’s thought had been inspired by that of Callicles in
Plato’s Gorgias, i. e. Nietzsche was the heir to Callicles. Although this claim has
had a strong influence up to the present, it seems to remain controversial. This
article aims to refute Dodds’ view by examining his arguments and to demonstrate
that Nietzsche was by no means the ‘Calliclean.’
In presenting his claim, Dodds made four arguments:(a)Nietzsche’s “blonde
beast” is equal to Callicles’ “lion.”(b)Both uphold “φύσις[physis]against νόμος
[nomos].”(c)Nietzsche says, like Callicles, what nomos prescribes is a morality
of slaves. Nietzsche’s men of resentment “are precisely” Callicles’ “many,” or the
weak who preach equality.(d)As Callicles has his own conception of the morality
which suits the master class, so Nietzsche claims the necessity of a morality
of masters “beyond good and evil,” or within good and bad: Nietzsche defines
his “will to power” as “Haben- und Mehrhabenwollen[will to have and have
more],” which is inspired by Calliclean term “πλεονεξία[desire to have more].”
For Callicles, “τὰς ἐπιθυμίας μὴ κολάζειν[not to suppress desires]” is normative, so
is to live in accordance with the “will to power” for Nietzsche.
Each of these, however, is based merely on word similarities. Systematical examination
of the contexts in which Nietzsche used Calliclean terms will lead to
the completely opposite conclusions: The “blonde beast” differs from Callicles’
“lion,” and Nietzsche does not uphold physis. According to Nietzsche, what nomos
prescribes is a morality of masters. Callicles’ “many” are not men of resentment
in Nietzsche’s terminology because the latter who preach slave morality
are also in master morality. Nietzsche’s master and slave morality are thus not
contradictory concepts; both are to be criticized for him. Further, Nietzsche
raised “will to power” not as the norm but as the “primordial fact of all history,”
the object of accusation.
In conclusion, Nietzsche’s thought is not compatible with that of Callicles: Nietzsche
was by no means the ‘Calliclean.’