著者
兼子 盾夫
出版者
湘南工科大学
雑誌
相模工業大学紀要 = Memoirs of Sagami Institute of Technology (ISSN:02860910)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.13, no.1, pp.81-90, 1979-03-31

"Crito", one of the most early works of Plato, has neither so elaborate a dialogue, which often includes rather paradoxical statements such as "first and greatest of all evils is to do wrongs and escape punishment (Gorg. 479D)" and "no one willingly goes to meet evil (Prot. 358)", nor a complicated metaphysics, e.g. the theory of ideas in the later works. Therefore it is easy to understand and, as it were, monophonic. It's subtitle is "How should a man behave?" That is to say, "What is the just behaviour for a citizen?". Generally speaking, and so thought sophists, to do justice then was to be obedient to the "laws" νομοι which were in turn made as just. Therefore, if the grounds of them are relative, then the meaning of "justice" δικαιοσυνη has also to be varied. On the contrary, Socrates held the view that the meaning of it must not be changed, according to various situations. For what is meant by "justice" to him was as follows : "justice in itself is the best thing for the soul itself" αυτο δικαιοσυυην αυτη ψνχη αριστον ηυρομεν (Resp. 612B). To him justice was, per se, the best thing for one's soul itself and laws were "norms" or "Sollen", which called the agent for the practice of absolute values. While to many sophists laws were nothing but the "conventions" which were artificially made by people, to Socrates they were "norms" by which people could make their souls better. Therefore, it was not his sense for consistency in laws but his respect for laws' absolute values that made Socrates reject Crito's earnest persuasion to get out of prison and away from Athens. From first to last Socrates insisted on his obeying the laws. But at that time he was far from such a stubborn observer of the laws as "Cleon" in Sophocles' "Antigone". His coherency came from the theoretical grounds as stated above. This paper attempts firstly to shed light upon the grounds of Socrates' ideas such as "law", "the state" and "justice" in the historical background, and secondly to compare them, par excellence, "Socratic" notions with those of his contemporary sophists. The ultimate purpose of this paper is to make clear the phases of Socrates' ideas of "law" and "justice" in his philosophy."Crito", one of the most early works of Plato, has neither so elaborate a dialogue, which often includes rather paradoxical statements such as "first and greatest of all evils is to do wrongs and escape punishment (Gorg. 479D)" and "no one willingly goes to meet evil (Prot. 358)", nor a complicated metaphysics, e.g. the theory of ideas in the later works. Therefore it is easy to understand and, as it were, monophonic. It's subtitle is "How should a man behave?" That is to say, "What is the just behaviour for a citizen?". Generally speaking, and so thought sophists, to do justice then was to be obedient to the "laws" νομοι which were in turn made as just. Therefore, if the grounds of them are relative, then the meaning of "justice" δικαιοσυνη has also to be varied. On the contrary, Socrates held the view that the meaning of it must not be changed, according to various situations. For what is meant by "justice" to him was as follows : "justice in itself is the best thing for the soul itself" αυτο δικαιοσυυην αυτη ψνχη αριστον ηυρομεν (Resp. 612B). To him justice was, per se, the best thing for one's soul itself and laws were "norms" or "Sollen", which called the agent for the practice of absolute values. While to many sophists laws were nothing but the "conventions" which were artificially made by people, to Socrates they were "norms" by which people could make their souls better. Therefore, it was not his sense for consistency in laws but his respect for laws' absolute values that made Socrates reject Crito's earnest persuasion to get out of prison and away from Athens. From first to last Socrates insisted on his obeying the laws. But at that time he was far from such a stubborn observer of the laws as "Cleon" in Sophocles' "Antigone". His coherency came from the theoretical grounds as stated above. This paper attempts firstly to shed light upon the grounds of Socrates' ideas such as "law", "the state" and "justice" in the historical background, and secondly to compare them, par excellence, "Socratic" notions with those of his contemporary sophists. The ultimate purpose of this paper is to make clear the phases of Socrates' ideas of "law" and "justice" in his philosophy.
著者
兼子 盾夫
出版者
湘南工科大学
雑誌
相模工業大学紀要 = Memoirs of Sagami Institute of Technology (ISSN:02860910)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.15, no.1, pp.69-78, 1980-07-31

1. Purpose The point of this essay lies in the clarification of a characteristic of Japanese tense which is found in the past form of verbs, by contrasting with that of English. 2. Investigation Ex. A Imagine a scene in which we have been waiting for a long time for a train in the distance on a platform and that the train just came into our sight far down the rail road tracks. We say in that case "Densha-ga kita." If the train has already rushed into the station, then we would be quite right in saying it in the perfect tense, i.e. "The train has come." For ".... ta "or" .... shita" means the perfect tense as well as the past one in modern Japanese. But why do we say "Densha-ga kita.", when we saw the train coming up to us. It is not the case that the train has reached the platform. It is the case that "the train is just coming to us." Before answering this question, let's take another example : Ex. B "Ashita kaigi-ga atta." is gramatically correct, although it sounds somehow unusual. It simply means that the speaker recollected that the next day he would have a meeting. As the subject (in this case, "I" the speaker) is usually omitted in a Japanese sentence, the time of speaker's awareness (past time) is mixed up with the time of act (present time in the Ex. A or future Ex. B) of the substantial subject. Therefore the first point of my investigation is this : In Japanese the speaker's view point is not necessarily fixed on what is called present time, while in English it is. Often it shifts from the present time to a certain point in the past and from there the events or acts in the past are surveyed in different time orders. The second point of my investigation is concerned with the rule of sequence of tenses. In English, as we see in the above Example B, there is sequence of tenses : "I recalled that the next day we were going to have a meeting.", while in Japanese there is not : "Watashi-wa kaigi-ga arunowo omoidashita." Hitherto we seem to have believed that there is not a definite rule of sequence of tenses in Japanese grammar. But is it a fact? Compare the following pairs : Ex. C-1. "Kare-wa orokadearu (or orokana) jibun-wo hajita." "He was ashamed of being foolish." 2. "Kare-wa orokadatta jibun-wo hajita." "He was ashamed of having been foolish." If I say "Kare-wa orokadearu jibun-wo hajita.", then I mean to emphasize the simultaneity of his foolishness with his act of being ashamed. On the other hand, if I say "Kare-wa orokadeatta jibunwo hajita.", then I simply mean that at a certain point in the past he was ashamed of his former foolish attitude. But as for Ex. C-2,we can also say, "He was ashamed of being foolish." In this case, however, there will be a slight difference between Ex. C-1 and 2 : That is, in Ex. C-1 the speaker's viewpoint shifts from the present time to the cartain past time at which the referred act happened, and sees it simultaneous. On the other hand, in Ex. C-2 the speaker's viewpoint is fixed on the present time. So both events (i.e. "getting ashamed" and "being foolish") were equally looked back upon from the present time as being in the past. The sentence containing ".... aru .... ta" shows the stress on simultaneity of the ".... aru" act, while ".... atta.... ta" either (usually) pluperfect, or simple description of the past events. Throughout these two investigations, I should like to point out a characteristic of Japanese tense, which is more definitely affected by the time of speaker's awareness than that of English.1. Purpose The point of this essay lies in the clarification of a characteristic of Japanese tense which is found in the past form of verbs, by contrasting with that of English. 2. Investigation Ex. A Imagine a scene in which we have been waiting for a long time for a train in the distance on a platform and that the train just came into our sight far down the rail road tracks. We say in that case "Densha-ga kita." If the train has already rushed into the station, then we would be quite right in saying it in the perfect tense, i.e. "The train has come." For ".... ta "or" .... shita" means the perfect tense as well as the past one in modern Japanese. But why do we say "Densha-ga kita.", when we saw the train coming up to us. It is not the case that the train has reached the platform. It is the case that "the train is just coming to us." Before answering this question, let's take another example : Ex. B "Ashita kaigi-ga atta." is gramatically correct, although it sounds somehow unusual. It simply means that the speaker recollected that the next day he would have a meeting. As the subject (in this case, "I" the speaker) is usually omitted in a Japanese sentence, the time of speaker's awareness (past time) is mixed up with the time of act (present time in the Ex. A or future Ex. B) of the substantial subject. Therefore the first point of my investigation is this : In Japanese the speaker's view point is not necessarily fixed on what is called present time, while in English it is. Often it shifts from the present time to a certain point in the past and from there the events or acts in the past are surveyed in different time orders. The second point of my investigation is concerned with the rule of sequence of tenses. In English, as we see in the above Example B, there is sequence of tenses : "I recalled that the next day we were going to have a meeting.", while in Japanese there is not : "Watashi-wa kaigi-ga arunowo omoidashita." Hitherto we seem to have believed that there is not a definite rule of sequence of tenses in Japanese grammar. But is it a fact? Compare the following pairs : Ex. C-1. "Kare-wa orokadearu (or orokana) jibun-wo hajita." "He was ashamed of being foolish." 2. "Kare-wa orokadatta jibun-wo hajita." "He was ashamed of having been foolish." If I say "Kare-wa orokadearu jibun-wo hajita.", then I mean to emphasize the simultaneity of his foolishness with his act of being ashamed. On the other hand, if I say "Kare-wa orokadeatta jibunwo hajita.", then I simply mean that at a certain point in the past he was ashamed of his former foolish attitude. But as for Ex. C-2,we can also say, "He was ashamed of being foolish." In this case, however, there will be a slight difference between Ex. C-1 and 2 : That is, in Ex. C-1 the speaker's viewpoint shifts from the present time to the cartain past time at which the referred act happened, and sees it simultaneous. On the other hand, in Ex. C-2 the speaker's viewpoint is fixed on the present time. So both events (i.e. "getting ashamed" and "being foolish") were equally looked back upon from the present time as being in the past. The sentence containing ".... aru .... ta" shows the stress on simultaneity of the ".... aru" act, while ".... atta.... ta" either (usually) pluperfect, or simple description of the past events. Throughout these two investigations, I should like to point out a characteristic of Japanese tense, which is more definitely affected by the time of speaker's awareness than that of English.
著者
河野 章
出版者
湘南工科大学
雑誌
相模工業大学紀要 = Memoirs of Sagami Institute of Technology (ISSN:02860910)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.15, no.1, pp.35-43, 1980-07-31

この論文は, 本学名誉教授, 中原冨蔵先生の退職を記念して, 著者が1974年10月に, 本紀要に寄稿したものである。後日, Hilfssatz 4の証明に不完全な所あるを見出し, 提出を中止した。この命題における存在証明は, 簡単に考えて居たが, 意外と難問であった。今夏, 公約乗数, 非公約乗数分解の新らしい概念を定義することにより, 簡明な, 美しい証明を得た。この間, 中原先生も, 早や泉下の人となった。思えば, 先生とは, 仏教における禅の研究を通じて知り合うこととはなった。晩年の先生は, まさしく, 禅師そのものであった。ここに瞑して, 御冥福を祈る。ああ, 諸行無常。