『プロタゴラス』篇に於ける行為と副詞の問題
スポンサーリンク
概要
- 論文の詳細を見る
This paper deals with the problems of evaluation of actions and the knowledge which is involved in it. I think these problems occupy the central part of Plato's philosophy of action, and that his Protagoras which is the main concern of this paper is to be read in that context, i.e. in the context of the philosophy of action. The aim of this paper is to show how this dialogue is to be read in that context and why. One of the results obtained here is that at 351b-360e, not just the wel-lknown and problematic, hedonistic view of evaluating actions and the knowledge that involves, but, at the same time, another view of the same issues, totally different from that hedonistic view which has, unfortunately, been neglected until now, is also in question. In order to show that, we need to investigate Plato's terminology for evaluating actions, which, I think, is extremely refined, especially his use of 'virtue adverbs'(e.g. ευ, κακωζ, δικαιω&b.sigmav;, αδικω&b.sigmav;, σωφρονω&b.sigmav;,b.sigmav αφρονω&b.sigmav;) and other adverbs and adverbials. The Protagoras is considered to be a unique dialogue in which the problems of adverbs are extensively dealt with. It is crucial to our enterprise to see what the problems are. They are shown rather negatively, at 332a-e and at 333b-d. I will clarify, however, that at 333b-d the question is how ev in ευ πραττειν, ευ φρονειν, and ευ βουλευεσθαι is to be understood. And indeed Socrates does make an issue of ευ πραττειν and ευ ζην repeatedly in this dialogue(313a-314c, 333b-d, 344c-345b, 351b-360e) , every time in connection with a certain kind of knowledge : the knowledge of the knowledge seller(i.e. the sophist)at 313a-314c, Protagoras' ευβουλια at 333b-d, the knowledge of an expert at 344c-345b, and the knowledge of good and bad at 351b-360e. It would be possible, I believe, to take this as a hint of how the dialogue should be read. I think the real issues in these passages are how ευ πραττειν(and ευ ζην) is to be understood and what the knowledge that is involved in it really is. At 351b-360e, ευ ζην and &b.sigmav;ηδεω&b.sigmav; ζην come into question, as does 'knowledge'. But what knowledge? I argue that the knowledge in question at 358a -360e is entirely different from that which is in question at 351b-357e, i.e. knowledge as a technique of measuring pleasure and pain. This knowledge, which deals with the pleasures and pains accompanying actions or resulting from them, in itself has nothing to do with evaluation of actions. The knowledge which is in question at 358a-360e is just that of evaluating actions themselves.
- 日本西洋古典学会の論文
- 1992-03-26
日本西洋古典学会 | 論文
- STRAUSS, BARRY S., Athens after the Peloponnesian War. Class, Faction and Policy, 403-386 B. C., Pp.xiii+191, Croom Helm, London & Sydney, 1986., £19.95.
- クセルクセスの遠征軍の規模
- FURLEY, D., The Greek Cosmologists, Vol.1 : The Formation of the Atomic Theory and its Earliest Critics., Pp.viii+220, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987., £25.
- SWEENY, Leo, Infinity in the Presocratics. A Bibliographical and Philosophical Study., Pp. xxxiii+222, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 1972.
- COLE, Th., Demoeritus and the Sources of Greek Anthropology. (Philological Monographs, XXV.), Pp. xii+225 S., Ohio, Western Reserve Univ. Press, 1967, $ 6.50