プラトン『ティマイオス』(49b-50b)における流転と言語
スポンサーリンク
概要
- 論文の詳細を見る
In Timaeus 49b-50b, Plato presents the difficulty of describing the phenomenal world in flux. H. Cherniss called this place "A Much Misread Passage" about 50 years ago, and presented an alternative interpretation to a traditional position. Right after presenting the difficulty, Timaeus gives us "the safest answer". Traditional (T) and Alternative (A) interpreters have disagreed on how to read this "safest answer". T interpreters (Cornford, Zeyl et al.) read the core sentence (αει ο καθορωμεν αλλοτε αλλη γιγνομενον, ωζ πυρ, μη τουτο αλλα το τοιουτον εκαστοτε προσαγορευειν πυρ) of the safest answer as follows: [it is the safest] to characterize that, i.e. fire, not as "this", but each time as "such". On the other hand, A interpreters (Cherniss, Lee et al.) read it as follows: [it is the safest] to characterize not this, but what on each occasion is such, as "fire". According to T interpreters, Plato demands that we must not call the phenomenal fire "this" (τουτο) identically, but rather "such" (τοιουτον) predicatively. In this interpretation, we are not prohibited from calling the phenomenon "fire" or "water". Plato is just requiring us not to regard the phenomenal fire as a substantial thing to which we can refer "this", but as an insubstantial thing to which we can only refer as "such". On the other hand, A interpreters argue, Plato demands that we must not call this phenomenon "fire" but call such and such a character "fire". In this interpretation, Plato says that the proper referent of the word "fire" is not this transient phenomenal fire but such and such a character (the character of fire, in this case). However, each side has its difficulties. As to the construal of the Greek, the T reading is not so natural as the A reading. On the other hand, in the A interpretation, we have four items in Timaeus' ontology, whereas he explicitly declares that there are only three items (Forms, Form copies, receptacle). Thus, it has been a challenge for A interpreters to construe what the fourth item (such and such a character) is. In the face of these difficulties, I propose to take the A reading of the safest answer, but to interpret the passage differently from A interpreters. So far, both T and A interpreters have translated the relative clause at 49d4-5, αει ο καθορωμεν αλλοτε αλλη γιγνομενον, ωζ πυρ, as "what we observe becoming different at different times……fire, for example", and so, have taken the referent of this clause to be phenomenal fire. Unlike those previous interpreters, I interpret the referent of the clause as the receptacle, and translate it as" what we observe becoming different for……example, fire……at different times". The biggest advantage of this interpretation is that we can take the referent of such to be each phenomenon, e.g. phenomenal fire or water, because the referent of this is taken to be the receptacle. The A interpreters have taken this to refer to the transient phenomenon, and thus couldn't have taken such to refer to the phenomenon. As a result, they have assumed the self-identical character as the referent of such. In my interpretation, Plato requires that we must not call this part of the receptacle "fire" or "water", but call each phenomenon "fire" or "water". In this interpretation, we can avoid both the unnatural T reading of the safest answer, and the difficulty of how to interpret the fourth item in Timaeus' ontology.
- 日本西洋古典学会の論文
- 2007-03-16
著者
関連論文
- プラトン『ティマイオス』(49b-50b)における流転と言語
- プラトン『ティマイオス』(49b-50b)における流転と言語
- 書評 David Sedley, The Midwife of Platonism: Text and Subtext in Plato's Theaetetus