{"title":"Socratic Justice","authors":"G. Whitby","doi":"10.1086/intejethi.47.2.2989334","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OR centuries sociologists have drawn inspiration from Plato's Republic. Of the two minds represented in the work-Plato's, and that of his teacher, Socrates-it is the tutor's which makes the more fundamental and penetrating contribution to social science. It is popularly conceived that Socrates, like the enfant terrible, had a habit of asking awkward questions, and is to be patronized as an early seeker after truth, but that Plato was the man with the constructive ideas. Grote, in his great work, Plato and the Other Companions of Socrates, brings his superb scholarship to the task of proving that, in general, Socrates did not enlighten, but merely puzzled, and that even if he had a consistent ethical doctine it was never stated. It is true, indeed, that Socrates is unable to draw the dialogue of the Lysis to a satisfactory conclusion through failing to see the ambiguity in his loose use of the terms \"because of\" and \"for the sake of,\"' but where is the philosopher who is immune from occasional logical error? In his masterly volume on Plato,2 Professor A. E. Taylor, referring to the Lysis and the Parmenides, writes, \"In neither case need we suppose that Plato's real intention is to leave us merely befogged.\" This can readily be granted, but the plain fact would seem to be, in the instance of the Lysis at least, that Socrates, whose name should be read in preference to Plato's, was himself befogged-by his own terminology; and Professor Taylor's ingenious though somewhat labored attempt to bring order out","PeriodicalId":346392,"journal":{"name":"The International Journal of Ethics","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1937-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International Journal of Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/intejethi.47.2.2989334","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
OR centuries sociologists have drawn inspiration from Plato's Republic. Of the two minds represented in the work-Plato's, and that of his teacher, Socrates-it is the tutor's which makes the more fundamental and penetrating contribution to social science. It is popularly conceived that Socrates, like the enfant terrible, had a habit of asking awkward questions, and is to be patronized as an early seeker after truth, but that Plato was the man with the constructive ideas. Grote, in his great work, Plato and the Other Companions of Socrates, brings his superb scholarship to the task of proving that, in general, Socrates did not enlighten, but merely puzzled, and that even if he had a consistent ethical doctine it was never stated. It is true, indeed, that Socrates is unable to draw the dialogue of the Lysis to a satisfactory conclusion through failing to see the ambiguity in his loose use of the terms "because of" and "for the sake of,"' but where is the philosopher who is immune from occasional logical error? In his masterly volume on Plato,2 Professor A. E. Taylor, referring to the Lysis and the Parmenides, writes, "In neither case need we suppose that Plato's real intention is to leave us merely befogged." This can readily be granted, but the plain fact would seem to be, in the instance of the Lysis at least, that Socrates, whose name should be read in preference to Plato's, was himself befogged-by his own terminology; and Professor Taylor's ingenious though somewhat labored attempt to bring order out
几个世纪以来,社会学家一直从柏拉图的《理想国》中汲取灵感。在作品中所代表的两种思想中,柏拉图的思想和他的老师苏格拉底的思想,导师的思想对社会科学作出了更根本、更深刻的贡献。人们普遍认为,苏格拉底和那个可怕的孩子一样,也有问一些令人尴尬的问题的习惯,所以他被尊称为一个早期的真理追求者,而柏拉图则是一个具有建设性思想的人。格罗特在他的巨著《柏拉图与苏格拉底的其他同伴》中,用他高超的学识来证明,总的来说,苏格拉底并没有启蒙,而只是迷惑,即使他有一个一贯的伦理教义,也从来没有说出来。的确,苏格拉底无法在《解》的对话中得出一个令人满意的结论,因为他没有看到他松散地使用“因为”和“为了”这两个词的模糊性,但哪里有哲学家能免于偶尔的逻辑错误呢?泰勒(A. E. Taylor)教授在他那本关于柏拉图的巨著中,在提到《解》和《巴门尼德》时写道:“在这两种情况下,我们都不必认为柏拉图的真正意图只是让我们迷惑不解。”这是很容易承认的,但至少就《解》的例子来说,显而易见的事实似乎是,苏格拉底的名字比柏拉图的名字更容易读,但他自己却被他自己的术语所迷惑;以及泰勒教授为恢复秩序所做的巧妙尝试,尽管有些费力