柏拉图裂解论研究导论

IF 0.1 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Jan Szaif, D. Jennings
{"title":"柏拉图裂解论研究导论","authors":"Jan Szaif, D. Jennings","doi":"10.14195/1984-249x_32_36","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Plato’s Lysis shows Socrates in conversation with two boys he has met at a wrestling school, Lysis and Menexenus. Their debate revolves around the notion of philia, seeking to pin down the nature of this relation, who or what takes part in it, and what causes it. The word philiahas usually been translated as “friendship” but has a wider application in this dialogue, as it encompasses a variety of friendly and loving attitudes toward both people and things. The kinds of interpersonal philia evoked include erotic attachments, kinship relations, utility-based relations, and playful companionship. Roughly two-thirds into the dialogue, the focus turns to a more general theory of desiderative attachments and the question of their ultimate telos and cause. The conversation ends, at least on the face of it, in an impasse, an aporia, when the interlocutors find themselves thrown back to the point from where they started, and no attempt to answer the question of what philia is or what motivates it has stuck. The Lysis nevertheless offers many incentives for further discussion and has elicited radically different responses from its interpreters as to what its real message is. For instance, does it promote a form of utilitarian egoism according to which human attachment can never, or should never, be altruistically motivated? Or does it hint at a very different concept of interpersonal love based on the idea that friendship, as it were, completes us since it connects us with those that share the same values? Does this dialogue stay within the familiar ambit of Socratic ethics, centered around the question of what it takes to achieve happiness (eudaimonia) in a human life, without a concern for metaphysical questions? Or, quite the contrary, does its discussion of the highest object of love (to proton philon) point forward to the metaphysical program of Plato’s so-called middle-period dialogues and especially to the notions of the form of the good or the form of the beautiful, notions which are at the center of the Republic and the Symposium? These questions and others will continue to be debated about this puzzling dialogue. The essays assembled in the present volume address many of these topics.","PeriodicalId":41249,"journal":{"name":"Archai-Revista de Estudos Sobre as Origens do Pensamento Ocidental","volume":"86 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Introduction to Studies on Plato’s Lysis\",\"authors\":\"Jan Szaif, D. Jennings\",\"doi\":\"10.14195/1984-249x_32_36\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Plato’s Lysis shows Socrates in conversation with two boys he has met at a wrestling school, Lysis and Menexenus. Their debate revolves around the notion of philia, seeking to pin down the nature of this relation, who or what takes part in it, and what causes it. The word philiahas usually been translated as “friendship” but has a wider application in this dialogue, as it encompasses a variety of friendly and loving attitudes toward both people and things. The kinds of interpersonal philia evoked include erotic attachments, kinship relations, utility-based relations, and playful companionship. Roughly two-thirds into the dialogue, the focus turns to a more general theory of desiderative attachments and the question of their ultimate telos and cause. The conversation ends, at least on the face of it, in an impasse, an aporia, when the interlocutors find themselves thrown back to the point from where they started, and no attempt to answer the question of what philia is or what motivates it has stuck. The Lysis nevertheless offers many incentives for further discussion and has elicited radically different responses from its interpreters as to what its real message is. For instance, does it promote a form of utilitarian egoism according to which human attachment can never, or should never, be altruistically motivated? Or does it hint at a very different concept of interpersonal love based on the idea that friendship, as it were, completes us since it connects us with those that share the same values? Does this dialogue stay within the familiar ambit of Socratic ethics, centered around the question of what it takes to achieve happiness (eudaimonia) in a human life, without a concern for metaphysical questions? Or, quite the contrary, does its discussion of the highest object of love (to proton philon) point forward to the metaphysical program of Plato’s so-called middle-period dialogues and especially to the notions of the form of the good or the form of the beautiful, notions which are at the center of the Republic and the Symposium? These questions and others will continue to be debated about this puzzling dialogue. The essays assembled in the present volume address many of these topics.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41249,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archai-Revista de Estudos Sobre as Origens do Pensamento Ocidental\",\"volume\":\"86 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archai-Revista de Estudos Sobre as Origens do Pensamento Ocidental\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14195/1984-249x_32_36\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archai-Revista de Estudos Sobre as Origens do Pensamento Ocidental","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14195/1984-249x_32_36","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

柏拉图的《利塞法》展示了苏格拉底与他在摔跤学校认识的两个男孩的对话,利塞法和梅尼塞努斯。他们的辩论围绕着菲利亚的概念,试图确定这种关系的本质,谁或什么参与其中,是什么导致了这种关系。philaa这个词通常被翻译为“友谊”,但在这种对话中有更广泛的应用,因为它包含了对人和事物的各种友好和爱的态度。所诱发的人际恋类型包括情爱依恋、亲属关系、基于效用的关系和嬉戏的陪伴。在大约三分之二的对话中,焦点转向了欲望依恋的更一般的理论,以及它们的最终目的和原因的问题。谈话结束了,至少从表面上看,在一个僵局中,在一个不安中,当对话者发现自己从他们开始的地方被抛回时,没有人试图回答什么是菲利亚,什么是菲利亚的动机。然而,《解》为进一步的讨论提供了许多激励因素,对于其真正的信息是什么,它的诠释者给出了截然不同的回应。例如,它是否促进了一种功利的利己主义,根据这种利己主义,人类的依恋永远不可能,也不应该,被利他主义所激发?或者它是否暗示了一种非常不同的人际爱情概念,基于这样一种观点,即友谊,因为它将我们与那些拥有相同价值观的人联系在一起而使我们完整?这种对话是否停留在我们熟悉的苏格拉底伦理学的范围内,围绕着如何在人类生活中获得幸福(eudaimonia)的问题,而不关心形而上学的问题?或者,恰恰相反,它对爱的最高目标(对质子菲隆)的讨论,是否指向柏拉图所谓的中期对话的形而上学纲领,特别是关于善的形式或美的形式的概念,这些概念是《理想国》和《会篇》的核心?这些问题和其他问题将继续围绕这一令人困惑的对话进行辩论。在本卷中汇集的文章涉及许多这些主题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Introduction to Studies on Plato’s Lysis
Plato’s Lysis shows Socrates in conversation with two boys he has met at a wrestling school, Lysis and Menexenus. Their debate revolves around the notion of philia, seeking to pin down the nature of this relation, who or what takes part in it, and what causes it. The word philiahas usually been translated as “friendship” but has a wider application in this dialogue, as it encompasses a variety of friendly and loving attitudes toward both people and things. The kinds of interpersonal philia evoked include erotic attachments, kinship relations, utility-based relations, and playful companionship. Roughly two-thirds into the dialogue, the focus turns to a more general theory of desiderative attachments and the question of their ultimate telos and cause. The conversation ends, at least on the face of it, in an impasse, an aporia, when the interlocutors find themselves thrown back to the point from where they started, and no attempt to answer the question of what philia is or what motivates it has stuck. The Lysis nevertheless offers many incentives for further discussion and has elicited radically different responses from its interpreters as to what its real message is. For instance, does it promote a form of utilitarian egoism according to which human attachment can never, or should never, be altruistically motivated? Or does it hint at a very different concept of interpersonal love based on the idea that friendship, as it were, completes us since it connects us with those that share the same values? Does this dialogue stay within the familiar ambit of Socratic ethics, centered around the question of what it takes to achieve happiness (eudaimonia) in a human life, without a concern for metaphysical questions? Or, quite the contrary, does its discussion of the highest object of love (to proton philon) point forward to the metaphysical program of Plato’s so-called middle-period dialogues and especially to the notions of the form of the good or the form of the beautiful, notions which are at the center of the Republic and the Symposium? These questions and others will continue to be debated about this puzzling dialogue. The essays assembled in the present volume address many of these topics.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信