查詢結果分析
相關文獻
- 關於「蘇格拉底」對話錄與《理想國.第一卷》
- Kadish Stage C Olfactory Neuroblastoma Successfully Treated by Chemoradiotherapy: Report of Two Cases
- Evaluation of a Simplified Staging System for Prognosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma
- 唐宋文化變遷之研究
- 族群分布對臺灣地域空間發展的影響
- 婦科癌症分期的影像技術
- 臺電公司輸配電維修業務漸進式民營化之探討
- 分期付款銷貨之探討
- A Progressive Constraint Search Approach for Disparity Matching in Stereo Vision
- Three Incremental Maintenance Algorithms on Object-Oriented Data Warehousing
頁籤選單縮合
| 題 名 | 關於「蘇格拉底」對話錄與《理想國.第一卷》=On “Socratic” Dialogues and “The Republic I” |
|---|---|
| 作 者 | 徐學庸; | 書刊名 | 哲學與文化 |
| 卷 期 | 27:8=315 2000.08[民89.08] |
| 頁 次 | 頁733-746+805-806 |
| 分類號 | 141.4 |
| 關鍵詞 | 分期; 漸進式; 寫作形式; 蘇格拉底對話錄; 理想國第一卷; Chronology; Style; Prolepsis; Socratic dialogues; The Republic I; |
| 語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
| 中文摘要 | 自從 C. Kahn 著文提出 (1981),沒有「蘇格拉底」對話錄之後,是否有所謂的「蘇格拉底」對話錄這一問題,便吸引了柏拉圖學者相當的關注。一般而言,對柏拉圖的對話錄做分期的標準有三類。它們是 1) 傳記性的標準,2) 哲學或文學的標準,3) 寫作形式的標準。在本文的第一部分,我將對這三種標準做一簡短的說明,同時並提出理由說明,為什麼寫作形式的標準加上漸進式的觀念,能夠證明「蘇格拉底」對話錄與中期對話錄的區別是沒有必要的。其次,若沒有足夠的理由讓我們有信心地主張,有「蘇格拉底」對話錄的存在。那主張《理想國.第一卷》是諸多所謂「蘇格拉底」對話錄中的一部,便可能是一種誤解。 在本文的第二部分,我將藉著檢驗《理想國.第一卷》中的論證來指出,為什麼,除了其無結論的寫作形式外,《理想國.第一卷》與其它九卷緊密相連的理由。 |
| 英文摘要 | Since C. Kahn asserted (1981) that there were no “Socratic” dialogues, the question whether or not the so-called “Socratic” dialogues ever existed has drawn much attention from Platonic scholars. Generally speaking, the following three criteria were applied to categorizing Plato’s dialogues: first, the biographical criterion, second, the philosophical or literary criterion, and third, the stylistic criterion. In the first part of this paper, I would like to give a brief account of those three criteria and show way, with the stylistic criterion and the politic view, we can prove that it is not necessary to separate “Socratic” dialogues from the dialogues of the middle period. If we cannot claim on firm ground that “Socratic” Dialogues did exist, it would be wrong to say that The Republic I was part of the so-called “Socratic” dialogues. Part of the so-called “Socratic” dialogues. In the second part of this paper, I would like to examine the arguments in The Republic I and show why, in spite of its aporetic style, it is an integral part of The Republic. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。