《斐勒布》中的形而上学与伦理学

发布时间：2018-03-07 07:49

本文选题：《斐勒布》　切入点：形而上学　出处：《中山大学》2016年博士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：《斐勒布》通常被分为两个部分,即探讨“一与多”与“四类存在”问题的形而上学部分和探讨快乐问题的伦理学部分。长久以来,这两个部分都是被分开来研究的,鲜有学者关注这两个部分之间的关系问题。如果我们将《斐勒布》当作一部完整的戏剧来阅读,认为柏拉图在写作这篇对话时有一个整体的考虑,那么我们就不能孤立地看待这两个部分,而要特别注意这两个部分之间的关系。在这个问题上,学者们的通常看法是,形而上学是伦理学的基础,伦理学是形而上学的目的,二者相互支持,紧密结合。但我们发现,在《斐勒布》中,这两个部分实际上存在着某种断裂。本文将首先展示出这种断裂,然后试图给予其一个合理的解释。在第一章中,我们细致分析了对话的场景、人物和情节(结构),以为后文的论述做些必要的准备。通过这些分析,我们还揭示出《斐勒布》三个层面的问题:一是对话所直接讨论的问题,即快乐和理智何者为善,这是最表层问题;二是在讨论这个问题时,由苏格拉底的讨论方式(或者说由柏拉图所设计的文本结构)所带来的更深层次的问题,即形而上学与伦理学的关系问题;三是作为整篇对话之背景的对城邦青年的教育问题,即苏格拉底和斐勒布谁最有资格做年轻人的教师,或者说究竟是谁在“败坏青年”。第二章处理该对话中的第一个形而上学问题,即“一与多”问题。苏格拉底将该问题视为回答快乐与理智何者为善这一伦理问题的前提。然而,“一与多”问题究竟是些什么问题,这已经给我们造成了很大的困惑。而苏格拉底提出这些问题之后,并没有去直接回答它们,而是通过“神赐方法”回避掉了这些问题。通过《巴门尼德》,我们发现,这些问题极其复杂,仅凭人的有限理性,几乎不可能得到解决。按照“神赐方法”的要求,接下去的任务就是要确定“一”与“多”之间的具体数目,也即划定快乐和知识的种类。但这一任务却再次被苏格拉底放弃,取而代之的是一个完全基于常识非形而上学的论证,但该论证却直接证明出该对话的核心观点——快乐与理智的混合才是善。这样,我们就很难说“一与多”这一形而上学理论为对话中的伦理主张奠定了基础。第三章处理该对话中的第二个形而上学问题,即“四类存在”问题。苏格拉底指出,虽然理智不是善,但它却是快乐与理智的混合之为善的“原因”,即所他提出的“四类存在”中的第个四种类。他通过一套精致的宇宙论证明出宇宙心智乃“天地之王”,支配着万物,因而属于“原因”种类;而人是一个小宇宙,其灵魂中的心智同样支配着整个身体,因而也属于“原因”种类。在这一“大宇宙-小宇宙”论证中,苏格拉底不断向我们暗示,作为“天地之王”的宇宙心智是最高善,它构成了我们追求美好生活的最高指引。从这个意义上讲,我们也可以认为形而上学为伦理学奠定基础。但这种“奠基”显然只是范导性的,而不是直接性的、现实性的,因为这种形而上的神性之善是我们所无法完全获得的,它并不能构成世俗伦理生活的现实基础。第四章是对对话下半部分内容的阐述。该部分内容庞杂,我们将其概括为两大部分,即对快乐的辩证分析和对知识的辩证分析。我们发现,对快乐的辩证分析的结果是确定了最真实的快乐是理智性快乐,对知识的辩证分析的结果是确定了最真实的知识是与我们灵魂中的理智能力相适应的辩证法的知识,二者共同确立了理智在人类灵魂中的至高地位,而关于“存在与生成”的讨论则进一步从形而上学(本体论)层面证明了纯粹理智是最高善。这表明,如果我们企图为人的伦理生活寻找一个形而上学基础,那么我们就必然走向一种纯理智的神性生活。但实际上我们并不能完全过上这种神性生活,而是始终徘徊在神性的生活与世俗的政治-伦理生活之间。第五章是对对话结论部分的阐释。通过对“回家之路”隐喻的深入解读,我们发现苏格拉底对普罗塔科斯采取了一种“含混”的教育方式:他一方面教导普罗塔科斯,最好的生活是各种真假快乐与各种真假知识相混合的生活,另一方面又不断地暗示,从根本上来说或在形而上学层面,真正的好生活是纯理智的神性生活。苏格拉底的“含混”并非思维混乱,而是基于对伦理学与形而上学关系的深刻理解:以快乐与理智的混杂为基本特征的洞穴生活并不以任何一种形而上学为基础,洞穴生活的基础是习俗、祖传成法或权威意见;以形而上学为基础的生活只能是洞穴外的生活,这种生活可以成为我们的最高追求,但它毕竟不是我们的现实生活。苏格拉底在最高善问题上的含混性,也是基于同样的理由。
[Abstract]:< > - Fiji is usually divided into two parts, namely to "one" and "many" and "four" part of the problem of metaphysics and ethics of happiness. For a long time, these two parts have been researched separately, few scholars pay attention to the problem of the relationship between the two parts. If we will "Fiji as a whole - > drama to read, think Platon has an overall consideration in writing the dialogue, then we can not be viewed in isolation of these two parts, and pay special attention to the relationship between these two parts. On this issue, scholars generally view who is that metaphysics is the foundation of ethics, ethics is the metaphysical purpose, the two support each other closely. But we found that in the < > in Fiji Loeb in the two part, in fact there is a certain fracture. This will be the first to show that Fracture, and then try to give a reasonable explanation. In the first chapter, we detailed analysis of the dialogue scenes, characters and plots (structure), that after the exposition, make some necessary preparations. Through these analyses, we also reveal "three aspects of Fiji Loeb problems: one is the. Discuss the problem directly, that is happiness and sense what is good, this is the most superficial problem; two is in the discussion of this issue, by Socrates's discussion (or text structure designed by Platon) a deeper problem brought by the metaphysics and ethics issues; the three is as on the city's youth education background of the dialogue, namely Socrates and Fei - who is most qualified to do the young teachers, or who is in" corrupter of youth ". In the second chapter, first the metaphysical questions in dialogue, The "one" and "many". Socrates will this issue as a prerequisite for the ethical problems of happiness and rational answer what is good. However, the "one" and "many" exactly what problems, this has caused us a great deal of confusion. After Socrates puts forward these problems, and not to directly answer them "God, but through the method of" avoid these problems. By Parmenides, we found that < >, these problems are very complex, with only limited rational people, almost impossible to be solved. In accordance with the "God method", the next task is to determine the specific number between one "and" many "also, species that delineate the joy and knowledge. But this task has once again been Socrates give up, replaced by a completely non metaphysical argument based on common sense, but the argument is a direct proof of the dialogue The core idea of mixed joy and reason is good. So, it is hard to say "we laid the foundation of one" and "many" the metaphysical theory ethics advocated dialogue. The third chapter second the metaphysical problems in the dialogue, that is "four". Sue Grady pointed out that although the reason is not good, but it is happy and rational mixed good reasons, the four types of four categories that he put forward the "existence". He through a set of delicate cosmic proved cosmic mind is "king of heaven and earth", dominated million, which belongs to the "cause" species; and people are a small universe, the soul of the mind also dominates the whole body, and thus also belong to the "reason" category. In this "big universe - small universe" argument, Socrates continues to suggest that we, as the "king of heaven and earth" Yu In mind is the highest good, it constitutes the highest guide us in the pursuit of a better life. In this sense, we can think of metaphysics and lay the foundation for ethics. But this is obviously the "foundation" guidance, instead of the reality, because this kind of metaphysical divine goodness we cannot completely get, it does not constitute the realistic foundation of secular ethics of life. The fourth chapter is on the lower part of the dialogue content in this paper. This part of contents, we will sum up its two parts, namely the happiness of dialectical analysis and dialectical analysis on knowledge. We find that the joy of dialectical the results of the analysis is to determine the true happiness is the sense of happiness, to the knowledge of dialectical analysis result is to determine the true knowledge is the reason in our soul and the ability to adapt to the dialectics of knowledge, two To establish a rational supremacy in the soul of man, and the discussion about the existence and formation of "further from metaphysics (ontology) level and prove that the pure reason is the highest good. This shows that if we attempt to find a metaphysical basis for ethical life of people, so we must move to a pure the reason of divine life. But we cannot live this divine life, but always hovering between the divine life and secular political ethical life. The fifth chapter is the conclusion part of the dialogue interpretation. Through in-depth understanding of" the way home "metaphor, we found that Socrates had adopted a" vague "the way of education to the general tachos one hand he taught Plo Tacco J, the best life is mixed with a variety of true and false knowledge of various real happy life, on the other hand not Off that, fundamentally speaking, or in the metaphysical level, real life is your divine life. Socrates's "ambiguity" is not confusion, but based on a profound understanding of the relationship of ethics and Metaphysics: happiness and rational mixed as the basic characteristics of cave life does not take any kind of metaphysical basis the cave is based, life custom, ancestral method or the authoritative opinions; with metaphysics based life is only out of the cave life, this life can become our highest pursuit, but it is not our real life. Socrates in the highest good on the issue of ambiguity, but also for the same reason.

【学位授予单位】：中山大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：B502.232

【参考文献】