In this paper, I revisit the question of the consistency of Thrasymachus＇ position on justice in the First Book of the Republic. The paper falls into four parts. （The first part is an introduction.） In the second p...In this paper, I revisit the question of the consistency of Thrasymachus＇ position on justice in the First Book of the Republic. The paper falls into four parts. （The first part is an introduction.） In the second part, I examine two influential interpretations of the sophist＇s views, George B. Kerferd＇s and Timothy D. J. Chappell＇s, and argue that neither one fully resolves the riddle of Thrasymachus. In the third part, I claim that the sophist has a ＂descriptive＂ theory of justice, not a ＂prescriptive＂ one, and that no moral command to act in any particular way follows from this theory. In the fourth and final part, I propose a new approach to the whole issue by arguing that the essential problem with Thrasymachus＇ theory is not the incompatibility between his two definitions of justice in 338c and 343c, as it is usually assumed, but the fact that in Book One he uses two different and irreconcilable conceptions of justice. It is because the sophist uses the term ＂justice＂ to mean different things in different parts of the text that his overall position is ultimately inconsistent.展开更多
M?δεια(Medea), the tragedy written by Euripides (431 BC), refers to the story of a woman who seduced by her love for Jason, left her hometown of Colchis, and flew with him to Greece. Jason then betrayed Medea and ...M?δεια(Medea), the tragedy written by Euripides (431 BC), refers to the story of a woman who seduced by her love for Jason, left her hometown of Colchis, and flew with him to Greece. Jason then betrayed Medea and got married with the daughter of Creon, King of Corinth. Medea, in order to get revenge, killed both Jason’s bride and his father-in-law, and then, after slaughtering her own children, she left to Athens. The approach of Medea’s personality, as a subject of this paper, takes place in the light of the ethical philosophy through comparative quote mainly of the representatives of the spirit of that period, sophists and Socrates, but also of later philosophers, such as Immanuel Kant. This contribution aims to demonstrate the timelessness of human experience through the centuries and explain why the literature of other cultures and eras continues to be of interest.展开更多
文摘In this paper, I revisit the question of the consistency of Thrasymachus＇ position on justice in the First Book of the Republic. The paper falls into four parts. （The first part is an introduction.） In the second part, I examine two influential interpretations of the sophist＇s views, George B. Kerferd＇s and Timothy D. J. Chappell＇s, and argue that neither one fully resolves the riddle of Thrasymachus. In the third part, I claim that the sophist has a ＂descriptive＂ theory of justice, not a ＂prescriptive＂ one, and that no moral command to act in any particular way follows from this theory. In the fourth and final part, I propose a new approach to the whole issue by arguing that the essential problem with Thrasymachus＇ theory is not the incompatibility between his two definitions of justice in 338c and 343c, as it is usually assumed, but the fact that in Book One he uses two different and irreconcilable conceptions of justice. It is because the sophist uses the term ＂justice＂ to mean different things in different parts of the text that his overall position is ultimately inconsistent.
文摘M?δεια(Medea), the tragedy written by Euripides (431 BC), refers to the story of a woman who seduced by her love for Jason, left her hometown of Colchis, and flew with him to Greece. Jason then betrayed Medea and got married with the daughter of Creon, King of Corinth. Medea, in order to get revenge, killed both Jason’s bride and his father-in-law, and then, after slaughtering her own children, she left to Athens. The approach of Medea’s personality, as a subject of this paper, takes place in the light of the ethical philosophy through comparative quote mainly of the representatives of the spirit of that period, sophists and Socrates, but also of later philosophers, such as Immanuel Kant. This contribution aims to demonstrate the timelessness of human experience through the centuries and explain why the literature of other cultures and eras continues to be of interest.
