论文部分内容阅读
柏拉图《理想国》中,理想城邦的实现需要哲人成为统治者或者统治者成为哲人。但哲人自身的幸福在于追求知识,所以哲人是不愿意做王的。苏格拉底说,我们必须强迫哲人回到城邦。他提出两个理由:1.立法的本意不是城邦之中某一个单一的阶层生活得与众不同地好,而是相反,要在整个的城邦里都做到这一点,它既用劝说也通过强迫使全部城邦和谐地集合为一个整体;2.哲人王是城邦为了管理的目的培育的,所以哲人王应当回报城邦,满足城邦的需要。但格劳孔认为,要求哲人做王是不义的,因为“本来他们是能够过更好的生活的”。由于《理想国》讨论的是人如何才能幸福地生活,那么哲人做统治者不能获得最大的幸福就构成了一个“哲人王悖论”(the paradox of the philosopher-king),或称“回到洞穴”(return to the cave)问题。这一悖论影响深远,它导致理想城邦不能实现,似乎成了一个乌托邦,更引起了众多学者对柏拉图政治哲学严肃性的怀疑。如果哲人王不愿意统治,理想城邦不能实现,那么柏拉图设置这个悖论的动机何在?如果说哲人统治开启了知识与权力相结合的政治哲学传统,那么哲人不愿意统治将导致柏拉图整个政治哲学的崩溃。如果不接受这样的解读,那么哲人王悖论就必须得到理解。本文试图就哲人王悖论提出一种原创性解读,即哲人选择回到洞穴去统治是可能的,其动机源于柏拉图伦理学的最高观念:对神圣的善的摹仿。
In Plato’s “Republic of China,” the fulfillment of a perfect city-state requires philosophers to become rulers or rulers to become philosophers. But the philosopher’s own happiness lies in the pursuit of knowledge, so the philosopher is unwilling to be king. Socrates said that we must force philosophers back to the city. He put forward two reasons: 1. The purpose of the legislation is not to be distinctively good from one single class of city-states, but rather to do so throughout the city-state, both by persuasion and passage Forced to make all the city-state harmony as a whole; 2. Philosopher King is the city for management purposes nurtured, so the philosopher king should report to the city, to meet the needs of the city. However, Glaucon believes that it is unjust to require philosophers to be king because “they were originally able to live a better life.” Since the “ideal nation” discusses how humans can live happily, then the philosopher-ruler who fails to obtain the greatest happiness constitutes a “philosopher-king” of the philosopher or “ ”Return to the cave" problem. This paradox has a far-reaching impact. It leads to the unrealization of the ideal city-state. It seems to have become a utopia and has aroused many scholars’ doubts about the solemnity of Plato’s political philosophy. If the philosopher Wang did not want to rule and the ideal city-state could not be realized, what motivation did Plato set up for this paradox? If philosopher rule opens up the political-philosophical tradition of a combination of knowledge and power, philosophers’ reluctance to rule will lead to the entire political philosophy of Plato collapse. If you do not accept this interpretation, then philosophers Wang paradox must be understood. This essay attempts to propose an original interpretation of the Philosopher’s Paradox, in which it is possible for philosophers to choose to go back to the cave to rule, with motivation stemming from the supreme idea of Platonic ethics: the imitation of sacred goodness.