A monograph on Plato's Ion, to be published by Cambridge University Press

关于柏拉图离子的专着，将由剑桥大学出版社出版

• 批准号: AH/D50046X/1
• 负责人: Suzanne Stern Gillet
• 金额: $ 2.73万
• 依托单位: University of Bolton
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Research Grant
• 财政年份: 2006
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2006 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FD50046X%2F1
• 关键词: monograph; Plato; Ion; published; Cambridge

Plato's Ion, which features Socrates in conversation with a typical rhapsody, is the earliest essay on aesthetics in Western philosophy, lon boasts of the success of his recitations of Homer, the poet whom Plato's contemporaries viewed as a compendium of knowledge and wisdom. At a time when books were rare and literacy far from universal, rhapsodies and poets wielded considerable influence. Plato distrusted their influence as symptomatic of the new-found power exerted by orators in the political life of fifth-century Athens, when speeches in the assembly determined the rise and fall of city-states, the successes and failures in the policy of imperial Athens. In the lon, Socrates raises the crucial question: does the rhapsody's success depend on the way he speaks, or does it have to be founded on his knowledge of what it is he is speaking of? This seemingly simple question raises an issue fundamental for Plato's philosophy. Can there be true pleasure or happiness that is not founded on knowledge? Since a rhapsody's influence is ultimately dependent on the poet whose verse he chants, the debate between Socrates and lon opens up the wider issue of the nature and power of poetry. Socrates suggests that the poetic word is aimed, not at enlightening or instructing, but at charming, or even enrapturing, its audience. The power of poetry, he adds, is not due to the knowledge or skill of the poet, but to the divine inspiration of which the poet is the passive recipient. Through the intermediary of a rhapsody, himself enraptured by the inspired discourse of the poet, poetry works its power on an audience, which therefore receives the divine inspiration at thrice-remove. In Socrates' hands, the notion of 'divine inspiration' to account for poetic excellence is a double-edged sword. While it flatters poets by assimilating them to oracles and seers, it also excludes them from the company of those who know and reason. It also denies them the full authorship of their compositions.The subtlety, philosophical and psychological, with which Plato portrays the debate between the cock-sure lon and Socrates* half-hidden irony ranks the lon among the most intriguing works of the Platonic canon. But the dialogue has often been misunderstood, both by Romantic poets, who read their own notion of inspiration into Plato's, and by philosophers, who have missed the delicate interplay between the requirements of the dramatic dialogue and the philosophical claims expressed in it. The present study relates the ideas that underlie the dialogue to the theoretical assumptions embodied in the poetry of Homer, Hesiod and Pindar, and also takes into account the moves made by Pre-Socratic thinkers towards a more narrowly philosophical explanation of poetic inspiration. This historical study of the background to Plato's ideas makes it possible to disengage the novelty of Plato's own approach, and to relate the philosophical issues debated in the dialogue to crucial questions of epistemology and aesthetics that loom large in the dialogues of Plato's maturity. .A necessary corollary to this combination of history and philosophy is the analysis of earlier interpretations of the dialogue. Plato has been the victim of his own artistry. The psychological subtleties of his portrayal of the exchanges between Socrates and lon have led to wildly different versions of the dialogue. In uncovering the bias of earlier translators and commentators, philosophical analysis has therefore to be accompanied by literary criticism. Only by grasping the subtleties of Plato's representation of character, and by analysing the nuances of speech attributed to Socrates and to lon, is it possible to unravel the complexities of the philosophical issues that Plato has addressed in the lon. ^ The present monograph will shed new light on Plato's deft handling of a range of philosophical issues that still play a central role in current aesthetic debates.

柏拉图的《离子》以苏格拉底与典型的狂想曲对话为特色，是西方哲学中最早的美学散文，他吹嘘他朗诵荷马的成功，这位诗人被柏拉图的同时代人视为知识和智慧的提纲。在书籍稀少、识字远未普及的时代，狂想曲和诗人产生了相当大的影响。柏拉图不相信他们的影响力，认为这是演说家在5世纪雅典政治生活中新发现的权力的征兆，当时在议会的演讲决定了城邦的兴衰，决定了雅典帝国政策的成败。在《长篇》中，苏格拉底提出了一个关键问题：狂想曲的成功是取决于他说话的方式，还是必须建立在他对他所说的是什么的了解之上？这个看似简单的问题提出了一个柏拉图哲学的根本问题。有没有不是建立在知识基础上的真正的快乐或幸福？由于狂想曲的影响力最终取决于他吟唱的诗人，苏格拉底和朗之间的辩论开启了诗歌的本质和力量的更广泛的问题。苏格拉底认为，诗词的目的不是启迪或教育，而是吸引甚至陶醉于它的受众。他补充说，诗歌的力量不在于诗人的知识或技巧，而在于诗人是被动接受者的神圣灵感。通过狂想曲的中介，他自己被诗人的灵感话语所陶醉，诗歌将其力量作用于受众，从而使受众在三次移动中获得神圣的灵感。在苏格拉底的手中，“神圣的灵感”来解释诗歌的卓越是一把双刃剑。虽然它通过将诗人同化为先知和预言家来奉承他们，但它也将他们排除在那些了解和推理的人的公司之外。柏拉图用微妙的、哲学的和心理学的手法描绘了公鸡自信的朗和苏格拉底之间的辩论，半隐半掩的讽刺使《朗》成为柏拉图经典中最耐人寻味的作品之一。但这种对话经常被误解，既有浪漫主义诗人在柏拉图中解读自己的灵感概念，也有哲学家误解了戏剧性对话的要求和其中所表达的哲学主张之间的微妙相互作用。本研究将对话背后的思想与荷马、赫西奥德和品达的诗歌中体现的理论假设联系起来，并考虑到前苏格拉底思想家对诗歌灵感进行更狭隘的哲学解释的举措。这种对柏拉图思想背景的历史研究使我们有可能摆脱柏拉图自己方法的新颖性，并将对话中辩论的哲学问题与认识论和美学的关键问题联系起来，这些问题在柏拉图成熟的对话中隐约可见。这种历史和哲学相结合的必然推论是对早期对对话的解释的分析。柏拉图一直是自己艺术的牺牲品。他对苏格拉底和朗之间的交流的心理描述的微妙之处导致了对话的截然不同的版本。因此，在揭示早期译者和评论家的偏见时，哲学分析必须伴随着文学批评。只有通过把握柏拉图对性格的表现的微妙之处，并通过分析归因于苏格拉底和朗的言语的细微差别，才有可能解开柏拉图在长篇大论中所论述的哲学问题的复杂性。这本专著将为柏拉图对一系列哲学问题的巧妙处理提供新的线索，这些问题在当前的美学辩论中仍然发挥着核心作用。