논문 : 『 테아이테토스 』 편에서 논의된 프로타고라스이 인간척도설과 상충의 문제

저작시기 1997.01 |등록일 2003.07.10 파일확장자어도비 PDF (pdf) | 30페이지 | 가격 6,500원
다운로드
장바구니관심자료
상세신규 배너

* 본 문서는 배포용으로 복사 및 편집이 불가합니다.

서지정보

발행기관 : 한국서양고전학회 수록지정보 : 서양고전학연구 / 11권 / 163 ~ 192 페이지
저자명 : 정준영(Jun Young Cheong)

없음

영어 초록

In this paper, I consider what `Protagoras` measure doctrine$quot; s moral is in the Theaetetus. `Protagoras` measure doctrine`(P) is usually taken as relativism, but there are not a few dispute among scholars. Some has interpreted (P) as subjectivism; some, as objectivism. Besides Fine lately argued against Burnyeat`s opinion which construes (P) as `perceptual relativism`: she thinks that (P) is infallibilism(or subjectivism). Therefore it is not a easy issue which view of (P) should be taken as. Then many scholars attempt to connect (P) with modern epistemology. For example, Cornford interprets (P) as naive realism. This view may be lead to the causal theory of perception. And Crombie tries to examine the possibility of interpreting (P) as phenomenalism. However these views are arbitrary in a sense. Because (P) is basically perceptual relativism, and the sense-datum theory is not well associated with relativism. I think that (P) exhibits the strategy of relativizing appearance and reality to individual subject, with assuming `adaequatio rei et apperentiae`. In this point, I define (P) as `relativist infallibilism`. However against `perceptual relativism`, Fine argues to defend `subjectivism`. Fine`s view shows how (P) is associated with Heraclitean flux theory. But I think she sees only half of (P). For she dose not see the reason on which infallibilism could be valid it exists in (1) assuming `adaequatio rei et apperentiae`. According to (P), (2) appearences are relativized to individual subjects. And by combination of (1) with (2), reality is also relativized to the individual subject. On this account, change of appearance implies change of object. And in (P) change of object is not `mere Cambridge change`, but genuine change. Consequently I think that (P) justifies Theaetetus` first definition, $quot;knowledge is perception$quot; by combining infallibilism with (perceptual) relativism. But Plato critisizes relativist infallibilism. I think that it is just Plato`s purpose in Theaetetus` first part

참고 자료

없음
  • 구매평가(0)
  • 구매문의(0)
      최근 구매한 회원 학교정보 보기
      1. 최근 2주간 다운받은 회원수와 학교정보이며
         구매한 본인의 구매정보도 함께 표시됩니다.
      2. 매시 정각마다 업데이트 됩니다. (02:00 ~ 21:00)
      3. 구매자의 학교정보가 없는 경우 기타로 표시됩니다.
      4. 지식포인트 보유 시 지식포인트가 차감되며
         미보유 시 아이디당 1일 3회만 제공됩니다.
      상세하단 배너
      우수 콘텐츠 서비스 품질인증 획득
      최근 본 자료더보기
      상세우측 배너
      상세우측 배너
      상세우측 배너
      논문 : 『 테아이테토스 』 편에서 논의된 프로타고라스이 인간척도설과 상충의 문제
      페이지
      만족도 조사

      페이지 사용에 불편하신 점이 있으십니까?

      의견 보내기