アリストテレス初期著作におけるプラトン解釈 : 断片集を中心として

Abstract

We have now two opposite views of interpretation concerning Aristotle's attitude towards Platonism. One is Werner Jaeger's, widely known as his entwicklungsgeschichtliche Anschauung. The other is, like Harold Cherniss', that Aristotle could not understand the true issue of Plato's philosophy and did nothing but criticize it without any consistency in his own system. To test the legitimacy of these two views, we can make use of the extant remains of Aristotle's dialogues and his fragments on the theory of Ideas, which clearly reflect his attitude towards his master in the prime of his youth. So far as his treatment about Plato's theories of soul and of Ideas is concerned, we may remark on the following points: 1. The Pessimism permeating Eudemus, said to be (by W. Jaeger) a distinct trace of Platonism, is not the central message of Phaedo, the theme of which is followed in Eudemus. Rather, here we can perceive Aristotle's somehow tendentious treatment of the theme of Phaedo. 2. Aristotle used the term νοῦς instead of ψυχή to indicate the distinctive faculty of soul. Here we notice his well-thought out treatment in sharp definition, which illustrates his mastery of Plato's later theory of soul. 3. In his treatment of the so-called ψυχή-ἁρμονία argument in contrast to Plato's, we observe a germ of his own characteristic way of thinking which will later be formulated into the theory of οὐσἰα. 4. Some passages in Пερὶ Ιδέων as well as in Protrepticus show clearly that Aristotle was well versed in certain features of Plato's Idea, such as ἀεὶ ὄν, παράδειγμα, καθ' αὑτό and others. 5. The χωρισμός and μέθεξις of Plato's Idea was understood by Aristotle rather from the logical side from which ἰδέα was assumed as εἶδος ἕν ἐπὶ πολλοῖς. Here we can trace a delicate process through which Plato's distinction between ἰδέα and sensible objects was interpreted by Aristotle first as division, and later, separation between them. 6. His treatment of ideal numbers made a respectable contribution towards this complicated problem. He, however, did not always appreciate correctly Plato's original intention owing to his somewhat preconceived interpretation based on his theory of οὐσἰα. These inspections prove (vs. Cherniss) that Aristotle had been an ardent pupil of Plato, and had a good comprehension about the theory of Ideas and of soul. At the same time, however, we can see that he had (vs. Jaeger) from the outset a philosophy of his own, however germinal it might be in its earlier stage, and that he treated the greatest υπόθεσις of Plato from this angle. Thus, as a suggestion for further research it might be said that there still remains room for pursuing the problem of Plato in his own intrinsic concern with constant reference to the Herculean achievement of Aristotle.