Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Platon Devlet Birinci Kitap’ı Sokrates'e Karşı mı Yazdı?

Yıl 2025, Sayı: 1, 51 - 72, 30.04.2025

Süleyman Çağlar Varol

Öz

Felsefe eserlerinin giriş bölümleri eserin kalanı ve konusu hakkında önemli ipuçları sağlamaktadır. Bu sebeple es geçilmemeleri, eserin bütünü bağlamında değerlendirmeleri ve açıklanmaları önem arz etmektedir. İzleyen bölümlerin hangi motivasyonla yazıldığını anlamak ve bölümlerin arasındaki bütünlüğü kavramak için de bu nokta geçerlidir. Felsefe tarihinin en önemli eserlerinden olan Platon’un Devlet’inin Birinci Kitap’ı, bir giriş bölümüne oldukça benzemekte ve dolayısıyla yukarıda saydığım çerçevede değerlendirilmelidir. Her ne kadar araştırmalar genellikle eserin devamında Platon tarafından öne sürülen fikirlerin incelenmesine ayrıldıysa da Birinci Kitap’ın kalanlardan belli nitelikler bakımından farklı olduğu da saptanmıştır. Hem bu niteliğiyle hem de diğer bölümlerin yanıtlamaya çalıştığı sorunların kavranmasına katkı sağlayacağı için Birinci Kitap da benzer bir araştırmayı hak etmektedir. Bu çalışma, Platon’un eserinin ilgili bölümünde başlıca elen alınan ve çoğunlukla dilimize “adalet” olarak çevrilen dikaiosynē (δικαιοσύνη) kavramını, bu kavramın farklı isimler (Kephalos, Polemarkhos ve Thrasymakhos) tarafından nasıl anlaşılıp yorumlandığı, Sokrates’in (veya Platon’un) bu kavrama dair söyledikleri ve bahsedilen isimlerin bu kavramla ilgili görüşlerine verdiği karşılıkları, bu tartışmanın niçin önemli olduğunu ve izleyen bölümler (kitaplar) için neden temel olduğunu açıklamaya çalışmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Devlet Adalet Sokrates Thrasymakhos Platon

Kaynakça

  • Annas, J. (1981). An Introduction to Plato’s Republic. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  • Aygün, Ö. (2015). A Phenomenology of the Cave. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/40288576/2015b_Sunum_%C3%96mer_Ayg%C3%BCn_A_Phenomenology_of_the_Cave.
  • Aygün, Ö. (2018). Yaygın Platon Okumasının Bir Eleştirisi. [A Critique of the Standard Plato Reading]. Kaygı. Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Felsefe Dergisi (31), 57-91.
  • Benson, H. H. (2002). Problems with Socratic Method. In G. A. Scott (Ed.), Does Socrates Have a Method? (pp. 101-113). Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
  • Ben-Yami, H. (2017). Vagueness and Family Resemblance. In H.-J. Glock & J. Hyman (Eds.), A Companion to Wittgenstein (pp. 407-419). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
  • Beversluis, J. (2000). Cross-Examining Socrates: A Defense of the Interlocutors in Plato's Early Dialogues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Brickhouse, T. C. & Smith, N. D. (2000). The Philosophy of Socrates. Boulder: Westview Press.
  • Brickhouse, T. C. & Smith, N. D. (2002). The Socratic Elenchos?. In G. A. Scott (Ed.), Does Socrates Have a Method? (pp. 145-157). Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
  • Chappell, T. D. J. (1993). The Virtues of Thrasymachus. Phronesis, 38(1), 1-17.
  • Cooper, J. M. (1977). The Psychology of Justice in Plato. American Philosophical Quarterly 14(2), 151-157.
  • Cooper, J. M. (1997). Plato: Complete Works (J. M. Cooper & D. S. Hutchinson, Eds.). Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company.
  • Davidson, D. (2006). A Coherence Theory of Truth and Knowledge. In D. Davidson (Ed.), The Essential Davidson (pp. 225-241). Oxford: Calderon Press.
  • Dougherty, M. (2020). The Importance of Roles in the Skill Analogy. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy, 17(1): 75-102.
  • Doyle, J. (2010). The Socratic Elenchus: No Problem. In J. Lear & A. Oliver (Eds.), The Force of Argument: Essays in Honor of Timothy Smiley (pp. 68-81). New York: Routledge.
  • Evrigenis, I. D. (2010). The Power Struggle of “Republic” I. History of Political Thought, 31(3), 367-382.
  • Frede, M. (1992). Plato’s Arguments and the Dialogue Form. In J. C. Klagge & N. D. Smith (Eds.), Methods of Interpreting Plato and His Dialogues (pp. 201-219). Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy: Supplementary Volume. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  • Gill, C. (2006). The Platonic Dialogue. In M. L. Gill & P. Pellegrin (Eds.), A Companion to Ancient Philosophy (pp. 136-150). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
  • Guthrie, W. K. C. (1971). Socrates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Irwin, T. (1995). Plato’s Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Kahn, C. H. (1993). Proleptic Composition in the Republic, or Why Book 1 Was Never a Separate Dialogue. The Classical Quarterly, 43(1), 131-142.
  • Kerferd, G. B. (1964). Thrasymachus and Justice: A Reply. Phronesis, 9(1), 12-16.
  • Lane, M. (2008). Socrates and Plato: An Introduction. In C. Rowe, M. Schofield, S. Harrison, & M. Lane (Eds.), The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought (pp. 155-163). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Leigh, F. (2007). Platonic Dialogue, Maieutic Method and Critical Thinking. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 41(3), 309–323.
  • Mulhern, J. J. (1971). Two Interpretative Fallacies. Systematics, 9(3), 168-172.
  • Nicholson, P. P. (1974). Unravelling Thrasymachus’ Arguments in “The Republic”. Phronesis 19(3), 210-232.
  • Penner, T. (1973). Socrates on Virtue and Motivation. In E. N. Lee, A. P. Mourelatos & R. Rorty (Eds.), Exegesis and Argument: Studies in Greek Philosophy Presented to Gregory Vlastos (pp. 133-151). Phronesis Supplementary Vol. I. Assen: Van Gorcum.
  • Penner, T. (2008). Socrates. In C. Rowe, M. Schofield, S. Harrison, & M. Lane (Eds.), The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought (pp. 164-189). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Plato. (1997). Meno (G. M. A. Grube Trans.). In J. M. Cooper & D. S. Hutchinson (Eds.), Plato: Complete Works (pp. 870-897). Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company.
  • Reeve, C. D. C. (1985). Socrates Meets Thrasymachus. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 67(3), 246-265. Reeve, C. D. C. (2004). Introduction. In Plato, Republic (C. D. C. Reeve Trans.) (pp. ix-xxvii). Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company.
  • Sayre, K. (1992). A Maieutic View of Five Late Dialogues. In J. C. Klagge & N. D. Smith (Eds.), Methods of Interpreting Plato and his Dialogues (pp. 221-242). Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy Supplementary Volume. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Schofield, M. (2008). Approaching the Republic. In C. Rowe, M. Schofield, S. Harrison, & M. Lane (Eds.), The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought (pp. 190-232). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Scott, D. (1999). Platonic Pessimism and Moral Education. In D. Sedley (Ed.), Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy (pp. 15-36). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Sedley, D. (1996). Three Platonist Interpretations of the Theaetetus. In C. Gill & M. M. McCabe (Eds.), Form and Argument in Late Plato (pp. 79-103). New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Steadman, G. D. (2011). Plato’s Republic I: Greek Text with Facing Vocabulary and Commentary. Retrieved from https://geoffreysteadman.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/platorepublic-july12.pdf.
  • Storey, D. (2022). The Soul-Turning Metaphor in Plato’s Republic Book 7. Classical Philology 177(3), 525-542.
  • Vlastos, G. (1994). Socratic Studies (M. Burnyeat, Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Wittgenstein, L. (2009). Philosophical Investigations (4th ed.) (G. E. M. Anscombe, P. M. S. Hacker, & J. Schulte, Trans.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. (Original work published 1953).
  • Wolfsdorf, D. (2003). Socrates’ Pursuit of Definitions. Phronesis, 48(4), 271–312.
  • Wolfsdorf, D. C. (2019). Socrates, Vlastos, and Analytic Philosophy. In C. Moore (Ed.), Brill's Companion to the Reception of Socrates (pp. 973-993). Brill’s Companion to Classical Reception, Series Vol. 18. Leiden and Boston: Brill.
  • Thanassas, P. (2021) Justice as Happiness: Republic and Its Proems. In E. Kaklamanou, M. Pavlou & A. Tsakmakis (Eds.), Framing the Dialogues: How to Read Openings and Closures in Plato (pp. 107-139). Brill’s Plato Studies Series Vol. 6. Leiden and Boston: Brill.

Did Plato Write Republic I Against Socrates?.

Yıl 2025, Sayı: 1, 51 - 72, 30.04.2025

Süleyman Çağlar Varol

Öz

The introduction sections of philosophical works provide important insights into the subject and the rest of the work. It is therefore crucial not to dismiss them but to evaluate and explain them within the scope of the whole work. This remark is also valid for understanding the motivation behind the following sections and grasping the integrity of all sections. Book I of Plato's Republic is akin to an introduction section and should be evaluated and explained in this light. Although research has generally been devoted to investigating the thoughts and philosophical/political doctrines put forward by Plato in the rest of the work, it has also been asserted that Book I differs from the rest in certain aspects. Considering this difference and the possible contribution of the book in question to the comprehension of the problems that the other books attempt to answer, Book I deserves similar scrutiny. This study aims to explain the concept of dikaiosynē (δικαιοσύνη), a Greek term mostly rendered into English as “justice”, which is mainly discussed in the relevant book of Plato’s work, how this concept was understood and interpreted by various figures (Cephalus, Polemarchus, and Thrasymachus), what Socrates (or Plato) considered regarding this concept and how he replied to these figures’ accounts of this concept, why this discussion is important and also fundamental for the following books.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Republic Justice Socrates Thrasymachus Plato

Kaynakça

  • Annas, J. (1981). An Introduction to Plato’s Republic. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  • Aygün, Ö. (2015). A Phenomenology of the Cave. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/40288576/2015b_Sunum_%C3%96mer_Ayg%C3%BCn_A_Phenomenology_of_the_Cave.
  • Aygün, Ö. (2018). Yaygın Platon Okumasının Bir Eleştirisi. [A Critique of the Standard Plato Reading]. Kaygı. Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Felsefe Dergisi (31), 57-91.
  • Benson, H. H. (2002). Problems with Socratic Method. In G. A. Scott (Ed.), Does Socrates Have a Method? (pp. 101-113). Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
  • Ben-Yami, H. (2017). Vagueness and Family Resemblance. In H.-J. Glock & J. Hyman (Eds.), A Companion to Wittgenstein (pp. 407-419). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
  • Beversluis, J. (2000). Cross-Examining Socrates: A Defense of the Interlocutors in Plato's Early Dialogues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Brickhouse, T. C. & Smith, N. D. (2000). The Philosophy of Socrates. Boulder: Westview Press.
  • Brickhouse, T. C. & Smith, N. D. (2002). The Socratic Elenchos?. In G. A. Scott (Ed.), Does Socrates Have a Method? (pp. 145-157). Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
  • Chappell, T. D. J. (1993). The Virtues of Thrasymachus. Phronesis, 38(1), 1-17.
  • Cooper, J. M. (1977). The Psychology of Justice in Plato. American Philosophical Quarterly 14(2), 151-157.
  • Cooper, J. M. (1997). Plato: Complete Works (J. M. Cooper & D. S. Hutchinson, Eds.). Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company.
  • Davidson, D. (2006). A Coherence Theory of Truth and Knowledge. In D. Davidson (Ed.), The Essential Davidson (pp. 225-241). Oxford: Calderon Press.
  • Dougherty, M. (2020). The Importance of Roles in the Skill Analogy. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy, 17(1): 75-102.
  • Doyle, J. (2010). The Socratic Elenchus: No Problem. In J. Lear & A. Oliver (Eds.), The Force of Argument: Essays in Honor of Timothy Smiley (pp. 68-81). New York: Routledge.
  • Evrigenis, I. D. (2010). The Power Struggle of “Republic” I. History of Political Thought, 31(3), 367-382.
  • Frede, M. (1992). Plato’s Arguments and the Dialogue Form. In J. C. Klagge & N. D. Smith (Eds.), Methods of Interpreting Plato and His Dialogues (pp. 201-219). Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy: Supplementary Volume. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  • Gill, C. (2006). The Platonic Dialogue. In M. L. Gill & P. Pellegrin (Eds.), A Companion to Ancient Philosophy (pp. 136-150). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
  • Guthrie, W. K. C. (1971). Socrates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Irwin, T. (1995). Plato’s Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Kahn, C. H. (1993). Proleptic Composition in the Republic, or Why Book 1 Was Never a Separate Dialogue. The Classical Quarterly, 43(1), 131-142.
  • Kerferd, G. B. (1964). Thrasymachus and Justice: A Reply. Phronesis, 9(1), 12-16.
  • Lane, M. (2008). Socrates and Plato: An Introduction. In C. Rowe, M. Schofield, S. Harrison, & M. Lane (Eds.), The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought (pp. 155-163). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Leigh, F. (2007). Platonic Dialogue, Maieutic Method and Critical Thinking. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 41(3), 309–323.
  • Mulhern, J. J. (1971). Two Interpretative Fallacies. Systematics, 9(3), 168-172.
  • Nicholson, P. P. (1974). Unravelling Thrasymachus’ Arguments in “The Republic”. Phronesis 19(3), 210-232.
  • Penner, T. (1973). Socrates on Virtue and Motivation. In E. N. Lee, A. P. Mourelatos & R. Rorty (Eds.), Exegesis and Argument: Studies in Greek Philosophy Presented to Gregory Vlastos (pp. 133-151). Phronesis Supplementary Vol. I. Assen: Van Gorcum.
  • Penner, T. (2008). Socrates. In C. Rowe, M. Schofield, S. Harrison, & M. Lane (Eds.), The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought (pp. 164-189). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Plato. (1997). Meno (G. M. A. Grube Trans.). In J. M. Cooper & D. S. Hutchinson (Eds.), Plato: Complete Works (pp. 870-897). Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company.
  • Reeve, C. D. C. (1985). Socrates Meets Thrasymachus. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 67(3), 246-265. Reeve, C. D. C. (2004). Introduction. In Plato, Republic (C. D. C. Reeve Trans.) (pp. ix-xxvii). Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company.
  • Sayre, K. (1992). A Maieutic View of Five Late Dialogues. In J. C. Klagge & N. D. Smith (Eds.), Methods of Interpreting Plato and his Dialogues (pp. 221-242). Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy Supplementary Volume. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Schofield, M. (2008). Approaching the Republic. In C. Rowe, M. Schofield, S. Harrison, & M. Lane (Eds.), The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought (pp. 190-232). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Scott, D. (1999). Platonic Pessimism and Moral Education. In D. Sedley (Ed.), Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy (pp. 15-36). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Sedley, D. (1996). Three Platonist Interpretations of the Theaetetus. In C. Gill & M. M. McCabe (Eds.), Form and Argument in Late Plato (pp. 79-103). New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Steadman, G. D. (2011). Plato’s Republic I: Greek Text with Facing Vocabulary and Commentary. Retrieved from https://geoffreysteadman.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/platorepublic-july12.pdf.
  • Storey, D. (2022). The Soul-Turning Metaphor in Plato’s Republic Book 7. Classical Philology 177(3), 525-542.
  • Vlastos, G. (1994). Socratic Studies (M. Burnyeat, Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Wittgenstein, L. (2009). Philosophical Investigations (4th ed.) (G. E. M. Anscombe, P. M. S. Hacker, & J. Schulte, Trans.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. (Original work published 1953).
  • Wolfsdorf, D. (2003). Socrates’ Pursuit of Definitions. Phronesis, 48(4), 271–312.
  • Wolfsdorf, D. C. (2019). Socrates, Vlastos, and Analytic Philosophy. In C. Moore (Ed.), Brill's Companion to the Reception of Socrates (pp. 973-993). Brill’s Companion to Classical Reception, Series Vol. 18. Leiden and Boston: Brill.
  • Thanassas, P. (2021) Justice as Happiness: Republic and Its Proems. In E. Kaklamanou, M. Pavlou & A. Tsakmakis (Eds.), Framing the Dialogues: How to Read Openings and Closures in Plato (pp. 107-139). Brill’s Plato Studies Series Vol. 6. Leiden and Boston: Brill.
Toplam 40 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Konular Eskiçağ Felsefesi
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Süleyman Çağlar Varol 0009-0000-2177-648X

Yayımlanma Tarihi 30 Nisan 2025
Gönderilme Tarihi 29 Eylül 2024
Kabul Tarihi 7 Nisan 2025
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2025 Sayı: 1

Kaynak Göster

APA Varol, S. Ç. (2025). Did Plato Write Republic I Against Socrates?. Kilikya Felsefe Dergisi(1), 51-72.
AMA Varol SÇ. Did Plato Write Republic I Against Socrates?. KFD. Nisan 2025;(1):51-72.
Chicago Varol, Süleyman Çağlar. “Did Plato Write Republic I Against Socrates?”. Kilikya Felsefe Dergisi, sy. 1 (Nisan 2025): 51-72.
EndNote Varol SÇ (01 Nisan 2025) Did Plato Write Republic I Against Socrates?. Kilikya Felsefe Dergisi 1 51–72.
IEEE S. Ç. Varol, “Did Plato Write Republic I Against Socrates?”., KFD, sy. 1, ss. 51–72, Nisan 2025.
ISNAD Varol, Süleyman Çağlar. “Did Plato Write Republic I Against Socrates?”. Kilikya Felsefe Dergisi 1 (Nisan 2025), 51-72.
JAMA Varol SÇ. Did Plato Write Republic I Against Socrates?. KFD. 2025;:51–72.
MLA Varol, Süleyman Çağlar. “Did Plato Write Republic I Against Socrates?”. Kilikya Felsefe Dergisi, sy. 1, 2025, ss. 51-72.
Vancouver Varol SÇ. Did Plato Write Republic I Against Socrates?. KFD. 2025(1):51-72.