Kuria Doxa 33 面向哪些人群?

IF 0.4 3区 历史学 N/A CLASSICS MNEMOSYNE Pub Date : 2024-01-24 DOI:10.1163/1568525x-bja10217
Jan Maximilian Robitzsch
{"title":"Kuria Doxa 33 面向哪些人群?","authors":"Jan Maximilian Robitzsch","doi":"10.1163/1568525x-bja10217","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Scholars usually understand <jats:styled-content xml:lang=\"el-Grek\">Κύρια Δόξα</jats:styled-content> (<jats:styled-content xml:lang=\"el-Grek\">ΚΔ</jats:styled-content>) 33 as an antiplatonic polemic. This paper denies the <jats:italic>communis opinio</jats:italic>. First, it argues for an ontological reading of the maxim according to which justice (understood as virtue) is not a body but a property. Second, it shows that the Stoics hold the very thesis disputed in <jats:styled-content xml:lang=\"el-Grek\">ΚΔ</jats:styled-content> 33, namely that virtue is a body. This makes the Stoa the natural target of the maxim. Finally, the paper deals with <jats:italic>De rerum natura</jats:italic> I.464-482: here Lucretius criticizes nameless opponents with regard to the thesis that events are to be understood as bodies. If these opponents can be identified with the Stoics, as is usually assumed, there is further evidence besides <jats:styled-content xml:lang=\"el-Grek\">ΚΔ</jats:styled-content> 33 that the Epicureans engaged with the Stoic thesis of corporealism.","PeriodicalId":46134,"journal":{"name":"MNEMOSYNE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gegen wen ist Kuria Doxa 33 gerichtet?\",\"authors\":\"Jan Maximilian Robitzsch\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/1568525x-bja10217\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Scholars usually understand <jats:styled-content xml:lang=\\\"el-Grek\\\">Κύρια Δόξα</jats:styled-content> (<jats:styled-content xml:lang=\\\"el-Grek\\\">ΚΔ</jats:styled-content>) 33 as an antiplatonic polemic. This paper denies the <jats:italic>communis opinio</jats:italic>. First, it argues for an ontological reading of the maxim according to which justice (understood as virtue) is not a body but a property. Second, it shows that the Stoics hold the very thesis disputed in <jats:styled-content xml:lang=\\\"el-Grek\\\">ΚΔ</jats:styled-content> 33, namely that virtue is a body. This makes the Stoa the natural target of the maxim. Finally, the paper deals with <jats:italic>De rerum natura</jats:italic> I.464-482: here Lucretius criticizes nameless opponents with regard to the thesis that events are to be understood as bodies. If these opponents can be identified with the Stoics, as is usually assumed, there is further evidence besides <jats:styled-content xml:lang=\\\"el-Grek\\\">ΚΔ</jats:styled-content> 33 that the Epicureans engaged with the Stoic thesis of corporealism.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46134,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"MNEMOSYNE\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"MNEMOSYNE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/1568525x-bja10217\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"N/A\",\"JCRName\":\"CLASSICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MNEMOSYNE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/1568525x-bja10217","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"N/A","JCRName":"CLASSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

学者们通常将Κύρια Δόξα (ΚΔ) 33 理解为反柏拉图论战。本文否认共通确念。首先,本文论证了对格言的本体论解读,根据这一解读,正义(理解为美德)不是一个主体,而是一种属性。其次,本文指出斯多亚派所持的论点正是 ΚΔ 33 中的争议论点,即美德是一个本体。这使得斯多亚学派自然而然地成为格言的目标。最后,本文论述了 De rerum natura I.464-482:在此,卢克莱修批评了无名反对者关于事件应被理解为身体的论点。如果这些反对者能像通常假设的那样与斯多葛派相提并论,那么除了 ΚΔ 33 之外,还有更多证据表明伊壁鸠鲁派参与了斯多葛派的肉体论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Gegen wen ist Kuria Doxa 33 gerichtet?
Scholars usually understand Κύρια Δόξα (ΚΔ) 33 as an antiplatonic polemic. This paper denies the communis opinio. First, it argues for an ontological reading of the maxim according to which justice (understood as virtue) is not a body but a property. Second, it shows that the Stoics hold the very thesis disputed in ΚΔ 33, namely that virtue is a body. This makes the Stoa the natural target of the maxim. Finally, the paper deals with De rerum natura I.464-482: here Lucretius criticizes nameless opponents with regard to the thesis that events are to be understood as bodies. If these opponents can be identified with the Stoics, as is usually assumed, there is further evidence besides ΚΔ 33 that the Epicureans engaged with the Stoic thesis of corporealism.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
MNEMOSYNE
MNEMOSYNE CLASSICS-
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
50
期刊介绍: Since its first appearance as a journal of textual criticism in 1852, Mnemosyne has secured a position as one of the leading journals in its field worldwide. Its reputation is built on the Dutch academic tradition, famous for its rigour and thoroughness. It attracts contributions from all over the world, with the result that Mnemosyne is distinctive for a combination of scholarly approaches from both sides of the Atlantic and the Equator. Its presence in libraries around the globe is a sign of its continued reputation as an invaluable resource for scholarship in Classical studies.
期刊最新文献
Aristotle’s On the Good and the “Categorial Reduction Argument” Tanks for Nothing: an Explanation of Plautus Casina 121-125 Make Art, Not War: An Other (Hi)Story of thymos “Is the Embryo a Living Being?” (Aët. 5.15): Embryology, Plants, and the Origin of Life in Presocratic Thought A Translation Note on Pseudo-Seneca, Her. O. 1907
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1