請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/27499
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 張漢良 | |
dc.contributor.author | Jen-chieh Tsai | en |
dc.contributor.author | 蔡仁傑 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-12T18:07:21Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2011-01-02 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2008-01-02 | |
dc.date.issued | 2007 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2007-12-26 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Classical texts:
Aristotle. Art of Rhetoric. Trans. John Henry Freese. LCL 193. London: Harvard UP, 1994. ---. Prior Analytics. Trans. Hugh Tredennick. LCL 325. London: Harvard UP, 1996. ---. Poetics. Trans. Stephen Halliwell. LCL 199. London: Harvard UP, 1995. ---. Topica. Trans. E. S. Forster. LCL 391. London: Harvard UP, 1997. ---. Topics: Books I and VIII with Excerpts from Related Texts. Trans. Robin Smith. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997. Augustine. On Christian Doctrine [De Doctrina Christiana]. Trans. D. W. Robertson, Jr. New York: Liberal Arts, 1958. ---. De Dialectica. Trans. B. Darrell Jackson. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel, 1975. ---. The Greatness of the Soul, The Teacher [De Magistro]. Trans. Joseph M. Colleran. New York: Newman, 1978. ---. De Magistro. Sancti Aureli Augustini Opera. Secl. 6, Pars 4. Recensvit et praefatus, Guenther Weigel. In Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum. Ed. Academiae Scientiarum Austriacae. Vol. 77. Wien: Hoelder-Pichler-Tempsky, 1961. Boethius. In Ciceronis Topica. Trans. Eleonore Stump. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1988. ---. The Consolation of Philosophy. Trans. P. G. Walsh. Oxford: Clarendon, 1999. ---. The Consolation of Philosophy. Trans. S. J. Tester. LCL 74. London: Harvard UP, 1997. ---. De Topicis Differentiis. Trans. Eleonore Stump. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1989. Cicero. De Finibus. Ed. Julia Annas. Trans. Raphael Woof. New York: Cambridge UP, 2001. ---. De Inventione. Trans. H. M. Hubbell. LCL 386. London: Harvard UP, 1949. ---. Letters to His Friends. Trans. D. R. Shackleton Bailey. Vol. 1. LCL 205. London: Harvard UP, 2001. ---. On the Ideal Orator [De Oratore]. Trans. James M. May and Jakob Wisse. New York: Oxford UP, 2001. ---. Tusculan Disputations. Trans. J. E. King. LCL 141. London: William Heinemann, 1927. Diogenes Laertius. Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Trans. R. D. Hicks. 2 Vols. LCL 184-85. London: Harvard UP, 1925. Epictetus. Discourses. Trans. W. A. Oldfather. 2 Vols. LCL 131. London: Harvard UP, 1998. Gorgias. Encomium of Helen. Trans. D. M. MacDowell. London: Bristol Classical, 2003. Hesiod. Works and Days and Theogony. Trans. Stanley Lombardo. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1993. Homer. Iliad. Trans. A. T. Murray. 2 Vols. LCL 170-71. London: Harvard UP, 1999. Isocrates. Discourses. Trans. George Norlin. Vol. 1. LCL 209. London: Harvard UP, 1991. Philodemus. On Methods of Inference [De Signis]. Trans. P. H. De Lacy and E. A. De Lacy. Napoli, It.: Bibliopolis, 1978. Plato. Cratylus, Parmenides, Greater Hippias, Lesser Hippias. Trans. H. N. Fowler. LCL 167. London: Harvard UP, 1996. ---. Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus. Trans. H. N. Fowler. LCL 36. London: Harvard UP, 1999. ---. Laches, Protagoras, Meno, Euthydemus. Trans. W. R. M. Lamb. LCL 165. London: Harvard UP, 1999. ---. Lysis, Symposium, Gorgias. Trans. W. R. M. Lamb. LCL 166. London: Harvard UP, 1996. ---. Republic. Trans. Allan Bloom. Basic, c1991. ---. Theaetetus, Sophist. Trans. H. N. Fowler. LCL 123. London: Harvard UP, 1996. Plotinus. The Enneads. Trans. Stephen MacKenna. 4th ed. Rev. B. S. Page. New York: Pantheon, 1969. Quintilian. Institutio Oratoria. 4 vols. Trans. H. E. Butler. LCL 124. London: Harvard UP, 1996. Rhetorica ad Herrenium. Trans. Harry Caplan. LCL 403. London: Harvard UP, 1999. Schopp, Ludwig, ed. The Fathers of the Church, Writings of Saint Augustine. Vol. 1. New York: Cima, 1948. Sophocles. Ajax, Electra, Oedipus Tyrannus. Trans. Hugh Lloyd-Jones. LCL 20. London: Harvard UP, 1997. Other references: Allen, James. Inference from Signs: Ancient Debates about the Nature of Evidence. Oxford: Clarendon, 2001. Bakhtin, M. M. Toward a Philosophy of the Act. Trans. Vadim Liapunov. Ed. Michael Holquist. Austin: U of Texas P, 1993. Barnes, Jonathans. “Boethius and the Study of Logic.” Gibson 73-89. Benveniste, Emile. Problems in General Linguistics. Trans. Mary Elizabeth Meek. Coral Gables, Fla.: U of Miami P, 1973. Boal, August. Theater of the Oppressed. Trans. Charles A. and Maria-Odilia Leal McBride. New York: Theatre Communications Group, 1985. Bohman, James. “The Importance of the Second Person: Interpretation, Practical Knowledge, and Normative Attitudes.” Empathy and Agency: The Problem of Understanding in the Human Sciences. Eds. Hans Herbert Kögler and Karsten R. Stueber. Boulder: Westview, 2000. 222-42. Brunshwig, Jacques. “Aristotle’s Rhetoric as a ‘Counterpart’ to Dialectic.” Rorty 34-55. Brunschwig, Jacques, and Lloyd, Geoffrey, E. R., eds. Greek Thought: A Guide to Classical Knowledge. Trans. Guerlac et al. Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap P of Harvard UP, 2000. Butler, Shane. The Hand of Cicero. London: Routledge, 2002. Calboli, Gualtiero, and William J. Dominik, eds. Roman Eloquence: Rhetoric in Society and Literature. London: Routledge, 1997. ---. Introduction: The Roman Suada. Calboli and Dominik 3-12. Cameron, Averil. Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire: The Development of Christian Discourse. Berkley: U of California P, 1991. Carmago, Martin. “Rhetoric.” Wagner 96-124. Chadwick, Henry. Boethius: The Consolations of Music, Logic, Theology, and Philosophy. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990. Cheyne, Colin. Knowledge, Cause, and Abstract Objects: Causal Objections to Platonism. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001. Cole, Thomas. The Origins of Rhetoric in Ancient Greece. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins UP, 1991. Conybeare, Catherine. The Irrational Augustine. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2006. Cooper, John M. Knowledge, Nature, and the Good: Essays on Ancient Philosophy. Princeton: Princeton UP, 2004. Corbett, Edward P. J. “The Changing Strategies of Argumentation from Ancient to Modern Times.” Practical Reasoning in Human Affairs: Studies in Honor of Chaim Perelman. Eds. James L. Golden and Joseph J. Pilota. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1986. 21-35. Crabbe, Anna. “Literary Design in the De Consolatione Philosophiae.” Gibson 237-74. Craig, Leon. “The Strange Misperception of Plato’s Meno.” Politics, Philosophy, Writing: Plato’s Art of Caring for Souls. Ed. Zdravko Planinc. Columbia: U of Missouri P, 2001. 60-79. Day, Jane M., ed. Plato’s Meno in Focus. London: Routledge, 1994. Evans, G. R. Philosophy and Theology in the Middle Ages. London: Routledge, 1993. Gage, John T. “On ‘Rhetoric’ and ‘Composition.’” An Introduction to Composition Studies. Eds. Erika Lindemann and Gary Tate. New York: Oxford UP, 1991. 15-32. Gibson, Margaret, ed. Boethius: His Life, Thought and Influence. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1981. Gonzalez, Francisco J. Dialectic and Dialogue: Plato’s Practice of Philosophical Inquiry. Evanston: Northwestern UP, 1998. Green, Lawrence D. “Aristotelian Rhetoric, Dialectic, and the Traditions of Antistrophos.” Rhetoric 8.1(1990): 5-27. Gunderson, Erik. Declamation, Paternity, and Roman Identity: Authority and the Rhetorical Self. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2003. Heath, Malcolm. “Rhetoric in Mid-antiquity.” Classics in Progress: Essays on Ancient Greece and Rome. Ed. T. P. Wiseman. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2002. 419-39. Ijsseling, Samuel. Rhetoric and Philosophy in Conflict: An Historical Survey. Trans. Paul Dunphy. The Hague, Neth.: Martinus Nijhoff, 1977. Jakobson, Roman, and Halle, Morris. Fundamentals of Language. The Hague, Neth.: Mouton, 1980. Jaspers, Karl. Plato and Augustine. Trans. Ralph Manheim. Ed. Hannah Arendt. San Diego: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1962. Kennedy, George A. Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times. London: Croom Helm, 1980. Kenny, Anthony. A Brief History of Western Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998. ---. The Oxford Illustrated History of Western Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2001. Kerferd, G. B. The Sophistic Movement. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1999. King, Peter. Introduction. Against the Academicians and The Teacher. By Augustine. Trans. Peter King. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1995. vi-xxiv. Kirby, John T. “Ciceronian Rhetoric: Theory and Practice.” Calboli and Dominik 13-31. Lerer, Seth. Boethius and Dialogue: Literary Methods in The Consolation of Philosophy. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1985. Long, A. A. “The Socratic Imprint on Epictetus’ Philosophy.” Stoicism: Traditions and Transformations. Eds. Steven K. Strange and Jack Zupko. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2004. 10-31. Manetti, Giovanni. Theories of the Sign in Classical Antiquity. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1993. May, James M., and Jakob Wisse. Introduction. On the Ideal Orator. By Cicero. Trans. James M. May and Jakob Wisse. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2001. McComiskey, Bruce. Gorgias and the New Sophistic Rhetoric. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 2002. McInerny, Ralph. Boethius and Aquinas. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic U of America P, 1990. Morford, Mark. The Roman Philosophers: From the Time of Cato the Censor to the Death of Marcus Aurelius. London: Routledge, 2002. Moss, Jean Dietz, and William A. Wallace. Introduction: The Disciplinary Scene. Rhetoric & Dialectic in the Time of Galileo. Washington, D.C.: Catholic U of America P, c2003. 1-38. Myerson, George. Rhetoric, Reason and Society. London: Sage, 1994. Nehamas, Alexander. “Meno’s Paradox and Socrates as a Teacher.” Day 221-48. O’Daly, Gerard. “Augustine.” From Aristotle to Augustine. Ed. David Furley. London: Routledge, 1999. 388-428. ---. Augustine’s Philosophy of Mind. Berkley: U of California P, 1987. O’Meara, Dominic J. Plotinus: An Introduction to the Enneads. Oxford: Clarendon, 1993. Passmore, John. Philosophical Reasoning. New York: Basic, 1969. Pavur, Claude. Nietzsche Humanist. New York: Fordham UP, 1998. Peirce, Charles Sanders. The Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writings. Ed. The Peirce Edition Project. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1992. Perelman, Ch., and L. Obrechts-Tyteca. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Trans. John Wilkinson and Puroell Weaver. Notre Dame, IN: U of Notre Dame P, 1969. Pirocacos, Elly. False Belief and the Meno Paradox. Aldershot, Eng.: Ashgate, 1998. Popper, Karl. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. New York: Basic, 1974. Rembert, A. W. Swift and the Dialectical Tradition. London: MacMillan, 1988. Richlin, Amy. “Gender and Rhetoric: Producing Manhood in the Schools.” Calboli and Dominik 90-110. Ricoeur, Paul. “Between Rhetoric and Poetics.” Rorty 324-84. Rist, John M. Augustine: Ancient Thought Baptized. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996. de Romilly, Jacqueline. The Great Sophists in Periclean Athens. Trans. Janet Lloyd. Oxford: Clarendon, 2002. Rorty, Amelie Oksenberg, ed. Essays on Aristotle’s Rhetoric. Berkley: U of California P, 1996. Russell, Bertrand. A History of Western Philosophy. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1972. de Saussure, Ferdinand. Course in General Linguistics. Trans. Wade Baskin. Eds. Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye. Beijing: China Social Sciences Publishing House, 1999. Shepherdson, Charles. “‘Pity and Fear’: Ethics, Esthetics, and the Catharsis of Emotion.” DFLL Faculty Colloquium. NTU, Taipei. 8 Nov. 2006. Sipiora, Phillip. Introduction: The Ancient Concept of Kairos. Rhetoric and Kairos: Essays in History, Theory, and Praxis. Albany: State University of New York P, 2002. 1-22. Skirbekk, Gunner, and Nils Gilje. A History of Western Thought: From Ancient Greece to the Twentieth Century. London: Routledge, 2001. Smith, Robin. Introduction. Topics: Books I and VIII: with Excerpts from Related Texts. By Aristotle. Trans. Robin Smith. Oxford: Clarendon, 1997. xi-xxxv. Spence, Sarah. Rhetorics of Reason and Desire: Vergil, Augustine, and the Troubadours. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1988. Steel, C. E. W. Cicero, Rhetoric, and Empire. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2001. Stump, Eleonore. “Dialectic.” Wagner 125-46. Vickers, Brian. In Defense of Rhetoric. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990. Vlastos, Gregory. “Anamnesis in the Meno.” Day 88-111. ---. Socratic Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1994. Wagner, David L., ed. The Seven Liberal Arts in the Middle Ages. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1983. ---. “The Seven Liberal Arts and Classical Scholarchip.” Wagner 1-31. Walker, Jeffrey. Rhetoric and Poetics in Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000. Wardy, Robert. The Birth of Rhetoric: Gorgias, Plato and Their Successors. London: Routledge, 1996. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/27499 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 「哲學」與「修辭」之爭由來已久,始自於柏拉圖對於詭辯學家的攻訐,因後者所運用的說服術不僅以言語的力量媚惑聽眾,且其終極目標亦非導向「智識」,因而不相容於柏拉圖式的形上學。但回歸到柏拉圖的文本時,吾人可見,「哲學」與「修辭」之爭必須置於「對話」的脈絡來看,也就是說,就算是柏拉圖,此「爭」意味著方法學之爭,是兩種辯論術之間的糾葛,並非傳統上認為的形上學與語言之間的對立。準之,本研究意圖修正此認知,認為此爭源自於「辯證」對於「修辭」的抗衡,君不見,蘇格拉底總是運用其定義式的提問消弭詭辯學家的話術所加諸的非知識性之認知。因此,本研究在此前提下,將爬梳古典時期中「辯證」與「修辭」間的種種關係,研究範圍包括柏拉圖、亞里斯多德、伊底帕斯悲劇、西賽羅、奧古斯丁、以及博修斯。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | This is a study committed to the question how dialectic and rhetoric—as two modes of argumentation—are textualized in Classical antiquity. The inquiry is launched primarily with a view to redressing and rephrasing the time-honored clash between philosophy and rhetoric ever since Plato opposes the former to the latter in the Gorgias. Through this conflict, philosophy has been portrayed as a matter of metaphysics indicative of objectivity and totality and thus ethical correctness, in contradistinction to rhetoric, which, for lack of alethic requirements, “has been given negative connotations of insincerity, mere display, artifice, or ornament without substance” (Vickers viii). Such opposition points to the dichotomization between reality and language, suggesting a hierarchy whereby “word” correlates philosophy only when it serves the purpose of the latter, as in Plato’s Phaedrus, where a “philosophical” rhetoric is possible under the aegis of episteme.
Yet, as recent thoughts have constantly highlighted the role of language in the formation of what one can actually know, the conflict between philosophy, as a metaphysical system, and rhetoric, as the realm of deceptive words, has also been brought into question. For instance, Samuel Ijsseling touches upon the “rehabilitation of rhetoric” (4) and argues that philosophy by no means suffices on its own since its enforcement is largely determined by verbal maneuvers (5). “In short,” as he comments on what concerns rhetoric, “what really happens whenever something is said or something is written” (5)? It is obvious then, that what one claims to know derives from the outcome of a certain dialogical process; the expression of a philosophical proposition always has an “other” working to engage the philosopher in an implicit dialogue. In other words, there is no such a thing as apodictic truth because everything known is linguistically constructed. For Ijsseling, rhetorical concerns naturally correspond to language uses. However, the “rehabilitation of rhetoric” is in no way a restoration of the ancient rhetoric. For one thing, Ijsseling’s argument rhetoricizes whatever is said or written without heeding the fact that there indeed exists a conflict for Plato. The other is that this very conflict is represented in Socratic argumentation with the Sophists. That is to say, Socratic figures argue to annul sophistry and achieve the Platonic metaphysics. Specifically, the clash is hence that between “dialectic” and “rhetoric,” by which one can rightly pinpoint the zetetic aspect of the “philosophy” shown in Plato’s dialogues. It is based on this working argument that the present study retraces the origin of the conflict and examines its evolution in Classical antiquity. With the source of the time-honored conflict clarified, this study then undertakes to explore the “symbiotic” relationships between dialectic and rhetoric in Classical antiquity. The first chapter returns to the primal scene, that is, the Gorgias, to see how “dialectic” and “rhetoric” are respectively formed in clash with each other. It also identifies the features and strategies particular to each mode of argumentation as textualized by Plato in this dialogue. The second chapter goes on to Aristotle for the sake of examining how he re-textualizes the two modes of argumentation, and in particular, how he philosophizes rhetoric at the expense of dialectic. The third chapter looks into the Oedipus tragedy. Or, more specifically, it studies the literary text via Aristotle’s conceptualization of it in Poetics. The purpose is to show that there exists in the Oedipus tragedy an underlying convergence of dialectic and rhetoric though the text is traditionally thought to be “literary.” The following two chapters turn to the Romans. Chapter Four discusses Cicero’s Tusculan Disputations and Boethius’ The Consolation of Philosophy to search into the manner by which the Roman literati attempt the relationship between dialectic and rhetoric. It is found that the two modes of argumentation take on a new façade. Although dialectic remains a verbal tool for philosophizing, its role becomes quite vague in relation to both philosophy and rhetoric. Chapter Five mainly studies Augustine’s De Magistro to find out how the two modes of argumentation are transformed in face of Christianity. Already critical of rhetoric, Augustine is seen to drastically alter the constitution of dialectic to the extent that dialectic dwindles into insignificance: the real “dialectic” is a metaphysical occurrence, truly irrelevant to words by now. Through these discussions on dialectic in relation to rhetoric, it is hoped that a genealogical and historical perspective can be revealed regarding conventional readings of the conflict between philosophy and rhetoric. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-12T18:07:21Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-96-D93122004-1.pdf: 751047 bytes, checksum: d14258ba8850b5839a0bc7cd5ee2a5d3 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2007 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | Exordium.................................................01
Ⅰ. The Divergence of Dialectic and Rhetoric in Plato....08 Ⅱ. The Convergence of Dialectic and Rhetoric in Aristotle................................................42 Ⅲ. A Case Study: Dialectic and Rhetoric in Oedipus Tyrannus.................................................74 Ⅳ. Rhetorical Ventriloquism: The Textualization of Dialectic and Philosophy in Cicero’s Tusculan Disputations and Boethius’The Consolation of Philosophy..............................................106 Ⅴ. Reason and Faith in Augustine’s De Magistro, with References to His Other Texts on Dialectic and Plato’s Meno....................................................146 Peroration..............................................180 Works Cited.............................................194 | |
dc.language.iso | en | |
dc.title | 古典文藝中的辯證與修辭 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Dialectic and Rhetoric in Classical Textual Representations | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 96-1 | |
dc.description.degree | 博士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 康士林,李奭學,唐格理,袁鶴翔 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 哲學,辯證,修辭,辯論,智識,技藝, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | philosophy,dialectic,rhetoric,argumentation,episteme,techne, | en |
dc.relation.page | 202 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2007-12-27 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 文學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 外國語文學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 外國語文學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-96-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 733.44 kB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。