詩與德行——柏拉圖與亞里斯多德論詩

Abstract

此份論文所要討論的乃是柏拉圖與亞里斯多德的詩學，而這又必然涉及到詩與德行的關係問題，因為在古希臘詩並非作為一種藝術而存在，而是承載著人的道德教化功能。當然，既然將兩人的詩學放在同一份論文中展開，也意味著對於他們二人對詩與德行的問題的討論將從一個比較的視野下進行。 在第二章我將從道德與知識兩個角度闡述柏拉圖究竟為何非常嚴厲地批判詩人，而這種批判卻並不意味著柏拉圖徹底反對了詩，相反地，柏拉圖用自身的寫作證明了一種哲學之詩是如何可能的。在第三章，我將重點闡述亞里斯多德在《詩學》中所提出的觀點，指出亞里斯多德雖然重新賦予了詩積極的地位與功能，但這並不意味著詩成為了純粹的美學作品，相反地，詩同樣在人的道德教化中扮演著重要角色。在第四章，我將首先解釋，在亞里斯多德的實踐哲學中，由詩所帶來的實踐智慧的訓練是如何促使道德德行的養成。接著，則將詩與德行的問題放回到比較的視野之下，即為何柏拉圖與亞里斯多德都認為詩應扮演起道德教化的功能，但兩人對詩的評價卻天差地別。我認為這是由於柏拉圖與亞里斯多德對德行持有不同的理解，以至於他們對詩也持有了不同的態度。這種對德行的不同理解，不僅關涉到詩的內容有所不同，甚至連詩的理想形式也發生了改變。

This thesis proposes to explore Plato’s and Aristotle’s treatments of poetry, which necessarily involves the problem of the relationship between poetry and morality. The reason for this is that poetry is not regarded in ancient Greece as a kind of art, but bears the function of moral education. Since this thesis will cover discussions of the poetics of both these thinkers, comparisons between them will be in order. In Chapter Two, I will, from the point of view of morality and knowledge, explain why Plato’s criticism of the poets was so severe. However, this criticism does not mean that Plato is completely against poetry; rather, Plato uses his own writings to prove how a kind of philosophical poetry is possible. In the third chapter, I will interpret the ideas which Aristotle in his Poetics puts forward and point out that although Aristotle gives poetry a more positive status and function, it doesn’t mean that poems are pure aesthetic works. On the contrary, poetry plays an important role in the moral education as well. In the fourth chapter, I will at first explain, within Aristotle’s practical philosophy, how the practical wisdom, cultivated through poetry, in turn cultivates moral virtues. Then I will come back to the comparative question, namely why Plato and Aristotle, while both holding that poetry should has a role in moral education, nevertheless exhibit such different attitudes toward it. I will suggest that this is due to their different understandings of virtue. These different understandings imply that not only the substance of virtue, but also the ideal forms of poetry, are different for each philosopher.