| dc.contributor.advisor | 彭文林 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author (Authors) | 蘇富芝 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author (Authors) | Su, Fu Chih | en_US |
| dc.creator (作者) | 蘇富芝 | zh_TW |
| dc.creator (作者) | Su, Fu Chih | en_US |
| dc.date (日期) | 2007 | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 17-Sep-2009 16:50:23 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.available | 17-Sep-2009 16:50:23 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.issued (上傳時間) | 17-Sep-2009 16:50:23 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) | G0901545052 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri (URI) | https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/33479 | - |
| dc.description (描述) | 博士 | zh_TW |
| dc.description (描述) | 國立政治大學 | zh_TW |
| dc.description (描述) | 哲學研究所 | zh_TW |
| dc.description (描述) | 90154505 | zh_TW |
| dc.description (描述) | 96 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | 摘要 本篇論文的討論起點來自柏拉圖如何面對靈魂能夠認知真理的這個可能性。柏拉圖設立那與變動的感覺現象完全分離的「不變動的『相』」作為知識得以成立的條件，這個歷史緣由可從亞里士多德的記載當中知道：一方面，柏拉圖認同克拉梯樓斯與赫拉克利圖學派所主張的感覺現象的永遠流動、無一停留，並因此認為絕不可能有關於感覺現象的知識，然而，另一方面，那致力於倫理事物研究的蘇格拉底則堅持必定有那可被定義的知識對象得以被思考與認知；由於受到這兩方所堅持的信念，柏拉圖則在為了拯救現象並使思考與知識得以可能的情況下，他設立了那必須與變動的感覺現象完全分離的相來作為感覺現象之所以如此存在的原因，並在透過那分有相的感覺現象當中，靈魂得以思考並回憶起關於相的知識，而由此拯救現象並保全靈魂得以思考且獲得知識的可能性。 然而，柏拉圖的分離相論卻有可能引發諸多困難，這主要可由《巴曼尼德斯篇》裡的少年蘇格拉底所遭遇到的三個困境所表現出來：○1少年蘇格拉底對於是否有卑下者的相的存在，顯得猶疑不定；○2由於無法回答相與現象之間到底是如何分有，以致於分有成為不可能；○3更進一步地，正是由於相與現象彼此的完全分離，以致於原本肩負拯救現象這使命的相，到頭來卻反而根本無法拯救現象，而且也面臨無法為人所知的這個最大困境。 這三個困境其實正是柏拉圖真理之路---愛智者如何能擁有那與現象完全分離的相的知識？---所蘊含的兩個一體兩面的論題：第一，思考與知識的可能性如何成立？也就是，相如何拯救現象？第二，愛智者要以什麼樣的方法才能正確地獲得相的知識以成為真正的哲學家？關於第一個論題，筆者認為，柏拉圖在《巴曼尼德斯篇》第二部分的八組推論當中提出一種具有數特徵的存有論，這個存有論綿密、細緻地論說《蒂邁歐篇》裡的宇宙生成論以及「未成書研究」裡的原理論，在這當中，相拯救現象的可能性乃在於---神以其意願與叡智將相形塑於這個數存有的世界並因此使那些在場域裡生滅變化的現象獲得一致性，如此，神的意願（i.e.善）乃作為相得以拯救現象的最具統馭力的原因與原理；關於第二個論題，那能使少年蘇格拉底獲得真理以成為哲學家的訓練，正是那以合理論說所掌握的相為對象的訓練，筆者認為，柏拉圖在這個訓練當中，試圖透過假設法的運用，使得愛智者能緊守在對「是」（i.e.相）的追求上，並得以在一步步的往上探求當中，在最後能以最終的決定性原因---善---來束縛住所有的相，如此，當愛智者能在「善」的指導下以合理論說來正確地指出每個相的真實本質時，這個愛智者也就成為真正的哲學家。 在這樣的解決方式當中，柏拉圖證成了靈魂能夠認知真理的可能性，為自己的真理之路尋得一個合理的立足點。柏拉圖在這當中所奮力搏鬥的，主要並不是亞里士多德在《物理學以後諸篇》A 6.987a33-b10所提及的這些哲學家，而是歷史上的這位伊利亞哲學家---巴曼尼德斯：柏拉圖分離相論的核心來自巴曼尼德斯其毫無生滅變動的「完滿的是」，然而，柏拉圖拯救現象以及保全思考與知識的可能性的這個企圖，卻又是必須對巴曼尼德斯的「完滿的是」提出批判。而在柏拉圖藉由這兩個假設與八組推論來與巴曼尼德斯奮力搏鬥當中，柏拉圖所完成的不僅僅只是解決分離相論所可能引來的困境，而更是走上一條不同於巴曼尼德斯的真理之路，因為現象的拯救是柏拉圖所主要異於巴曼尼德斯的地方，而那使得現象得以被相所拯救的最具統馭力的原因與原理乃在於---宇宙父親的意願與叡智，而這乃作為柏拉圖自己的真理之路的最終磐石。關鍵詞：相論，分離，分有，善，假設法，柏拉圖，巴曼尼德斯，〈未成書研究〉，《巴曼尼德斯篇》，《蒂邁歐篇》。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | Abstract The aim of this thesis is to show that how Plato might deal with the possibility for soul of knowing the truth. The historical reason for Plato positing the invariable Forms, which are totally apart from the variable sensible things, is remarked by Aristotle that: on the one hand, having been agreed with Cratylus and the Heracllitean doctrines that all sensible things are always in a state of flux and that no science of them exists, yet on the other hand, taking into account the Socrates’ efforts to find general definitions of ethical terms, Plato, having been inspired by both views, thinks that there must be some invariable things, i.e. Forms, which are totally apart from the variable sensible things and could only be thought with logos（or reasonable account）, as the causes of the sensible things. Therefore, the soul could recollect and think of Forms by perceiving these sensible things, which participate in the corresponding Forms. Hence, Plato saves the phenomena and secures the possibility for soul of thinking and knowing the truth by his theory of Forms. However, there might be many problems that arisen from Plato’s theory of Forms. These problems are shown mainly by the three perplexities, which are encountered by the young Socrates in the Parmenides. First, the young Socrates is undecided about whether the base things could have their Forms, second, having been unable to solve the problem of the sharing between the sensible things and Forms, the young Socrates finally has to accept the impossibility of sharing, third, further, just owing to this totally separation that is between the sensible things and Forms, Forms finally could not save the phenomena and could not be known by anyone. Actually, the three perplexities are the two topics of Plato’s way of truth, which is that how the lover of wisdom could know the Forms that are totally separate from the sensible things. The first topic is that, in what way the possibility of thinking and acquiring knowledge could be secured. That is, how the phenomena could be saved by Forms? The second topic is that, in what way the lover of wisdom could acquire the truth and becomes the real philosopher. As for the first, I think that Plato claims a kind of ontology, which has numerical character, in the second part of the Parmenides. This ontology provides deliberately the cosmogony of the Timaeus and the theory of the Principles in the Unwritten Doctrines that could justify the possibility of the phenomena that are saved by Forms. This possibility lies in the god’s nous and will, i.e. the world that has numerical character is fashioned by the god with Forms as model, and then the becoming phenomena that cling to the receptacle are saved and intelligible. Therefore, the god’s will is the supremely valid cause and principle of this possibility. As for the second, this exercise that can make the young Socrates as a real philosopher if he takes it into practice is the training, which takes Forms as its objects and be practiced in hypothetical method. I think the reason for Plato of using the hypothetical method is that this hypothetical method can make the lover of wisdom to cling to Forms when he is putting this exercise into practice, and in this upward process systematically, finally, he can fasten all the Forms with the final cause, i.e. the good. Therefore, when the lover of wisdom could show the real essence of each Form with reasonable account under the guidance of the good, he at that time is a real philosopher. Under this solution, Plato justifies the possibility for soul of knowing the truth, and makes his way of truth possible. In this fighting, those with whom Plato fights are not those philosophers that are remarked by Aristotle in Metaphysics A 6.987a33-b10, but the philosopher of Elea, Parmenides. On the one hand, the key point of Plato’s theory of Forms is coming from Parmenides’ concept of Being, which is ungenerated and imperishable, yet on the other hand, the attempt for the possibility of saving the phenomena and for soul to know the truth is urging Plato to put Parmenides’ claim to the question. Then what Plato has done in this fighting, which mainly occurs in the second part of the Parmenides, is that as he is solving these perplexities, he at the same time is stepping upon another way of truth, which is different from Parmenides. In this fighting, saving phenomena is the main difference between Plato and Parmenides. The god’s nous and will is the supremely valid cause and principle of the saved phenomena and this most supreme cause is the coping-stone for Plato’s way of truth.Keywords: Plato’s theory of Forms, separate, participate, the good, the hypothetical method, Plato, Parmenides, the Unwritten Doctrines, the Parmenides, the Timaeus. | en_US |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 目錄前言 1第一章 《巴曼尼德斯篇》裡的少年蘇格拉底相論 5 第一節 《巴曼尼德斯篇》（Parmenides）的歷史背景 5 第二節 少年蘇格拉底的企圖 8 第一小節 齊諾的主張 8 第二小節 設置相論：相與合理論說 12 （一） 相論引進的理由 12 （二） 相的特徵 15 第三節 少年蘇格拉底的困境 17 第一小節 兩種誤會 17 第二小節 來自分離與分有的三個困境 20 小結 29 第四節 巴曼尼德斯的訓練與遊戲 29 第一小節 巴曼尼德斯再度肯定少年蘇格拉底相論 29 第二小節 巴曼尼德斯的訓練 31 第三小節 巴曼尼德斯的遊戲 35結語 39第二章 柏拉圖對於假設法的看法與運用 43 上升之路 43 第一節 為什麼要使用假設法來進行？ 43 第一小節 假設法提出的目的 ---以《曼諾篇》（Meno）來理解 43 （一）知識的對象--「是」 43 （二）探求知識是可能的---學習即回憶 44 （三）使用假設法---探求「是」 46 （四）上升的假設法 47 小結 50 第二小節 假設法在《費多篇》與《國家篇》裡的應用情況 50 （一）在《費多篇》裡 50 小結 54 （二）在《國家篇》裡 55 第二節 為什麼既要考慮所假設者的「是」與「不是」， 也要考慮所假設者與異於所假設者之間的彼此關係？ 56結語 57第三章 《巴曼尼德斯篇》裡的巴曼尼德斯的訓練與遊戲 59 第一節 一多問題 59 第一小節 少年蘇格拉底的驚訝 59 第二小節 未成書研究裡的原理論 62 （一）未成書研究的提出 62 （二）未成書研究的主要內容 66 小結 74 第二節 「如果一是」---第一至第四組推論 75 第一小節 第一組推論---孤絕的一 75 第二小節 第二組與第三組推論---分有存有的一 79 第三小節 第四組推論---孤絕的一 113 第三節 「如果一不是」---第五至第八組推論 115 第一小節 第五組與第七組推論---分有存有的一 115 第二小節 第六組與第八組推論---絕對地無 123結語 126 第四章 巴曼尼德斯與柏拉圖 131 第一節 巴曼尼德斯所留下的真理風貌 131 第一小節 踏上真理之路的愛智者 131 （一）會毀朽者其認知真理的可能性 131 （二）正義女神持守「完滿的是」 133 第二小節 會毀朽者的意見 138 第二節 柏拉圖從巴曼尼德斯當中所看見的真理風貌 140 第一小節 柏拉圖從巴曼尼德斯所承繼的論點 141 第二小節 柏拉圖對巴曼尼德斯的批判 142結語 144 結論 145參考書目 148 人名對照表 155 | zh_TW |
| dc.format.extent | 45780 bytes | - |
| dc.format.extent | 46967 bytes | - |
| dc.format.extent | 49438 bytes | - |
| dc.format.extent | 93530 bytes | - |
| dc.format.extent | 20440 bytes | - |
| dc.format.extent | 76153 bytes | - |
| dc.format.extent | 107190 bytes | - |
| dc.format.extent | 426629 bytes | - |
| dc.format.extent | 251324 bytes | - |
| dc.format.extent | 662294 bytes | - |
| dc.format.extent | 300417 bytes | - |
| dc.format.extent | 125305 bytes | - |
| dc.format.extent | 84626 bytes | - |
| dc.format.extent | 48839 bytes | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | - |
| dc.source.uri (資料來源) | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0901545052 | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 相論 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 分離 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 分有 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 善 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 假設法 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 柏拉圖 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 巴曼尼德斯 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 〈未成書研究〉 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 《巴曼尼德斯篇》 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 《蒂邁歐篇》 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | Plato`s theory of Forms | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | separate | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | participate | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | the good | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | the hypothetical method | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | Plato | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | Parmenides | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | the Unwritten Doctrines | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | the Parmenides | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | the Timaeus | en_US |
| dc.title (題名) | 柏拉圖的真理之路──從《巴曼尼德斯篇》出發 | zh_TW |
| dc.title (題名) | Plato`s way of truth---Starting from the Parmenides | en_US |
| dc.type (資料類型) | thesis | en |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 參考書目 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 柏拉圖原典使用版本 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Plato, vols. I-XII, in the Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 中文書目 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 柏拉圖，《理想國》，郭斌和、張竹明譯，北京商務印書館，2002。 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 柏拉圖，《柏拉圖的【會飲】》，劉小楓等譯，北京華夏出版社，2003。 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 陳康，《柏拉圖巴曼尼德斯篇譯註》，北京商務印書館， | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 1944初版，1981重印。 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 陳康，《陳康：論希臘哲學》，汪子嵩、王太慶編， | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 北京商務印書館，1990。 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 彭文林，《倫理相與分離問題：一個由蘇格拉底經柏拉圖至亞里斯多德的 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 哲學發展之研究》，台北明目文化事業，2002。 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 彭文林，《柏拉圖【克拉梯樓斯篇】》，台北聯經，2002。 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 汪子嵩、范明生、陳村富、姚介厚，《希臘哲學史》第二卷， | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 北京人民出版社，1997。 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 葉秀山，《前蘇格拉底哲學研究》，北京人民出版社，1982。 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 卡斯代爾 • 布舒奇，《【法義】導讀》，譚立鑄譯， | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 北京華夏出版社，2006。 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 讓_皮埃爾 • 韋爾南，《希臘思想的起源》，秦海鷹譯， | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 北京三聯書店，1996。 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 西文書目 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 註譯本及相關研究 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Allen, R. E. (ed.) 1965. Studies in Plato’s Metaphysics. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | ------------and Furley, D. J. (eds.) 1975. Studies in Presocratic Philosophy, vol.2: The Eleatics and Pluralist. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Aristotle, vols.IV,VI,VIII,XVII,XVIII in the Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Apostle, Hippocrates G. 1966. Aristotle’s Metaphysics: Translated with Commentaries and Glossary. Indiana University Press. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Barnes, J. 1984. The Complete Works of Aristotle 2vols. Princeton University Press. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Bedu-Addo, J. T. 1983. ‘Sense-Experience and Recollection in Plato’s Meno’ The American Journal of Philology 104:228-248. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | ------------1984. ‘Recollection and the Argument “From a Hypothesis”in Plato’s Meno’ The Journal of Hellenic Studies 104:1-14. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Bluck, R. S. 1955. Plato’s Phaedo. Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. London. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Burnet, J. 1930. Early Greek Philosophy, 4th edn. London: Black. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Bury, R. G. 1932. The Symposium of Plato Cambridge University Press. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Chalmers, W. R. 1960. ‘Parmenides and the Beliefs of Mortals’ Phronesis, 5:5-22. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Cooper, John M.（ed.）1997. Plato: Complete Works Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Cornford, F. M. 1932. ‘Mathematics and Dialectic in the Republic VI-VII ’ in Studies in Plato’s Metaphysics, ed. R. E. Allen, pp.61-95. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | ------------1935. Plato’s Theory of Knowledge: The Theaetetus and the Sophist of Plato Translated with a Running Commentary London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | ------------1937. Plato’s Cosmology: The Timaeus of Plato Tanslated with a Running Commentary London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | ------------1939. Plato and Parmenides: Parmenides’ Way of Truth and Plato’s Parmenides Translated with an introduction and a Running Commentary London : Routledge & Kegan Paul. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Coxon, A. H. 1986. The fragments of Parmenides: a critical text with introduction,and translation, the ancient testimonia and a commentary. Assen, The Netherlands; Dover, N.H.: Van Gorcum. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Crystal, I. 1996. ‘Parmenidean Allusions in Republic V’ Ancient Philosophy,16:351-363. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Curd, Patricia K. 1988. ‘Parmenidean Clues in the Search for the Sophist’ History of Philosophy Quarterly 5:307-320. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Diels, H. 1951. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker（fifth and subsequent edtions revised by W. Kranz）sixth edition, Berlin: Weidmann | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Dorter, K. 1994. Form and Good in Plato’s Eleatic Dialogues California University Press. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Fobes, F. H. 1957. Philosophical Greek Chicago University Press. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Fränkel, H. 1975. ‘Studies in Parmenides’ reprinted in Allen, R. E. and Furley, D. J.(eds.), Studies in Presocratic Philosophy, vol.2:The Eleatics and Pluralist. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. pp.1-47. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Fujisawa, Nurio 1974. ‘ 1Exein, Mete/xein, and Idioms of “Paradeigmatism” in Plato’s Theory of Forms’ Phronesis, 19:30-58. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Gaiser, K. 1968. Platons ungeschriebene Lehre,（Anhang: Testimonia Platonica）Ernst Klett Verlag, Stuttgart. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Gallop, D. 1979. “‘Is’ or ‘Is not’？” The Monist 62:61-80. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | ------------1984. Parmenides of Elea: Fragments A Text and Translation with An Introduction. Toronto University Press. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Granger, Herbert 2002. ‘The Cosmology of Mortals’ in Victor Caston and Daniel W.Graham, 2002. Presocratic Philosophy: Essays in Honour of Alexander Mourelatos. Published by Ashgate Publishing Limited. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Guthrie, W. K. C. 1962. A History of Greek Philosophy, vols.II,IV,V Cambridge University Press. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Gulley, N. 1954. ‘Plato’s Theory of Recollection’ Classical Quarterly pp.194-213. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Hackforth, R. 1952. Plato’s Phaedrus, Translated with Introduction and Commentary. Cambridge University Press. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | ------------1955. Plato’s Examination of Pleasure: A Translation of the Philebus, with Introduction and Commentary Cambridge University Press. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | ------------1955. Plato’s Phaedo Cambridge University Press. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Hamlyn, D. W. 1955. ‘The Communion of Forms and the Development of Plato’s Logic’ Philosophical Quarterly, 5:289-302. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Jameson, G. 1958. ‘“Well-rounded Truth” and Circular Thought in Parmenides’. Phronesis 3:15-30. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Kahn, C. H. 1969. ‘The Thesis of Parmenides’. Review of Metaphysics, 22:700-724. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | ------------1969. ‘More on Parmenides’. Review of Metaphysics, 23:333-340. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | ------------1981. ‘Some Philosophical Uses of “to be” in Plato’ Phronesis, 26:105-134. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | ------------1996. Plato and the Socratic dialogue Cambridge University Press. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | ------------2002. ‘Parmenides and Plato’ in Victor Caston and Daniel W. Graham,2002. Presocratic Philosophy: Essays in Honour of Alexander Mourelatos.Published by Ashgate Publishing Limited. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Kirk, G. S., and Raven, J. E. 1957. The Presocratic Philosophers. Cambridge University Press. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Krämer, H. J. 1990. Plato and the foundations of metaphysics：a work on the theory of the principles and unwritten doctrines of Plato with a collection of the fundamental documents edited and translated by John R. Catan. Albany:State University of N. Y. Press. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Kurt von Fritz, 1945. ‘Nous, Noein and Their Derivatives in Pre-Socratic Philosophy（Excluding Anaxagoras）：Part I. From the Beginnings to Parmenides’Classical Philology, 40:223-242. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Liddell & Scott 1972. An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon London: Oxford University Press. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Long, A. A. 1975. ‘The Principles of Parmenides’ cosmology’. reprinted in Allen, R.E. and Furley, D. J. (eds.), Studies in Presocratic Philosophy,vol.2:The Eleatics and Pluralist. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. pp.82-101. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Luce, J. V. 1969. ‘Plato on Truth and Falsity in Names’ The Classical Quarterly 19:222-232. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Malcolm, J. 1991. Plato on the Self-Predication of Forms: Early and Middle Dialogues Oxford: Clarendon Press. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Miller, F. D. 1977. ‘Parmenides on Mortal Belief’ Journal of the History of Philosophy 15:253-265. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Mourelatos, A. P. D. 1965. ‘fra&zw and its Derivatives in Parmenides’ Classical Philology, 60:261-262. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | ------------1969. ‘Comments on “The Thesis of Parmenides”’ Review of Metaphysics 22:735-744. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | ------------1979. ‘Some Alternatives in Interpreting Parmenides’. The Monist 62:3-14. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Nehamas, A. 1979. ‘Self-predication and Plato’s theory of Forms’. American Philosophical Quarterly, 16:93-103. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | ------------1982. ‘Participation and Predication in Plato’s Later Thought’ Review of Metaphysics, 36:343-374. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Owen, G. E. L. 1975. ‘Eleatic Questions’ reprinted in Allen and Furley (eds), Studies in Presocratic Philosophy, vol.2, pp.48-81. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | -------------1966. ‘Plato and Parmenides on the Timeless Present’ The Monist,50:317-340. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Prior, W. J. 1985. Unity and Development in Plato’s Metaphysics Croom Helm Ltd. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Proclus 1987. Proclus’ Commentary on Plato’s “Parmenides” Translated by Glenn R.Morrow and John M. Dillon. Princeton University Press. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Raven, J. E. 1948. Pythagoreans and Eleatics. Cambridge University Press. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | ------------1953. ‘Sun, Divide, Line and Cave’ Classical Quarterly pp.22-32. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | De Rijk, L. M. 1986. Plato’s Sophist: A Philosophical Commentary North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Oxford/New York. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Robinson, J. M. 1968. An Introduction to Early Greek Philosophy Boston: Houghton Mifflin. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Robinson, R. 1953. Plato’s Earlier Dialectic, 2nd edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Robinson, T. M. 1975. ‘Parmenides on the Ascertainment of the Real’. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 4:623-633. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | ------------1979. ‘Parmenides on the Real in Its Totality’. Monist, 62:54-60. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Ross, W. D. 1951. Plato’s Theory of Ideas Oxford: Clarendon Press. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | ------------1997(c1924). Aristotle’s Metaphysics: A Revised Text with Introduction and Commentary 2vols. New | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | York: Oxford University Press. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Runciman, W. G. 1965 ‘Plato’s Parmenides’ in Studies in Plato’s Metaphysics, ed. R.E. Allen. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. pp. 149-184. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Sayre, K. M. 1983. Plato’s Late Ontology A Riddle Resolved Princeton University Press. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Scolniciv, Sammuel 2003. Plato’s Parmenides: Translated with Introduction and Commentary California University Press. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Sinaiko, Herman L. 1965. Love, Knowledge, and Discourse in Plato: Dialogue and Dialectic in Phaedrus, Republic, Parmenides Chicago University Press. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Smyth, H. W. 1984. Greek Grammar Harvard University Press. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Solmsen, F. 1971. ‘Parmenides and the Description of Perfect Beauty in Plato’s Symposium’ American Journal of Philology, 92:62-70. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Sprague, R. K. 1971. ‘Symposium 211A and Parmenides Frag.8’ Classical Philology,66:261. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Stokes, M. C. 1971. One and Many in Presocratic Philosophy Washington: Center for Hellenic Studies. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | ------------1992. ‘Plato and the Sightlovers of the Republic’ Apeiron, 25:103-132. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Stough, Charlotte L. 1976. ‘Forms and Explanation in the Phaedo’ Phronesis 21:1-30. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Tarán, L. 1965. Parmenides: A Text with Translation, Commentary, and Critical Essays Princeton University Press. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Taylor, A. E. 1929. Plato: The Man and His Work London:Methuen. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Teloh, H. 1981. The Development of Plato’s Metaphysics Pennsylvania State University Press. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Tigner, S. S. 1970. ‘On the “Kingship” of “All Nature” in Plato’s Meno’ Phronesis pp.1-4. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Tugwell, S. 1964. ‘The way of truth’. Classical Quarterly, ns 14:36-41. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Victor Caston and Daniel W. Graham, 2002. Presocratic Philosophy: Essays in Honour of Alexander Mourelatos. Ashgate Publishing Limited. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Vlastos, G. 1947. ‘Equality and Justice in Early Greek Cosmologies’ Classical Philology, 42:156-178. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | ------------ (ed.) 1978. Plato: A Collection of Critical Essays I: Metaphysics and Epistemology University of Notre Dame Press. | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | Waterfield, R. 2002. Plato Phaedrus Oxford University Press. | zh_TW |
