[リストへもどる]
一括表示
タイトル第15回
記事No30
投稿日: 2003/12/27(Sat) 23:17
投稿者惣田正明   <vem13077@nifty.ne.jp>
第15回テキスト

---はじめ---

 The character of Adeimantus is deeper and graver, and the
profounder objections are commonly put into his mouth.
Glaucon is more demonstrative, and generally opens the game.
Adeimantus pursues the argument further. Glaucon has more of
the liveliness and quick sympathy of youth; Adeimantus has
the maturer judgment of a grown-up man of the world. In the
second book, when Glaucon insists that justice and injustice
shall be considered without regard to their consequences,
Adeimantus remarks that they are regarded by mankind in
general only for the sake of their consequences; and in a
similar vein of reflection he urges at the beginning of the
fourth book that Socrates falls in making his citizens happy,
and is answered that happiness is not the first but the
second thing, not the direct aim but the indirect consequence
of the good government of a State. In the discussion about
religion and mythology, Adeimantus is the respondent, but
Glaucon breaks in with a slight jest, and carries on the
conversation in a lighter tone about music and gymnastic to
the end of the book. It is Adeimantus again who volunteers
the criticism of common sense on the Socratic method of
argument, and who refuses to let Socrates pass lightly over
the question of women and children. It is Adeimantus who is
the respondent in the more argumentative, as Glaucon in the
lighter and more imaginative portions of the Dialogue. For
example, throughout the greater part of the sixth book, the
causes of the corruption of philosophy and the conception of
the idea of good are discussed with Adeimantus. Then Glaucon
resumes his place of principal respondent; but he has a
difficulty in apprehending the higher education of Socrates,
and makes some false hits in the course of the discussion.
Once more Adeimantus returns with the allusion to his brother
Glaucon whom he compares to the contentious State; in the
next book he is again superseded, and Glaucon continues to
the end.

---終わり---

タイトルRe: 第15回
記事No31
投稿日: 2004/01/04(Sun) 13:53
投稿者惣田正明   <vem13077@nifty.ne.jp>
> 第15回テキスト
>
> ---はじめ---
>
>  The character of Adeimantus is deeper and graver, and the
> profounder objections are commonly put into his mouth.

 アデイマントゥスの性格は、より深く重い。そしてより深遠な異論が一般に
彼の口から出される。

> Glaucon is more demonstrative, and generally opens the game.

 グラウコンは、より論証的で全般に議論(ゲーム)を開始する。

> Adeimantus pursues the argument further.

 アデイマントゥスはその議論をさらに追求する。

> Glaucon has more of
> the liveliness and quick sympathy of youth; Adeimantus has
> the maturer judgment of a grown-up man of the world.

 グラウコンは、より多くの若者の溌剌さと素早い共感を持ち、アデイマント
ゥスは、世間の大人のより円熟した判断を下す。

> In the
> second book, when Glaucon insists that justice and injustice
> shall be considered without regard to their consequences,
> Adeimantus remarks that they are regarded by mankind in
> general only for the sake of their consequences;

 第2書で、グラクコンが正義と不正とはその結果に関わりなく考察されるべ
きだと主張したとき、アデイマントゥスは、それらは、全般に、その結果のた
めに人類によって考えられると言及する。

> and in a
> similar vein of reflection he urges at the beginning of the
> fourth book that Socrates falls in making his citizens happy,
> and is answered that happiness is not the first but the
> second thing, not the direct aim but the indirect consequence
> of the good government of a State.

 そして、同様な考察の流れの中で、彼は第4書の初めで、ソクラテスは市民
たちを幸せにすることにのめり込んだと主張すると、幸福とは一次的なもので
はなく二次的なものであり、直接の目的ではなく国家の良き政府の間接的な結
果であると答えられる。

> In the discussion about
> religion and mythology, Adeimantus is the respondent, but
> Glaucon breaks in with a slight jest, and carries on the
> conversation in a lighter tone about music and gymnastic to
> the end of the book.

 その議論では、宗教と神話について、アデイマントゥスは応答者である
が、
グラウコンは、少しふざけて議論に押し入り、その書の終わりでは、軽いトー
ンで音楽と体育に関する話へと進める。

> It is Adeimantus again who volunteers
> the criticism of common sense on the Socratic method of
> argument, and who refuses to let Socrates pass lightly over
> the question of women and children.

 ソクラテスの議論の仕方に常識からの批判を進んでしたり、ソクラテスに女
性や子供の問題を軽く素通りさせることを拒むのも、またアデイマントゥスで
ある。

> It is Adeimantus who is
> the respondent in the more argumentative, as Glaucon in the
> lighter and more imaginative portions of the Dialogue.

 対話篇のより軽く想像的な部分でのグラウコンのように、より議論ぽいとこ
ろで応答者となるのはアデイマントゥスである。

> For
> example, throughout the greater part of the sixth book, the
> causes of the corruption of philosophy and the conception of
> the idea of good are discussed with Adeimantus.

 例えば、第6書の大部分を通して、哲学の堕落の原因と善のイデアの概念が
アデイマントゥスと議論される。

> Then Glaucon
> resumes his place of principal respondent; but he has a
> difficulty in apprehending the higher education of Socrates,
> and makes some false hits in the course of the discussion.

 その時、グラウコンは、主要な応答者の地位を再び得るが、ソクラテスのよ
り高い教育の意味を理解することができず、議論の過程でいくつか間違った応
答をする。

> Once more Adeimantus returns with the allusion to his brother
> Glaucon whom he compares to the contentious State; in the
> next book he is again superseded, and Glaucon continues to
> the end.

 もう一度、アデイマントゥスが、彼が議論好きな国家に喩えた彼の兄弟グラ
ウコンへのほのめかしで(応答者に)戻る。次の書では、彼は再び取って代わ
られ、グラウコンが最後まで続ける。

> ---終わり---