臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：論雄心--《論義務》I,61-92
書刊名：國立政治大學哲學學報
作者：徐學庸 引用關係
作者(外文)：Hsu, Hsei-yung
出版日期：2011
卷期：25
頁次：頁101-134
主題關鍵詞：西塞羅；帕奈提烏斯；中期斯多葛學派；四樞德；雄心；柏拉圖；亞里斯多德；Panaetius；The middle stoics；Four cardinal virtues；Magnitudo animi；Plato；Aristotle；Cicero
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:43
在古希臘倫理學思想中有所謂的四樞德的概念：智慧、勇氣、節制及正義。然而西塞羅《論義務》(De Officiis)有言，所有的德行皆出自四個源頭：智慧、雄心（magnitudo animi或magnus animus）、節制及正義。比較這兩組德性清單，顯然西塞羅以雄心取代勇氣。在44 BC 11月寫給阿提庫斯的信中西塞羅說，《論義務》的前兩卷是以帕奈提烏斯(Panaetius)的《論合宜的行為》(Peri Kathēkontos)的三卷書為基礎。這篇文章的目的是為了探究下述三個議題：第一、當帕奈提烏斯使用雄心(megalopsuchia)這個詞時，他有何想法？第二、帕奈提烏斯自言是柏拉圖及亞里斯多德的喜愛者，他的雄心的概念是否受這兩位哲學家的影響？第三、雖然西塞羅在《論義務》有言，他的敘述是緊隨帕奈提烏斯的論證，但我們依然可探究，將此希臘字譯為magnitudo animi的西塞羅，對雄心這個概念之內涵是否有其個人的貢獻，當他向其子證明此德性重要時。結論，簡言之，是：帕奈提烏斯的論證具有實踐意涵，且他使用雄心這個概念並未受到柏拉圖及亞里斯多德的影響；此外西塞羅個人為此概念提供新義。
It is well-known that in ancient Greek ethical thought there is the notion of the four cardinal virtues: wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice. However Cicero in De Officiis asserts that all virtuous actions stem from four origins, namely, wisdom, magnitudo animi (or magnus animus), moderation, and justice. It is clear that in the second list of the four cardinal virtues courage is replaced with magnitudo animi by Cicero. In a letter written to Atticus in November 44 BC, Cicero said that the first two books of De Officiis were based upon the three books of Panaetius's Peri Kathēkontos. This paper serves to explore the following three problems: First, when Panaetius uses the term, megalopsuchia, what he has in mind? Second, Panaetius is a self-confessed lover of Plato and Aristotle. Is his idea of megalopsuchia influenced by these two philosophers? Third, although Cicero in De Officiis says that he follows closely Panaetius's argument, yet we could look into the fact whether Cicero himself, who translates the Greek term into magnitudo animi, has his own contributions to the idea, when he demonstrates its importance to his son. To state the conclusion of this paper briefly: Panaetius's argument has its practical import, and his idea of megalopsuchia is not the result of Plato's and Aristotle's influences, and Cicero, though under the influence of Panaetius, has his own contributions to the idea.
期刊論文
1.Cooper, N.(1989)。Aristotle’s Crowning Virtue。Apeiron，22，191-204。  new window
2.Dyck, A.R.(1981)。On Panaetius’ Conception of megalopsuchia。Museum Helveticum，38，153-161。  new window
3.Sedley, D. N.(2003)。The School, from Zeno to Arius Didymus。The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics，7-32。  new window
圖書
1.Adam, James(1963)。The Republic of Plato。Cambridge：Cambridge University Press。  new window
2.Aristotle、Bywater, Ingram(1894)。Aristotelis Ethica Nicomachea。Oxford：Oxford University Press。  new window
3.Hicks, R. D.(1995)。Diogenes Laertius: Lives of Eminent Philosophers。Cambridge Mass.：Harvard University Press。  new window
4.Hsei-Yung Hsu(2007)。論友誼。台北。  延伸查詢new window
5.徐學庸(2009)。道德與合理 : 西洋古代倫理議題研究。臺北：唐山。new window  延伸查詢new window
6.徐學庸(2009)。論雄心。道德與合理 : 西洋古代倫理議題研究。臺北：唐山。  延伸查詢new window
7.Barnes, J.(1999)。Roman Aristotle。Philosophia Togata。Oxford。  new window
8.Bailey, C.(1922)。Lucreti De Rerum Natura。Oxford。  new window
9.Basore, J. W.(2003)。Seneca: Moral Essays vol。Cambridge Mass。  new window
10.Dover, K. J.(1994)。Greek Popular Morality in the Time of Plato and Aristotle。Indianapolis：Hackett Publishing Company。  new window
11.Dyck, A. R.(1996)。A Commentary on Cicero, De Officiis。Ann Arbor。  new window
12.Earl, D.(1984)。The Moral and Political Tradition of Rome。Ithaca。  new window
13.Freese, J. H.(1994)。Aristotle: Art of Rhetoric。Cambridge, Mass：Harvard University Press。  new window
14.Griffin, M. T. and Atkins, E. M.(2000)。Cicero: On Duties。  new window
15.Holden, H. S.(1899)。M. Tulli Ciceronis De Officiis Libri Tres。Cambridge。  new window
16.King, J. E.(2001)。Cicero: Tusculan Disputations。Cambridge Mass：Harvard University Press。  new window
17.Long, A. A.(1986)。Hellenistic Philosophy: Stoics, Epicureans, Sceptics。Berkeley：University of California Press。  new window
18.Long, A. A.(1995)。Cicero’s Politics in De Officiis。Justice and Generosity: Studies in Hellenistic Social and Political Philosophy,Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium Hellenisticum。Cambridge。  new window
19.Long, A. A.、Sedley, D. N.(1987)。The Hellenistic Philosophers。Cambridge：Cambridge University Press。  new window
20.Mackendrick, P.(1989)。The Philosophical Book of Cicero。London。  new window
21.Rackham, H. ed. And trans.(2001)。Cicero: De Oratore Book III, De Fato, Paradoxa Stoicorum, De Partitione Oratoria。Cambridge Mass。  new window
22.Reynolds, L. D. ed.(1998)。Tulli Ciceronis De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum。  new window
23.Russell, B.(1965)。History of Western Philosophy。London。  new window
24.Sandbach, F. H.(1985)。Aristotle and the Stoics。Cambridge Philological Society Suppl。Cambridge。  new window
25.Schofield, M.(2009)。Republican Virtues。A Companion to Greek and Roman Political Thought。Oxford。  new window
26.Shackleton Bailey, D. R. (trans.)(2004)。Cicero’s Letters to Atticus vol. VI。Cambridge Mass。  new window
27.Tredennick, H. and Forster, E. S.(2004)。Aristotle: Posterior Analytics, Topica。Cambridge Mass.。  new window
28.Van Straaten, M.(1952)。Panaetii Rhodii Fragmenta。Leiden。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：515（臺灣：513，外國：2） ／ 本年度總使用人次：2488187 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：68283621
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上