希臘悲劇中的ethos和蘇格拉底的logon didonai之間的衝突

On the Conflict between the Ethos in the Greek Tragedy and Socrates' 'logon didonai'

這篇短文的目的在於研究亞理斯多德、柏拉圖和尼采這三個哲學家對悲劇的看法，並且分析他們的看法之間有何差異和衝突。我從亞理斯多德的《詩學》作為研究的出發點，因為他定悲劇的研究奠定了基礎，不帶著偏見地分析的悲劇的基本要素和運用：然後，我把研究的興趣轉向柏拉圖，因為柏拉圖批評悲劇，並且要求積極地從道德即知識的面向上，對悲劇中的風俗道德加以嚴厲地譴責，並且下驅逐令，要求不合於城邦法律所允許的悲劇情節不可以存在於理想的城邦之中。之後，我簡單扼要地分析尼采在《悲劇的誕生》中對於蘇格拉底的評論，並且說明其批評的合理性何在？最後，在結論裡，綜合了前三節的討論，並且對這三個哲學家的看法作了一個價值的評判。

In this paper I tried to expose the doctrines of the Greek tragedy by Aristotle, Plato and F. Nietzsche and analyzed their main opinions which are variously differentiated and conflicted. First of all, I selected Aristotle's Poetics as the principle and the beginning of this paper, because he offers a basic study of the elements of the Greek tragedy which are essential for us to understand what the tragedy is and in which sense it is (surely not in the sense of Chinese tragedy). Secondly, I chose Plato's Republic as the antagonist against the tragic poets and interpreted some texts there. Plato tried to criticize the ethos in the tragedy with a presupposition. It is namely this: the ethos in the tragedy ought to be identified with the science of the Good. If not so, the poets would escape from his Utopia. Then I picked up Nietzsche's The birth of Tragedy as the end station of my investigation where Nietzsche tried to overcome the Socratic optimism. Nietzsche's critic on Socrates can be interpreted very logically as I have shown in the third part of this paper. But what is the meaning of this overcome? As I compare it with Kant's dilemma of 'phenomenon and noumenon' and 'thing for us and thing itself', I should not find any way out of this dilemma. It's concluded that the theoretical dilemma can not be solved by a practical escape and should be faced by a real philosopher.