國立臺灣大學哲學論評

Abstract /

Since the end of 19th century, it`s undoubtedly wellknown between the so-called "Platonforscher" that a lot of the hermeneutic difficulties exist in various interpretations on Plato`s Cratylus, especially in respect of the unsolvable contradiction between the conventionalistic-nominalistic and naturalistic realistic interpretations. I try to reduce the discussed problems of this dialogue to the following 9: 1.For what purpose does Plato write Cratylus﹖ 2.Who is Plato`s antagonist﹖ 3.What does Plato claim on the correctness in name 4.Is Socrates` etymology strictly meanful﹖ 5.In what chronological period does Plato write this dialogue﹖ 6.What are Cratylus` and Hermogenes` propositions for the correctness of name﹖ 7.What differences between Plato`s and Aristotle`s assertions about the correctness in name﹖ 8.As a younger disciple of Heraclitus, is Cratylus` stand point the same with Aristotle`s report in Metaphysics﹖ 9.Does Cratylus understand Heraclitus` doctrine correctly﹖ There are various answers to the above-mentioned problems between the "Plaotnforscher", because they tempt to solute these problems on the basis of analytical method, Cratylus. By Plato, Philosophizing means "dialegesthai" and dialectic is a method of asking and answering. Platonic dialogues are the results or literal records of the to-and-fro-oration. If one wants to conceive Plato`s philosophy, then he must comtemplate argumentative speculation between the partners in dialogue. If one predeterminated his studies with analytic tendence, then he should miss Plato`s dialectic activity and its appearantly antinomic consequence. The problems are treated by following theoretical steps: 1.An analysis of the dialectical roles of Socrates, Cratylus and Hermogenes in this dialogue. 2.An anlysis of the different assertions of the correctness in name. 3.On the basis of these two analyses, I try to answer the above-mentioned problems.