Title デモクリトスの倫理学説について Author(s) 三浦, 要 ... - 金沢大学

Title
デモクリトスの 倫 理 学 説 について
Author(s)
三 浦 , 要
Citation 金 沢 大 学 人 間 科 学 系 紀 要 , 1: 37-56
Issue Date 2009-03-31
Type
Departmental Bulletin Paper
Text version publisher
URL
http://hdl.handle.net/2297/17155
Right
*KURAに 登 録 されているコンテンツの 著 作 権 は, 執 筆 者 , 出 版 社 ( 学 協 会 )などが 有 します。
*KURAに 登 録 されているコンテンツの 利 用 については, 著 作 権 法 に 規 定 されている 私 的 使 用 や 引 用 などの 範 囲 内 で 行 ってください。
* 著 作 権 法 に 規 定 されている 私 的 使 用 や 引 用 などの 範 囲 を 超 える 利 用 を 行 う 場 合 には, 著 作 権 者 の 許 諾 を 得 てください。ただし, 著 作 権 者
から 著 作 権 等 管 理 事 業 者 ( 学 術 著 作 権 協 会 , 日 本 著 作 出 版 権 管 理 システムなど)に 権 利 委 託 されているコンテンツの 利 用 手 続 については
, 各 著 作 権 等 管 理 事 業 者 に 確 認 してください。
http://dspace.lib.kanazawa-u.ac.jp/dspac

920-1192
E-mail:k-miura@sgkit.ge.kanazawa-u.ac.jp
70
6
5
37

17
86 31
1
2
IX45=A1(45) 3
130=B4
(τέλος)
38

499E7-500A1
[]
1 2
1094a18-22
4 1095a17-20
7 1098a16-17
[][]
128
85-87
2 7-6e=SVF, I, 184
(ἀπονία)(ἀταραξία)
39

1 7
1098a19-20
Bailey
4 Kahn
“Hellenistic concept” 5
40

(τὸ τέλειον ἀγαθόν)(B295)
τέλειον τέλος
τέλεον …τὸ ἐνύπνιον:
4 443B7τελεία γένεος Οἰδίπου τ᾽ἀρά:
832
τελείαν ψῆφον: 632
6
(ἀγαθόν)(B69)
7
(εὐθυµηθέντι)
(τὸν βίον διάγειν)
B189
(ἀνθρώπῳ)(generic article)
(ἄριστον) διάγειν
δια- ἄγειν
41

8
(βίον)
9
διάγειν τὸν βίον
(ἀφνεὸν βιοτὰν διάγειν)
5 50-53
(βίοτον εὐαίωνα Πέρσαις ὡς
θεὸς διήγαγες)711
(εὐδαιµονοῦντες τὸν βίον διάξετε)
240 10
βίον διάγειν
(εὐθυµίη)
[]
(ὁκόσῳ αὐτέων βέλτιον
πρήσσει τε καὶ διάγει)
(εὐθυµότερον διάξεις)
B191
42

(εὐεστώ)
(εὖ)(εἶναι) 11
(εὐδαιµονίη)(B170)
(B171)
(DK22B119)
(ψυχή)
187 (ψυχῆς τελεότης)
43

εὐθυµίη (εὖ)
(θυµός)
(ἀθαµβίη)
(B4, A169)(θάµβος)
12
ἀταραξία ταραχή
(A167)
(ἐν ταραχαῖς καὶ φόβοις)
(B297)
13
(ταραχή)
44

14
(B205)(B160)
(εὐθυµός)
(ἀτερπείη)
(B174)
Procopé
15
(τέρψις)Procopé
(cf. B215)
16
(πάθη)(B31)
191
17
18
45

19
(τέρψις)(οὖρος)
(B4)
(τερπόµενοι)
(B200)(ἡδέα)
(τέρπει)(B232)
20
(B3)
(µετριότης τέρψιος)(βίου
συµµετρίη)(B191 )
46

(τὸ µέτριον)
(ἐπιτερπέστατα)(B233)
(ἡδονή)
(B235)
(B219)(ἡδονή)(B71)
(B72)
(ἡδονή)
(B207)
(A167)
191
21
(γνώµη) 22 (αὐταρκείη, cf.B210)(σωφροσύνη)
(τερπνά)(ἡδονή)(B211)
47

(B286)
(B219)
(B235)
23
(ἡδύ)(ἤν µὴ συµφέρῃ)
(B74)
(B243 )
4
(τέρψις καὶ ἀτερπίη οὖρος τῶν συµφόρων καὶ τῶν
ἀσυµφόρων)
Gosling and Taylor
74 4
24
Gosling and Taylor ἡδονή
ἡδύ τέρψις
191 (τέρψις)
τέρψις
Warren Gosling and Taylor
τέρψις ἡδονή
48

25 Gosling and Taylor
4
74 4
74
4
Warren
74
(οὖρος)
26
4 74
74
27
(ἡδύ)
(B69)
49

28 I 8,1-9(=B5)
29
(B148)
50

(B245) 30
(B181)
(αἰδώς)
(B244) 31
(B215) 32 .
(ἑωυτὸν αἰδεῖσθαι)(B264)
(B181)
(B252)
253
51

V, 4, 10
1
7 987b1-4
52

20 (C)
1 Kahn (1985), 3ff..
2 Annas (2002), pp.169-171
3 Diels, H. und Kranz, W. (Hgg.),
Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, Berlin, 6.Aufl., 1951-52
5 (1996-98 )
4 Bailey(1928), pp.190-191. Warren (2002)“that terminology belongs to a period after Democritus.”
(p.39)Annas (2002)
(p.171)
5 Kahn (1985), p.26.
6 Cf. B296:
7 Cf. 1 7 1098a18:
(ἐν βίῳ τελείῳ)
8 Cf. Smyth (1956), §1685, 3; Humbert (1960), §§593-594.
9 B160
10
(ζηλωτότατον βίον ἀνθρώπων διάξεις)
464
(µακάριον µὲν καὶ ὁµονοητικὸν τὸν ἐνθάδε βίον διάγουσιν)
256A8-B1
11 257
928-929:
(ἐν εὐεστοῖ φίλῃ)
Vlastos (1975)ἐστώ
εὐεστώ
(384) ἐστώ οὐσίαφύσις ὕλη Vlastos
Taylor (1967), pp.11-12
12 (B215, B216) ἀθαµβίη
53

13 Vlastos (1993), p.332 n.27.
14 124
[]
15 Procopé (1989), pp.319-320.
16
(B275, B276)
(B268)Cf. Salem (1996), pp.318-319.
17 Vlastos (1993)
Taylor (1967)Warren
(2002), pp.58ff.
18 (B237, B326)
19 (B166)
Cf. Warren (2002), p.37: “Although there is not a great deal of evidence for this, it is nevertheless reasonable to
suggest that – like Epicurus – Democritus disapproved of the damaging psychological effects of superstition,
and further argued that his cosmology left no room for demiurgic or interventionist deities.”
20 τέρψις ἡδονή
(Chantraine (1984), sv. «τέρποµαι»)
25
21 Cf. Warren (2002), pp.45-48.
22 Cf. B187:…
23 Warren (2002) εὐεστώ external goods (p.42)
24 Gosling and Taylor (1982), pp.32-33; Taylor (1967), pp.16ff. Annas (2002)
(p.176)
25 Warren (2002), pp.50ffCf. Salem (1996), p.333.
26 WarrenAnnas Gosling and Taylor 4
οὖρος(=ὅρος)
54

27 Cf. B172.
28 Balaudé (1996), pp.46ff.
29
Brancacci (2007), p.192 n.55
30 Taylor (1999)(p.229)
31 Cf. B84, 179, 264.
32 B215 Procopé (1990), p.35 .
Annas, J.(2002), “”Democritus and Eudaimonism”, in Caston, V. and Graham, D.W. (eds), Presocratic
Philosophy. Essays in Honour of Alexander Mourelatos, Aldershot.
Bailey, C. (1928), The Greek Atomists and Epicurus, Oxford.
Balaudé, J.-F. (1996), Les theories de la justice dans l’antiquité, Paris.
Brancazzi, A. (2007), “Democritus’ MOUSIKA”, in Brancazzi, A. and Morel, P.-M. (eds), Democritus: Science,
the Arts, and the Care of the Soul, Leiden/Boston.
Chantraine, P. (1984), Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque (nouveau triage), Paris.
Gosling, J.C.B. and Taylor, C.C.W. (1982), The Greeks on Pleasure, Oxford.
Humbert, J. (1960), Syntaxe grecque, Paris.
Kahn, Ch.H. (1985), “Democritus and the Origins of Moral Psychology”, American Journal of Philology 106.
Procopé, J.F. (1989), “Democritus on Politics and the Care of the Soul”, The Classical Quarterly 39.
(1990), “Democritus on Politics and the Care of the Soul: Appendix”, The Classical Quarterly 40.
Salem, J. (1996), Démocrite. Grains de poussière dans un rayon de soleil, Paris.
Smyth, H.W. (1956), Greek Grammar, Cambridge (Mass.).
Taylor, C.C.W. (1967), “Pleasure, Knowledge and Sensation in Democritus”, Phronesis 12.
(1999), The Atomists: Leucippus and Democritus. Fragments, Toronto.
Vlastos, G. (1993), “Ethics and Physics in Democritus”, in his Studies in Greek Philosophy (Graham, D.W. (ed)),
Vol.I, Princeton (originally published in Philosophical Review 54 (1945) and 55 (1946)).
Warren, J. (2002), Epicurus and Democritean Ethics: An Archaeology of Ataraxia, Cambridge.
55

On Democritus’ Ethical Theory
Kaname MIURA
Department of Human Sciences, Kanazawa University, Kakuma, Kanazawa, 920-1192 Japan
E-mail: k-miura@sgkit.ge.kanazawa-u.ac.jp
Abstract
Although the bulk of the extant fragments of his works deal primarily with ethical matters,
Democritus has not received the attention he deserves in his ethics; some scholars merely take his
ethical fragments to be a collection of wise saws, and others think of them as a pre-theoretical recipe
for happiness; at any rate, such an interpretation places too low a value on his ethical view. My
concern in this paper is with Democritus’ ethical doctirne which can fully be described as a coherent
ethical system. Indeed, it may safely be said that, in spite of the absence of the word telos in his
fragments, Democritus offered euthymie or cheerfulness just as telos or the final goal of human life.
Euthymie of the soul is identified with well-being and happiness. In Democritus’ view, all human
actions seek (or should seek) to fulfill a state of cheerfulness, tranquility of mind and
self-sufficiency, and the rational choice of particular pleasures in terms of usefulness does produce
this cheerfulness, which is itself a pleasure but a supreme one; in this sense, particular pleasures are
the necessary condition of the attainment of the cheerfulness. Democritus clearly sets up a single
ethical goal and shows the way to achieve it. His ethical theory thus can be called a moderate
hedonistic eudaimonism.
Keyword Democritus, goal, cheerfulness, pleasure
56