講題：Reconsidering the Phaedo Myth
講者：高木酉子(日本朝日大學講師)
清華大學原科院14級陳彥君同學紀錄
對於柏拉圖作品中神話與故事的閱讀，有些學者將柏拉圖作品中的神話故事視為一種高貴的謊言，目的是試圖說服更廣大的讀者群。藉由說故事的方式，柏拉圖將那些理性能力還未能了解嚴謹論證的人納入聽眾的行列，向他們訴說柏拉圖想要傳達的想法。神話，相對於論證，只是一個次要的方法來傳達柏拉圖的哲學思想。在這個意義上，神話並沒有說出柏拉圖心中所認為的事實，它是一個妥協。
Some scholars may
have thought of μυθος as a
noble lie, its purpose underlying is to aim at a greater spectrum of audience.
That is, by telling a story, Plato includes those who are supposed not to be
able to understand argumentative narration as his listeners, using μυθος to
show them what Plato wants to convey. However, μυθος, different from
argumentative narration, is a secondary means toward philosophical thinking. The
argumentation is the primary means, and contains what Plato really thinks.
雖然如此，高木酉子認為，「神話和論證，在表達柏拉圖思想這方面所具有的區分，隨著我們回顧柏拉圖的文獻，是不容易維持的。」舉例來說，在Theaetetus篇裡蘇格拉底討論一些故事，這些故事應該被視為思想的呈現，而非謊言。
Nevertheless,
Professor Takagi, after examining the passages of Plato’s works, finds that ‘the
distinction between Myth and Argumant – in representing what Plato really
thinks as true – is hard to maintain.’ For example, Professor Takagi mentioned
that in Theaetetus, Socates also told
stories. The stories are not to be regarded as lies, but thinking.
神話對柏拉圖而言具有與論證相同的目的，即說明理由，達致哲學論述的結論。在一個例子裡，蘇格拉底討論「知覺」，他說知覺是由active actions與passive actions所構成。蘇格拉底證成這說法所使用的方法是藉由說故事，而非提供嚴謹論證。
Myths is a means
toward justifying assertations for Plato, just like argumentations are. In
still another passage, Socrates discusses ‘perception’, saying that perception
is composed of ‘active actions’ and ‘passive actions’. The way Socrates
justifies the this assertion is not by arguments, but stories.
高木酉子認為，儘管神話的使用可能被視為柏拉圖欲納入更廣大聽眾群的企圖，但神話本身不應該被視為謊言，而是包含一定程度柏拉圖本人的信念。
Professor Takagi
said that, myth to Plato is a story that appears to be non-argumentative.
Perhaps Plato aimed to persuade a greater spectrum of audience, so he made a
compromise. But myths are not to be looked upon as lies.
科學式的論證和神話在柏拉圖這裡是相似的，它們在達致真理這方面都是不足的，它們最多只能接近真理 (真理，在柏拉圖使用的意義下，指對靈魂而言重要的事物) 。然而，論證和神話共同服侍著一個目的：達致對話錄的結論。論證和神話並沒有孰優孰劣之分，兩者都是表達柏拉圖心中實相的恰當方式，而到某個程度反映出了當時他們對於地球與所身處環境的信念。
Porfesseor Takagi
believes that scientific argument and myth are alike, they are both inadequate
in reaching the truth (they only
approach truth, and ‘truth’ for Plato, is ‘those which are important to the souls’), but they serve
the same conclusion/objective (that is, they aim at truth). The use of argument
and myth for Plato does not have distinction in the way one is inferior and the
other is superior, but they are both appropriate, and reflect the contemporary—5th
century BC—beliefs they had toward the earth and the environment.
因此，我們可以把神話視為一個好的、體現哲學思想的工具。非常可能地，神話本身就包含了柏拉圖所認為的真理，而神話是作為達致共同一個結論的多種方式之一。
Therefore, myth
may be regarded as a good instrument to embody philosophical thinking. Very
possibly, myth for Plato may contain the truth.
There are many ways to reaching the conclusion. Whatever Plato uses, we must
remember, myth as a method to reach the conclusion contains truth to Plato.
柏拉圖在事物反映真理的程度之上做了一個層級上的區分，判定哪些事物接近真理，哪些只是假象。但神話與論證恐怕難以被放在這樣的一個尺度上來比較。
Although Plato
makes a hierarchical scale to explain to what extent things are near the
absolute truth, but μυθος and λογος may not be put on that scale and compare with
each other to find out which one represents more truth.
總的言之，高木酉子相信我們的確有另外一種方式來看待柏拉圖的作品：當柏拉圖使用引人入勝、充滿原創力而或許看似天馬行空的創意的神話來進行論述時，我們可以考慮這個可能性──柏拉圖這麼做並不是為了那些心智能力無法理解論證的人而妥協他對於心中信念的表達，他這麼做，是因為神話可以表達他所相信的世界樣貌，而神話之中的確包含了柏拉圖真正相信的內容。
To conclude,
Professor Takagi believes that we do have another way to look to Plato’s works,
not that Plato uses myths for containing those feeble-minded as audience, but
that he uses myths to express scientific (natural science) things, and myths
contain some truth that Plato thinks
(truth in the sense of ‘things important
to the soul’).
