『哲学の原風景』の続編
前書の感想で、「残念なのは、著者の考えがほとんど出ていないことです。NHKライブラリーという制限、文化セミナーという制限があるのはわかりますが」、と書きました。
この本では、前作より著者の考えが幾分か出ているように思います。あとがきで「著者渡米のため」（P.283）とありますから、お忙しかったんですね。
内容にも重複があります。総括（全体像）と具体（個別）的な内容なので、重複もやむを得ないし、重複させることで、より理解が深まるという面もあります。
現代文明と克己心（P.94）
「しかし技術革新の速度ほどモラルは急に成熟しない。どこでも、人間の欲求を充足させようとする。「いつ、どこでも」という便利さが、今度は空間の公共性を解体していく。人前という言葉がもう数年たつと死語になると思われるぐらい、学校の教室であろうと、電車の中であろうと、人びとは自分の欲望に対してひたすら忠実に振る舞っている。」（P.95）
まあ、「人々」なのか「今の若者」なのかはいい。でも、そこには「技術革新」（その定義もないし、それが「善」なのか「悪」なのかも分からない）はまあ、しかたがないが、「モラル」（それは、著作の中全体で書かれているのかもしれない）がなくなってはいけない、というか、ここでいえば成熟しなければならない、と考えているようです。
最近著者は『<a href="https://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/447810137X/?tag=charmedias-22" target="_blank">奴隷の哲学者エピクテトス 人生の授業 ――この生きづらい世の中で「よく生きる」ために</a>』という本を書いていますので、その本を読めば、著者の考えがわかるかもしれません（わからないかもしれません。あるのかないのかも）。
まあ、今の社会は「なんかおかしいよね」とは考えていると思います。
西洋古代哲学、教父哲学専攻
とWikipediaにあります。
著書には『マルクス・アウレリウス『自省録』―精神の城塞 (書物誕生―あたらしい古典入門)』があります。
何を専攻するか、というのは自分で決めるんだけど（そうじゃない場合もあるけど）その専攻するものを知って興味があるから専攻するのですが、完全に知っていれば勉強する必要はないわけで、知らないからこそ専攻するわけですね。でも、専攻（選考）するためには「知らなくてはならない」。
この矛盾こそが本質なのですが、それはまた別に書くとして、そこで選んじゃった「専攻」を突き詰めていって一部の人は「学者」になります。
勉強しているうちに「こんなもんなのか。私の思っていた（求めていた）ものとは違う」と思い始めるかもしれません。その時、専攻（専門）を換える（替える？代える、かな）人もいるでしょう。
何を専攻しても、その専攻したことの勉強（研究）の他に、少なくとも関連する知識が必要です。その知識が専攻の理解を深めます。（そういう事ができない学者もいるかも知れません。ｗｗｗ）特に哲学という学問はそうだと思います。古代哲学を専攻しているから現代哲学を知らなくてもいい、ということにはなりません。
ただ、「なぜ、それを研究するのか」「なんのために、それを研究するのか」がなければ、ただの「趣味の延長」のような気もします。
そして、それは「疑問を提出」するだけで（それも大切）、解決の方策は見つからないのではないでしょうか（それを見つけるのは「市民」であって、学者はそのヒント、選択肢を与えるのですが）。
ベクトル（方向）
著者は、（私には理解できない部分が多いのですが）プラトンやアリストテレスが言う「徳」を失ったのが、今の社会の様々な弊害を生んでいる、と読めてしまいます。失なった「恥の文化」を回復するべきだ、と読めてしまいます。
日下部さんは逆です。ソクラテス、プラトン、アリストテレスが「発見（？、記録？）」した「自我」こそが、そしてヘブライズムとの融合によるその「自覚」が、その後の西洋哲学、西洋社会を形作ったのではないか、といいます（あくまでも私の読み方です）。
「肥大化した主観性が世界を覆いつつある」という彼の問題意識に私も同意します。
まあ、私は主体性が生み出した（主体性の反省規定としての客体性）の方に注目していますが。
その著者と日下部さんとの方向性の違いは、専攻分野の違いから来ているのかもしれません。
罪の文化
ヘブライズムを日下部さんは「砂漠の思考」と言っています。著者の言う「罪の文化」つまり「原罪」を背負った人間という考えだと思います。
なにもない（草木もない）砂漠で生きる人間。自然は彼らにとって、自分たちを育てた「母なるもの」でも「敬うもの」でもなく「敵対するもの」として見えていたのかもしれません。[1]
近代哲学
哲学はつねに、「存在そのもの（オントロジー）」つまり「自然」「対象」と「自己」との一体化、再帰、自己の否定（忘却）を目指していました。「芸術（アート）』も同じです。
対象を（存在を）考え続けた末に、「考える自己」そのものを認めなければならなくなった（デカルト）。それが近代の始まりです。それは古代ギリシャ哲学そのものであって、キリスト教もヘレニズムとヘブライズムを統合しようとしてきただけでした。そしてカントは「対象」を「目的」に置き換えました。ヘーゲルはそれに終着点を見つけようとして、また「自己」に帰ってきてしまいました。ニーチェはそれを知って「狂気」に取り込まれました。ベンサムやミルは「自己」と「数値化」つまり「主観性と客観性」を素直に認めただけです。ハイデガーは主観性から逃れるためにナチスを支持したし、西田幾多郎の弟子たちは日本帝国主義に与しました（『近代の超克』。西田自身は「知る」から「信じる」へ、「自力」から「他力」へ、仏教の世界に入ってしまったようです。）。
どうしたら「考える主体としての自己」を乗り越えることができるのか。それを考える材料としてこそ、古代ギリシャ哲学は大きな意味をもっていると思います。
＜書き抜き＞
「近代の倫理思想は、必ずしも徳の概念を中心におかない。個々の行動や（行為を導く）格率の持つ普遍妥当性が問題になり（カントの義務論）、あるいは、個々の行為や規則が結果する実質的効用の多寡と公平な分配との調整が重視される（『最大多数の最大幸福」を標語とするベンサムやミルの功利主義）。つまり近代の倫理学の課題は「どうあるべきか」よりも「何をすべきか」という問いに集約されるのである。」（P.97）ーーそんなレベルでカントを読んでいるようじゃダメだな。
『ゴルギアス』「拳闘の選手が道場で師範からはじめに教え込まれることは、決して喧嘩して相手を殴らないことであろう。だが技術者が当の技術の悪用に関して、その倫理性を保証できないとすれば、教育者としての責任はどうなるのか（四（FF）六〇Ｅ）。」（P.105-106）ーー読まなくちゃ。でも、それは「技術」そのものが持つ宿命だと思う。
『ゴルギアス』「弁論術は、正当な知識に裏付けられた技術とは違う、単なる「熟練」」（P.106）
「欠乏が充足された途端に快楽自身もやんでしまうから、快楽を味わうには、たえず人工的に欠乏状態をつくり出さなければならない。」（P.119）ーーなるほど。
「「快楽」だと語感に品がないとすれば、「快適」と言い換えたらどうだろう。現代の日本人のうち（自分だけの）「快適な暮らし」以外の価値や理想をもって（しかも本音で）生きている者がどれほどいるのだろうか。」（P.121）ーー「快適」は使わせていただきます。
「自己実現する静止点をもつ自然ということをいま述べた。それでは静止点をもたずに自己運動を展開する存在はあるだろうか。無限宇宙の虚空の中で、外力が働かなければ永久に等速直線運動を続ける物体。近代物理学が前提するこの表象は、いつまでたっても散歩をやめない人間のように、古代の感覚からは極めて奇妙なものに映る。それは身近なところでは、癌細胞に似ているかもしれない。」「エネルギー消費、人口、各区種の廃棄物、そして情報。」「どれだけエネルギーを消費するところで自足し停止するのだろうか。実はこうした到達点をどこにももたないし、またもとうとしないのが、いまや「開発途上」の名の下に全世界が追い求めてやまない、啓蒙（FF）主義時代以来の「発展」と「進歩」を誇る近代文明の姿なのである。」「なんらかの新たな定常化、円環の形成を実現しない限り、人類の未来はありえない。だが既に「豊かさ」を享受してその問題点にも気づきはじめた先進国と、貧困の中でなお開発によって「近代的な暮らし」を享受したい後進国との間で、共通の合意を得られるのだろうか。」（P.225-226）ーー問題点の指摘はいい。それを「発展」と結べつけるのはどうか。もちろんSDGsはありえない。「絵に描いた餅」以下だ。でも、それは近代がソクラテス・プラトン・アリストテレスを忘れたからではない。逆だ。中世哲学とともに西洋はその考え方を突き詰めて正当化しようとしてきたのだ。近代はヘーゲルが（著者の言葉を借りれば）その「到達点」を決めた。だから、ヘーゲルは「その点」で否定され続けている。始めのベクトルが間違っているのだ。それを自覚せずに「道徳」「倫理」と言い続けても、「空の言葉」以上のものではない。
「元来この語（『形而上学（メタフィシカ）』ーー抜粋者）は、自然学（フィシカ）の「後に」（メタ）置かれた一群の文書という、編集上の便宜的な名前にすぎなかった。ところが、中世以降この「メタ」のもつ含意が、感覚的な対象領域を超えた（トランス）問題を扱うといった了解に変化し、もっとも抽象性の高い根本的な哲学の問題を指すようになった。」（P.227）ーーなるほど。
「人は誰しも幼児期には動物と同じく快苦だけで行動している。その意味では悪徳の状態と変わらない。やがて社会規範と衝突して軋轢や葛藤が生じ、それをしだいに統合していく過程で徳が形成される。さらには、欲求と規範が衝突しない域にまで陶冶されれば理想であろう（「おのれの欲するところに従って矩をこえず」『論語』学面編）。ものわかりがよいだけの親や教師、口当たりのよい標語を盾に競争も喧嘩も注意も罰則も抑圧した学校教育、ひたすら楽をしようとする社会が、いかなる奇形の精神を飼育培養していくかは、やがて二一世紀の日本社会が証明することになるであろう。アリストテレスの徳と抑制についての分析は、徳を身につける教育が何であるのかをも示唆してやまないのである。」（P.277）ーーう〜ん、ボタンを掛け違えている。そこはアリストテレスの意図とは違う、あるいはアリストテレスの読み方を間違っている。「子どもは悪」？それなら大人は論理的、倫理的だろうか。それなら、著者の言う問題は起こっていないのではないか。だからむしろ、大人は子どもに学ばなければならない。と、そういったほうがいいのかもしれない。「教える」「教わる」という意味をプラトンに（ソクラテス）におしえてもらってほしい。『論語』については（同時に『老子』と対比して）別稿にする。
⟨impressions⟩
The sequel to "Philosophy Original Landscape"
In the impression of the previous book, he wrote, "Unfortunately, the author's ideas are hardly expressed. I understand that there are restrictions on the NHK library and cultural seminars."
In this book, I think the author's ideas are somewhat more expressed than in the previous work. The postscript says "For the author to go to the United States" (P.283), so you were busy.
There is also duplication in the content. Since the content is general (overall) and concrete (individual), duplication is unavoidable, and duplication also deepens understanding.
Modern civilization and selfishness (P.94)
"But morals do not mature as rapidly as the speed of technological innovation. Everywhere, we try to satisfy human needs. The convenience of" anytime, anywhere "dismantles the public nature of space. Whether in the classroom at school or on the train, people are acting so faithfully to their desires that the word public is likely to become a dead word in the next few years. (P.95)
Well, it doesn't matter if they are "people" or "young people today". But there is "technological innovation" (there is no definition, and I don't know if it is "good" or "evil"), but "moral" (it is written throughout the work). It seems that he thinks that it must not disappear, or that it must mature here.
Recently, the author wrote "Slave philosopher Epictetus Life Class ――I wrote a book called "" to "live well" in this difficult world, so if you read that book, you may understand the author's thoughts (you may not understand it). Maybe it's not there).
Well, I think that today's society thinks that something is wrong.
Western Ancient Philosophy, Church Fathers Philosophy
And on Wikipedia.
In his book, "& lt; a href = & quot; https://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/400028293X/?tag=charmedias-22" target = & quot; _ blank & quot; & gt; Marcus Aurelius" Meditations "- There is a spiritual fortress (the birth of a book-a new introduction to classics) & lt; / a & gt; ”.
I decide what I major in (although it may not be the case), but I am interested in knowing what I major in, so I major in it, but if I know it completely, I need to study. That's why I major because I don't know. However, in order to major (selection), "you have to know".
This contradiction is the essence, but I will write it separately, and some people will become "scholars" by pursuing the "major" selected there.
While studying, you may start to think, "Is this something like this? It's not what I expected (or wanted)." At that time, some people will change their major (specialty) (change or change).
No matter what you major in, you need at least relevant knowledge in addition to studying (research) what you majored in. That knowledge deepens the understanding of the major. (Some scholars may not be able to do that. Www) I think that is especially true of the discipline of philosophy. Since I major in ancient philosophy, it does not mean that I do not have to know modern philosophy.
However, if there is no "why to study it" and "why to study it", I feel like it is just an "extension of my hobby".
And it just "submits a question" (which is also important) and may not find a solution (it is the "citizen" who finds it, and scholars give hints and choices. but).
Vector (direction)
The author reads that the loss of the "virtue" that Plato and Aristotle call (although there are many parts that I do not understand) is causing various harmful effects in today's society. He reads that the lost "culture of shame" should be restored.
Kusakabe is the opposite. It is the "ego" that Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle "discovered (?, Record?)", And that "awareness" through the fusion with Hebraism may have shaped the subsequent Western philosophy and Western society. I say (it's just my reading).
I agree with his awareness of the problem that "bloated subjectivity is covering the world."
Well, I'm paying more attention to the subjectivity created by the subjectivity (objectivity as a reflection rule of the subjectivity).
The difference in direction between the author and Mr. Kusakabe may come from the difference in the field of study.
Culture of sin
Hebraism is called "desert thinking" by Mr. Kusakabe. I think it is the idea of a person carrying the "culture of sin", that is, the "original sin" that the author calls.
A human being who lives in a desert with nothing (no vegetation). Nature may have been seen by them as "hostile" rather than "mother" or "respectful" who raised them. [1]
Modern philosophy
Philosophy has always aimed at "existence itself (ontology)", that is, "nature", "object" and "self", recursion, and denial of self (forgetting). The same is true for "art".
After continuing to think about the object (existence), I had to admit the "thinking self" itself (Descartes). That is the beginning of modern times. It was ancient Greek philosophy itself, and Christianity was only trying to integrate Hellenistic and Hebraism. And Kant replaced "object" with "purpose". Hegel has returned to his "self" trying to find an end to it. Nietzsche knew it and was taken into "madness". Bentham and Mill simply admitted "self" and "quantification", that is, "subjectivity and objectivity". Heidegger supported the Nazis to escape subjectivity, and Kitaro Nishida's disciples contributed to Japanese imperialism (modern transcendence).
How can we overcome the "self as a thinking subject"? I think that ancient Greek philosophy has a great meaning as a material to think about it.
"Modern ethical thought does not necessarily center on the concept of virtue. The universal validity of individual actions and (leading) ratings becomes an issue (Kant's deontological ethics), or individual actions Emphasis is placed on the coordination between the amount of substantive utility that the rule results in and the fair distribution (Bentham and Mill's utilitarianism with the slogan "maximum number of maximum happiness"). In other words, the issues of modern ethics are summarized in the question of "what to do" rather than "what should be". (P.97) --- You shouldn't read cants at that level.
"Gorgias" "The first thing a fist player is taught by a master in a dojo is that he will never quarrel and hit his opponent, but the technician cannot guarantee the ethics of misusing the technique. If so, what will happen to my responsibilities as an educator (4 (FF) 60E). "(P.105-106) --- I have to read. But I think that is the fate of "technology" itself.
"Gorgias" "Oral art is not a technique backed by legitimate knowledge, it is just" skill "" (P.106)
"As soon as the deficiency is satisfied, the pleasure itself stops, so in order to enjoy the pleasure, we must constantly artificially create a deficiency state." (P.119) -I see.
"If the word" pleasure "is not good, how about paraphrasing it as" comfortable "? How many modern Japanese people live with values and ideals (and their true intentions) other than "comfortable living" (only for themselves)? (P.121) --- "Comfort" will be used.
"I have just mentioned that nature has a self-fulfilling stationary point. Then, is there an existence that develops self-movement without a stationary point? In the emptiness of the infinite universe, if no external force works, it will be forever. An object that continues to move in a straight line at a constant velocity. This representation, which modern physics presupposes, looks extremely strange from an ancient sense, like a human being who never stops walking. "Energy consumption, population, waste of each ward type, and information." "How much energy is consumed to stop self-sufficiency? In fact, it has such a goal everywhere. What is unwilling to do is the appearance of a modern civilization that boasts "development" and "progress" since the enlightenment (FF) era, which the whole world is now pursuing in the name of "developing". .. "Unless some new steady state, the formation of a ring, is realized, the future of humankind is impossible. However, in developed countries that have already enjoyed" affluence "and have begun to realize its problems, and in poverty. Is it possible to reach a common agreement with underdeveloped countries that want to enjoy "modern living" through development? (P.225-226) --- It is good to point out the problem. How about connecting it with "development"? Of course, there can be no SDGs. It is less than "painted rice cake". But that's not because modern times have forgotten Socrates Plato Aristotle. The opposite is true. Along with medieval philosophy, the West has sought to justify that idea. In modern times, Hegel decided (in the author's words) its "reaching point". So Hegel continues to be denied "in that respect". The first vector is wrong. Even if you keep saying "morality" and "ethics" without being aware of it, it is nothing more than "empty words".
"Originally, this word (" Metaphysics "-excerpt) was just a convenient editorial name for a group of documents placed" after "(meta) in natural science (metaphysics). However, since the Middle Ages, the implications of this "meta" have changed to the understanding of dealing with (trans) problems that transcend the sensory object area, and have come to point to the most abstract and fundamental philosophical problems. .. (P.227) -I see.
"Everyone behaves in childhood with only pleasure and suffering. In that sense, it is no different from a state of virtue. Eventually, conflicts and conflicts arise in conflict with social norms, and they are gradually integrated. Virtue is formed in the process of doing so. Furthermore, it would be ideal if the cultivating was done to the extent that desires and norms do not collide ("Do not exceed the quadrangle according to what you want", "Theory", academic edition) .. What kind of malformed spirit will be cultivated by parents and teachers who are only understandable, school education that suppresses competition, fighting, attention and penalties with a palatable slogan as a shield, and a society that is trying to make things easier Will soon be proved by Japanese society in the 21st century. Aristotle's analysis of virtue and restraint also suggests what the education of virtue is. (P.277) Hmmm, the buttons are wrong. There is something wrong with Aristotle's intention, or Aristotle's reading is wrong. "Children are evil"? Then are adults logical and ethical? If so, the problem that the author says has not occurred. So rather, adults have to learn from their children. And maybe that's the way to go. I would like Plato to teach (Socrates) the meaning of "teaching" and "teaching." "The Analects" will be a separate article (in contrast to "Laozi" at the same time).
The sequel to "Philosophy Original Landscape"
In the impression of the previous book, he wrote, "Unfortunately, the author's ideas are hardly expressed. I understand that there are restrictions on the NHK library and cultural seminars."
In this book, I think the author's ideas are somewhat more expressed than in the previous work. The postscript says "For the author to go to the United States" (P.283), so you were busy.
There is also duplication in the content. Since the content is general (overall) and concrete (individual), duplication is unavoidable, and duplication also deepens understanding.
Modern civilization and selfishness (P.94)
"But morals do not mature as rapidly as the speed of technological innovation. Everywhere, we try to satisfy human needs. The convenience of" anytime, anywhere "dismantles the public nature of space. Whether in the classroom at school or on the train, people are acting so faithfully to their desires that the word public is likely to become a dead word in the next few years. (P.95)
Well, it doesn't matter if they are "people" or "young people today". But there is "technological innovation" (there is no definition, and I don't know if it is "good" or "evil"), but "moral" (it is written throughout the work). It seems that he thinks that it must not disappear, or that it must mature here.
Recently, the author wrote "Slave philosopher Epictetus Life Class ――I wrote a book called "" to "live well" in this difficult world, so if you read that book, you may understand the author's thoughts (you may not understand it). Maybe it's not there).
Well, I think that today's society thinks that something is wrong.
Western Ancient Philosophy, Church Fathers Philosophy
And on Wikipedia.
In his book, "& lt; a href = & quot; https://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/400028293X/?tag=charmedias-22" target = & quot; _ blank & quot; & gt; Marcus Aurelius" Meditations "- There is a spiritual fortress (the birth of a book-a new introduction to classics) & lt; / a & gt; ”.
I decide what I major in (although it may not be the case), but I am interested in knowing what I major in, so I major in it, but if I know it completely, I need to study. That's why I major because I don't know. However, in order to major (selection), "you have to know".
This contradiction is the essence, but I will write it separately, and some people will become "scholars" by pursuing the "major" selected there.
While studying, you may start to think, "Is this something like this? It's not what I expected (or wanted)." At that time, some people will change their major (specialty) (change or change).
No matter what you major in, you need at least relevant knowledge in addition to studying (research) what you majored in. That knowledge deepens the understanding of the major. (Some scholars may not be able to do that. Www) I think that is especially true of the discipline of philosophy. Since I major in ancient philosophy, it does not mean that I do not have to know modern philosophy.
However, if there is no "why to study it" and "why to study it", I feel like it is just an "extension of my hobby".
And it just "submits a question" (which is also important) and may not find a solution (it is the "citizen" who finds it, and scholars give hints and choices. but).
Vector (direction)
The author reads that the loss of the "virtue" that Plato and Aristotle call (although there are many parts that I do not understand) is causing various harmful effects in today's society. He reads that the lost "culture of shame" should be restored.
Kusakabe is the opposite. It is the "ego" that Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle "discovered (?, Record?)", And that "awareness" through the fusion with Hebraism may have shaped the subsequent Western philosophy and Western society. I say (it's just my reading).
I agree with his awareness of the problem that "bloated subjectivity is covering the world."
Well, I'm paying more attention to the subjectivity created by the subjectivity (objectivity as a reflection rule of the subjectivity).
The difference in direction between the author and Mr. Kusakabe may come from the difference in the field of study.
Culture of sin
Hebraism is called "desert thinking" by Mr. Kusakabe. I think it is the idea of a person carrying the "culture of sin", that is, the "original sin" that the author calls.
A human being who lives in a desert with nothing (no vegetation). Nature may have been seen by them as "hostile" rather than "mother" or "respectful" who raised them. [1]
Modern philosophy
Philosophy has always aimed at "existence itself (ontology)", that is, "nature", "object" and "self", recursion, and denial of self (forgetting). The same is true for "art".
After continuing to think about the object (existence), I had to admit the "thinking self" itself (Descartes). That is the beginning of modern times. It was ancient Greek philosophy itself, and Christianity was only trying to integrate Hellenistic and Hebraism. And Kant replaced "object" with "purpose". Hegel has returned to his "self" trying to find an end to it. Nietzsche knew it and was taken into "madness". Bentham and Mill simply admitted "self" and "quantification", that is, "subjectivity and objectivity". Heidegger supported the Nazis to escape subjectivity, and Kitaro Nishida's disciples contributed to Japanese imperialism (modern transcendence).
How can we overcome the "self as a thinking subject"? I think that ancient Greek philosophy has a great meaning as a material to think about it.
"Modern ethical thought does not necessarily center on the concept of virtue. The universal validity of individual actions and (leading) ratings becomes an issue (Kant's deontological ethics), or individual actions Emphasis is placed on the coordination between the amount of substantive utility that the rule results in and the fair distribution (Bentham and Mill's utilitarianism with the slogan "maximum number of maximum happiness"). In other words, the issues of modern ethics are summarized in the question of "what to do" rather than "what should be". (P.97) --- You shouldn't read cants at that level.
"Gorgias" "The first thing a fist player is taught by a master in a dojo is that he will never quarrel and hit his opponent, but the technician cannot guarantee the ethics of misusing the technique. If so, what will happen to my responsibilities as an educator (4 (FF) 60E). "(P.105-106) --- I have to read. But I think that is the fate of "technology" itself.
"Gorgias" "Oral art is not a technique backed by legitimate knowledge, it is just" skill "" (P.106)
"As soon as the deficiency is satisfied, the pleasure itself stops, so in order to enjoy the pleasure, we must constantly artificially create a deficiency state." (P.119) -I see.
"If the word" pleasure "is not good, how about paraphrasing it as" comfortable "? How many modern Japanese people live with values and ideals (and their true intentions) other than "comfortable living" (only for themselves)? (P.121) --- "Comfort" will be used.
"I have just mentioned that nature has a self-fulfilling stationary point. Then, is there an existence that develops self-movement without a stationary point? In the emptiness of the infinite universe, if no external force works, it will be forever. An object that continues to move in a straight line at a constant velocity. This representation, which modern physics presupposes, looks extremely strange from an ancient sense, like a human being who never stops walking. "Energy consumption, population, waste of each ward type, and information." "How much energy is consumed to stop self-sufficiency? In fact, it has such a goal everywhere. What is unwilling to do is the appearance of a modern civilization that boasts "development" and "progress" since the enlightenment (FF) era, which the whole world is now pursuing in the name of "developing". .. "Unless some new steady state, the formation of a ring, is realized, the future of humankind is impossible. However, in developed countries that have already enjoyed" affluence "and have begun to realize its problems, and in poverty. Is it possible to reach a common agreement with underdeveloped countries that want to enjoy "modern living" through development? (P.225-226) --- It is good to point out the problem. How about connecting it with "development"? Of course, there can be no SDGs. It is less than "painted rice cake". But that's not because modern times have forgotten Socrates Plato Aristotle. The opposite is true. Along with medieval philosophy, the West has sought to justify that idea. In modern times, Hegel decided (in the author's words) its "reaching point". So Hegel continues to be denied "in that respect". The first vector is wrong. Even if you keep saying "morality" and "ethics" without being aware of it, it is nothing more than "empty words".
"Originally, this word (" Metaphysics "-excerpt) was just a convenient editorial name for a group of documents placed" after "(meta) in natural science (metaphysics). However, since the Middle Ages, the implications of this "meta" have changed to the understanding of dealing with (trans) problems that transcend the sensory object area, and have come to point to the most abstract and fundamental philosophical problems. .. (P.227) -I see.
"Everyone behaves in childhood with only pleasure and suffering. In that sense, it is no different from a state of virtue. Eventually, conflicts and conflicts arise in conflict with social norms, and they are gradually integrated. Virtue is formed in the process of doing so. Furthermore, it would be ideal if the cultivating was done to the extent that desires and norms do not collide ("Do not exceed the quadrangle according to what you want", "Theory", academic edition) .. What kind of malformed spirit will be cultivated by parents and teachers who are only understandable, school education that suppresses competition, fighting, attention and penalties with a palatable slogan as a shield, and a society that is trying to make things easier Will soon be proved by Japanese society in the 21st century. Aristotle's analysis of virtue and restraint also suggests what the education of virtue is. (P.277) Hmmm, the buttons are wrong. There is something wrong with Aristotle's intention, or Aristotle's reading is wrong. "Children are evil"? Then are adults logical and ethical? If so, the problem that the author says has not occurred. So rather, adults have to learn from their children. And maybe that's the way to go. I would like Plato to teach (Socrates) the meaning of "teaching" and "teaching." "The Analects" will be a separate article (in contrast to "Laozi" at the same time).
[著者等(プロフィール)]
荻野/弘之
1957年、東京都生まれ。東京大学文学部哲学科卒業。同大学院博士課程中退。同大教養学部助手、東京女子大学専任講師・助教授、上智大学文学部哲学科助教授を経て、99年より上智大学教授。同大中世思想研究所員。カリフォルニア大学バークレー校客員研究員
古代ギリシアの三大哲学者、ソクラテス・プラトン・アリストテレス。アテナイを舞台に活躍した、この三人の哲人によって、西洋哲学の基礎は築かれた。哲学とは、なにを、どのような仕方で問う学問だったのか。彼らが遺した言葉に思索の「原型」を探り、またそれを通して、人間を取り巻く諸問題を解明していく。
[1] まだわかりません。彼らだって、自分の食料や、水を、衣服を自然から得ていたでしょうから。あるいはそれらも「交易」からしか得ることができなかったのでしょうか。
[拡大] 
