EROS VE POLİS: BİR POLİTİKA FELSEFESİ METNİ OLARAK PLATON'UN ŞÖLENİ

Yıl 2019, Sayı: 28, 221 - 242, 29.12.2019

Mete Ulaş Aksoy

Öz

Platon’un Şölen’i, Agathon adlı
tragedya yazarının evinde Sokrates başta olmak üzere bir grup Atina’lının aşk
ve güzellik üzerine yaptıkları sohbeti konu alır. Aşk ve güzellik teması
etrafında dönen Şölen’in bir politika felsefesi metni olarak okunabileceği
tezini temel alan makale, bu eserin tematik ve dramatik öğelerinin politik
anlam ve çıkarımlarını inceler. Politika felsefesinin perspektifinden
bakıldığında, Şölen’in politik boyutunun üç katmandan oluştuğu görülmektedir:
aktüel, tematik ve teolojik. Makalenin giriş bölümünde, Şölen’in politik
boyutuna dair genel bir giriş yapıldıktan sonra, aktüel boyut üzerinde durulur.
İkinci bölümde, Şölen’in tematik boyutunun felsefe/polis gerginliği olduğu dile
getirilir. Üçüncü bölümde, Sempozyum’un Atina polisi’nin teolojisine nasıl bir
alternatif getirdiği üzerinde durularak, politik-teoloji meselesi ele alınır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Eros, Platon, Polis, Politika Felsefesi, Sokrates, Şölen

EROS AND POLIS: PLATO’S SYMPOSIUM AS A TEXT OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

Öz

Plato’s Symposium is a book which narrates a banquet in Agathon’s
house during which Socrates and a group of Athenian talks about love and
beauty. The article, which aims at reading Symposium as a philosophical text
having political connotations, analyses the thematic and dramatic elements of
Symposium to elucidate these connotations. The article claims that looked from
the perspective of political philosophy, Symposium has three political
dimensions: practical, thematic and theological. In the first part, the article
dwells on how Symposium uses the Athenian political affairs as its background.
In the second part, the thematic dimension of Symposium is addressed by
focusing on the tension between philosophy and polis as a central point of
Platonic political philosophy. In the last part, the politico-theological dimension
is taken into consideration by noticing the challenge Symposium poses to the
existing theology of Athenian polis

Anahtar Kelimeler

Eros, Plato, Polis, Political Philosophy, Socrates, Symposium

Kaynakça

• ARCHIE, Andre (2015). Politics in Socrates’ Alcibiades: A Philosophical Account of Plato’s Dialogue Alcibiades Major, New York: Springer.
• ARENDT, Hannah (1998). The Human Condition, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• BATAILLE, Georges (1991). The Accursed Share: An Essay on General Economy, çev. R. Hurley, New York: Zone Books.
• BLOOM, Allan (2001). “The Ladder of Love,” Plato’s Symposium, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• BONNER, Kieran (2013). “Eros and Ironic Intoxication: Profound Longing, Maddness, and Disciplenship in Plato’s Symposium and in Modern Life,” History of the Human Sciences, 26(5): 114-131.
• DOWNING, Christine (1989). “Diotima and Alcibiades: An Alternative Reading of Symposium,” Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 72(4): 631-655.
• EFLATUN (1963). Alkibiades I, çev. İ. Şahinbaş, Ankara: Milli Eğitim Basımevi.
• HALPERİN, M. David (1986). “Plato and Erotic Reciprocity,” Classical Antiquity 5(1): 60-80.
• LUDWIG, W. Paul (2002). Eros and Polis: Desire and Community in Greek Political Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• LUTZ, J. Mark (1998). Socrates’ Education to Virtue, New York: State University of New York Press.
• MELZER, M. Arthur, Philosophy between the Lines, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• NEHAMAS, Alexander (2007). “’Only in the Contemplation of Beauty is Human Life Worth Living’ Plato, Symposium 211d,” European Journal of Philosophy 15(1): 1-18.
• NEUMANN, Harry (1965). “Diotima’s Concept of Love,” The American Journal of Philology 86(1): 33-59.
• NEWELL, Waller R. (2000). Ruling Passion: The Erotics of Statecraft in Platonic Political Philosophy, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
• NICHOLS, P. Mary (2007). “Philosophy and Empire,” Polity, 39(4): 502-521.
• NUSSBAUM, C. Martha (2001). The Fragility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• PLATON (2015). Phaedo, çev. G. Rızaoğlu, İstanbul: Oda Yayınları.
• PLATON (2006). Sokrates’in Savunması, çev. E. Gören, İstanbul: Kabalcı.
• PLATO (1999). The Symposium, çev. C. Gill, New York: Penguin Classics.
• PLATO (1991). The Republic of Plato, çev. A. Bloom, Basic Books.
• PLATO (1980). The Laws of Plato, çev. T. Pangle, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• PRICE, A. W. (2004). Love and Friendship in Plato and Aristotle, Oxford: Clarendon.
• SINGH, Aakash (2005). Eros Turannos: Leo Strauss and Alexandre Kojeve Debate on Tyranny, London: University Press of America.
• SAXONHOUS, W. Arlene (1992). Fear of Diversity: The Birth of Political Science in Ancient Greek Thought, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• STRAUSS, Leo (2001). On Plato’s Symposium, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• STRAUSS, Leo (1991a). On Tyranny, New York: The Free Press.
• STRAUSS, Leo (1991b). “Restatement”, On Tyranny, der. V. Gourevitch ve M. S. Roth, New York: The Free Press, s. 177-213.
• STRAUSS, Leo (1980). Persecution and the Art of Writing, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• STRAUSS, Leo (1975). The Argument and the Action of Plato’s Laws, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• THUCYDIDES (2009). The Poleponnesian War, çev. M. Hammond, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• VLASTOS, Gregory (1973). Platonic Studies, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• WOHL, Victoria (1999). “The Eros of Alcibiades,” Classical Antiquity 18(2): 349-385.
• XENOPHON (2001). The Education of Cyrus. Çev. Ambler, Ithica: Cornell University Press.
• XENOPHON (1991). Hiero or Tyrannicus, çev. Leo Strauss, New York: The Free Press.
• XENOPHON (1997). Memorabilia, Oeconomicus, Symposium, Apology, çev. E. C. Marchant ve O. J. Todd, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.