论文部分内容阅读
最近十多年关于“父子互隐”的论战一度波及苏格拉底。一方认为苏格拉底主张子为父隐,另一方认为苏格拉底赞同子告父罪。双方针锋相对,都指对方误读了柏拉图的《游叙弗伦篇》。通过对《游叙弗伦篇》的解读和相关资料的考证,可以发现,苏格拉底的确质疑游叙弗伦告父杀人,但他质疑游叙弗伦的原因并非因为主张子为父隐,而是因为不能确定游叙弗伦的父亲是否犯有杀人罪,不能断定游叙弗伦告父杀人是否虔敬。《游叙弗伦篇》既未断言苏格拉底赞同子告父罪,也未显示他主张子为父隐。
The last decade or so of the controversy over “father-son interaction” once affected Socrates. One side believes that Socrates argued that the child is the father of implicit, the other party that Socrates agree with the child to report parental sin. The two sides oppose each other, both referring to each other’s misreading of Plato’s Tour of French. Through the interpretation of “Traveling Fury Lun” and the research of related materials, we can see that Socrates did question the narrative Furyan father-in-law murder, but he questioned the reason for Fawun not because of claiming that the son is the father of implicit, But because he was not sure whether Fulan’s father was guilty of homicide or not, and could not conclude whether Yasunfulah Fawun’s father was murderous or not. “Syracuse Fulan” neither asserted Socrates agree with the father pleaded guilty, nor did he show that the child is the father of implicit.