http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : Jenny K. Strandberg (검색결과 1 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
Faking It Right: The King as a Precise Imitator of the True Statesman
Jenny K. Strandberg 한국서양고전학회 2021 西洋古典學硏究 Vol.60 No.3
In the Sophist, the Eleatic visitor distinguishes between precise and belief mimicry as having versus lacking knowledge of what one is imitating. Imitation is an important theme in the Statesman as well, where the visitor follows up with a portrait of the true statesman. But the earlier distinction is conspicuously missing in this conversation. My objective here is to analyze political mimesis from the perspective of precise and belief mimicry. I identify the king, who rules with opinion and according to laws, as a potential precise mimic of the true statesman. As such, he occupies a liminal position between sophistry and the demanding true statesman ideal and comes to represent a more realistic political vision on the part of the visitor. The mimetic king does not have direct knowledge in statesmanship, which seems almost impossible to attain, but a second order knowledge of someone who has expertise. He knows the true statesman’s character and manner of rule and is therefore able to imitate this ideal precisely. Since the other mimetic rulers lack this knowledge, they produce merely artificial images of true statesmen. Hence, I argue that, of all the mimetic rulers in the Statesman, only the king is faking it right. I make this point in the larger context of the threat posed by tyranny in the dialogue. An ignorant monarch could claim to be a true expert and demand to rule with absolute sovereignty, like a true statesman, thus establishing tyranny. In this case, the protection that a strict law-state would provide against the abuses of ignorant rulers would fail. Claiming to know what he does not know, coupled with the general population’s inability to see through this act of deception, the greatest sophist among sophists could cease power. To prevent this from happening, the visitor must clearly define how a tyrant is discernably different from a true statesman. In my interpretation, he articulates the telltale sign of a tyrant as a monarch who claims to be a true statesman. The king who rules with opinion and according to laws would not make such a claim, and neither would a ruler who truly possesses knowledge. A monarch who has knowledge should, in the visitor’s judgment, remain king and rule indistinguishable in name from less enlightened monarchs, who have merely an opinion in statesmanship. Hence, in not identifying herself as a true statesman, the true expert becomes markedly different from the one who does identify as such—the greatest fraud of all, the tyrant. From this it follows that it is not possible to imitate the highest political ideal more precisely than the king who rules with opinion and law, since anyone who claims to have realized the ideal exactly is a tyrant. The king manages to fake it right by acknowledging both what he does not know, i.e., statecraft, and what he knows, i.e., the character and manner of rule of a genuine statesman.
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
