{"id":4767,"date":"2025-04-23T21:48:12","date_gmt":"2025-04-23T18:48:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/klasikdusunceokulu.com\/?page_id=4767"},"modified":"2025-04-23T21:48:51","modified_gmt":"2025-04-23T18:48:51","slug":"oguz-haslakogluplaton-devlet-11-seminer-ozeti","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/klasikdusunceokulu.com\/index.php\/oguz-haslakogluplaton-devlet-11-seminer-ozeti\/","title":{"rendered":"O\u011eUZ HA\u015eLAKO\u011eLU:PLATON, DEVLET 11. SEM\u0130NER \u00d6ZET\u0130"},"content":{"rendered":"

O\u011eUZ HA\u015eLAKO\u011eLU:PLATON, DEVLET 11. SEM\u0130NER \u00d6ZET\u0130<\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Seminerin Amac\u0131 ve \u0130\u00e7eri\u011fi<\/strong>
    \nOn birinci seminer, Timaeus<\/em> diyalo\u011funda yer alan ve Platon felsefesinin en karma\u015f\u0131k kavramlar\u0131ndan biri olan \u201ckora\u201d (\u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1) \u00fczerine yo\u011funla\u015f\u0131r. Ha\u015flako\u011flu, \u201colu\u015f\u201d (genesis) ile \u201cvarl\u0131k\u201d (on) aras\u0131nda bir ge\u00e7i\u015f sahnesi olarak konumlanan kora\u2019n\u0131n, ne saf noetik alana ne de duyusal-somut varolu\u015fa indirgenemeyece\u011fini g\u00f6sterir. Kora, olu\u015fun imk\u00e2n\u0131 olarak ele al\u0131n\u0131r; ne salt varl\u0131k ne de yokluk olan bu \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc t\u00fcr, zorunluluk (ananke<\/em>) ile akl\u0131n (nous<\/em>) birle\u015fiminden do\u011far.<\/li>\n
  2. Ana Temalar ve Ba\u015fl\u0131klar<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
      \n
    1. Kora: Yer mi, Mahal mi, Zemin mi?<\/strong>
      \nKora, olu\u015fun kab\u0131 ve mek\u00e2n\u0131 olarak tan\u0131mlan\u0131r ancak s\u0131radan bir fiziksel yer de\u011fildir. Platon, koray\u0131 \u201cdamgalanan ama kendi ba\u015f\u0131na \u015fekilsiz olan\u201d olarak konumland\u0131r\u0131r. Ha\u015flako\u011flu, bu yap\u0131n\u0131n yaln\u0131zca edilgin de\u011fil, etkin bir do\u011faya da sahip oldu\u011funu, hatta \u201colu\u015fun s\u00fctannesi\u201d olarak betimlendi\u011fini vurgular.<\/li>\n
    2. Nous\u2013Ananke Diyalekti\u011fi ve Kozmik Terkip<\/strong>
      \nPlaton\u2019un kozmos anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131 sadece saf ak\u0131l (nous<\/em>) ile de\u011fil, zorunluluk (ananke<\/em>) ile birlikte a\u00e7\u0131klanabilir. Kozmos, bu iki ilkenin bile\u015fimiyle meydana gelir. Kora, bu terkip i\u00e7erisinde olu\u015fun zorunlu mahalli olarak ortaya \u00e7\u0131kar. Bu, Aristoteles\u2019teki madde (hyle) anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n Platoncu kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011fildir; zira Platon, koray\u0131 ne madde ne de form olarak tan\u0131mlar.<\/li>\n
    3. Eidos\u2013Eidolon, Temsil ve Taklit Aras\u0131ndaki Gerilim<\/strong>
      \nPlaton\u2019un mimesis<\/em> (taklit) kavram\u0131na dair yakla\u015f\u0131m\u0131, eik\u014dton dogma<\/em> (temsil yoluyla anlay\u0131\u015f) form\u00fcl\u00fcyle a\u00e7\u0131klan\u0131r. Kora do\u011frudan kavranamaz; o, ancak benzerlik ilkesiyle, yani te\u015fbih ve metaforlarla dile getirilebilir. Bu noktada eidos ile arithmos aras\u0131ndaki ili\u015fki de yeniden d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fclmelidir.<\/li>\n
    4. Kora ve Ontolojik \u0130mk\u00e2n Ko\u015fulu Olarak \u0130mk\u00e2n<\/strong>
      \nKora, Ha\u015flako\u011flu taraf\u0131ndan \u201cimk\u00e2n\u0131n zemini\u201d olarak yorumlan\u0131r. Olu\u015f, varl\u0131k ve model aras\u0131ndaki ili\u015fkiyi m\u00fcmk\u00fcn k\u0131lan bu yap\u0131, \u201cdamga yeri\u201d (typot\u0113nteron) olarak i\u015flev g\u00f6r\u00fcr. Platon\u2019a g\u00f6re kora olmaks\u0131z\u0131n ne taklit ger\u00e7ekle\u015febilir ne de eidos, somut bi\u00e7imde varl\u0131k kazanabilir.<\/li>\n
    5. Aristoteles ve Kora\u2019n\u0131n Deformasyonu<\/strong>
      \nAristoteles\u2019in hyle anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131 \u00fczerinden Platon\u2019daki kora\u2019n\u0131n yanl\u0131\u015f yorumland\u0131\u011f\u0131na dikkat \u00e7ekilir. Ha\u015flako\u011flu, Platon\u2019un \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc cins olarak tan\u0131mlad\u0131\u011f\u0131 kora\u2019n\u0131n ne maddi t\u00f6z ne de duyusal \u015fey olarak alg\u0131lanmamas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini vurgular. Kora, t\u00fcm olu\u015fun sahnelendi\u011fi ama hi\u00e7bir zaman tam olarak kavranamayan bir arakesittir.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
        \n
      1. Sonu\u00e7<\/strong>
        \nBu seminer, Platon\u2019un Timaeus<\/em> diyalo\u011fundaki \u201ckora\u201d kavram\u0131n\u0131n felsefi i\u015flevini, onun olu\u015fun imk\u00e2n ko\u015fulu olarak sahip oldu\u011fu merkezi rol\u00fcyle birlikte ele al\u0131r. Ha\u015flako\u011flu, bu yap\u0131n\u0131n klasik madde-form ikili\u011fine indirgenemeyecek bir ge\u00e7i\u015f mek\u00e2n\u0131, bir berzah oldu\u011funu g\u00f6sterir. Bu sayede Platon\u2019un d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesinde model, taklit ve yer ili\u015fkisi yeniden yorumlan\u0131r; felsefenin sahnesi, zorunluluk ve ak\u0131l aras\u0131nda kurulan ara yap\u0131larla derinle\u015ftirilir.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

         <\/p>\n

          \n
        1. Purpose and Content of the Seminar<\/strong>
          \nThe eleventh seminar focuses on one of the most complex concepts in Plato\u2019s Timaeus<\/em>: ch\u014dra<\/em> (\u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1). Ha\u015flako\u011flu interprets ch\u014dra<\/em> as a transitional \u201cscene\u201d situated between being (on<\/em>) and becoming (genesis<\/em>), emphasizing that it cannot be reduced to either the noetic realm or the sensible domain. Rather, it is treated as the condition of possibility for becoming\u2014a third kind that is neither being nor non-being, born from the conjunction of necessity (anank\u0113<\/em>) and intellect (nous<\/em>).<\/li>\n
        2. Main Themes and Topics<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
            \n
          1. Ch\u014dra: Space, Receptacle, or Ground?<\/strong>
            \nCh\u014dra<\/em> is defined as the receptacle or space of becoming, yet it is not a physical location in the conventional sense. Plato describes it as “that which is imprinted yet has no form of its own.” Ha\u015flako\u011flu stresses that ch\u014dra<\/em> is not merely passive but has an active ontological role, metaphorically described as \u201cthe nurse of becoming.\u201d<\/li>\n
          2. The Nous\u2013Anank\u0113 Dialectic and the Cosmic Compound<\/strong>
            \nThe cosmos is formed not solely by pure intellect (nous<\/em>), but through its combination with necessity (anank\u0113<\/em>). Within this synthesis, ch\u014dra<\/em> emerges as the indispensable receptacle of becoming. It is not equivalent to Aristotle\u2019s hyl\u0113<\/em> (matter); Plato does not define ch\u014dra<\/em> as either matter or form.<\/li>\n
          3. Eidos\u2013Eidolon: The Tension Between Form and Representation<\/strong>
            \nPlato\u2019s understanding of mimesis<\/em> (imitation) is explored through the notion of eik\u014dton dogma<\/em> (understanding via likeness). Ch\u014dra<\/em> cannot be directly known\u2014it can only be grasped metaphorically, through analogy. This reopens the relation between eidos<\/em> (form) and arithmos<\/em> (number) as mutually implicative.<\/li>\n
          4. Ch\u014dra as the Ontological Condition of Possibility<\/strong>
            \nHa\u015flako\u011flu presents ch\u014dra<\/em> as \u201cthe ground of possibility.\u201d It serves as the imprinting place (typotenteron<\/em>) enabling the relationship between becoming, being, and model. Without ch\u014dra<\/em>, neither imitation nor the instantiation of eidos<\/em> in the sensible world would be possible.<\/li>\n
          5. Aristotle and the Deformation of Ch\u014dra<\/strong>
            \nAristotle\u2019s notion of matter<\/em> has led to misinterpretations of ch\u014dra<\/em> as a material substrate. Ha\u015flako\u011flu argues that Plato\u2019s third genus\u2014ch\u014dra<\/em>\u2014should not be equated with material substance or sensible entities. It is the staging ground of all becoming, never fully graspable, yet ontologically essential.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
              \n
            1. Conclusion<\/strong>
              \nThis seminar analyzes ch\u014dra<\/em> as the philosophical mechanism that makes becoming possible within Plato\u2019s Timaeus<\/em>. Ha\u015flako\u011flu shows that ch\u014dra<\/em> cannot be reduced to matter or form but operates as a liminal, intermediary structure\u2014a metaphysical threshold. Within this framework, Plato\u2019s philosophy reconfigures the relationships between model, imitation, and space, staging a metaphysical scene shaped by the interplay of necessity and intellect.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

               <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

              O\u011eUZ HA\u015eLAKO\u011eLU:PLATON, DEVLET 11. SEM\u0130NER \u00d6ZET\u0130 Seminerin Amac\u0131 ve \u0130\u00e7eri\u011fi […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-4767","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/klasikdusunceokulu.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4767","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/klasikdusunceokulu.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/klasikdusunceokulu.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/klasikdusunceokulu.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/klasikdusunceokulu.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4767"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/klasikdusunceokulu.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4767\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4768,"href":"https:\/\/klasikdusunceokulu.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4767\/revisions\/4768"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/klasikdusunceokulu.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4767"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}