Görüntüleme
63
İndirme
22
Platon’un şairle savaşının temelinde, sadece şairin ontolojik düzlemde zayıf bir konumlanışı olan imgelerle meşgul oluşu yatmaz. Şairler, özellikle Homeros gibi destan şairleri, toplumsal nomos ve ethosun kurucu aktörleridir. Oysa Platon’un da kendi yöntemleriyle toplumsal nomos ve ethosun kurulması hususunda radikal bir talebi vardır. Bu nedenle şairle güçlü bir savaş içerisine girer. Onun çekişmesi aslında rasyonalite ile muhayyile, logos ile epos/mitos arasındaki çekişmedir. Bu bağlamda çağdaşı olmamasına rağmen, bir destan yazıcısı olarak Nâzım Hikmet de Platon’un rakibidir. Nitekim Şeyh Bedreddin imgesinin ve bu hususta bir tür toplumsal algının oluşturulmasında onun etkisi yadsınamaz. Kadim rekabetten ilhamla, destan yazarının şekillendirdiği toplumsal zihniyetin, yeniden teşekkülüne Platon temsilinde felsefenin de talip olduğu öne sürülebilir. İşte bu çalışmada Şeyh Bedreddin imgesi, her ne kadar Nâzım Hikmet’in muhayyilesindeki iki (sosyalist ve materyalist) boyutla ön plana çıkmış olsa da, felsefî bir perspektifle rasyonel ölçütler kullanılarak yeniden değerlendirilecektir. Acaba Şeyh Bedreddin gerçekten sosyalist ve materyalist midir? Yoksa “şair” her zamanki gibi aklı kötürüm bırakarak hakikati manipüle mi etmiştir?
The foundation of Platon’s war with the poet is not that the poet only works with images with a weak position on the ontological level. Poets, especially Homeros, are the founding actors of the social nomos and ethos. Oysaki Platon also has a radical demand for the establishment of social nomos and ethos by his own methods. It is a strong dispute with the poet. His dispute is in fact a dispute between rationality and imagination, logos and epos/mitos. Although he has no counterpart in this context, Nâzım Hikmet is the rival of Platon as a story writer. Indeed, the influence of the image of Sheikh Bedreddin and the creation of a kind of social perception in this regard cannot be denied. Inspired by ancient competition, the social mentality formed by the writer of the story can be suggested to be re-established in the representation of Platon that philosophy is also a must. In this study, the image of Bedreddin as a socialist and materialist, which stands out in two dimensions in the narrative of Nâzım Hikmet, will be shot on the groundstone of rationality. Is he really a socialist and materialist? Or did the "the poet" manipulate the truth by leaving the mindfulness as usual?
The basis of Plato's war with the poet is not only that the poet is concerned with images having a weak positioning on the ontological plane. The poets, especially epic poets such as Homer, are the founding actors of social nomos (laws) and ethos (home, character, custom). Nevertheless, Plato has a radical demand about establishing social nomos and ethos through his own methods. For this reason, Plato enters into a strong war with the poet. His fight is in fact between rationality and imagination, as well as between logos and epos or mythos. In this context, Nazim Hikmet, as an epic poet, is a rival of Plato even though he is not Plato’s contemporary. As a matter of fact, his influence cannot be denied that the image of Shaykh Badr al-Din and some kind of social consciousness in this regard. For all that, we can argue that philosophy also pursues remaking of the social mindset shaped by the epic poet in its Platonic representation, with inspiration from ancient rivalry. In this study, the image of Shaykh Badr al-Din will be re-evaluated from a philosophical perspective by adopting rational criteria although it has come to the forefront with two dimensions (socialist and materialist) in Nazim Hikmet’s imagination. Is Shaykh Badr al-Din truly a socialist and materialist as he is alleged to be? Or did the “poet” manipulate the truth by crippling the mind as usual?
Alan : Filoloji
Dergi Türü : Uluslararası
Makale Detay 
Benzer Makaleler
PDF Görüntüle
Dergi Bilgisi
Eseri Dinleyin
Alıntı Yap
Bu Sayfayı Yazdırın
Paylaş
Mendeley
