{"id":15879,"date":"2016-04-01T16:33:01","date_gmt":"2016-04-01T13:33:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/109.232.216.219\/~bilimvegelecek\/?p=15879"},"modified":"2018-01-04T16:48:21","modified_gmt":"2018-01-04T13:48:21","slug":"mitostan-logosa-doga-felsefesi-neden-antik-yunanda-dogdu","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bilimvegelecek.com.tr\/index.php\/2016\/04\/01\/mitostan-logosa-doga-felsefesi-neden-antik-yunanda-dogdu","title":{"rendered":"Mitostan Logosa\u2026 Do\u011fa Felsefesi neden Antik Yunan\u2019da do\u011fdu?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Mitolojik d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnceden do\u011fa felsefesine ge\u00e7i\u015fin g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcmleri \u015f\u00f6yle s\u0131ralanabilir: 1) Do\u011fan\u0131n mitolojiden ar\u0131nd\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 ya da do\u011fan\u0131n belirli \u00f6zelliklerinin, \u00f6rne\u011fin tanr\u0131lar\u0131n imgeleri olarak sunulmas\u0131ndan vazge\u00e7ilmesi; 2) felsefi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncede, insan taraf\u0131ndan anla\u015f\u0131l\u0131r ilkeler taraf\u0131ndan y\u00f6netilen bir birlik olarak, d\u00fczen i\u00e7inde bir Kozmos vizyonunun ortaya \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f\u0131; 3) do\u011fal fenomenlerin genel a\u00e7\u0131klamalar\u0131n\u0131 ara\u015ft\u0131rma giri\u015fimi; 4) insan\u0131n d\u00fcnyan\u0131n i\u015fleyi\u015fi \u00fczerinde hi\u00e7bir etkisi olmayan bir g\u00f6zlemci olarak kabul edilmesi; 5) g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015flerin ele\u015ftirel bir bi\u00e7imde tart\u0131\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131; 6) kendi i\u00e7inde uyumlu, tutarl\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fler bulma arzusu. Bu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce bi\u00e7iminin ilk kez Antik Yunan\u2019da ortaya \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n nedenini, toplumsal ko\u015fullarda aramak gerekir. <\/em><\/p>\n

M\u00d6 6. y\u00fczy\u0131la kadar Babil, M\u0131s\u0131r, \u0130brani ve erken d\u00f6nem Yunanl\u0131lar\u0131n mitolojik ya da dinsel evren tasar\u0131mlar\u0131 \u00f6nemli bir farkl\u0131l\u0131k g\u00f6stermiyordu: Evren bir midye bi\u00e7iminde tasarlan\u0131yor ve midyenin alttaki yar\u0131s\u0131 yery\u00fcz\u00fc<\/strong>n\u00fc \u00fcstteki yar\u0131s\u0131 g\u00f6ky\u00fcz\u00fc<\/strong>n\u00fc olu\u015fturuyordu. Yery\u00fcz\u00fc her zaman devinimsizken g\u00f6kteki cisimler mitolojik varl\u0131klar taraf\u0131ndan devindiriliyordu. Yery\u00fcz\u00fcnde hangi y\u00f6ne gidilirse gidilsin sonunda daima denize ula\u015f\u0131laca\u011f\u0131na inan\u0131l\u0131yordu. Etraf\u0131 sularla \u00e7evrili olan yery\u00fcz\u00fc \u00e7o\u011fu kez d\u00fcz<\/strong> bir disk (kimi zaman kare) bi\u00e7iminde tasarlan\u0131yordu. Yerin alt\u0131nda da \u201csonsuz karanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u201d h\u00fck\u00fcm s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc bir \u201c\u00f6l\u00fcler evi\u201d, \u201cd\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fc olmayan \u00fclke\u201d yani cehennem<\/strong> oldu\u011fu varsay\u0131l\u0131yordu. Ancak bu evren resmi M\u00d6 6. y\u00fczy\u0131lda baz\u0131 Yunanl\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcrler taraf\u0131ndan sorgulanmaya ba\u015flanm\u0131\u015f ve do\u011faya ili\u015fkin yeni bir d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnme bi\u00e7imi belirmi\u015fti.<\/p>\n

\"\"
Hesiodos\u2019un Antik d\u00f6nemden kalma bronz b\u00fcst\u00fc.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Baz\u0131 bilim ve felsefe tarih\u00e7ileri, M\u00d6 6. y\u00fczy\u0131lda Ege b\u00f6lgesinde ya\u015fayan halklar\u0131n, daha \u00f6nceki \u00e7a\u011flarda ve kendi d\u00f6nemlerinde benzeri olmayan, \u00f6nce Do\u011fu\/\u0130slam d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesine sonra da Bat\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesine y\u00f6n vermi\u015f bir d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnme y\u00f6ntemini -en basit tan\u0131m\u0131yla do\u011fadaki \u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fcleri, yasalar\u0131 ve d\u00fczenlilikleri kavrama yetene\u011fi anlam\u0131nda bilimsel bilgiyi<\/strong>– hangi nedenle ba\u015flatt\u0131klar\u0131na ili\u015fkin tatmin edici bir a\u00e7\u0131klama bulunamad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 iddia ederler. (bkz. Whitfield, 2008: 84) Baz\u0131 tarih\u00e7iler de olas\u0131 bir ya da iki nedenden k\u0131saca s\u00f6z etmeyi yeterli bulurlar. Oysa mitolojik d\u00f6nemlerden ba\u015flayarak, bilimsel\/felsefi kavramlara ortam haz\u0131rlayan, yeni bir bilme bi\u00e7iminin olu\u015fumunu m\u00fcmk\u00fcn k\u0131lan \u00f6zg\u00fcl siyasal ko\u015fullar\u0131n doyurucu bir a\u00e7\u0131klamas\u0131 yap\u0131labilir. Ayr\u0131ca mitostan felsefeye ge\u00e7i\u015fin de\u011fi\u015fik g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcmleri de baz\u0131 toplumsal ko\u015fullarla do\u011frudan ili\u015fkilendirilebilir.<\/p>\n

Arkaik Yunan\u2019\u0131n evreni<\/strong><\/p>\n

Ge\u00e7 arkaik \u00e7a\u011flardan beri Yunanl\u0131lar\u0131n, birbirinden farkl\u0131 bir\u00e7ok kozmo-mitoloji gelene\u011fiyle tan\u0131\u015fm\u0131\u015f olduklar\u0131 ve bu arkaik geleneklerle bir\u00e7ok ortak y\u00f6n bar\u0131nd\u0131rd\u0131klar\u0131 s\u00f6ylenebilir. Bu a\u00e7\u0131dan Yunanl\u0131lar\u0131n en eski evren tasar\u0131m\u0131 bu arkaik d\u00fcnya resminin bir modifikasyonudur. Arkaik d\u00fcnya resmi Yunanl\u0131larda ilk kez Homeros\u2019un, Theognis\u2019in ya da Pindaros\u2019un eserlerinde g\u00f6r\u00fcl\u00fcr. Bu eserlerde \u201cg\u00f6k\u201d, direklerle desteklenen pirin\u00e7 ya da demir bir kubbe olarak betimlenmi\u015ftir. Homeros\u2019un destanlar\u0131nda evrenle ilgili g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fler \u00e7ok azd\u0131r. Yunanl\u0131lar\u0131n geleneksel evren tasar\u0131m\u0131 en sistematik bi\u00e7imde Hesiodos\u2019un Theogonia<\/em>\u2019s\u0131nda bulunur:<\/p>\n

\u201cBiraz ikincil, k\u0131y\u0131da kalm\u0131\u015f ya da par\u00e7a b\u00f6l\u00fck bu geleneklerle kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda Hesiodos\u2019un Theogonia<\/em> \u015fiiri, bize aktar\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 eksiksiz ve dizgesel bi\u00e7imiyle asal tan\u0131kl\u0131k olarak, Yunanl\u0131lar\u0131n mitik d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesi ile kozmogoni alan\u0131na k\u0131lavuzluk eden y\u00f6nelimlerini kavramam\u0131z\u0131 sa\u011flayan ba\u015f belge olarak belirir.\u201d (Bonnefoy, 2000: 612)<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\u015eiire Theogonia <\/em>ad\u0131n\u0131n verilmesi tanr\u0131lara duyulan sayg\u0131n\u0131n bir i\u015faretidir. \u015eair kendi \u00f6znel g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015flerini de\u011fil \u201chakikat\u201di dile getirdi\u011fini belirtir. Hesiodos Helikon da\u011f\u0131n\u0131n eteklerinde koyunlar\u0131n\u0131 g\u00fcderken, Muselerin[1]<\/a> esiniyle \u201chakikat\u201d ona a\u00e7\u0131nlanm\u0131\u015f, \u201colmu\u015f ile olacak\u201d kendisine \u00f6\u011fretilmi\u015ftir. Eski Ahit<\/em>\u2019in Yarat\u0131l\u0131\u015f<\/em>\u2019\u0131yla yakla\u015f\u0131k ayn\u0131 d\u00f6neme tarihlenen Hesiodos\u2019un Theogonia<\/em>\u2019s\u0131 evrenin ve tanr\u0131lar\u0131n nas\u0131l varl\u0131\u011fa geldi\u011finin Yunan versiyonu (ya da modifikasyonu) gibidir. Kitab\u0131 Mukaddes<\/em>\u2019in \u201cs\u0131n\u0131rs\u0131z, \u00f6zg\u00fcrce isteyen, evren d\u00fczeninden \u00f6nce gelen\u201d tanr\u0131s\u0131ndan farkl\u0131 olarak Yunan tanr\u0131lar\u0131 \u201cevrenin g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcmleriydiler.\u201d (Campbell, 1995: 154) Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla Hesiodos\u2019un ilk tanr\u0131lar\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klamas\u0131, ayn\u0131 zamanda, fiziksel d\u00fcnyan\u0131n ana bile\u015fenlerinin nas\u0131l yarat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131klamas\u0131d\u0131r. M\u0131s\u0131r ve Mezopotamya\u2019n\u0131n bilinen kozmo-mitolojileriyle \u00f6nemli benzerlikleri olan Theogonia<\/em> esas olarak bir kozmogoni olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen, ilkel de olsa, evrenin yap\u0131s\u0131na dair bir tasar\u0131m[2]<\/a> i\u00e7erir.<\/p>\n

Theogonia<\/em>\u2019daki ilk tanr\u0131lar ku\u015fa\u011f\u0131n\u0131 do\u011fal g\u00fc\u00e7lerden ay\u0131rmak m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fildir. Her \u015feyden \u00f6nce tanr\u0131lar\u0131n ve insanlar\u0131n \u00f6yk\u00fclerinin sahnelenece\u011fi fiziksel bir sahnenin kurgulanmas\u0131, dekorun olu\u015fturulmas\u0131 gerekiyordu. Yap\u0131t\u0131n ba\u015f\u0131ndan ilk \u201ckral\u201d tanr\u0131lar\u0131 temsil eden titanlar\u0131n sahneye \u00e7\u0131kmalar\u0131na kadar olan b\u00f6l\u00fcm Theogonia<\/em>\u2019n\u0131n kozmogonik katman\u0131n\u0131 olu\u015fturur.<\/p>\n

Theogonia<\/em>\u2019n\u0131n kozmogonik katman\u0131nda Kitab\u0131 Mukaddes<\/em>\u2019in aksine, yarat\u0131c\u0131 bir Tanr\u0131 yoktur, ama \u2018Khaos\u2019un ilk durumu vard\u0131r. Hesiodos\u2019un Theogonia<\/em>\u2019s\u0131na g\u00f6re, nas\u0131l olu\u015ftu\u011fu belirtilmeden, s\u0131ras\u0131yla d\u00f6rt kozmik \u00f6\u011fe, yani Khaos (bo\u015fluk, a\u00e7\u0131kl\u0131k), Gaia (yer, toprak), Tartaros (yeralt\u0131 d\u00fcnyas\u0131) ve Eros (a\u015fk, arzu) ortaya \u00e7\u0131kar. Khaos, Gaia ve Eros yarat\u0131l\u0131\u015f\u0131 \u00f6nceleyen, evrenin \u00f6rg\u00fctlenme s\u00fcrecini ba\u015flatan bir iktidar \u00fc\u00e7lemesidir. Khaos\u2019tan iki karanl\u0131k ilkesi olu\u015fur: Khaos\u2019un k\u0131z\u0131 Nyx yerdeki geceyi, o\u011flu Erebos ise yeralt\u0131ndaki karanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 simgeler. Erebos\u2019la Nyx\u2019in birle\u015fmesinden \u0131\u015f\u0131kl\u0131 varl\u0131klar olan Ether (esir) ve Hemera (g\u00fcn, g\u00fcnd\u00fcz) do\u011far. Gaia Khaos\u2019tan \u00e7\u0131kar \u00e7\u0131kmaz \u2018kimseyle sevi\u015fip birle\u015fmeden\u2019 (Theogonia<\/em>, 132) baba tanr\u0131 Uranos (g\u00f6k) ile Pontos\u2019u (deniz) yarat\u0131r. Gaia\u2019la Uranos\u2019un birle\u015fmesinden Okeanos (yerin \u00e7evresini saran anaforlu \u0131rmak) do\u011far. Uranos\u2019un tohumundan ise a\u015fk ve g\u00fczellik tanr\u0131\u00e7as\u0131 Aphrodite olu\u015fur; b\u00f6ylece g\u00f6klerden ya\u011fan ya\u011fmur do\u011fada ya\u015fam\u0131n s\u00fcrg\u00fcn vermesine neden olur.<\/p>\n

Daha sonra evrenin \u00f6rg\u00fctlenmesinin yeni bir a\u015famas\u0131na ge\u00e7ilir. Bir gece, Uranos Gaia\u2019n\u0131n \u00fczerine onunla birle\u015fmek \u00fczere uzand\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, Uranos\u2019un cinsel organ\u0131 bir t\u0131rpan vuru\u015fuyla kesilir: \u201cBu \u015fiddet ediminin kesin kozmik sonu\u00e7lar\u0131 olacakt\u0131r. G\u00f6\u011f\u00fc yerden kesinkes uzakla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131p kozmosun yap\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7at\u0131s\u0131 olarak onu d\u00fcnyan\u0131n doru\u011funa yerle\u015ftirir.\u201d (Bonnefoy, 2000: 616) Uranos\u2019un g\u00fcc\u00fcn\u00fc kaybetmesinden ve Zeus\u2019un insanlar\u0131n ve tanr\u0131lar\u0131n kral\u0131 olmas\u0131n\u0131n ard\u0131ndan evren \u00fc\u00e7 karde\u015f tanr\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan payla\u015f\u0131l\u0131r: Zeus (g\u00f6k), Poseidon (deniz) ve Hades (\u00f6l\u00fcler \u00fclkesi). B\u00f6ylece \u201cZeus\u2019un h\u00fck\u00fcmdarl\u0131\u011f\u0131 alt\u0131nda \u00f6rg\u00fctlenmi\u015f tanr\u0131sal topluluk olarak kozmos, bi\u00e7imine ve kesin dengesine\u201d (Bonnefoy, 2000: 611) ula\u015fm\u0131\u015f olur. D\u00fcnya tiyatrosu nihayet her t\u00fcrden oyuncunun sahneye \u00e7\u0131kmas\u0131 i\u00e7in haz\u0131r hale getirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n

Bu sahnede en gizemli \u00f6\u011fe g\u00f6ky\u00fcz\u00fcd\u00fcr. Bu \u015fiirinde Hesiodos, g\u00f6\u011f\u00fc, d\u00fcz yery\u00fcz\u00fc \u00fczerinde bir kubbelenme olarak g\u00f6sterir: \u201cToprak (Gaia) bir varl\u0131k yaratt\u0131 kendine e\u015fit: D\u00f6rt bir yan\u0131n\u0131 saran Uranos, y\u0131ld\u0131zl\u0131 G\u00f6k\u2019\u00fc\u201d (Theogonia<\/em>, 126-127). G\u00f6\u011f\u00fc ta\u015f\u0131yan titan Atlas ise M\u0131s\u0131r kozmo-mitolojisinde g\u00f6\u011f\u00fcn yere d\u00fc\u015fmesinin \u00f6n\u00fcne ge\u00e7en Shu\u2019nunkine benzer bir rol oynar: \u201cAtlas zorlu bir bask\u0131 alt\u0131nda kald\u0131: D\u00fcnyan\u0131n bitti\u011fi bir yerlerde \/ G\u00fczel sesli Ak\u015fam perilerinin kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda \/ Dimdik durup ayakta tutuyor g\u00f6\u011f\u00fc \/ Ba\u015f\u0131 ve yorulmaz kollar\u0131 \u00fcst\u00fcnde.\u201d (Theogonia,<\/em> 517-519) Aristoteles de bu mitolojik nosyonu anma gere\u011fi duymu\u015ftur: \u201cBunun i\u00e7in \u00e7ok eskilerin s\u00f6ylencelerine de kulak asmamak gerekiyor. Dediklerine g\u00f6re o, Atlas diye birinin deste\u011fine gerek duyuyormu\u015f!\u201d (G\u00f6ky\u00fcz\u00fc \u00dczerine<\/em>, 284a19). Yer ve g\u00f6\u011f\u00fcn ayr\u0131\u015fmas\u0131 ve g\u00f6\u011f\u00fcn a\u015fa\u011f\u0131 d\u00fc\u015fme tehlikesi temas\u0131 eski Yunanl\u0131lar\u0131n evren tasar\u0131mlar\u0131nda \u00f6nemli bir yer tutar. (bkz. Couprie, 2011: 14. ve 15. B\u00f6l\u00fcm)<\/p>\n

Di\u011fer bir anlat\u0131mla Hesiodos\u2019un d\u00fcnya resminde G\u00f6k eski b\u00fcy\u00fck \u00e7an gibi yery\u00fcz\u00fcn\u00fc kaplayan kat\u0131 bir tonoz\/kubbe olarak tarif edilmekteydi. Yery\u00fcz\u00fc ise Herakles\u2019in s\u00fctunlar\u0131n\u0131n kuzeyinden ba\u015flayan ve Do\u011fu, G\u00fcney ve Bat\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnde akarak Kuzey\u2019e tekrar gelen Okeanos nehri ile \u00e7evrili d\u00fcz bir dairesel diskti. Yer ve G\u00f6k bir Ether b\u00f6lgesi ile ayr\u0131l\u0131yordu; bu b\u00f6lgede bulunan g\u00fcne\u015f, ay ve y\u0131ld\u0131zlar, Do\u011fu\u2019da Okeanos\u2019un bir k\u0131y\u0131s\u0131ndan y\u00fckseliyor, \u00e7an \u015feklindeki G\u00f6\u011f\u00fcn alt\u0131nda yol al\u0131yor ve Bat\u0131\u2019da Okeanos\u2019un i\u00e7ine tekrar dal\u0131yordu. Mitolojik anlat\u0131ma g\u00f6re G\u00fcne\u015f tanr\u0131 Helios her sabah, do\u011fuda, Okeanos \u0131rma\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bir noktas\u0131ndan \u00e7\u0131k\u0131yor, g\u00f6ksel bir arabayla b\u00fct\u00fcn g\u00f6k yay\u0131n\u0131 ge\u00e7tikten sonra Okeanos\u2019un kar\u015f\u0131 taraf\u0131na iniyordu. Geceleri ise, ertesi sabah tekrar do\u011fmak \u00fczere, bir kadeh veya kay\u0131kla, do\u011fdu\u011fu yere geri d\u00f6n\u00fcyordu. Ay tanr\u0131\u00e7as\u0131 Selene de t\u0131pk\u0131 Helios gibi bir arabayla g\u00f6ky\u00fcz\u00fcnde dola\u015f\u0131yordu.<\/p>\n

\u201cD\u00fcnyay\u0131 d\u00f6rt yandan \u00e7evreleyen bir halka \u0131rmak imgesi, yatay d\u00fczlemde i\u015flemez yaln\u0131zca: Yatay d\u00fczlemde g\u00fcne\u015f ile y\u0131ld\u0131zlar\u0131n her g\u00fcn, batarken yeni ba\u015ftan dalmak \u00fczere Okeanos\u2019tan s\u0131yr\u0131l\u0131p y\u00fckseldi\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fcl\u00fcr. \u0130lksel sulardaki bu g\u00fcnl\u00fck y\u0131kanma, onlara hep yenilenen bir gen\u00e7lik ve din\u00e7lik sa\u011flar.\u201d (Bonnefoy, 2000: 612)<\/p>\n

Ba\u015fka bir anlat\u0131mla Theogonia<\/em>\u2019n\u0131n kozmolojisi \u015f\u00f6yle \u00f6zetlenebilir: Hesiodos\u2019a g\u00f6re Yery\u00fcz\u00fc, evrenin iki yar\u0131mk\u00fcre i\u00e7inde kalan d\u00fczlemidir. Yer (elbette, d\u00fczd\u00fcr) bir nehir ya da okyanus taraf\u0131ndan \u00e7evrilidir ve yerin \u00fcst\u00fcnde yar\u0131mk\u00fcresel g\u00f6k vard\u0131r, g\u00fcnd\u00fcz ayd\u0131nl\u0131k gece karanl\u0131k olan bir aral\u0131k taraf\u0131ndan Yer\u2019den ayr\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r; Yer\u2019in alt\u0131nda karanl\u0131k, kasvetli ve h\u00fck\u00fcmdar\u0131n\u0131n ad\u0131yla an\u0131lan b\u00f6lge (Tartaros) bulunur; bu b\u00f6lge g\u00f6\u011fe simetrik bir yeralt\u0131 d\u00fcnyas\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n

Ancak Hesiodos, evrenin san\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan \u00e7ok daha b\u00fcy\u00fck oldu\u011fu konusunda okurlar\u0131n\u0131 uyar\u0131r. G\u00f6k\u2019ten Yer\u2019e, Yer\u2019den Tartaros\u2019a uzakl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bir t\u00fcr \u201cd\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce deneyi\u201d ile \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcm\u00fc bunu g\u00f6sterecektir:<\/p>\n

\u201cBir \u00f6rs g\u00f6kten d\u00fc\u015fse dokuz g\u00fcn dokuz gece
\n<\/em>Ancak onuncu g\u00fcn\u00fc varabilirdi yery\u00fcz\u00fcne
\n<\/em>Ve tun\u00e7 bir \u00f6rs d\u00fc\u015fse yery\u00fcz\u00fcnden ancak
\n<\/em>Dokuz g\u00fcn dokuz gece sonra varabilir Tartaros\u2019a.<\/em>\u201d (\u0130\u015fler ve G\u00fcnler<\/em>, 722\u2013725)<\/p>\n

Hesiodos\u2019un \u0130\u015fler ve G\u00fcnler<\/em>\u2019i ise esas olarak \u00e7ift\u00e7ilik ve denizcilikle ilgili kurallardan s\u00f6z eden bir metindir. \u015eiirin bir b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fc kimi g\u00f6k cisimlerinin adlar\u0131n\u0131 i\u00e7eren bir \u00e7ift\u00e7i takvimidir:<\/p>\n

\u201cEkini bi\u00e7, g\u00f6r\u00fcnce g\u00f6kte
\n<\/em>Pleiad y\u0131ld\u0131zlar\u0131n\u0131, Atlas k\u0131zlar\u0131n\u0131.
\n<\/em>G\u00f6r\u00fcnmez olduklar\u0131 zaman da ek topra\u011f\u0131n\u0131.
\n<\/em>O y\u0131ld\u0131zlar kaybolur k\u0131rk g\u00fcn k\u0131rk gece.
\n<\/em>Ama y\u0131l\u0131n \u00e7ark\u0131 durmaz d\u00f6ner,
\n<\/em>Ve insanlar bilemeye ba\u015flay\u0131nca oraklar\u0131n\u0131
\n<\/em>G\u00f6z\u00fck\u00fcrler yeniden g\u00f6kte.<\/em>\u201d (\u0130\u015fler ve G\u00fcnler<\/em>, 383\u2013387)<\/p>\n

\"\"
Homeros\u2019un Helenistik d\u00f6nem boyunca idealize edilmi\u015f bir betimlemesi. (British Museum)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

G\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc gibi Yunanl\u0131lar\u0131n en eski evren kavray\u0131\u015f\u0131 di\u011fer k\u00fclt\u00fcrlerin arkaik d\u00fcnya resminden \u00e7ok farkl\u0131 de\u011fildir. Yunanl\u0131lar\u0131n, bir\u00e7ok y\u0131ld\u0131z grubunu fark etmi\u015f olsalar da, bu d\u00f6nemde, \u00e7a\u011fda\u015flar\u0131 M\u0131s\u0131rl\u0131lar ya da Mezopotamyal\u0131lar gibi astronomi ve matematikle me\u015fgul olmad\u0131klar\u0131 bilinmektedir. Bu d\u00f6nemde Yunanl\u0131lar b\u00fcy\u00fcl\u00fc bir toplumsal yasa ve t\u00f6re \u00e7emberi i\u00e7inde ya\u015f\u0131yor ama do\u011fal d\u00fcnyan\u0131n kendisi onlara herhangi bir yasadan yoksun g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcyordu. Do\u011fay\u0131 y\u00f6neten g\u00fcc\u00fcn tanr\u0131lar\u0131n kaprisleri oldu\u011fu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcl\u00fcyordu. Yine bu d\u00f6nemde bilgi, toplumsal olarak siyasi iktidar\u0131 elinde bulunduranlar\u0131n ya da onu temsil edenlerin elindeydi. Ba\u015fka bir deyi\u015fle bilgi Yunan\u2019da iktidara ba\u011fl\u0131 \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan memurlar\u0131n, k\u00e2tiplerin, muhasebecilerin ve astrologlar\u0131n bilgisiydi. Arkaik Yunan\u2019da bilginin toplumsal stat\u00fcs\u00fc iktidar\u0131n uygulanmas\u0131na s\u0131k\u0131 s\u0131k\u0131ya ba\u011fl\u0131yd\u0131.<\/p>\n

Do\u011fa felsefesi: neden Yunanl\u0131lar?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Antik Yunan\u2019da d\u00fcnyay\u0131 anlama iste\u011fi do\u011fa felsefesinden \u00f6nce mitolojik imgeler taraf\u0131ndan kar\u015f\u0131lansa da M\u00d6 6. y\u00fczy\u0131l\u0131n ba\u015flar\u0131ndan itibaren bir inanca sahip olman\u0131n d\u00fcnyay\u0131 anlamada yeterli olamayaca\u011f\u0131, dahas\u0131 inanc\u0131n kendisinin do\u011frulanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fclmeye ba\u015fland\u0131. \u0130yonyal\u0131 do\u011fa filozoflar\u0131 Thales (M\u00d6 624-546), Anaksimandros (M\u00d6 610-547) ve Anaksimenes (M\u00d6 585-525) bu ko\u015fullara uygun yeni bir d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnme tarz\u0131 geli\u015ftirdiler. D\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncede ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan bu \u201cmutasyon\u201d mevcut ko\u015fullar a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan ger\u00e7ek bir devrimdi. Asl\u0131nda Yunanl\u0131lar aras\u0131nda dindarl\u0131k \u00e7ok g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fcyd\u00fc. Bu nedenle felsefeci olmayan \u00e7o\u011funluk a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan do\u011fa olaylar\u0131n\u0131n rasyonel a\u00e7\u0131klamas\u0131 rahats\u0131z edici bir giri\u015fim say\u0131l\u0131yordu. B\u00fct\u00fcn zorluklar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131n Antik Yunan\u2019da rasyonel\/ele\u015ftirel d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce, bilim ve felsefenin geli\u015fimini y\u00fczy\u0131llar boyunca belirleyecek bir gelene\u011fe d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015fmeyi ba\u015farm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n

Avrupamerkezci tarih anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131 ya da oryantalist (\u015farkiyat\u00e7\u0131) yakla\u015f\u0131ma g\u00f6re insanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n genel geli\u015fim \u00e7izgisinden ayr\u0131lm\u0131\u015f Bat\u0131 uygarl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n temellerinden biri olan Yunan-Roma uygarl\u0131\u011f\u0131, Yak\u0131ndo\u011fulu kom\u015fulardan hi\u00e7bir d\u0131\u015f \u201cetki\u201d almadan, adeta mucizevi bir bi\u00e7imde, kendi kendine olu\u015fmu\u015ftur. \u201cYunan mucizesi\u201d olarak ifade edilen bu tarafgir yakla\u015f\u0131m \u00c7in dili uzman\u0131 Martin Bernal\u2019in Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization<\/em>[3]<\/a> adl\u0131 eserinde etkili bir \u015fekilde ele\u015ftirilmi\u015ftir. Ne var ki b\u00fcy\u00fck tart\u0131\u015fmalara yol a\u00e7an bu eser Antik Yunan\u2019\u0131n do\u011fuya, \u00f6zellikle de M\u0131s\u0131r\u2019a olan borcunu abartm\u0131\u015f ve Yunan k\u00fclt\u00fcr\u00fcnde i\u00e7erilen Do\u011fulu \u00f6zelliklere y\u00f6nelik aray\u0131\u015f\u0131nda fazla ileri gitmi\u015fti. Yerle\u015fik bir yarg\u0131ya kar\u015f\u0131 \u00e7\u0131karken benzer bir yarg\u0131n\u0131n tuza\u011f\u0131na d\u00fc\u015fm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fc. Bu yerle\u015fik yarg\u0131 bir k\u00fclt\u00fcr\u00fcn \u00f6z\u00fc gere\u011fi di\u011ferine bor\u00e7lu ya da ondan \u00fcst\u00fcn olu\u015fudur:<\/p>\n

\u201cK\u0131sacas\u0131 Bernal, gayet \u015farkiyat\u00e7\u0131 bir nitelik arzeden Yak\u0131ndo\u011fu alg\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n tuza\u011f\u0131ndan ka\u00e7maya \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131rken, s\u00f6zc\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn Edward Said taraf\u0131ndan etkin olarak kullan\u0131ma sokulan s\u00f6m\u00fcrgecilik sonras\u0131 anlam\u0131yla, bir nevi \u2018tersinden \u015farkiyat\u00e7\u0131l\u0131k\u2019a d\u00fc\u015ft\u00fc. Ne Bernal\u2019in \u0131rk\u00e7\u0131 olarak g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc klasik filologlar\u0131n hepsi \u0131rk\u00e7\u0131yd\u0131, ne de bizim \u2018Yunan mucizesi\u2019nin yerine \u2018M\u0131s\u0131r mucizesi\u2019 koymak gibi bir iste\u011fimiz vard\u0131.\u201d (L\u00f3pez-Ruiz, 2012: 18)<\/p>\n

\"\"
Helikon da\u011f\u0131nda Hesiodos\u2019a ilham veren Muselerin dans\u0131 (Bertel Thorvaldsen, 1807).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

O halde \u201cex oriente lux\u201d (\u201c\u0131\u015f\u0131k do\u011fudan gelir\u201d) deyi\u015fi de tersinden \u015farkiyat\u00e7\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n bir mottosuna d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr\u00fclebilir. Ku\u015fkusuz bin y\u0131ldan fazla s\u00fcren yak\u0131n etkile\u015fim, tek y\u00f6nl\u00fc bir s\u00fcre\u00e7 olamaz. Yunan ve Yak\u0131ndo\u011fu k\u00fclt\u00fcrleri aras\u0131ndaki etkile\u015fimin, matematiksel bir denklik varsaymadan, Do\u011fudan Bat\u0131ya oldu\u011fu kadar Bat\u0131dan Do\u011fuya do\u011fru bir ak\u0131\u015f\u0131 i\u00e7erdi\u011fi kabul edilmelidir. Bununla birlikte yazarlar\u0131n s\u00fcrecin sadece bir y\u00f6n\u00fcn\u00fc, yani Do\u011funun Bat\u0131ya olan etkisini konu edindi\u011fi bir ger\u00e7ektir. Daha \u00f6nemlisi \u201cDo\u011fu\u201d ve \u201cBat\u0131\u201d ay\u0131r\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n yapay bir ayr\u0131m oldu\u011funu g\u00f6rmektir: \u201cBelki de bu do\u011frusal ekseni hepten bir yana b\u0131rakarak, b\u00f6lgede her y\u00f6ne deveran eden insanlar ve fikirler ba\u011flam\u0131nda d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnmeliyiz.\u201d (L\u00f3pez-Ruiz, 2012: 48)<\/p>\n

Son yirmi otuz y\u0131ld\u0131r kimi klasik filologlar\u0131n in medio virtus<\/em> (\u201cerdem orta yolu bulmakt\u0131r\u201d) anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131yla Do\u011fuya ya da Bat\u0131ya bir \u00f6z y\u00fcklemeden, antik Yunan\u2019\u0131n \u015fekillenmesinde Eski Yak\u0131ndo\u011fu uygarl\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6nemli rol\u00fcn\u00fc hesaba katan bir yakla\u015f\u0131m\u0131 benimsedikleri g\u00f6r\u00fclmektedir. Bu yakla\u015f\u0131m\u0131n dengeli oldu\u011fu kadar ger\u00e7ek\u00e7i de oldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r.<\/p>\n

Antik Yunan\u2019da felsefe \u00e7ok say\u0131da dehan\u0131n mucizevi bir bi\u00e7imde ortaya \u00e7\u0131kmas\u0131n\u0131n bir \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc gibi g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcr. Bu yayg\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn tam z\u0131tt\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fler de ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Antik Yunan\u2019da felsefenin Yak\u0131ndo\u011fulu kom\u015fulardan hi\u00e7bir d\u0131\u015f etki almadan, \u201cmucizevi\u201d bir bi\u00e7imde olu\u015ftu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne kar\u015f\u0131t olarak Babil, S\u00fcmer ya da M\u0131s\u0131r\u2019\u0131n kimi \u201cbilimsel\u201d ba\u015far\u0131lar\u0131na dayanarak felsefenin de bu uygarl\u0131klarda ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 yolunda g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fler mevcuttur. Bu ba\u011flamda Platon\u2019un Yunanca konu\u015fan bir Musa oldu\u011fu bile s\u00f6ylenmi\u015ftir. Her iki yakla\u015f\u0131m\u0131n da tarafgir ve indirgemeci oldu\u011fu a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. Oysa pek \u00e7ok \u015fey gibi felsefenin do\u011fu\u015fu da \u00f6zg\u00fcn y\u00f6nleri olan Yunan uygarl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n di\u011fer uygarl\u0131klarla girdi\u011fi \u00e7ok y\u00f6nl\u00fc etkile\u015fimi \u00e7er\u00e7evesinde a\u00e7\u0131klanabilir. \u00d6te yandan \u201cmucize\u201d, \u201cdeha\u201d ya da \u201captall\u0131k\u201d gibi terimler ger\u00e7ekten i\u015fe yarar bir a\u00e7\u0131klama sunmazlar. Galileo, Newton ya da Einstein\u2019\u0131n bulu\u015flar\u0131n\u0131 deha olduklar\u0131 i\u00e7in yapabildiklerini s\u00f6ylemek ayn\u0131 d\u00f6nemde di\u011ferlerinin aptal oldu\u011funu s\u00f6ylemek kadar anlams\u0131zd\u0131r. Her ne kadar bilim tarihinin emekleme evresinde bu t\u00fcrden \u201ca\u00e7\u0131klamalar\u201da s\u0131k\u00e7a rastlansa da, bilimin sorunlar\u0131n\u0131 kavram\u0131\u015f bilim tarih\u00e7ilerinin yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi, belli bir bulu\u015fun neden ve nas\u0131l o ki\u015fi taraf\u0131ndan yap\u0131labildi\u011fi tarih ara\u015ft\u0131rmas\u0131yla hemen hemen her zaman g\u00f6sterilebilir. Bu t\u00fcrden tarihsel ara\u015ft\u0131rmalar \u201ck\u00e2\u015fifin ke\u015ffetti\u011fini ke\u015ffetmi\u015f\u201d oldu\u011funu s\u00f6ylemekle ayn\u0131 anlama gelen totolojik bir d\u00e2hilik a\u00e7\u0131klamas\u0131ndan \u00e7ok daha yararl\u0131d\u0131r. Bir toplumda \u201cdeha\u201dlar mucizevi bir bi\u00e7imde ortaya \u00e7\u0131kmazlar; di\u011fer \u00f6zneler gibi onlar da belirli toplumsal ve k\u00fclt\u00fcrel ko\u015fullar\u0131n \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcd\u00fcrler. Antik Yunan\u2019da felsefeyi ortaya \u00e7\u0131karan ko\u015fullar\u0131 i\u00e7 ve d\u0131\u015f etkenler olarak s\u0131n\u0131fland\u0131rmak a\u00e7\u0131klay\u0131c\u0131 olacakt\u0131r.<\/p>\n

Antik Yunan\u2019da felsefenin ortaya \u00e7\u0131kmas\u0131na olanak sa\u011flayan ya da te\u015fvik eden en \u00f6nemli d\u0131\u015f etken Yunanl\u0131lar\u0131n di\u011fer ve kendilerinden daha eski uygarl\u0131klarla ili\u015fkisidir.<\/p>\n

\u201cYunan\u2019da ilk felsefi-bilimsel \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131n Bat\u0131 Anadolu\u2019nun zengin ve m\u00fcreffeh liman \u015fehirlerinde, \u00f6rne\u011fin Milet\u2019te, Efes\u2019te, Teos\u2019ta, Klazomenai\u2019de, Samos ve Kos adalar\u0131nda ba\u015flamas\u0131 bir tesad\u00fcf de\u011fildir. Bu \u015fehirler hem Do\u011fu\u2019dan, karadan gelen kervan ve ticaret yollar\u0131n\u0131n sonunda bulunuyor, hem de deniz ticaretinin ana merkezlerini olu\u015fturuyordu. Ticari ili\u015fkilerde ise sadece mallar\u0131n de\u011fi\u015f toku\u015f edilmedi\u011fi, ayn\u0131 zamanda fikirler, bulu\u015flar\u0131n da bir yandan di\u011ferine ge\u00e7ti\u011fi bilinmektedir.\u201d (Arslan, 2006: 60)<\/p>\n

\u00d6yle anla\u015f\u0131l\u0131yor ki Yunanl\u0131lar matematik, astronomi gibi bilimlerde Do\u011fu uygarl\u0131klar\u0131na neler bor\u00e7lu olduklar\u0131n\u0131n b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcyle fark\u0131nda olmu\u015flard\u0131r. Bununla birlikte Yunanl\u0131lar\u0131n Do\u011fu\u2019ya olan bor\u00e7lar\u0131 \u201cbilimsel\u201d konularla s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 de\u011fildir:<\/p>\n

\u201cBu \u00f6nemli \u2018al\u0131\u015fveri\u015flere\u2019 Yunanl\u0131lar\u0131n Lidya\u2019dan paray\u0131, M\u0131s\u0131r\u2019dan papir\u00fcs\u00fc, Fenike\u2019den alfabeyi alm\u0131\u015f olduklar\u0131 ger\u00e7e\u011fini eklersek, Yunanl\u0131lar\u0131n Do\u011fu\u2019ya olan bor\u00e7lar\u0131n\u0131n b\u00fcy\u00fckl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc hesaplayabiliriz. B\u00fcy\u00fck Do\u011fu uygarl\u0131klar\u0131yla ili\u015fkisi sonucunda elde etti\u011fi b\u00fct\u00fcn bu bilgi, bulu\u015f ve g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015flerin Yunanl\u0131ya d\u00fcnyay\u0131 tan\u0131ma, bilme, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla eski tasavvurlar\u0131ndan \u015f\u00fcphe etme, onlar\u0131 soru\u015fturma ve yerlerine bu yeni bilgi ve birikimine uygun bir tasavvur olu\u015fturma y\u00f6n\u00fcnde b\u00fcy\u00fck bir at\u0131l\u0131m sa\u011flam\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu \u015f\u00fcphesizdir.\u201d (Arslan, 2006: 61)<\/p>\n

D\u0131\u015f etkenler ve al\u0131\u015fveri\u015fler t\u00fcm \u00f6nemlerine kar\u015f\u0131n tek ba\u015flar\u0131na felsefenin neden Antik Yunan\u2019da ba\u015flam\u0131\u015f oldu\u011funu a\u00e7\u0131klamakta yetersiz kal\u0131r. Ba\u015fka bir deyi\u015fle s\u00f6z konusu etkileri yepyeni bir k\u00fclt\u00fcrel \u00fcr\u00fcne (felsefeye) d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcrecek i\u00e7 etkenleri dikkate almadan yap\u0131lacak bir a\u00e7\u0131klama doyurucu olmayacakt\u0131r. Unutmamak gerekir ki Antik Yunan\u2019da do\u011fan \u015fey<\/strong> farkl\u0131 k\u00fclt\u00fcrel \u00f6\u011felerin basit bir bile\u015fimi de\u011fil,<\/strong> olduk\u00e7a \u00f6zg\u00fcn bir \u015feydir. \u0130lk uygarl\u0131klar\u0131n hi\u00e7biri, Yunanl\u0131lar gibi evrenin teorik modellerini ortaya koyamam\u0131\u015f, e\u015f deyi\u015fle antropomorfik olmayan, soyut, mekanik ya da nat\u00fcralist evren modelleri geli\u015ftirmemi\u015ftir. Bu k\u00fclt\u00fcrlerde, do\u011fal d\u00fcnya soyut olarak ele al\u0131nmam\u0131\u015f ve bilimin bir ba\u015fka simgesi olan teori ortaya \u00e7\u0131kmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u201cMatematik ve astronomi, ilk uygarl\u0131klarda ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z olarak ve yinelenerek ortaya \u00e7\u0131km\u0131\u015f, ancak, do\u011fa felsefesi yaln\u0131zca Yunanl\u0131larla ba\u015flam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.\u201d (McClellan III ve Dorn, 2008: 66)<\/p>\n

\"\"
Esra Mini\u015f\u2019in \u00e7izimiyle Arkaik Yunan\u2019\u0131n mitolojik evreni. En sistematik ifadesini Hesiodos\u2019un Theogonia\u2019s\u0131nda buldu\u011fumuz bu d\u00fcnya resmi Yak\u0131ndo\u011fu\u2019nun evren tasar\u0131mlar\u0131ndan \u00e7ok farkl\u0131 de\u011fildir. Tanr\u0131lar\u0131n mek\u00e2n\u0131 Olympos, insanlar\u0131n ya\u015fad\u0131\u011f\u0131 Gaia ve \u00f6l\u00fc ruhlar\u0131n bulundu\u011fu Hades, hiyerar\u015fik olarak \u00f6rg\u00fctlenmi\u015f evrenin ana k\u0131s\u0131mlar\u0131d\u0131r.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Antik\u00e7a\u011fda Yunanl\u0131lar d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki uygarl\u0131klar do\u011fal d\u00fcnyay\u0131 bilim diliyle de\u011fil, mitolojik bir dille a\u00e7\u0131klam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ba\u015fka bir deyi\u015fle do\u011fal d\u00fcnyay\u0131 do\u011fal d\u00fcnyan\u0131n terimleriyle a\u00e7\u0131klama ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131 g\u00f6stermi\u015f ilk uygarl\u0131k, bilindi\u011fi kadar\u0131yla Antik Yunanl\u0131lard\u0131r. Onlar do\u011fal d\u00fcnyay\u0131 do\u011fal terimlerle a\u00e7\u0131klarken, bu terimlerle a\u00e7\u0131klad\u0131klar\u0131 d\u00fcnyay\u0131 \u201cdo\u011fal d\u00fcnya\u201d olarak nitelemi\u015fler ve \u201cdo\u011fa\u201d kavram\u0131n\u0131 ke\u015ffetmi\u015flerdir. \u0130lk filozoflar\u0131n d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncelerini y\u00f6nelttikleri \u201cdo\u011fa\u201d (phusis\u2013\u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) terimi Milet k\u00f6kenlidir. Bu s\u00f6zc\u00fck ilk kez Anaksimandros\u2019un ve Ksenophanes\u2019in yap\u0131tlar\u0131n\u0131n adlar\u0131nda g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcr. Yunan filozoflar\u0131 \u201cphusis\u201de, k\u00f6ken anlam\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131 kalarak 1) serpilip b\u00fcy\u00fcme ve geli\u015fme s\u00fcreci ya da genesis anlam\u0131nda; 2) kendisinden \u015feylerin yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 ya da \u00e7at\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 fiziksel ana-madde, arkhe anlam\u0131nda ve 3) bir t\u00fcr i\u00e7sel organizasyon ya da d\u00fczenleni\u015f ilkesi, \u015feylerin yap\u0131s\u0131 anlam\u0131nda felsefelerinde yer vermi\u015flerdir.<\/p>\n

\u201cGenellikle basit\u00e7e \u2018do\u011fa\u2019 olarak \u00e7evrilen phusis<\/em>, bizim d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcm\u00fcz do\u011fa d\u00fcnyas\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7ok daha fazlas\u0131n\u0131 kaps\u0131yordu. D\u00fczenli evren yerk\u00fcre ve insanlardan olu\u015fuyordu. Phusis<\/em>\u2019i incelemek, hem siyaseti hem de bitkileri, ruhu ve y\u0131ld\u0131zlar\u0131 incelemekti. Yunanlar ak\u0131\u015fkan ve s\u0131n\u0131rs\u0131z bir entelekt\u00fcel manzarada ya\u015f\u0131yorlard\u0131; denizlerle g\u00f6\u011f\u00fcn bile\u015fimi \u00fczerine spek\u00fclasyonlar, ayr\u0131ms\u0131z olarak siyasal felsefeyle kar\u0131\u015f\u0131yordu.\u201d (Bauer, 2016: 22)<\/p>\n

Yunanl\u0131lar yepyeni bir konu ve d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnme tarz\u0131 geli\u015ftirdiklerinin b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcyle fark\u0131nda olduklar\u0131 i\u00e7in bu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnme y\u00f6ntemine \u00f6nce \u201clogos\u201d sonra da \u201cfelsefe\u201d ad\u0131n\u0131 vermi\u015flerdir. Antik Yunan egemenli\u011findeki \u0130yonya\u2019da (bug\u00fcnk\u00fc T\u00fcrkiye) bir kent olan Milet\u2019te ya\u015fayan Thales\u2019le (M\u00d6 624-546) ba\u015flat\u0131lan do\u011fal d\u00fcnyay\u0131 do\u011fal terimlerle a\u00e7\u0131klama \u00e7abas\u0131, insanl\u0131k tarihinde bir d\u00f6n\u00fcm noktas\u0131d\u0131r. Bu d\u00f6nemde ba\u015flayan do\u011fa felsefesi tarihsel bir kesintiye u\u011framadan s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015f ve modern Bat\u0131 bilimine yol a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n

Do\u011fa felsefesinin, matematik ve astronomi bilgileriyle \u00f6ne \u00e7\u0131kan Yak\u0131ndo\u011fu uygarl\u0131klar\u0131nda de\u011fil de Antik Yunan\u2019da ortaya \u00e7\u0131kmas\u0131n\u0131n nedeni onun \u00f6zg\u00fcn siyasal sistemi gibi g\u00f6r\u00fcnmektedir. M\u0131s\u0131r, Babil ya da Pers gibi halklar\u0131 \u00fczerinde g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fc egemenlik kurmu\u015f tanr\u0131sal h\u00fck\u00fcmdarlardan farkl\u0131 olarak Yunanl\u0131lar Atina, Sparta, Korint gibi birbirinden ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z kentlerde ya\u015famaktayd\u0131lar. Onlar\u0131n kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc siyasal sistemleri \u00f6nemli \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde co\u011frafi etmenler taraf\u0131ndan bi\u00e7imlendirilmi\u015fti. Antik Yunan\u2019da M\u00d6 6. y\u00fczy\u0131ldan itibaren oligar\u015fi ya da tiranl\u0131k yerini yava\u015f yava\u015f demokratik y\u00f6netim bi\u00e7imlerine b\u0131rakm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r:<\/p>\n

\u201cBunun -t\u00fcm Yunan kentlerinde g\u00f6r\u00fclen- bir sonucu, siyaset bilgisi olan, ele\u015ftirel, devlet sistemine \u00f6rne\u011fine rastlanmam\u0131\u015f \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde kat\u0131lmaya al\u0131\u015fk\u0131n bir n\u00fcfustu. Siyasetteki geli\u015fmelerden, yasalar\u0131n ve adaletin do\u011fas\u0131 ile bunlarla ilgili d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncelerle ilgilenen bir felsefe de do\u011fuyordu.\u201d (Henry, 2016: 4)<\/p>\n

Do\u011fa felsefesinin ortaya \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131 Yunan \u201cpolis\u201dlerinde geli\u015fen bu siyasal sistem ile Yak\u0131ndo\u011fu\u2019nun tanr\u0131sal h\u00fck\u00fcmdarlar\u0131n\u0131n saraylar\u0131nda biriken k\u00fclt\u00fcrel zenginli\u011fin Milet kentinde kar\u015f\u0131la\u015fmas\u0131n\u0131n bir sonucu olarak g\u00f6rmek gerekir. Antik kaynaklarda Thales\u2019in B\u00e2bil\u2019e ve piramitlerin boyunu \u00f6l\u00e7t\u00fc\u011f\u00fc M\u0131s\u0131r\u2019a seyahate gitti\u011finden s\u00f6z edilmesini bu ba\u011flamda yorumlamak gerekir.<\/p>\n

Do\u011fa felsefesiyle demokrasinin ayn\u0131 d\u00f6nemde ve ayn\u0131 yerde do\u011fmas\u0131 rastlant\u0131 de\u011fildir. Cornelius Castoriadis\u2019e g\u00f6re felsefenin do\u011fu\u015fuyla demokrasinin do\u011fu\u015fu \u00e7ak\u0131\u015fmaz, birlikte bir anlam ifade ederler. \u0130kisi de, \u00f6zerk (autonomous) olan\u0131n somut ifadeleridir. Ba\u015fka bir deyi\u015fle ikisinin de ortak \u00f6zelli\u011fi mevcut kurumlar\u0131n ve otoritelerin sorgulanmas\u0131, do\u011fru ve adaletin her t\u00fcrl\u00fc d\u0131\u015f kayna\u011f\u0131n\u0131n reddedilmesi anlam\u0131nda \u00f6zerkli\u011fin kabul\u00fcd\u00fcr. Castoriadis\u2019e g\u00f6re felsefenin konusu \u201cvarl\u0131k nedir?\u201d, \u201cvarl\u0131\u011f\u0131n anlam\u0131 nedir?\u201d ya da \u201cneden hi\u00e7lik yerine, bir \u015feyler vard\u0131r?\u201d gibi sorular de\u011fildir. B\u00fct\u00fcn bu sorular, yaderk (heteronomous) bir toplumda sorulmas\u0131 olanaks\u0131z olan daha temel sorular yan\u0131nda ikincildir. As\u0131l soru \u201cVarl\u0131k, phusis<\/em>, polis<\/em>, adalet, vb. ve kendi \u00f6z d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncem hakk\u0131nda ne d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnmeliyim?\u201d sorusudur. (Castoriadis, 1993: 79\u201380)<\/p>\n

\"\"
Antik Yunan tanr\u0131lar\u0131.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Demokratik bir siyasal yap\u0131n\u0131n i\u015fleyi\u015fiyle felsefenin i\u015fleyi\u015fi aras\u0131nda g\u00f6r\u00fclen benzerlikler \u00e7arp\u0131c\u0131d\u0131r: En iyi kararlar \u201cgrup i\u00e7i tart\u0131\u015fma\u201d yoluyla al\u0131n\u0131r, en iyi \u00f6neriye \u00f6nerilerin \u201ckamu \u00f6n\u00fcnde ele\u015ftirmesi\u201d ile ula\u015f\u0131l\u0131r ve ortak sonuca arg\u00fcmantasyon (kan\u0131t g\u00f6stererek tart\u0131\u015fma) yoluyla gidilir. Bu varsay\u0131mlar eski olan\u0131n, egemen olan\u0131n ya da geleneksel olan\u0131n otoritesine meydan okur. Carlo Rovelli\u2019nin belirtti\u011fi gibi \u201custas\u0131 Thales\u2019i a\u00e7\u0131k a\u00e7\u0131k ele\u015ftiren Anaksimandros\u2019un tek yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131, Milet\u2019in agora\u2019s\u0131nda zaten uygulanagelen bir toplumsal prati\u011fi bu kez bilgi alan\u0131na aktarmak olmu\u015ftur.\u201d (Rovelli, 2014: 118)<\/p>\n

Felsefe ve demokrasi aras\u0131ndaki ba\u011f\u0131 ya\u015fayan filozoflarla, \u00f6lm\u00fc\u015f filozoflar\u0131n -onlar\u0131 ay\u0131ran y\u00fczy\u0131llara ra\u011fmen- tart\u0131\u015fabilmeleri olgusunda da g\u00f6rebiliriz. B\u00fct\u00fcn b\u00fcy\u00fck filozoflar kendinden \u00f6nce gelenlerle \u201cd\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncenin tarih-\u00f6tesi agora<\/em>s\u0131nda\u201d a\u00e7\u0131k a\u00e7\u0131k tart\u0131\u015fm\u0131\u015f, onlar\u0131 ele\u015ftirmi\u015f ya da yads\u0131m\u0131\u015flard\u0131r.<\/p>\n

\u201cHakl\u0131 olarak, kamuya ait ve zaman\u0131n \u00f6tesinde bir tarihsel-toplumsal uzama, d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncenin tarih-\u00f6tesi agora<\/em>s\u0131na ait olduklar\u0131n\u0131 ve di\u011fer filozoflar\u0131 kamu \u00f6n\u00fcnde ele\u015ftirmelerinin, tam da bu alan\u0131n i\u00e7inde ne otorite, ne vahiy, ne genel sekreterler, ne F\u00fchrer<\/em>, ne yazg\u0131 ne de varl\u0131k bulunmayan bir \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck uzam\u0131 olarak, farkl\u0131 doxa<\/em>\u2019lar\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131ya geldi\u011fi ve herkesin, zarar\u0131na kendi ba\u015flar\u0131na katlanma ko\u015fuluyla, hemfikir olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u015feyleri s\u00f6yleyebilece\u011fi bir uzam olarak ayakta kalabilmesinin ve geni\u015fletilmesinin temel etkeni oldu\u011funu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnm\u00fc\u015flerdir.\u201d (Castoriadis, 1993: 75)<\/p>\n

M\u0131s\u0131r ve Mezopotamya\u2019n\u0131n y\u00fcksek otoritelerinin -firavun, imparator vb- a\u011fz\u0131ndan \u00e7\u0131kan s\u00f6z, yasa olarak kabul edilmekteydi. Di\u011fer bir ifadeyle bu halklar demokratik anlamda yasa kavram\u0131n\u0131 tan\u0131m\u0131yorlard\u0131. Yunan\u2019da her \u00f6zg\u00fcr yurtta\u015f devlet y\u00f6netiminde bir bi\u00e7imde rol ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in \u201csoyut fakat kendine \u00f6zg\u00fc bir yap\u0131s\u0131 olan yasa kavram\u0131\u201dn\u0131 tan\u0131maya ba\u015flam\u0131\u015ft\u0131. Daha a\u00e7\u0131k bir deyi\u015fle, yurtta\u015flar yasalar\u0131 bir zorban\u0131n keyfi kaprisleri olarak de\u011fil toplumun do\u011fas\u0131n\u0131n temel bir \u00f6zelli\u011fi olarak g\u00f6rmeyi \u00f6\u011freniyorlard\u0131. Yasalara o kadar \u00f6nem veriliyordu ki yasalar olmadan toplumun kendini olu\u015fturamayaca\u011f\u0131 ve i\u015flevini yerine getiremeyece\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcl\u00fcyordu. John Henry\u2019nin belirtti\u011fi gibi:<\/p>\n

\u201cToplumun i\u015fleyi\u015f bi\u00e7imine bu ele\u015ftirel bak\u0131\u015f ve bu i\u015fleyi\u015fin s\u00fcrd\u00fcr\u00fclmesinde yasalar\u0131n rol\u00fc, do\u011fa ara\u015ft\u0131rmalar\u0131na ta\u015f\u0131nm\u0131\u015f gibidir. Antik Yunan felsefesinde biricik olan, do\u011fa yasalar\u0131 kavram\u0131d\u0131r: D\u00fcnya sistemi, birbiriyle ba\u011flant\u0131s\u0131z \u015feylerin bir araya toplanmas\u0131ndan de\u011fil, bir evren<\/em>den, her \u015feyin davran\u0131\u015f\u0131na egemen olan do\u011fa yasalar\u0131na g\u00f6re i\u015fleyen, iyi y\u00f6netilen bir \u015fehir devlet gibi d\u00fczenli bir sistemden olu\u015fuyordu. Bu do\u011fa yasalar\u0131n\u0131n d\u00fcnyan\u0131n yap\u0131s\u0131na \u00f6zg\u00fc oldu\u011fu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcl\u00fcyordu.\u201d (Henry, 2016: 4-5)<\/p>\n

\u0130lk filozoflar\u0131n do\u011fadaki d\u00fczenlili\u011fi ifade etmek i\u00e7in adalet<\/em> (dik\u0113-\u03b4\u1f77\u03ba\u03b7), adaletsizlik<\/em> (adikia-\u1f00\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f77\u03b1), yasa<\/em> (n\u00f3mos-\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2) ve kozmos<\/em> (kosmos-\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2) gibi toplumsal k\u00f6kenli terimleri kullanm\u0131\u015f olmalar\u0131 bu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc desteklemektedir. Bu terimlerin anlamlar\u0131n\u0131n yeni toplumsal gereksinimleri kar\u015f\u0131layacak bi\u00e7imde d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015fmeleri ile do\u011faya yans\u0131t\u0131lmalar\u0131 hemen hemen e\u015fzamanl\u0131d\u0131r. Bir felsefe terimi olarak kullan\u0131lmaya ba\u015flamadan \u00f6nce dik\u0113<\/em> terimi aristokratik bir s\u0131n\u0131f bilincine uygun bi\u00e7imde anla\u015f\u0131lmaktayd\u0131. Bu ba\u011flamda dik\u0113 <\/em>s\u0131n\u0131fl\u0131 toplum yap\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n dayatt\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131n ihl\u00e2lini ve bu ihl\u00e2l kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda \u00f6denecek tazminat bedelini belirleyen bir anlama sahipti. Aristokratik s\u0131n\u0131f bilincinin \u00e7\u00f6k\u00fc\u015f\u00fcyle birlikte sitenin t\u00fcm yurtta\u015flara ayn\u0131 \u015fekilde uygulanabilen bir \u015fey olarak anla\u015f\u0131lmaya ba\u015fland\u0131. Yeniden tan\u0131mlanan dik\u0113\u2019<\/em>nin ge\u00e7erli olaca\u011f\u0131 s\u0131n\u0131rlar da art\u0131k yaz\u0131l\u0131 yasa (nomos) taraf\u0131ndan belirleniyordu. Di\u011fer bir deyi\u015fle adalete uygun olan s\u00f6z art\u0131k nomos<\/em>\u2019a uygun olan s\u00f6zd\u00fc. Daha sonra kullan\u0131ma girmi\u015f olan kozmos<\/em> (kosmos-\u03ba\u03cc\u03c3\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2) s\u00f6zc\u00fc\u011f\u00fc de toplumsal k\u00f6kenlidir. Kozmos \u201cd\u00fczen i\u00e7inde evren\u201d anlam\u0131n\u0131 kazanmadan \u00f6nce, ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7ta bir ordunun disiplinini, sonra da bir devletin d\u00fczenli yap\u0131s\u0131n\u0131 ifade etmek i\u00e7in kullan\u0131lmaktayd\u0131. (Burnet, 2013: 14)<\/p>\n

\"\"
Antik Yunan d\u00fcnyas\u0131nda ticari ili\u015fkilerde sadece mallar\u0131n de\u011fil, ayn\u0131 zamanda fikirlerin ve bulu\u015flar\u0131n da de\u011fi\u015ftoku\u015f edildi\u011fi bilinmektedir.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Antik Yunan\u2019da adli s\u00f6ylem do\u011frudan do\u011fruya siyasi bir s\u00f6ylem olarak g\u00f6r\u00fcl\u00fcyordu. Adil olan\u0131 (dikaion-\u03b4\u03af\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd) bilen ki\u015filer, ayn\u0131 zamanda \u015feylerin (d\u00fcnyan\u0131n) d\u00fczenini de bilen ki\u015filerdi. \u015eeylerin d\u00fczenini bilenler de insanlar ve siteler i\u00e7in en iyisinin ve en adaletlisinin ne oldu\u011funu bilenlerdi. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla \u015feylerin d\u00fczeni ile sitenin d\u00fczeni \u00f6rt\u00fc\u015f\u00fcyordu. \u0130lkel siteden geli\u015fmi\u015f ya da klasik siteye ge\u00e7i\u015fte ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan bu d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcmler bilimsel, felsefi ve sanatsal d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnceye olanak sa\u011flayan s\u00f6z<\/strong>\u2019\u00fcn anlam\u0131n\u0131 da belirgin bir bi\u00e7imde d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr:<\/p>\n

\u201cS\u00f6z, art\u0131k rit\u00fcel bir s\u00f6zc\u00fck, kesin bir form\u00fcl de\u011fil, ama a\u00e7\u0131k bir \u00e7eki\u015fme, bir tart\u0131\u015fma, bir arg\u00fcmand\u0131r. O kendisine sunulan iki taraf aras\u0131nda elini kald\u0131rarak son karar\u0131n\u0131 veren bir yarg\u0131\u00e7 gibi, bir kamunun varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6nceden varsayarak seslenir. \u0130ki konu\u015fmadan daha ikna edici olan\u0131n g\u00fcc\u00fcn\u00fc \u00f6l\u00e7en b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcyle insani bir se\u00e7imdir bu ve konu\u015fmac\u0131lardan birinin, rakibi \u00fczerindeki zaferini g\u00fcvence alt\u0131na al\u0131r.\u201d (Vernant, 1982: 50)<\/p>\n

Antik Yunan sitelerinde felsefenin ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131 haz\u0131rlayan di\u011fer bir geli\u015fmenin de hukuk kurumunun ge\u00e7irdi\u011fi d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcm oldu\u011fu s\u00f6ylenebilir. Antik Yunan\u2019da hukukun, dinden ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131zla\u015farak \u00f6zerk ve sek\u00fcler bir alana ta\u015f\u0131nmas\u0131 yeni bir d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnme bi\u00e7imine yol a\u00e7m\u0131\u015f g\u00f6r\u00fcnmektedir. Hukuk alan\u0131ndaki ba\u015flayan d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcm, di\u011fer bilgi alanlar\u0131 i\u00e7in de bir model olu\u015fturmu\u015f ve daha sonraki Yunan ve Bat\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesini belirlemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n

Bilme \u0130stenci \u00dczerine Dersler<\/em>\u2019de \u201chakikatin ortaya \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131 ortam\u0131, i\u015flevini, da\u011f\u0131l\u0131m\u0131n\u0131 ve bi\u00e7imini g\u00f6stermek i\u00e7in\u201d adli s\u00f6ylemi analiz eden Michel Foucault\u2019ya g\u00f6re Antik Yunan\u2019da adli pratiklerde ya\u015fanan d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcmler g\u00fcn\u00fcm\u00fcze kadar gelen bir bilme bi\u00e7imi ortaya \u00e7\u0131karm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu s\u00fcre\u00e7te \u201cYunan gelene\u011finden miras al\u0131nm\u0131\u015f olan hakikat-meydan okuma ve Do\u011fu\u2019nun \u0130yonya \u00fczerinden aktarm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu bilme-iktidar belli bir hakikat-bilmeye uyum sa\u011flayarak\u201d birlikte d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015fm\u00fc\u015flerdir. (Foucault, 2012: 130) D\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcm\u00fcn kayna\u011f\u0131nda daha ilkel bir yarg\u0131lama bi\u00e7iminin (adli-\u00f6ncesi<\/em>nin) yan\u0131 s\u0131ra yeni bir yarg\u0131, usul ve h\u00fck\u00fcm t\u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn (adli<\/em> olan\u0131n) belirmesi vard\u0131r. Adli-\u00f6ncesi d\u00f6nemde hakikat bir yeminle sa\u011flansa da s\u00f6ylenen bir \u015fey de\u011fil, kendisine maruz kald\u0131\u011f\u0131m\u0131z, bize sald\u0131rabilecek ya da bizi dize getirebilecek g\u00fcce sahip \u00f6zerk bir kuvvettir. Di\u011fer bir deyi\u015fle arkaik adli pratikte hakikate dair s\u00f6z, \u015feylerin mevcut ger\u00e7ekli\u011fini anlamakla ilgili de\u011fil, gelecekteki teolojik bir olayla ilgilidir:<\/p>\n

\u201cKesin olan tek bir \u015fey vard\u0131r: Tanr\u0131lar cezaland\u0131rmaya karar verecekleri zaman, onlar\u0131n \u015fim\u015feklerinden ka\u00e7mak m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmayacakt\u0131r. O halde yemin, ki\u015fiyi g\u00fcn\u00fcn birinde patlay\u0131verecek olan bir hakikatin g\u00f6r\u00fcnmez krall\u0131\u011f\u0131na sokmaz. Bunun yerine, kavgay\u0131, m\u00fccadelenin riskleriyle mukayese kabul etmeyecek risklerin s\u00f6z konusu oldu\u011fu ve insan bak\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n kavrayamayaca\u011f\u0131 yasalara tabi olan bir b\u00f6lgeye do\u011fru kayd\u0131r\u0131r.\u201d (Foucault, 2012: 77)<\/p>\n

Adli-d\u00f6nemde beliren hakikat kavram\u0131 bug\u00fcn de kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131m\u0131z do\u011fru s\u00f6z<\/strong> anlam\u0131na gelir ve daha klasik Yunan d\u00f6neminde yerle\u015fmeye ba\u015flam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Adli-d\u00f6nemde hakikat her \u015feyden \u00f6nce tan\u0131kl\u0131\u011f\u0131n s\u00f6z\u00fcd\u00fcr. Art\u0131k hakikat gelecekteki teolojik ve belirsiz bir olay\u0131 de\u011fil g\u00f6z\u00fcm\u00fcz\u00fcn \u00f6n\u00fcnde olup biten \u015feyleri ifade etmeye ba\u015flar. Hakikatin i\u015flevi s\u00f6z konusu olaylar\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131\u011fa \u00e7\u0131karmakt\u0131r. Tan\u0131\u011f\u0131n s\u00f6z\u00fc mevcudiyetin yerine ge\u00e7er:<\/p>\n

\u201cBir ki\u015finin hakikatin s\u00f6zceleyicisi olmas\u0131n\u0131n sebebi, do\u011fa ya da hukuk gere\u011fi herhangi bir yetkiye sahip olmas\u0131 de\u011fil, bir \u015fey g\u00f6rm\u00fc\u015f ya da duymu\u015f olmas\u0131, olaya \u015fahit olmu\u015f olmas\u0131, olay esnas\u0131nda orada bulunmu\u015f olmas\u0131d\u0131r. Ve ki\u015finin \u015fahit olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 olaylar do\u011frudan tan\u0131kl\u0131\u011f\u0131n d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda kal\u0131r. Alg\u0131 ili\u015fkisi hakikatin adli s\u00f6zceleni\u015fini tesis eder. Bu s\u00f6zceleme i\u015flemini m\u00fcmk\u00fcn k\u0131lan odur. Tan\u0131kl\u0131k, g\u00f6rme deneyiminin etraf\u0131nda \u00f6rg\u00fctlenir.\u201d (Foucault, 2012: 72\u201373)<\/p>\n

\"\"
Milet\u2019te ya\u015fayan Thales\u2019le (M\u00d6 624-546) ba\u015flat\u0131lan do\u011fal d\u00fcnyay\u0131 do\u011fal terimlerle a\u00e7\u0131klama \u00e7abas\u0131, insanl\u0131k tarihinde bir d\u00f6n\u00fcm noktas\u0131d\u0131r.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Arkaik hukukla klasik \u00e7a\u011fda ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan hakikat kavramlar\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda \u015fu d\u00f6rt temel farkl\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6rmek m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olur: 1) Arkaik hukukta hakikate beddua bi\u00e7imi alt\u0131nda yakla\u015f\u0131l\u0131rken klasik hukukta hakikat s\u00f6ylenir ve bu bir saptama bi\u00e7imini al\u0131r. 2) Arkaik hukukta hakikat bir taraf\u0131n di\u011ferine do\u011fru f\u0131rlatt\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir meydan okumayken klasik hukukta hakikat \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ki\u015fi konumunda bulunan bir tan\u0131k taraf\u0131ndan s\u00f6ylenir. 3) Arkaik hukukta hakikat iki rakipten birinin pay\u0131<\/strong>yken klasik hukukta hakikat hakemlik ederek ayr\u0131m yarat\u0131r. 4) Arkaik hukukta hakikat karar\u0131 veren \u00f6\u011fe konumundayken, klasik hukukta hakikat yarg\u0131c\u0131n karar\u0131n\u0131n bir \u00f6\u011fesine d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr. (bkz. Foucault, 2012: 78)<\/p>\n

Hukuktaki bu de\u011fi\u015fim Hesiodos\u2019la ba\u015flam\u0131\u015f, 6. ve 5. y\u00fczy\u0131l\u0131n \u201cfelsefi\u201d metinlerinde devam etmi\u015ftir. Arkaik hukuktaki bir \u00e7eli\u015fki bu s\u00fcreci h\u0131zland\u0131rm\u0131\u015f gibidir. Hakikati oraya \u00e7\u0131karan yeminin do\u011fru ya da yalan olma ihtimali her zaman vard\u0131r. Daha sonralar\u0131 Platon\u2019un Yasalar<\/em> adl\u0131 eserinde a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a belirtece\u011fi gibi \u201ciki yeminden birinin yalan olmas\u0131 gerekir\u201d. Bu nedenle bir kan\u0131t olarak kabul edilmesi pek akla uygun de\u011fildir. Probleme ilk i\u015faret edenlerden biri Hesiodos\u2019tur: \u201cH\u00e2k g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fcn\u00fcn olacak yaln\u0131z, vicdan kalmayacak. K\u00f6t\u00fc insan sald\u0131racak iyi insana, yalana dolana ka\u00e7\u0131p, antlar\u0131n\u0131 \u00e7i\u011fneyecekler.\u201d (\u0130\u015fler ve G\u00fcnler<\/em>, 192\u2013194)<\/p>\n

Bir do\u011fa felsefesi terimi olarak dik\u0113<\/em>\u2019nin ilk kullan\u0131m\u0131, Anaksimandros\u2019un g\u00fcn\u00fcm\u00fcze dek gelebilen tek fragmentinde g\u00f6r\u00fcl\u00fcr. Bu fragmente g\u00f6re, do\u011fal olarak kar\u015f\u0131t g\u00fc\u00e7ler olan \u00f6\u011felerin birbirlerine bedel \u00f6demeleri gerekir: \u201c\u015eeyler nelerden meydana gelmi\u015flerse zorunlu olarak yok olup onlara d\u00f6nerler; \u00e7\u00fcnk\u00fc onlar birbirlerine zaman\u0131n d\u00fczenleyi\u015fine g\u00f6re adaletsizliklerinin cezas\u0131n\u0131 ve kefaretini \u00f6derler.\u201d (Rovelli, 2014: 91-92; Kranz, 1984: 32) Burada a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a dile gelen d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnceye g\u00f6re do\u011fal d\u00fcnya rastlant\u0131lar taraf\u0131ndan de\u011fil, zorunluluk taraf\u0131ndan, yani yasa taraf\u0131ndan y\u00f6netilmektedir. Biraz de\u011fi\u015fik bi\u00e7imde Herakleitos da (M\u00d6 535-480), \u201cHelios [G\u00fcne\u015f] \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcleri a\u015fmayacakt\u0131r: yoksa Erinyler, adalet tanr\u0131\u00e7as\u0131n\u0131n yard\u0131mc\u0131lar\u0131, bunu fark eder ve cezaland\u0131r\u0131rlard\u0131\u201d demi\u015ftir. (Foucault, 2012: 111; Henry, 2016: 5; Kranz, 1984: 65) Herakleitos Anaksimandros\u2019dan farkl\u0131 olarak do\u011fal \u015feyler aras\u0131ndaki kavgay\u0131 tazminat\u0131 gerektiren bir adaletsizlik t\u00fcr\u00fc olarak de\u011fil \u015feylerin normal d\u00fczeni (yani var olu\u015fun ger\u00e7ekli\u011fi olan kar\u015f\u0131tlar\u0131n gerilimi) olarak g\u00f6rse de evrene \u201cyasalar\u201d\u0131n egemen oldu\u011funu ve bu nedenle G\u00fcne\u015f\u2019in de kendisi i\u00e7in ayr\u0131lan yola ba\u011fl\u0131 kalaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 anlatmak ister gibidir. Bu s\u00f6ylem modern bilimin g\u00fcn\u00fcm\u00fczde kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 dilin ayn\u0131s\u0131d\u0131r. Bug\u00fcn h\u00e2l\u00e2 cans\u0131z nesnelerin devinim yasalar\u0131na \u201cboyun e\u011fmesinden\u201d s\u00f6z ediyoruz. Anaksimandros\u2019un ve Herakleitos\u2019un felsefesinde ilk k\u0131m\u0131lt\u0131lar\u0131n\u0131 fark etti\u011fimiz evrensel yasa kavram\u0131 daha sonra Platon\u2019un Devlet<\/em>, Timaios<\/em> ve Yasalar<\/em> adl\u0131 yap\u0131tlar\u0131nda ve Aristoteles felsefesinde ise olanca yo\u011funlu\u011fuyla kar\u015f\u0131m\u0131za \u00e7\u0131kacakt\u0131r: \u201cAnaksimandros\u2019un as\u0131l \u00f6nemi, t\u00fcm olup bitenlere, yani toplam evrensel s\u00fcrece egemen, ona i\u00e7kin olan yasall\u0131k kavram\u0131n\u0131, yani evrensel yasa kavram\u0131n\u0131 ilk defa insan d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesinin kapsam\u0131na alm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131d\u0131r.\u201d (Capelle, 1994: 65)<\/p>\n

\"\"
Antik\u00e7a\u011fda felsefeye ev sahipli\u011fi yapm\u0131\u015f kentler.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Antik Yunan\u2019\u0131n \u00f6nde gelen d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcrleri do\u011fay\u0131 do\u011fan\u0131n yasalar\u0131yla y\u00f6netilen bir evren olarak g\u00f6r\u00fcyorlard\u0131. Ayr\u0131ca bu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncelerini yayg\u0131nla\u015ft\u0131rmak i\u00e7in Yunan co\u011frafyas\u0131nda okullar kurmu\u015flard\u0131. Demokrasiye olan e\u011filim, inand\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 s\u00f6z s\u00f6yleyebilen, hitabeti g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fc ki\u015filere gereksinim yaratm\u0131\u015ft\u0131. Antik Yunan\u2019\u0131n toplumsal ve siyasi yap\u0131s\u0131 filozoflara, o g\u00fcne kadar hi\u00e7bir toplumun sa\u011flamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 kadar g\u00f6rev ve sorumluluk y\u00fcklemi\u015f ve bu da onlara olduk\u00e7a geni\u015f bir hareket alan\u0131 sa\u011flam\u0131\u015ft\u0131. Filozoflar\u0131n, s\u00f6z sanat\u0131 ya da mant\u0131kl\u0131 tart\u0131\u015fma yoluyla insanlar\u0131 ikna sanat\u0131nda e\u011fitmek amac\u0131yla okullar kurmalar\u0131 bunun bir \u00f6rne\u011fidir.<\/p>\n

\u201cBilgiye bilimsel yakla\u015f\u0131m\u0131n k\u00f6keni olarak g\u00f6r\u00fclen do\u011fa felsefesini ilk geli\u015ftirenler bu filozoflard\u0131; ya da en az\u0131ndan bunlar aras\u0131nda \u00f6ne \u00e7\u0131kanlard\u0131. \u00d6rne\u011fin, Thales\u2019in bir yasa koyucu, bir siyasi lider, ayn\u0131 zamanda da bir do\u011fa felsefecisi oldu\u011fu bilinir. Anaksimandros\u2019un, Apollonis kolonisinin yasalar\u0131 ile anayasas\u0131n\u0131n olu\u015fturulmas\u0131na yard\u0131mc\u0131 oldu\u011fu; Eleal\u0131 Parmenides\u2019in (M\u00d6 yakl. 480) ise kentin yasalar\u0131n\u0131 yazd\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6ylenmi\u015ftir.\u201d (Henry, 2016: 6)<\/p>\n

\u00d6nce toplumsal sonra da do\u011fal d\u00fcnyan\u0131n kendi terimleri i\u00e7inde anla\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in ba\u015flat\u0131lan soru\u015fturman\u0131n sonu\u00e7lar\u0131ndan biri kavramlar\u0131n tan\u0131mlanmas\u0131, yeniden tan\u0131mlanmas\u0131 ve giderek yeni kavramlar\u0131n yarat\u0131lmas\u0131d\u0131r. Bu da yeni bir soru sorma tarz\u0131n\u0131n ortaya \u00e7\u0131kmas\u0131 demektir. Daha \u00f6nce mitolojik d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnme i\u00e7inde \u201c\u2026 nas\u0131l?<\/strong>\u201dl\u0131 sorular sormaya al\u0131\u015fk\u0131n olan insan zihni bundan b\u00f6yle \u201c… nedir?<\/strong>\u201dli sorular sormaya da ba\u015flar.<\/p>\n

Ruhban s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131n\u0131n zay\u0131fl\u0131\u011f\u0131<\/strong><\/p>\n

Antik Yunan\u2019da dinsel bir dogmatizmin olmay\u0131\u015f\u0131 da felsefi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncenin olu\u015fmas\u0131 ve yay\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in uygun bir zemin yaratm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Antik Yunan\u2019da hi\u00e7bir zaman Hindistan ya da M\u0131s\u0131r\u2019daki gibi g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fc bir rahipler s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131 olmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ayr\u0131ca monoteist dinlerden farkl\u0131 olarak, ortak inan\u00e7lara ve geleneksel \u00f6\u011fretilere dayanan Yunan dinlerinde peygamber, Mesih, ger\u00e7e\u011fin yaz\u0131l\u0131 oldu\u011fu kutsal bir kitap, dogma, vahiy, kurtulu\u015f ya da \u00f6l\u00fcms\u00fczl\u00fck vaadi gibi \u015feyler de yoktu. Bu nedenle s\u0131k s\u0131k Antik Yunan\u2019da \u00f6zg\u00fcr bilimin geli\u015fimini bask\u0131 alt\u0131na alabilecek cinsten g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fc bir din adamlar\u0131 s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6ylenir.<\/p>\n

\u201cYunanistan\u2019da ger\u00e7ek bir ruhban s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131 yoktu. Rahip tap\u0131na\u011fa hizmet eder, inananlar\u0131n kurban i\u015flerini y\u00fcr\u00fct\u00fcr, tap\u0131nak gelirlerini idare eder ve tanr\u0131lar\u0131n iradesini yorumlar. S\u0131radan bir devlet memurudur ya da belli ba\u015fl\u0131 teknik bilgilere sahip olan yahut sahip oldu\u011funu iddia eden \u00f6zel bir \u00e7al\u0131\u015fand\u0131r, herhangi bir kutsall\u0131\u011f\u0131 da yoktur. \u00c7ok \u00e7ok, tiyatroda g\u00f6zde bir yere oturtulur ve halk meclisinde sayg\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fcr. \u2018G\u00f6r\u00fcnmez kiliseye\u2019 ya da herhangi bir y\u00fcksek toplulu\u011fa da mensup de\u011fildir, ne vaizdir ne de e\u011fitmen. B\u00fcy\u00fck tap\u0131naklarda, kurban hizmetlileri ve tap\u0131nak k\u00f6leleri, bek\u00e7i ve haznedarlardan olu\u015fan kalabal\u0131k bir toplulu\u011fa h\u00fckmeder. Ki\u015fisel sayg\u0131nl\u0131k d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda herhangi bir hiyerar\u015fi yoktu.\u201d (Friedell, 1999: 80)<\/p>\n

\"\"
Eski Yunan\u2019dan kalan bir kabartmada Anaksimandros.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Daha sonra Ksenophanes\u2019in s\u00f6yledi\u011fi gibi \u201cTanr\u0131lar insanlara her \u015feyi en ba\u015fta vahiy etmemi\u015flerdi, daha iyiyi onlar kendileri, zamanla, ara\u015ft\u0131ra ara\u015ft\u0131ra buluyorlar\u201dd\u0131. (aktaran Guthrie, 2011: 406-7) Asl\u0131nda Antik Yunan\u2019da mitolojik inan\u00e7lar d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda bir dinin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 da tart\u0131\u015fmal\u0131 bir konudur. Mitoloji dinin \u00f6nemli bir yan\u0131n\u0131, yani yarad\u0131l\u0131\u015fla ilgili b\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcn\u00fc olu\u015ftursa da bunun \u00f6tesinde, Antik Yunan\u2019da \u201cbir mutlakta temellenen, yap\u0131lmas\u0131 ve yap\u0131lmamas\u0131 gerekenleri g\u00f6steren, belli rit\u00fceller i\u00e7eren bir din<\/em>[4]<\/strong><\/em><\/a> anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131\u201d bulunmaz. (Friedell, 1999: 81) Dini otoriteye dayal\u0131 bir ahlak\u0131n yoklu\u011fu da uygulamal\u0131-pratik felsefeyi insanlar\u0131n tinsel ve etik bo\u015flu\u011funu doldurmaya y\u00f6neltmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n

Antik Yunan\u2019da geli\u015fen toplumsal ve siyasal yap\u0131 ile bilimsel d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncenin do\u011fu\u015fu aras\u0131ndaki paralellikleri \u00fc\u00e7 noktada \u00f6zetlemek m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr: Sek\u00fclerlik, ke\u015ffedilmesi gereken yasalar ve tart\u0131\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 gereken fikirler. Ancak bu b\u00f6yle s\u00fcr\u00fcp gitmeyecektir. \u201cBir s\u00fcre sonra, Roma \u0130mparatorlu\u011fu, iktidar\u0131 tekrar bir ki\u015finin ve H\u0131ristiyanl\u0131k da bilgiyi ruhban s\u0131n\u0131f\u0131n\u0131n tekeline teslim edecektir. \u0130mparatorluk ile kilisenin ittifak\u0131, teokrasiyi yeniden tesis edecektir.\u201d (Rovelli, 2014: 119)<\/p>\n

Mitostan Logosa<\/strong><\/p>\n

Yunanl\u0131lar t\u0131pk\u0131 M\u0131s\u0131rl\u0131lar gibi \u00e7oktanr\u0131l\u0131 bir inanca sahipti. Yunan politeizminin k\u00f6keninde yatan \u015fey canl\u0131, \u00f6l\u00fcms\u00fcz ve yarat\u0131c\u0131 do\u011fa<\/strong> (phusis-\u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2) d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesidir. Yunan d\u00fcnya g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc \u00fczerinde do\u011falc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n etkisi o kadar g\u00fc\u00e7l\u00fcyd\u00fc ki \u2018yaratma\u2019 tanr\u0131lara ait bir \u00f6zellik olarak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fclm\u00fcyordu. O zamanlar tanr\u0131lar do\u011fay\u0131 de\u011fil do\u011fa tanr\u0131lar\u0131 yarat\u0131yordu; evren, do\u011fan\u0131n yaratt\u0131\u011f\u0131 tanr\u0131larla doluydu.<\/p>\n

Antik Yunan\u2019da do\u011fa felsefesinin do\u011fu\u015fu, Aristoteles\u2019in sonradan \u201cilk teologlar\u201d olarak adland\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131 Hesiodos gibi yar\u0131 ozan yar\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcrlerin ya\u015fad\u0131\u011f\u0131 d\u00f6neme rastlar. Filozoflarla Hesiodos tipi teologlar\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131ran Aristoteles filozoflar\u0131n kat\u0131 ispat metotlar\u0131n\u0131 kulland\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131, teologlar\u0131n ise mitler arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla \u00f6\u011fretenler oldu\u011funu s\u00f6yler. Bu form\u00fclasyona g\u00f6re teologlar belli \u00f6\u011fretiler hakk\u0131nda bilgi vermeleri bak\u0131m\u0131ndan filozoflara benzeseler de bunu mitsel bir bi\u00e7im i\u00e7inde yaparlar. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla teologlar insan d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesinin ilkel mitolojik evresini temsil etseler de bu \u00e7abalar\u0131 \u00f6nemsiz say\u0131lamaz. Nitekim teologlar\u0131n y\u00f6neldi\u011fi sorunlar daha sonra felsefe taraf\u0131ndan rasyonel d\u00fczeyde tekrar ele al\u0131narak Platon ve Aristoteles\u2019te g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcm\u00fcz teoloji<\/strong>yi ortaya \u00e7\u0131karm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n

M\u00d6 8. ve 7. y\u00fczy\u0131llar\u0131 kapsayan felsefe \u00f6ncesi d\u00f6nemde do\u011fa ile tanr\u0131lar\u0131n d\u00fcnyas\u0131 ve etki alanlar\u0131 hen\u00fcz birbirinden ayr\u0131lmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131. Do\u011fa ve do\u011fa olaylar\u0131 ki\u015fisel, tanr\u0131sal varl\u0131klar olarak, di\u011fer tanr\u0131lar\u0131n birle\u015fmesinden t\u00fcreyen varl\u0131klar olarak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcl\u00fcyordu. Homeros\u2019un dizelerinde dile gelen teologlara \u00f6zg\u00fc spek\u00fclasyonlar\u0131n ba\u015fl\u0131ca konusu i\u015fte bu birbirine kar\u0131\u015fm\u0131\u015f varl\u0131klard\u0131. Bu d\u00f6nemden g\u00fcn\u00fcm\u00fcze korunarak kalm\u0131\u015f Yunan edebiyat\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fyap\u0131tlar\u0131ndan biri de Hesiodos\u2019un Theogonia<\/em>\u2019s\u0131d\u0131r. Ancak Homeros\u2019un yap\u0131tlar\u0131ndan farkl\u0131 olarak Hesiodos\u2019un bu eseri sonraki d\u00f6nemlerde ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc bir etki yaratm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. B\u00fct\u00fcn bu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcr-ozanlar b\u00fcy\u00fck \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde mitoslarla paralellik g\u00f6sterse de kimi zaman geleneksel a\u00e7\u0131klamalar\u0131n d\u0131\u015f\u0131na \u00e7\u0131kan g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015flere yer vermi\u015flerdir. Dionysos k\u00fclt\u00fc<\/strong>, Orpheus\u00e7u \u201cTanr\u0131bilgisi\u201d (Theosophie) bunlardan ilk akla gelenlerdir. Bu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015flerin bir s\u00fcre sonra do\u011fa felsefesine giden yolu a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00f6ylenebilir. (Jaeger, 2012: 19-23)<\/p>\n

Do\u011fa felsefesini ortaya \u00e7\u0131karan s\u00fcre\u00e7 Antik Yunan\u2019da geleneksel mitoloji \u00fczerinde d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnmeyle ba\u015flam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Tanr\u0131lar\u0131n do\u011fu\u015funu, tanr\u0131 soylar\u0131n\u0131n ve ku\u015faklar\u0131n\u0131n birbirlerini izleyip geli\u015fmelerini dile getirmenin en eski \u00f6rne\u011fi, Hesiodos\u2019un Theogonia <\/em>(Tanr\u0131lar\u0131n Do\u011fu\u015fu) adl\u0131 yap\u0131t\u0131d\u0131r. Bilindi\u011fi kadar\u0131yla Hesiodos bu konuda kendi ad\u0131na s\u00f6z alan ilk Yunan \u015fairidir. Geleneksel mitoloji \u00fczerine d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnme mitosla logosu kar\u015f\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131ya getirmi\u015ftir:<\/p>\n

\u201cT\u0131pk\u0131 hayalg\u00fcc\u00fcn\u00fcn akla, anlatan s\u00f6z\u00fcn kan\u0131tlay\u0131c\u0131 s\u00f6ze kar\u015f\u0131t olmas\u0131 gibi, mit de logos\u2019un kar\u015f\u0131t\u0131d\u0131r. Logos ve mythos dilin iki yar\u0131s\u0131d\u0131r, tinsel ya\u015fam\u0131n ayn\u0131 \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde temel iki i\u015flevidir. Bir ak\u0131l y\u00fcr\u00fctme olan logos ikna etmeye \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131r; dinleyende bir yarg\u0131da bulunma zorunlulu\u011funa yol a\u00e7ar. Logos, e\u011fer akla yatk\u0131n ve \u2018mant\u0131\u011fa\u2019 uygunsa do\u011frudur; gizli bir kurnazl\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00fczerini \u00f6rt\u00fcyorsa (\u2018safsata\u2019) yanl\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ama \u2018mit\u2019in kendinden ba\u015fka amac\u0131 yoktur.\u201d (Grimal, 2009: 9)<\/p>\n

Antik Yunan\u2019da felsefe ile mitolojik d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce birbirinden ay\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f de\u011fildi. Felsefenin mitolojik ya da dinsel d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnceyle rasyonel d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce aras\u0131nda bir \u00e7at\u0131\u015fmadan do\u011fdu\u011fu ama yine de felsefenin mitolojiyle ili\u015fkisini kesmedi\u011fi s\u00f6ylenebilir. (bkz. Weber, 1993: 12) B\u00f6ylece rasyonel d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncenin mitolojik d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnceyle nas\u0131l bir ili\u015fkisi oldu\u011fu sorusu belirir. Soruya verilen geleneksel yan\u0131tlardan biri bilimsel d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce ile mitolojik d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce aras\u0131nda olumlu hi\u00e7bir ili\u015fkiden s\u00f6z edilemeyece\u011fi yolundad\u0131r. Bunun tam kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda yer alan yan\u0131t ise felsefeyi mitostan t\u00fcretir. \u00d6rne\u011fin John Burnet (2013: 18) bilimin k\u00f6kenini mitolojik d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncede araman\u0131n son derece yanl\u0131\u015f oldu\u011funu vurgularken, F. M. Cornford ve Karl Popper soruyu rasyonel d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncenin dinsel d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnceden kaynaklanm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131yla a\u00e7\u0131klad\u0131lar. Onlara g\u00f6re Yunan biliminin k\u00f6keni mitolojik\/dinsel d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnceye dayan\u0131yordu. Cornford\u2019a g\u00f6re ilk Yunan filozoflar\u0131 felsefi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncelerini kimi dinsel d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnceler \u00fczerinde \u00e7al\u0131\u015farak geli\u015ftirmi\u015f olduklar\u0131 i\u00e7in bilimsel d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce dinsel d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncenin sek\u00fcler bir devam\u0131 gibiydi. Popper da geli\u015ftirdi\u011fi bilim felsefesini d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce tarihine uygulayarak bilimsel d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnceyi mitoslar\u0131n sorgulanmas\u0131yla ili\u015fkilendirmi\u015ftir. Popper i\u00e7in \u201cmitoslar\u0131n sorgulanmas\u0131\u201d mitoslar\u0131n b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcyle reddedilmesi de\u011fil do\u011fru kabul edilen mitoslar\u0131n yanl\u0131\u015flanmaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131d\u0131r. Ona g\u00f6re bu sorgulama, Yunan d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesinde \u2018bilimsel\u2019 denebilecek yeni bir de\u011ferlendirme bi\u00e7imini ortaya \u00e7\u0131karm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. (bkz. Segal, 2012: 52)<\/p>\n

\"\"
Raffaello\u2019nun \u00fcnl\u00fc Atina Okulu freski.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Do\u011fal teolojinin icad\u0131<\/strong><\/p>\n

Felsefe tarihinde \u0130yonyal\u0131 filozoflar genellikle ba\u015far\u0131l\u0131 birer do\u011fa bilimcisi<\/strong> olarak ele al\u0131n\u0131rlar. Bu yorumun \u00f6ne \u00e7\u0131kmas\u0131nda Aristoteles\u2019in \u0130yonyal\u0131 filozoflar\u0131 Antik\u00e7a\u011f\u2019daki anlam\u0131yla \u201cphusikoi\/do\u011fa d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcrleri\u201d olarak adland\u0131rm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131n\u0131n rol\u00fc vard\u0131r. Bununla birlikte bu filozoflar modern anlamda ilk fizik\u00e7iler de\u011fildi. \u0130yonyal\u0131 filozoflar daha \u00f6nceki mitolojik temsillerden \u00f6nemli \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde farkl\u0131la\u015fan bir d\u00fcnya tasar\u0131m\u0131 geli\u015ftirmi\u015f olsalar da mitolojiden felsefeye keskin bir ge\u00e7i\u015f oldu\u011fu s\u00f6ylenemez. Geli\u015fmekte olan rasyonalizm \u00f6n\u00fcnde s\u00fcrekli gerilemi\u015f olan mitolojik \u00f6\u011felere, Sokrates sonras\u0131 felsefede bile rastlan\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla mitolojinin nerede bitti\u011fine ya da felsefenin nerede ba\u015flad\u0131\u011f\u0131na karar vermek olduk\u00e7a g\u00fc\u00e7t\u00fcr:<\/p>\n

\u201cHesiodos\u2019un Theogonia (\u2026.) s\u00f6ylemi, felsefeninkinden daha zay\u0131f bir soyutlama \u00e7abas\u0131n\u0131 yans\u0131tm\u0131yor de\u011fildir ama, ba\u015fka bir d\u00fczlemde ve felsefeninkinden ba\u015fka bir mant\u0131k uyar\u0131nca i\u015fler. O halde, al\u0131\u015fageldi\u011fimiz kategorilere yabanc\u0131 bir d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncenin kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nday\u0131z demektir: Hem mitik hem de bilgi\u00e7\u00e7e, hem \u015fiirsel hem de soyut, hem hik\u00e2yeleyici hem de dizgesel, hem geleneksel hem de ki\u015fiseldir. Hesiodos\u2019un Tanr\u0131lar\u0131n Do\u011fumu\u2019nun Theogonia ilgin\u00e7li\u011fi ile \u00e7etinli\u011fini olu\u015fturan da bu \u00f6zg\u00fcl yanlar\u0131d\u0131r.\u201d (Bonnefoy, 2000: 612)<\/p>\n

Bu durum Thales\u2019i \u00f6nceleyen Hesiodos\u2019un Theogonia<\/em>\u2019s\u0131n\u0131n s\u0131k s\u0131k felsefi<\/strong> olarak nitelenmesine de dayanak olu\u015fturmu\u015ftur. Bu yap\u0131t \u00f6z\u00fcnde tanr\u0131larla ilgili t\u00fcm \u00f6yk\u00fcleri tek ve tutarl\u0131, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla d\u00fczenli ve rasyonel bir sisteme indirgeme giri\u015fimidir. Ancak, tam da bu nedenle, do\u011fas\u0131 gere\u011fi d\u00fczensiz olan mitolojiye \u00f6l\u00fcmc\u00fcl bir darbe indirmi\u015ftir. Ger\u00e7ekte Hesiodos\u2019un Theogonia<\/em>\u2019s\u0131, daha sonra ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan do\u011fa filozoflar\u0131n\u0131 etkileyecek bir\u00e7ok felsefi \u00f6\u011fe i\u00e7eriyordu. Teogoni ve kozmogoniler akl\u0131n mitoloji i\u00e7inde geli\u015fmesini simgelerler; bu yap\u0131tlar bir bak\u0131ma mitolojik d\u00fcnyay\u0131 akla uydurma ve do\u011fal\/insani olaylar\u0131 y\u00f6netti\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fclen varl\u0131klar\u0131n k\u00f6kenini a\u00e7\u0131klama giri\u015fimidir. Bu nedenle s\u00f6z konusu yap\u0131tlar\u0131, mitoloji ile felsefe aras\u0131nda, bir \u201cge\u00e7i\u015f formu\u201d olarak g\u00f6rmek gerekir.<\/p>\n

Yunanl\u0131lar teolojik g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015flerini Homeros ile Hesiodos\u2019un eserlerinden derlemi\u015flerdir.[5]<\/a> Rasyonel d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncenin geli\u015fimi Yunan Tanr\u0131 anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131 \u00fczerinde de etkili olmu\u015ftur. Dinsel anlamda \u201ctanr\u0131lar\u201d \u00f6ncelikle bir tap\u0131nma nesnesini dile getirirler. \u201cTanr\u0131\u201d s\u00f6zc\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn bu kullan\u0131m\u0131 Antik Yunan\u2019da zamanla radikal bir de\u011fi\u015fime u\u011fram\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Asl\u0131nda s\u00f6zc\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn anlam\u0131ndaki ilk de\u011fi\u015fim felsefenin ortaya \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f\u0131ndan \u00f6ncedir. Homeros ve Hesiodos\u2019un yap\u0131tlar\u0131nda \u201cTanr\u0131\u201d s\u00f6zc\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ilk kez do\u011fal olaylar\u0131n ya da insani tutkular\u0131n ki\u015file\u015ftirilmi\u015f nesnesini dile getirecek bi\u00e7imde d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015fmeye ba\u015flar. Ancak Miletli ilk filozoflarla birlikte bu d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcm zorunlu hale gelmi\u015f ve ivedilik kazanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r: Do\u011fal nesnelerin k\u00f6kenini do\u011frudan ve yo\u011fun bir bi\u00e7imde ara\u015ft\u0131ran ilk filozoflar\u0131 geleneksel ve dinsel a\u00e7\u0131klamalar doyurmuyor, olas\u0131 her \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm, mitolojik varl\u0131klar olan \u201ctanr\u0131lar\u201d\u0131n ger\u00e7ek do\u011fas\u0131n\u0131 tart\u0131\u015fmaya a\u00e7\u0131yordu. Bu gereksinimle, mitolojik bilin\u00e7te yer alan \u201ctanr\u0131lar\u201dla ilgili t\u00fcm \u00f6zellikleri i\u00e7ine alan ve evrenin olu\u015fum s\u00fcrecinde do\u011fal \u015feylerin \u00f6z\u00fcne i\u015faret eden \u201ctanr\u0131sal\u201d kavram\u0131n\u0131 geli\u015ftirdiler. Buradan dinsel tasar\u0131mlardakinden farkl\u0131, yeni bir tanr\u0131 anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131na ula\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bir\u00e7ok Yunan filozofunun kullanm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu \u201cTanr\u0131\u201d s\u00f6zc\u00fc\u011f\u00fc Milet do\u011fa felsefesinde kazanm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011fu bu yeni \u00e7a\u011fr\u0131\u015f\u0131ma sahiptir.<\/p>\n

\u0130lk do\u011fa d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcrleri varl\u0131klar hiyerar\u015fisinde en ba\u015fa yerle\u015ftirdikleri arkhe<\/em>\u2019yi[6]<\/a> \u2018tanr\u0131sal\u2019 diye adland\u0131rmakta ve \u2018tanr\u0131sal olan\u2019dan her \u015feyi ku\u015fatan, her \u015feyi y\u00f6neten olarak s\u00f6z etmekteydiler. (Jaeger, 2012: 232-3) \u201cTanr\u0131\u201d teriminin dinsel olmayan bu kullan\u0131m\u0131 bir s\u00fcre sonra erken Yunan felsefesinin ay\u0131r\u0131c\u0131 niteli\u011fi olmu\u015ftur. Bu yeni anlam\u0131yla \u201cTanr\u0131\u201d kavram\u0131n\u0131n felsefi bir i\u015flev \u00fcstlendi\u011fi s\u00f6ylenebilir. Felsefe tarihinde bu yeni i\u015flev \u201cfelsefenin tanr\u0131s\u0131\u201d[7]<\/a> olarak bilinir. Entelekt\u00fcel planda dinin tanr\u0131s\u0131ndan felsefenin tanr\u0131s\u0131na ge\u00e7ilmesi mitolojik imgelere dayal\u0131 sistemlerin de sonunu haz\u0131rlam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu ba\u011flamda \u201cfelsefenin tanr\u0131s\u0131\u201dn\u0131n rasyonel d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncenin kurucu \u00f6\u011fesi oldu\u011fu ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclebilir.<\/p>\n

Antik Yunan felsefesinde teolojinin ortaya \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f\u0131 bu geli\u015fmelerden ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z de\u011fildir; t\u0131pk\u0131 \u2018Tanr\u0131\u2019 kavram\u0131 gibi \u2018Teoloji\u2019 de Yunan d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesinin \u00f6zel bir \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc olarak ortaya \u00e7\u0131km\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Werner Jaeger\u2019in (2012: 18) deyi\u015fiyle: \u201cTeoloji, karakteristik olarak Yunanl\u0131lara ait bir zihn\u00ee tutumdur ve esas olarak Yunan d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcrlerinin logos<\/em>\u2019a[8]<\/a> atfettikleri b\u00fcy\u00fck \u00f6nemle ilgilidir, zira theologia <\/em>s\u00f6zc\u00fc\u011f\u00fc Tanr\u0131\u2019ya ve tanr\u0131lara (theoi<\/em>) logos<\/em> arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla yakla\u015fmak anlam\u0131na gelir.\u201d B\u00f6ylece Hesiodos\u2019un \u201ctheogonia\u201d ve \u201ckosmogonia\u201d kavramlar\u0131 \u201clogos\u201d kazanarak \u201ctheologia\u201d ve \u201ckosmologia\u201dya d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr. Dahas\u0131 teoloji felsefenin temel bir \u00f6\u011fesi olur. Hem Platon\u2019da hem de Aristoteles\u2019te felsefe en y\u00fcksek d\u00fczeyde teoloji olarak kar\u015f\u0131m\u0131za \u00e7\u0131kar.[9]<\/a> Bu do\u011fal teolojinin icad\u0131d\u0131r. Yunan felsefesinin bir do\u011fal teoloji<\/strong> gelene\u011fi olu\u015fturmas\u0131 ve bunu s\u00fcrd\u00fcrmesi, daha sonra H\u0131ristiyanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n do\u011fa\u00fcst\u00fc teoloji<\/strong>sine de bir temel haz\u0131rlam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. B\u00f6ylece do\u011fal teolojinin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131, hen\u00fcz Yunanca bilimsel eserlerin \u00e7evrilmedi\u011fi genel k\u00fclt\u00fcrel gerileme d\u00f6neminde bile, Orta\u00e7a\u011f Bat\u0131 k\u00fclt\u00fcr\u00fc ile Antik Yunan aras\u0131ndaki ba\u011flant\u0131n\u0131n s\u00fcreklili\u011fini sa\u011flam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n

Problemden teoreme <\/strong><\/p>\n

D\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncenin mitostan logosa ge\u00e7i\u015f s\u00fcrecinin belirgin bir y\u00f6n\u00fc de bilimsel sorunlara yakla\u015f\u0131m bi\u00e7iminde g\u00f6zlenir. Miletli Thales ile ba\u015flayan \u0130yonya biliminin bu \u00f6zelli\u011fi, elde edilen bilginin herhangi bir pratik sorunu \u00e7\u00f6zmesiyle de\u011fil, kendisi bak\u0131m\u0131ndan arzu edilir olmas\u0131yla tan\u0131mlanabilir. Parolas\u0131 \u201cbilmek i\u00e7in bilmek\u201dtir.<\/p>\n

Yunanl\u0131lar\u0131n matematiklerini M\u0131s\u0131r\u2019dan, astronomilerini ise Mezopotamya\u2019dan ald\u0131klar\u0131 etkiyle olu\u015fturmalar\u0131 kendi bilimlerini \u00f6ncekilerden t\u00fcrettikleri anlam\u0131na gelmez. Yunanl\u0131lar kendilerinden \u00f6nceki bilimleri teorik niteli\u011fe b\u00fcr\u00fcnd\u00fcrerek sahiplenmi\u015flerdir. Maurice Cornford\u2019un deyimiyle M\u0131s\u0131rl\u0131lar\u0131n pratik bah\u00e7\u0131van-matemati\u011fini bilimsel geometriye, Babil rahiplerinin astroloji sanat\u0131n\u0131 astronomi bilimine d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcrme ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131 Yunanl\u0131lara aittir.<\/p>\n

Anlat\u0131lana g\u00f6re Miletli Thales Do\u011fuya yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131 gezisinde, M\u0131s\u0131rl\u0131lar\u0131n arazi \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcm\u00fcyle ilgili baz\u0131 hesaplama y\u00f6ntemlerine sahip olduklar\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6zlemlemi\u015fti. Her y\u0131l Nil nehri ta\u015f\u0131p arazilerin s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131n\u0131 belirsizle\u015ftirdi\u011finde tarlalar\u0131n s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131n\u0131 yeniden belirlemek gerekiyordu. M\u0131s\u0131rl\u0131lar\u0131n kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6ntem temelde dikd\u00f6rtgen bi\u00e7imindeki alanlarla ilgiliydi. Thales ise bu y\u00f6ntemi \u00f6zel pratik amac\u0131ndan soyutlay\u0131p farkl\u0131 bi\u00e7imlerdeki alanlar\u0131 hesaplamak \u00fczere genelle\u015ftirmi\u015f ve b\u00f6ylece geometri bilimini ortaya \u00e7\u0131karm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Cornford\u2019un (2003: 14) deyi\u015fiyle Yunanl\u0131larla birlikte problem<\/strong> (yap\u0131lacak \u015fey) yerini teoreme<\/strong> (d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fclecek \u015feye) b\u0131rakm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n

\"\"
Platon<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Bu noktada teori s\u00f6zc\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn k\u00f6kenine vurgu yapmak a\u00e7\u0131klay\u0131c\u0131 olabilir. Yunanca teori\u2019nin (the\u014dr\u00eda\u2013\u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u1f77\u03b1) \u201cbak(\u0131n)ma, seyretme, derin d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce, d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce ya\u015fam\u0131\u201d gibi anlamlar\u0131 vard\u0131r. Antik Yunan\u2019da teori<\/strong> her zaman bu erken \u00e7a\u011fr\u0131\u015f\u0131mlar\u0131n\u0131 korumu\u015ftur. Bu ba\u011flamda \u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b2\u1f77\u03bf\u03c2 ifadesi de \u201cseyircinin ya\u015fam\u0131\u201d anlam\u0131na gelmekteydi. Benzer bir etimolojiye sahip Arap\u00e7a nazariye<\/strong> de g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f, bak\u0131\u015f anlam\u0131na gelen nazar<\/strong> s\u00f6zc\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden 19. y\u00fczy\u0131lda t\u00fcretilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n

Bu durum Yunan felsefesinin mitolojik de\u011fil bilimsel bir karaktere sahip olmas\u0131yla yak\u0131ndan ilgilidir. M\u0131s\u0131r ve Mezopotamyal\u0131lar olgular\u0131 g\u00f6zlemleme konusunda Yunanl\u0131lardan \u00f6nemli \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde ileride olsalar da bu olgular\u0131 herhangi bir bilimsel ama\u00e7 i\u00e7in g\u00f6zlemlemedikleri a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131. Onlar bilimsel ama\u00e7lara sahip olmad\u0131klar\u0131 i\u00e7in hi\u00e7bir zaman mitolojik evren tasar\u0131mlar\u0131n\u0131 d\u00fczeltme gere\u011fi de duymam\u0131\u015flard\u0131r. Bununla birlikte Yunanl\u0131lar bu iyi g\u00f6zlemlenmi\u015f olgularda a\u00e7\u0131klamaya d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr\u00fclebilecek bir \u015feyler g\u00f6rm\u00fc\u015fler ve b\u00fcy\u00fck bir merakla ara\u015ft\u0131rmaya koyulmu\u015flard\u0131r. Zaman\u0131n parolas\u0131 olan teori<\/strong>, felsefe<\/strong> ve ara\u015ft\u0131rma<\/strong> (\u03b8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c1\u1f77\u03b7, \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u1f77\u03b7 ve \u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u1f77\u03b7) s\u00f6zc\u00fckleri bu merak\u0131n derinli\u011fi konusunda bir fikir vermektedir:<\/p>\n

\u201cBir \u0130yonya felsefecisi yar\u0131m d\u00fczine geometrik \u00f6nermeyi \u00f6\u011frenir \u00f6\u011frenmez ve g\u00f6k fenomenlerinin d\u00f6ng\u00fclerde yineledi\u011fini i\u015fitir i\u015fitmez do\u011fada her yerde yasa arama i\u015fine giri\u015fti ve hemen hemen \u1f55\u03b2\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2\/kibir<\/em> denebilecek bir atakl\u0131kla evrenin bir dizgesini kurmaya ba\u015flad\u0131.\u201d (Burnet, 2013: 25\u201326)<\/p>\n

Antik Yunan\u2019da yap\u0131lan bilimsel \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131n fark\u0131, bilimin felsefeyle birlikte ortaya \u00e7\u0131km\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131d\u0131r. M\u0131s\u0131r ve Mezopotamya\u2019da b\u00fcy\u00fck \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde deney ve g\u00f6zleme dayanan bilim, Antik Yunan\u2019da felsefe sayesinde teorik bir temel kazanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. B\u00f6ylece bilimsel konularda yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f g\u00f6zlemler ilk defa teorik bir \u00e7er\u00e7evede anlaml\u0131 k\u0131l\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu geli\u015fme, g\u00fcn\u00fcm\u00fczde de ge\u00e7erli bir bilim modelinin ilk kez ortaya \u00e7\u0131kmas\u0131 demektir.<\/p>\n

\u201cHi\u00e7 ku\u015fkusuz Yunan d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesinin \u00f6nc\u00fclerinin bilimsel \u00f6nsavlar\u0131n do\u011fas\u0131 konusunda hi\u00e7bir a\u00e7\u0131k d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnceleri yoktu, ve kendilerinin enson olgusall\u0131k ile ilgilendiklerini san\u0131yorlard\u0131; ama g\u00fcvenilir bir i\u00e7g\u00fcd\u00fc onlar\u0131 do\u011fru y\u00f6nteme y\u00f6neltti, ve ger\u00e7ekte daha ba\u015f\u0131ndan i\u015flemekte olan \u015feyin \u2018g\u00f6r\u00fcng\u00fcleri kurtarma\/saving appearances<\/em>\u2019 \u00e7abas\u0131 oldu\u011funu g\u00f6rebiliriz.\u201d (Burnet, 2013: 28)<\/p>\n

Do\u011fan\u0131n bu tarzda soru\u015fturulmas\u0131 do\u011fan\u0131n k\u00f6keni ve yap\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n do\u011frudan bir bak\u0131\u015fla kavranamayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131, tersine, onu derinlemesine incelemeyi zorunlu k\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 varsayar. Do\u011fan\u0131n do\u011fru bilgisine eri\u015fmenin ara\u00e7lar\u0131 g\u00f6zlem ve d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncedir. Antik Yunan\u2019da g\u00f6zlem kadar d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce, yani teori de \u00f6nem kazan\u0131r. Antik Yunan\u2019da teorinin kazand\u0131\u011f\u0131 bu \u00f6nem Platon\u2019un felsefesinde doruk noktas\u0131na ula\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Kilikyal\u0131 Simplicius (490-560) taraf\u0131ndan Platon\u2019a atfedilen g\u00f6r\u00fcng\u00fcleri kurtarmak<\/strong> (sozein ta phainomena-\u03c3\u1ff4\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03b1) deyi\u015finin ortaya \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f\u0131 teorik bilginin bilimsel gereklili\u011finin ilk kez Antik Yunan\u2019da anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a g\u00f6stermektedir. Ger\u00e7ekten de g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcm\u00fc<\/strong> ya da g\u00f6r\u00fcng\u00fcleri kurtarmak<\/strong> olarak adland\u0131r\u0131lan g\u00f6zlenebilir veriye ili\u015fkin a\u00e7\u0131klay\u0131c\u0131 teoriler<\/strong> ortaya koymak, bir bak\u0131ma Platon felsefesinin temel amac\u0131yd\u0131:<\/p>\n

\u201cSozein<\/em> ta phainomena<\/em> t\u00fcmcesinin ilk anlam\u0131n\u0131n, tam\u0131 tam\u0131na, olgular\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klamak, kurtarmak, yani altlar\u0131nda yatan ger\u00e7ekli\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131\u011fa \u00e7\u0131karmak, dolays\u0131z verinin g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcr d\u00fczensizli\u011fi alt\u0131ndaki ger\u00e7ek, d\u00fczenli, anla\u015f\u0131l\u0131r bir birli\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131\u011fa \u00e7\u0131karmak oldu\u011fu kesindir. \u00c7ok yayg\u0131n pozitivist yanl\u0131\u015f yorumun bize \u00f6\u011fretti\u011fi gibi, \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fcye ula\u015fmak i\u00e7in olgular\u0131 hesap yoluyla birbirine ba\u011flamak s\u00f6z konusu de\u011fil yaln\u0131zca; ger\u00e7ekte, olgular\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flayan daha derin bir ger\u00e7ekli\u011fin ortaya \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmas\u0131 s\u00f6z konusu.\u201d (Koyr\u00e9, 1994: 80-81)<\/p>\n

Antik Yunan\u2019da \u00e7eli\u015fkili \u00f6\u011felerin (k\u00f6lelik, demokrasi, hukuk) bir arada bulunmas\u0131, teorik d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnmenin toplumsal temellerini atm\u0131\u015f g\u00f6r\u00fcnmektedir. Perry Anderson\u2019\u0131n ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc gibi k\u00f6leci \u00fcretim bi\u00e7iminin Antik Yunan\u2019da ula\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 d\u00fczey tarihte ilk kez el eme\u011fi ile zihinsel emek aras\u0131nda daha \u00f6nce g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015f derinlikte bir b\u00f6l\u00fcnmeye yol a\u00e7m\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bu b\u00f6l\u00fcnmeye paralel olarak bir yandan k\u00f6lelerle birlikte el eme\u011fi horlan\u0131rken, di\u011fer yandan efendilerle birlikte zihinsel emek a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 y\u00fcceltilmi\u015ftir. Bo\u015f zaman\u0131 ve olduk\u00e7a soyut zihinsel eme\u011fi gerektiren felsefenin geli\u015fimi b\u00f6yle bir s\u0131n\u0131fsal b\u00f6l\u00fcnmenin belirledi\u011fi ko\u015fullarla yak\u0131ndan ilgiliydi. (aktaran Yavuz, 2012: 106)<\/p>\n

\"\"
Aristoteles<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Antik Yunan\u2019da iyi ya\u015fam i\u00e7in bir gereklilik olarak g\u00f6r\u00fclen bo\u015f zaman\u0131n (schol\u0113<\/em>, ya da Latince otium<\/em>) tek sahibi m\u00fclk sahibi insanlard\u0131. Bu t\u00fcr insanlarla az ya da \u00e7ok m\u00fclks\u00fcz insanlar aras\u0131ndaki ayr\u0131m Aristoteles\u2019in deyi\u015fiyle \u201c\u00f6zg\u00fcrce ve \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc bir \u015fekilde aylak bir ya\u015fam s\u00fcrmeyi\u201d m\u00fcmk\u00fcn k\u0131lmaya yetecek kadar m\u00fclk sahibi olmalar\u0131yd\u0131. Aristoteles\u2019in \u00e7a\u011fda\u015f\u0131 Heracleides Ponticus da Haz \u00dczerine<\/em> adl\u0131 yap\u0131t\u0131nda, \u201czihni rahatlat\u0131p g\u00fc\u00e7lendiren hazz\u0131n ve l\u00fcks\u00fcn \u00f6zg\u00fcr insanlar\u0131n ay\u0131rt edici \u00f6zelli\u011fi oldu\u011funu; \u00f6te yandan eme\u011fin (to ponein<\/em>) zihinleri daralm\u0131\u015f (systellontai<\/em>) k\u00f6lelere ve basit insanlara g\u00f6re oldu\u011funu\u201d \u00f6ne s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. El eme\u011finin \u201cv\u00fccudu zay\u0131flatt\u0131\u011f\u0131\u201d ve dolay\u0131s\u0131yla akl\u0131 da zay\u0131flatt\u0131\u011f\u0131 kan\u0131s\u0131, Sokrates\u00e7i \u00e7evrelerde olduk\u00e7a yayg\u0131n bir g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f olmu\u015ftur. Bu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn yo\u011funla\u015fm\u0131\u015f bi\u00e7imi ise \u201cel eme\u011finin zihni yozla\u015ft\u0131raca\u011f\u0131n\u0131\u201d s\u00f6yleyen Platon\u2019da bulunur. \u00c7al\u0131\u015fma zorunlulu\u011fundan kurtulmu\u015f bu insanlar, neredeyse t\u00fcm Yunan sanat\u0131n\u0131, edebiyat\u0131n\u0131, bilimini ve felsefesini \u00fcretmi\u015f olsalar da kelimenin tam anlam\u0131yla, ba\u015fta k\u00f6leleri olmak \u00fczere ba\u015fka insanlar\u0131n \u00fczerinden ge\u00e7inen parazitlerdi. (bkz. Ste Croix, 2014)<\/p>\n

Sonu\u00e7<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00d6zetlemek gerekirse mitolojik temelli yakla\u015f\u0131mlar d\u00fcnyan\u0131n k\u00f6keninin g\u00fcvenilir bir a\u00e7\u0131klamas\u0131n\u0131 veremediklerinden d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnmenin ba\u015fka bir yolunun ke\u015ffedilmesi gerekmi\u015ftir. \u0130lk filozoflar\u0131n g\u00fcnl\u00fck dille d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcp yazmalar\u0131 ola\u011fan olsa da zamanla bir felsefe dilinin ortaya \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fcl\u00fcr. Mitolojik d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnceden rasyonel d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnceye ge\u00e7i\u015f bir yan \u00fcr\u00fcn olarak g\u00fcnl\u00fck dili de d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015f ve felsefe dilini ortaya \u00e7\u0131karm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r:<\/p>\n

\u201cYunan mitolojisi neredeyse ba\u015ftan sona bir metafor konusuydu. \u0130nsanlar\u0131n b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fc ve onlar\u0131n evrenin g\u00fc\u00e7leri kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131ndaki zay\u0131fl\u0131klar\u0131 hakk\u0131nda konu\u015fuyordu. G\u00fcnl\u00fck dilde mitler dinsel rolleriyle metaforik anlamlar \u00fcstlenerek konu\u015fuyordu. O dile getirilemeyeni a\u00e7\u0131\u011fa vurmak i\u00e7in simgeleri kullan\u0131yordu. Ele\u015ftirel d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce zamanla kesin bir felsefi s\u00f6ylem dili geli\u015ftirdi. Felsefenin teknik dilinde art\u0131k simgelere yer yoktu, dil ama\u00e7lanan i\u00e7eri\u011fi kesin bir bi\u00e7imde dile getirmeliydi. Felsefenin dili dinin dilinden a\u00e7\u0131k bir bi\u00e7imde ayr\u0131\u015ft\u0131. Dinin dili konusunun do\u011fas\u0131 gere\u011fi metaforik kald\u0131.\u201d (Heller, 2011: 6)<\/p>\n

Mitolojik d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnceden do\u011fa felsefesine ge\u00e7i\u015fin en \u00f6nemli g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcmleri \u015f\u00f6yle s\u0131ralanabilir: 1) do\u011fan\u0131n mitolojiden ar\u0131nd\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 ya da do\u011fan\u0131n belirli \u00f6zelliklerinin, \u00f6rne\u011fin tanr\u0131lar\u0131n imgeleri olarak sunulmas\u0131ndan vazge\u00e7ilmesi; 2) felsefi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncede, insan taraf\u0131ndan anla\u015f\u0131l\u0131r ilkeler taraf\u0131ndan y\u00f6netilen bir birlik olarak, d\u00fczen i\u00e7inde bir Kozmos vizyonunun ortaya \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f\u0131; 3) do\u011fal fenomenlerin genel a\u00e7\u0131klamalar\u0131n\u0131 ara\u015ft\u0131rma giri\u015fimi; 4) insan\u0131n d\u00fcnyan\u0131n i\u015fleyi\u015fi \u00fczerinde hi\u00e7bir etkisi olmayan bir g\u00f6zlemci olarak kabul edilmesi; 5) g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015flerin ele\u015ftirel bir bi\u00e7imde tart\u0131\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131; 6) kendi i\u00e7inde uyumlu, tutarl\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015fler bulma arzusu (bkz. Heller, 2011: 5-6) Bu geli\u015fmelerden sonra yeni Yunan d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesinin iki temel \u00f6zelli\u011fi dikkat \u00e7eker: Ger\u00e7eklik ve fenomenal d\u00fcnya aras\u0131nda bir ay\u0131r\u0131m ve fenomenlerin de\u011fi\u015fkenli\u011finin alt\u0131nda yatan gizli bir kal\u0131c\u0131l\u0131k ilkesinin var oldu\u011fu yarg\u0131s\u0131.<\/p>\n

\u0130lk do\u011fa filozoflar\u0131, geleneksel d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncede iki b\u00fcy\u00fck k\u0131r\u0131lmaya yol a\u00e7t\u0131lar. \u00d6ncelikle mitosa, dine, otoriteye ya da gelene\u011fe de\u011fil kendi ak\u0131llar\u0131na dayanarak do\u011fay\u0131 anlamaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131lar. Bu, rasyonel d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncenin ortaya \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f\u0131 demekti. Bunun d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda ve e\u015fzamanl\u0131 olarak di\u011fer insanlara ak\u0131llar\u0131n\u0131 nas\u0131l kullanacaklar\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6\u011frettiler. Bu do\u011fa filozoflar\u0131 kendi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncelerini \u00f6\u011frencilerine dogmatik bir tarzda de\u011fil, tart\u0131\u015fmay\u0131, ikna etmeyi ve kan\u0131tlamay\u0131 \u00f6zendirecek bir bi\u00e7imde aktard\u0131lar; onlar\u0131n kendileriyle mutlaka ayn\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncede olmalar\u0131n\u0131 beklemediler. \u0130nsan akl\u0131n\u0131n g\u00fcc\u00fcne inanan ilk do\u011fa filozoflar\u0131 b\u00f6ylece i\u00e7inden onlarca ku\u015fa\u011f\u0131n ge\u00e7ece\u011fi bir kap\u0131 a\u00e7m\u0131\u015f oldular.<\/p>\n

Dipnotlar<\/strong><\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> Museler Antik Yunanl\u0131lara g\u00f6re \u015fiir esinleyen tanr\u0131sal kad\u0131nlard\u0131r. \u0130nsanlar\u0131n g\u00f6sterdi\u011fi her t\u00fcrl\u00fc becerinin Tanr\u0131n\u0131n bir arma\u011fan\u0131 oldu\u011fu eski Yunanl\u0131lar\u0131n temel kan\u0131lar\u0131ndan biridir.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> Kozmogoni evrenin<\/em> k\u00f6kenin<\/em> ara\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131, kozmoloji bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak evrenin<\/em> yap\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n<\/em> bir imgede \u00f6zetlenmesidir.<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> Martin Bernal\u2019in d\u00f6rt cilt olarak planlanan bu eserinin ilk cildi Kara Atena: Eski Yunanistan Uydurmacas\u0131 Nas\u0131l \u0130mal Edildi? 1785-1985<\/em> ba\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ile Kaynak Yay\u0131nlar\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan \u00d6zcan Buze \u00e7evirisiyle yay\u0131nlanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> Antik Yunan\u2019da din s\u00f6z\u00fcn\u00fcn kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 olacak bir kavram\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 dile getirilmektedir.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> Homeros’un eserlerinin Yunanl\u0131n\u0131n ya\u015fam\u0131na girmesi 7. y\u00fczy\u0131l\u0131n sonlar\u0131na do\u011fru ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmi\u015ftir. 6. y\u00fczy\u0131ldan itibaren devlet onun eserlerini \u015fenliklerinde gezici ozanlara okutturmaya ba\u015flam\u0131\u015f, 5. y\u00fczy\u0131ldan itibaren de \u00e7ocuklar\u0131n din ve tarih \u00f6\u011frendikleri bir kitap haline getirmi\u015ftir. (bkz. Friedell, 1999: 64\u201365)<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> Arkhe: Her \u015feyin kendisinden meydana geldi\u011fi ana \u201cmadde\u201d.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> \u00d6rne\u011fin Antik Yunan felsefesinde Aristoteles\u2019in \u0130lk Devindirici\u2019si ya da Platon\u2019un Demiurgos\u2019u bu i\u015flevi ba\u015far\u0131yla yerine getirir. \u201cFelsefenin tanr\u0131s\u0131\u201d d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce tarihinde uzun s\u00fcre varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 korumu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> Konu\u015fma, a\u00e7\u0131klama, ak\u0131l, tan\u0131m, anlama yetisi ve oran gibi anlamlar\u0131 olan \u201clogos\u201d Herakleitos, Platon ve Philon gibi filozoflar\u0131n felsefelerinde merkezi bir rol oynar.<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> Theologia<\/em> (teoloji) s\u00f6zc\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ilk kez Platon taraf\u0131ndan kullan\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Theologia<\/em>\u2019dan t\u00fcreyen theologos<\/em> (teolog), theologein<\/em> (teolojiyle u\u011fra\u015fmak), theologikos<\/em> (teolojik) s\u00f6zc\u00fckleri de Platon ve Aristoteles’in felsefe dilinde yarat\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n

Kaynaklar<\/strong><\/p>\n

– Aristoteles (1997) G\u00f6ky\u00fcz\u00fc \u00dczerine<\/em>, \u00e7ev. Saffet Bab\u00fcr, Ankara: Dost Kitabevi Yay\u0131nlar\u0131.<\/p>\n

– Arslan, Ahmet (2006) \u0130lk\u00e7a\u011f Felsefe Tarihi-1 Sokrates \u00d6ncesi Yunan Felsefesi,<\/em> \u0130stanbul: \u0130stanbul Bilgi \u00dcniversitesi Yay\u0131nlar\u0131.<\/p>\n

– Bauer, Susan Wise (2016) Bat\u0131 Biliminin \u00d6yk\u00fcs\u00fc – Aristoteles\u2019in Yaz\u0131lar\u0131ndan B\u00fcy\u00fck Patlama Kuram\u0131na<\/em>, \u00e7ev. Mehmet Moral\u0131, \u0130stanbul: Alfa Yay\u0131nlar\u0131.<\/p>\n

– Bonnefoy, Yves (2000) Mitolojiler S\u00f6zl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc<\/em>, II. Cilt K-Z, yay. haz. Levent Y\u0131lmaz, Ankara: Dost Kitabevi Yay\u0131nlar\u0131.<\/p>\n

– Burnet, John (2013) Erken Yunan Felsefesi<\/em>, \u00e7ev. Aziz Yard\u0131ml\u0131, \u0130stanbul: \u0130dea Yay\u0131nevi.<\/p>\n

– Campbell, Joseph (1995) Bat\u0131 Mitolojisi<\/em>, \u00e7ev. Kudret Emiro\u011flu, Ankara: \u0130mge Kitabevi.<\/p>\n

– Capelle, Wilhelm (1994) Sokrates\u2019ten \u00d6nce Felsefe<\/em> (I. Cilt) \u00e7ev. O\u011fuz \u00d6z\u00fcg\u00fcl, \u0130stanbul: Kabalc\u0131 Yay\u0131nevi.<\/p>\n

– Castoriadis, Cornelius (1993) D\u00fcnyaya, \u0130nsana ve Tabiata Dair<\/em>, \u00e7ev. H\u00fclya Tufan, \u0130stanbul: \u0130leti\u015fim Yay\u0131nlar\u0131.<\/p>\n

– Cornford, F. MacDonald (2003) Sokrates\u2019ten \u00d6nce ve Sonra<\/em>, \u00e7ev. Ufuk Can Ak\u0131n, Ankara: Ayra\u00e7 Yay\u0131nevi.<\/p>\n

– Couprie, Dirk L. (2011) Heaven and Earth in Ancient Greek Cosmology<\/em>, New York Dordrecht Heidelberg London: Springer Publishing.<\/p>\n

– C\u00f6mert, Bedrettin (1999) Mitoloji ve \u0130konografi<\/em>, Ankara: Ayra\u00e7 Yay\u0131nevi.<\/p>\n

– Denkel, Arda (1987) Demokritos\/Aristoteles \u0130lk\u00e7a\u011fda Do\u011fa Felsefeleri<\/em>, \u0130stanbul: Kalam\u0131\u015f Yay\u0131nlar\u0131.<\/p>\n

– Foucault, Michel (2012) Bilme \u0130stenci \u00dczerine Dersler Coll\u00e8ge de France Dersleri (1970-1971)<\/em>, \u00e7ev. Kerem Eksen, \u0130stanbul: \u0130stanbul Bilgi \u00dcniversitesi Yay\u0131nlar\u0131.<\/p>\n

– Friedell, Egon (1999) Antik Yunan\u2019\u0131n K\u00fclt\u00fcr Tarihi<\/em>, \u00e7ev. Necati A\u00e7a, Ankara: Dost Kitabevi Yay\u0131nlar\u0131.<\/p>\n

– Grimal, Pierre (2009) Yunan Mitolojisi<\/em>, \u00e7ev. I\u015f\u0131k Erg\u00fcden, Ankara: Dost Kitabevi Yay\u0131nlar\u0131.<\/p>\n

– Guthrie, W. K. C. (2011) Yunan Felsefe Tarihi-I \/ Sokrates \u00d6ncesi \u0130lk Filozoflar ve Pythagoras\u00e7\u0131lar<\/em>, \u00e7ev. Erg\u00fcn Ak\u00e7a, \u0130stanbul: Kabalc\u0131 Yay\u0131nevi.<\/p>\n

– Heller, Michael (2011) Philosophy in Science: An Historical Introduction<\/em>, Translated by Kenneth W. Kemp & Zuzanna Maslanka Kieron, Heidelberg Dordrecht London New York: Springer Publishing.<\/p>\n

– Henry, John (2016) Bilimsel D\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncenin K\u0131sa Tarihi<\/em>, \u00e7ev. Ay\u015fe Mine \u015eengel, Ankara: Ak\u0131l\u00e7elen Kitaplar.<\/p>\n

– Hesiodos (1977) Hesiodos Eseri ve Kaynaklar\u0131<\/em>, \u00e7ev. Sabahattin Eyubo\u011flu ve Azra Erhat, Ankara: TTK.<\/p>\n

– Jaeger, Werner (2012) \u0130lk Yunan Filozoflar\u0131nda Tanr\u0131 D\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesi<\/em>, \u00e7ev. G\u00fcne\u015f Ayas, \u0130stanbul: \u0130thaki Yay\u0131nlar\u0131.<\/p>\n

– Koyr\u00e9, Alexandre (1994) Yeni\u00e7a\u011f Biliminin Do\u011fu\u015fu<\/em>, \u00e7ev. Kurtulu\u015f Din\u00e7er, Ankara: G\u00fcndo\u011fan Yay\u0131nlar\u0131.<\/p>\n

– Kranz, Walther (1984) Antik Felsefe<\/em>, \u00e7ev. Suad Y. Baydur, \u0130stanbul: Sosyal Yay\u0131nlar.<\/p>\n

– L\u00f3pez-Ruiz, Carolina (2012) Tanr\u0131lar Do\u011fduklar\u0131nda<\/em>, \u00e7ev. Hamide Koyukan, \u0130stanbul: \u0130thaki Yay\u0131nlar\u0131.<\/p>\n

– McClellan III, James E. ve Dorn, Harold (2008) D\u00fcnya Tarihinde Bilim ve Teknoloji<\/em>, \u00e7ev. Haydar Yal\u00e7\u0131n, Ankara: Arkada\u015f Yay\u0131nevi.<\/p>\n

– Rovelli, Carlo (2014) Miletli Anaksimandros ya da Bilimsel D\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncenin Do\u011fu\u015fu<\/em>, \u00e7ev. Do\u00e7. Dr. Atakan Alt\u0131n\u00f6rs, \u0130stanbul: Bilge K\u00fclt\u00fcr Sanat.<\/p>\n

– Segal, Robert A. (2012) Mit<\/em>, \u00e7ev. Nursu \u00d6rge, Ankara: Dost Kitabevi Yay\u0131nlar\u0131.<\/p>\n

– Ste Croix, Geoffrey de (2014) Antik Yunan D\u00fcnyas\u0131nda S\u0131n\u0131f M\u00fccadelesi<\/em>, \u00e7ev. \u00c7a\u011fda\u015f S\u00fcmer, \u0130stanbul: Yordam Kitap.<\/p>\n

– Vernant, Jean-Pierre (1982) The Beginnings of Greek Thought<\/em>, New York: Cornell University Press.<\/p>\n

– Weber, Alfred (1993) Felsefe Tarihi<\/em>, \u00e7ev. H. Vehbi Eralp, \u0130stanbul: Sosyal Yay\u0131nlar\u0131.<\/p>\n

– Whitfield, Peter (2008) Bat\u0131 Biliminde D\u00f6n\u00fcm Noktalar\u0131<\/em>, \u00e7ev. Serdar Uslu, \u0130stanbul: K\u00fcre Yay\u0131nlar\u0131.<\/p>\n

– Yavuz, Hilmi (2012) Avrupa\u2019n\u0131n Zihin Tarihi<\/em>, \u0130stanbul: Tima\u015f Yay\u0131nlar\u0131.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

Mitolojik d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnceden do\u011fa felsefesine ge\u00e7i\u015fin g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcmleri \u015f\u00f6yle s\u0131ralanabilir: 1) Do\u011fan\u0131n mitolojiden ar\u0131nd\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 ya da do\u011fan\u0131n belirli \u00f6zelliklerinin, \u00f6rne\u011fin tanr\u0131lar\u0131n imgeleri olarak sunulmas\u0131ndan vazge\u00e7ilmesi; 2) felsefi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncede, insan taraf\u0131ndan anla\u015f\u0131l\u0131r ilkeler taraf\u0131ndan y\u00f6netilen bir birlik olarak, d\u00fczen i\u00e7inde bir Kozmos vizyonunun ortaya \u00e7\u0131k\u0131\u015f\u0131; 3) do\u011fal fenomenlerin genel a\u00e7\u0131klamalar\u0131n\u0131 ara\u015ft\u0131rma giri\u015fimi; 4) insan\u0131n d\u00fcnyan\u0131n i\u015fleyi\u015fi \u00fczerinde hi\u00e7bir […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":591,"featured_media":15880,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[183,221,222],"tags":[1666,1857,237,729,1859,1858],"class_list":["post-15879","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-146-sayi","category-felsefe","category-tarih","tag-antik-yunan","tag-doga-felsefesi","tag-felsefe","tag-felsefe-tarihi","tag-logos","tag-mitos"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t