Platon Diyaloglarında Gelişen Ontolojik Çatallaşma Üzerine Bir İnceleme

Ozet Bu makalede, Platon'un oz'cu bir anlayistan hareket eden diyalektik mantigi cercevesinde, ontolojisini nasil sekillendirdigi ele alinacaktir. Ontolojisini birbirinden keskin bir sekilde ayrilmis iki varlik kategorisi uzerine kuran Platon'un bu dualist anlayisi, onun diyaloglari hakkindaki kronoloji tartismalarindan bagimsiz degildir. Diyaloglar hakkindaki bazi kronolojiler, Platon'un Transendental oz'ler kabul ettigi savina dayanirken bazilari onun Parmenides diyaloguna dayanarak Transendental oz dusuncesinden vazgectigi savina dayanir. Ayrica Transendental oz dusuncesinden yola cikan Antik felsefe bilginleri arasinda, Platonik kulliyatin tematik bir birliktelik mi yoksa tematik gelisim mi gosterdigi konusunda bir tartisma soz konusudur.  “Birlikcilere” e gore Platon, diyaloglarinda, her bir diyalog bize kismi veya proleptik bir bakis acisi veren tek, tutarli, sinoptik bir felsefi sistem sunar. (Rickless, 2006: 1). “Gelisimciler” e gore, ayni diyaloglar, yazildiklari muhtemel siraya uygun sekilde bir duzende duzenlendiginde Transendental oz dusuncesinin tematik bir gelisim gosterdigi gorulecektir. Transendental oz'ler kabul eden kronolojiden yola cikan makalemiz, Menon diyalogunda ortuk bir sekilde ifade bulmus olan varolus-oz ayriminin, Devlet diyalogunda nasil acik bir catallasmaya, ve ozellikle Phaidon diyalogunda da keskin bir beden-ruh dualizmine donustugunu; ote yandan Platon'un bu keskin ayrim neticesinde ortaya cikan "iliski" sorununu "pay alma" dusuncesi ile nasil asmaya calistigini ele almakta. Anahtar Kelimeler: ontoloji, idea, gorunus, oz, varolus, pay alma, anamnesis A Study on Ontological Bifurcation that Develops in Plato’s Dialogues Abstract This article deals with how Plato shaped his ontology within the framework of dialectical logic, which relies on an essentialist understanding. This dualist conception of Plato, who establishes his ontology on two distinctly separated categories of being, is not independent of the chronological debates about his dialogues. Some chronologies about the dialogues are based on the claim that he acknowledges the existence of Transcendental essences, while others, relying on his Parmenides dialogue, assert that he has renounced the idea of Transcendental essence. There is also a controversy among the scholars of ancient philosophy who draw on the idea of Transcendental essence, as to whether the Platonic corpus displays a thematic union or thematic development. According to “Unionists”, each of the dialogues of Plato offers a single, consistent, synoptic philosophical system that gives us a partial or proleptic perspective (Rickless, 2006:1). According to the “developmentalists”, when the same dialogues are arranged according to the order in which they have been written, one will observe that the idea of transcendental essence displays a thematic development. This article, which draws on the chronology that acknowledges the existence of Transcendental essences, deals with how the distinction between existence and essence, which has been implicitly expressed in the Menon dialogue, has evolved into a clear bifurcation in the dialogue of State and especially how it has turned into a sharp body-soul dualism in the dialogue of Phaidon; on the other hand, it also discusses how Plato tries to overcome the problem of “relation” that arises as a result of this sharp distinction, by means of the idea of ​​“partaking”. Keywords: ontology, idea, appearance, essence, existence, partaking, anamnesis