Gabriele Cornelli

The paper deals with the "deuteros plous", literally ‘the second voyage’, proverbially ‘the next best way’, discussed in Plato’s "Phaedo", the key passage being Phd. 99e4–100a3. The second voyage refers to what Plato’s Socrates calls his “flight into the logoi”. Elaborating on the subject, the author first (I) provides a non-standard interpretation of the passage in question, and then (II) outlines the philosophical problem that it seems to imply, and, finally, (III) tries to apply this philosophical problem to the "ultimate final proof" of immortality and to draw an analogy with the ontological argument for the existence of God, as proposed by Descartes in his 5th "Meditation". The main points are as follows: (a) the “flight into the logoi” can have two different interpretations, a common one and an astonishing one, and (b) there is a structural analogy between Descartes’s ontological argument for the existence of God in his 5th "Meditation" and the "ultimate final proof" for the immortality of the soul in the "Phaedo".

O problema deste paper constitui-se a partir da seguinte pergunta: seria Platão um plagiador dos pitagóricos? A suspeita nasce de uma tradição já antiga pela qual Platão é acusado de ter plagiado uma suposta obra atualmente perdida de Filolau de Crotona. Tomou-se, então, como objeto de análise, a obra Timeu, a fim de verificar a existência de trechos que poderiam sugerir um plágio por parte de Platão. Para tanto, realizou-se um levantamento das principais teorias “pitagóricas” identificáveis no Timeu, a partir de uma revisão da história da crítica. Concluiu-se que, inegavelmente, há referência implícita ao pitagorismo na obra, a qual, entretanto, não configura propriamente um plágio, mas, sim, pode ser melhor considerada como uma influência pitagórica. Efetivamente, Platão acaba por transpor diversas teorias “pitagóricas” – bem como de outros filósofos pré-socráticos – para seus próprios interesses filosóficos.

This article proposes to address the relationship between philosophy and politics through the 5th-4th Century's intellectual debate on ethics and politics in Athens. A debate which takes place in the wake of the rise of a new individuality, marked by the discovery of the tragicity of the soul. What stands out in this debate is the redefinition of a philopolitical stand in all its historical ambiguity and ethical idealism. Aristophanes, Thucydides, Euripides, Gorgias and, obviously, Plato himself are striving to define the possibility of the encounter between philosophy and the city, public and private, justice and interests, individual and community. The Platonic solution for the problem reveals complexity and articulation typical of his thought: the philosopher that shelters himself from the storm behind an academic wall is the same who "in order for himself not to seem nothing but words" sails towards the uncertain Syracusan project.

O presente trabalho desenvolve as narrativas das catábases clássicas e a sua semelhança estrutural com as descidas ao inferno da alquimia, valendo-se do conceito de imortalidade da alma para a separação entre uma geografia da imortalidade, no caso do período clássico, de uma operação imaginativa que ocorre dentro da própria alma do alquimista, no caso das descidas herméticas do renascimento. Para tanto, desenvolver-se-á o papel da faculdade imaginativa na filosofia renascentista e o simbolismo por trás da “destruição” do corpo e do “renascimento” da alma em duas iluminuras do tratado alquímico Splendor Solis.

Pretende-se aqui uma apresentação da paráfrase de Sexto Empírico do Sobre o não-ser ou sobre a natureza de Górgias e de certas leituras e problemas suscitados acerca da crítica gorgiana à identificação imediata entre ser, pensar e dizer. Cremos que, o esforço de Górgias nesse texto se trata menos de tentar estabelecer novos paradigmas sobre a relação existente entre realidade, conhecimento e discurso, do que de simplesmente problematizar o caráter absolutista de certas “filosofias” que pretendem falar de modo seguro sobre a verdade acerca da realidade.

O presente artigo é fruto de trabalhos e pesquisas conduzidos pela equipe de coordenação do PNLD 2018 (Plano Nacional de Livros Didáticos), a qual se reuniu por duas ocasiões, juntamente com todos os pareceristas, em seminários exclusivamente dedicados ao projeto. O texto pode, pois, ser dividido em quatro seções, as quais (e cuja divisão) se revelarão suficientemente evidentes para o leitor. Em primeiro lugar, é apresentada uma revisão historiográfica (inédita, tanto quanto sabemos) do ensino de Filosofia no Ocidente, desde as primeiras instituições da Antiguidade até a atualidade, mas com especial enfoque no caso brasileiro. Em segundo lugar, apresentamos uma revisão crítica da legislação mais relevante, sobretudo a vigente, para o processo de seleção dos manuais didáticos a distribuir pelas escolas brasileiras durante o período de vigência do edital, referindo em particular os critérios que nortearam tal seleção. Em terceiro lugar, são referidos alguns dos aspectos mais importantes das obras aprovadas neste edital do PNLD. Finalmente, são abordados alguns aspectos relativos aos desafios que o PNLD terá necessariamente que enfrentar, tendo em conta a conjuntura brasileira atual, nomeadamente os pacotes legislativos mais recentes a propósito do PNLD enquanto tal, mas também do papel da própria Filosofia no ensino obrigatório no nível médio.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Plato and Pythagoreanism by Phillip Sidney HorkyGabriele CornelliPhillip Sidney Horky. Plato and Pythagoreanism. Oxford University Press, 2013. xxi + 305 pp. Cloth, $74.Ceci n’est pas un livre sur Pythagore. With these clever and rather playful words, Horky’s book starts its literary journey through a wide range of Pythagorean sources, including Epicharmus, Empedocles, Philolaus, Eurytus and Arquitas, and Pythagorean themes, like numbers, immortality of the soul, limitness/unlimitness, among others.From this explosive incipit, one would think that Horky agrees with Kahn’s almost forty-year-old observation about the fact that new theories of Pythagoreanism are not necessary in our present day and age (1974, 163, n. 6):It’s hard enough to satisfy minimal standards of historical rigor in discussing the Pythagoreans, without introducing arbitrary guesswork of this sort where no two students can come to the same conclusion on the basis of the same evidence. In fact, the direct testimony for Pythagorean doctrines is all too abundant. The task for a serious scholarship is not to enrich these data by inventing new theories or unattested stages of development but to sift the evidence so as to determine which items are most worthy (or least unworthy) of belief.On the contrary, however, Horky’s approach seems surprisingly to direct the reader towards a fundamentally historiographical rather than philological brand of work, that is, one devoted neither exclusively to the exegesis of Pythagorean sources nor even to the theoretical approach of one of the themes that received specific contributions from Pythagoreanism, such as mathematics, cosmology, politics, or the theory of the immortal soul. This is mainly true when one recognizes, from the title on, that the main goal of the book is to try to determine, once and for all, what is the extent of Pythagorean influence on Plato’s thought. Rather an historiographical problem, I would say. And a good one.In order to do so, Horky needs to trace down a sort of history of mathematical Pythagoreanism from a huge variety of informed ancient sources and perspectives. Horky’s approach to the sources is well-grounded, not only in Burkert’s fundamental works, but also in the recent revival in Pythagorean studies which took over ancient philosophy scholarship in the last two decades: Huffmann’s works on Philolaus (1993) and Arquitas (2005); Zhmud (1997) and Kahn (2001) on early Pythagoreans; Riedweg on Pythagoras (2002), among many others. After the publishing of Horky’s book, two sorts of Companions to Pythagoreanism confirm the trend of the revival: Cornelli, McKirahan, and Macris (2013), acts of the On Pythagoreanism seminar held in Brasilia by Archai [End Page 353] UNESCO Chair, and Huffman (2014). Luckily, Pythagorean scholarship has now gotten rid of that old-fashioned scepticism, starting from Zeller’s famous statement that the relevant sources are a “mixture of fables and poetry.” As Horky’s book seems to suggest, the job can be done. And he has definitely proved to be able to force his way through, with both clear philological arguments and refined historiographical hypotheses.Not surprisingly, a work on Plato and Pythagoreanism starts with a chapter on Aristotle: “Aristotle on Mathematical Pythagoreanism in the Fourth Century BCE” (chap. 1). The idea of the chapter is to rely on Aristotle’s distinction between the mathematical and acousmatic branches of Pythagoreanism. While acousmatic Pythagoreans supposedly did not engage in demonstration, the so-called mathematical Pythagoreans engaged in investigations based on mathemata in order to give an account (the reason why of the world they perceived). Horky seems to drive Aristotle’s account to a specific goal: mathematical Pythagoreans would have established some kind of correspondence between numbers and sensibles, and their ontology would have a direct relation to social and political organization.Chapter 2, “Hippasus of Metapontum and Mathematical Pythagoreanism,” is entirely dedicated to the account of the later doxographical tradition on Hippasus, the alleged progenitor of mathematical Pythagoreanism. Avoiding the risk of falling into the “bottomless pit” of research on the Pythagoreans—in Guthrie’s famous words (1962, 146, n. 1)—Horky manages his inquiry boldly and in a quite elegant way. Between the peripatetic systematization and the platonic derivation of Hippasus’ philosophy, Hippasus...

La Ley de la Mujer discutida en el libro V de la República, conocida como la primera ola, es un ejemplo notorio de la intención reformista de Sócrates de lograr justicia en la pólis. La legislación de la mujer, en general, históricamente ha sido relegada por los intérpretes de la República. El objeto del artículo es analizar este pasaje, del 449a al 457c, a través de los argumentos propuestos por Sócrates al considerarlos cruciales para concebir la igualdad entre los sexos y favorecer el cambio institucional según su naturaleza, katà phýsin, dejando espacio para que las mujeres gobiernen la pólis. Antes de partir hacia el enfrentamiento externo, Sócrates considera urgente que sus interlocutores, Adimanto, Glaucón y Polemarco, estén de acuerdo entre ellos. Así, los insta a iniciar la discusión cuestionando la naturaleza humana de la mujer y su capacidad para las mismas funciones que desempeñan los hombres en la ciudad. El examen de lo inteligible permitió que el lógos sobre la capacidad intelectual de las mujeres respaldara una legislación adecuada. Este nómos puesto en práctica demuestra ser lo mejor para la ciudad y sus guardianes. En esa medida, Sócrates puede concluir dicha investigación con un consenso sobre qué hacer y la voluntad de confrontar urgentemente las opiniones opuestas en la ciudad.

The purpose of the conference "On Pythagoreanism", held in Brasilia in 2011, was to bring together leading scholars from all over the world to define the status quaestionis for the ever-increasing interest and research on Pythagoreanism in the 21st century. The papers included in this volume exemplify the variety of topics and approaches now being used to understand the polyhedral image of one of the most fascinating and long-lasting intellectual phenomena in Western history. Cornelli's paper opens the volume by charting the course of Pythagorean studies over the past two centuries. The remaining contributions range chronologically from Pythagoras and the early Pythagoreans of the archaic period (6th-5th centuries BCE) through the classical, hellenistic and late antique periods, to the eighteenth century. Thematically they treat the connections of Pythagoreanism with Orphism and religion, with mathematics, metaphysics and epistemology and with politics and the Pythagorean way of life.

A pergunta, “Tudo é número?” no título do famoso artigo de 1989 de Zhmud, deixa aberto um desafio para o extremamente importante testemunho aristotélico de que “tudo é número” era a definição fundamental da filosofia pitagórica. Tal desafio não é nada simples, especialmente quando se considera que, até então, as histórias tanto da filosofia quanto da matemática antiga parecem não ter dúvidas de que esta afirmação é correta. Este artigo pretende submeter à avaliação crítica a alegação de Aristóteles de que os pitagóricos acreditavam que “tudo é número”. Nossa análise dos muitos modos nos quais Aristóteles enuncia a tese de que “tudo é número” revelará, para além de variações meramente semânticas, uma contradição teórica fundamental que o próprio Aristóteles parece incapaz de resolver. De fato, três versões diferentes da doutrina estão presentes na doxografia aristotélica: uma identificação dos números com objetos sensíveis; uma identificação dos princípios dos números com os princípios das coisas que existem; uma imitação dos objetos pelos números. Enquanto as versões e parecem identificar, em termos que lembram Platão, os números com a causa material da realidade, a versão, a saber, números como causas formais da realidade, é uma reconstrução aristotélica da teoria pitagórica. Aristóteles teria sido levado a tal reconstrução pela dificuldade que encontrou para aceitar a noção pitagórica material de número, e por considerá-la, para seu gosto, fortemente marcada pela recepção da mesma teoria no ambiente da Academia.

According to Glaucus of Rhegium Democritus was “a disciple of a Pythagorean” (dk 68 A1, 38). The tetralogical catalog of his works prepared by Thrasylus begins its section on ethics with the three following works: Pythagoras; On the Disposition of the Wise Man; On the Things in Hades (dk 68 B0a–c). The very order of the first three ethical works of Democritus could point to some sort of dependence on Pythagoreanism. This was suggested earlier by Frank (1923: 67), who believes that this is due to the fact that Democritus saw Pythagoras as basically the founder of an ethic-religious sect. Without being forced to agree with Frank, it is undeniable that there are many similarities between Pythagorean and Democritean ethics. The Democritean sentences that speak about the sense of shame before oneself as a way of preventing evil deeds (dk 68 B84, 244, and 264) recalls the practice of anamnesis, the examination of conscience in the Pythagorean tradition. Even more important are the parallel uses of measure as a basis for ethical reasoning. This paper aims to review this connection between Pythagorean traditions and Democritus, examining what emerges as the most probable core issue to determine how close this relation between atomists and Pythagoreans could have been: the Aristotelian testimony (de An. 1.2 404a16-20 [dk 58 B40]) on the material conception of the Pythagorean soul. In fact, a corpuscular conception of the soul (“dust in the air”), foreshadowing the psychology of Democritus, is attributed to the Pythagoreans. Is the argument of de An. 1.2 404a16-20 a misunderstanding by Aristotle? Or does this testimony represent an actual dialogue that Pythagoreans were having with atomists in the fifth century bce?