Juliano Orlandi

Resumo: Com o fito de compreender as noções de história e juízo político, este artigo pretende mostrar a peculiar interpretação que Hannah Arendt faz da mais conhecida e discutida personalidade filosófica: Sócrates. Assim como outras ideias, tais como a de banalidade do mal, a natureza do terror totalitário e de espaço público, sua estrita pintura do filósofo grego nos demanda a tarefa de discriminar a diferença entre pensamento e ação. Seria acaso o juízo a ponte entre as atividades de pensamento e da ação política? A preocupação, neste ensaio,é a de mostrar como Hannah Arendt estava procurando por um modo autêntico de filosofia política, cujo maior exemplo seria Sócrates. No mesmo sentido, também se debruça acerca do significado do juízo reflexionante, ideia bastante fecunda em sua obra que permanece ainda bastante alusiva.: In order to understand Arendt’s conceptions of history and political judgment, this article discusses her peculiar interpretation of Socrates. As with her other ideas, such as the banality of evil, the nature of totalitarian terror, and the public space, her portrayal of the Greek philosopher demands that we discriminate between thinking and acting. Would judgment by chance be the bridge between the activities of thought and political action? My aim in this essay is to show how Arendt, from beginning of her work, was looking for an authentic mode of political life, the major example of which is Socrates. I also address what Arendt meant by her idea of a reflexive judgment, an idea that has proved enormously suggestive yet which remains elusive.

My main objective is to clarify the platonic perspective about the narratives which present a allegorical character. The question arises from the fact that the philosopher systematically avoids using the terms????????? and???????????, usually translated as narrative and narrate, to designate the allegories in his works. His refusal is odd, because his use of the terms covers a heterogeneous group of narratives and apparently there is no reason that prevents them from designating the allegorical passages. My proposal for a solution is develop a analysis of the occurrences of????????? and??????????? in corpus platonicum, which aims to promote a more detailed characterization of the meaning of the terms. To understand one of the aspects found in this survey, the concept of testimony, I follow the interpretation of Luc Brisson in his work Platon les mots et les mythes. Finally, based on Brisson's thesis, I try to explain why the philosopher avoids the terms????????? and??????????? to refer to the allegorical narratives