Vicente de Paulo Iannini

Sócrates

Introduction

Sócrates. Explore a juventude e dialética de Sócrates na Atenas do séc. V a.C. durante Péricles. Analise o esplendor intelectual, desafios de fontes e o legado de figuras como Protágoras.

Abstract

A juventude de Sócrates coincide com o esplendor de Atenas, na época de Péricles. Concorda-se geralmente em que o séc. V a.C. foi um dos períodos mais fecundos na história universal e em que ainda estamos mal equipados para avaliá-lo corretamente. Seria especialmente desejável que conhecêssemos mais sobre aquelas duas décadas (460-440), quando Protágoras e Herodoto visitaram Atenas, quando o gênio grego produziu algumas de suas melhores tragédias ou quando Sócrates ensaiou a sua dialética. Aí se encontram alguns dos homens que mais contribuíram para o desenvolvimento inte lectual e espiritual da humanidade e que exerceram sua influência através da palavra escrita ou falada. Mas dessa literatura, pouco nos chegou. Foi, mesmo, sorte que o drama ático tenha sobrevivido em parte. Ê verdade que dispomos da obra de um Herodoto ou de um Tucídides, mas, além disso, temos que basear nossa avaliação numa mistura heterogênea de tradição e fragmentos, historietas e imitação. Os numerosos fragmentos de Empédocles e de outros autores pouco nos instruem sobre a filosofia política de então. Para isso, precisaríamos de conhecer Protágoras e seu contempo râneo, ainda jovem, Sócrates. Da grande produção do primeiro, quase nada nos chegou; o segundo, simplesmente se recusou a escrever.

Review

This abstract, titled "Sócrates," effectively situates the philosopher within the vibrant and pivotal intellectual landscape of 5th-century BCE Athens, coinciding with the era of Pericles. It rightly emphasizes the profound historical significance of this period as a formative epoch for human intellectual and spiritual development, underscoring its enduring yet elusive nature for modern assessment. The author judiciously highlights the challenge posed by the scarcity of direct primary sources from key figures like Protágoras and, crucially, Sócrates himself, who notably refused to commit his thoughts to writing. This initial framing sets a compelling stage for a discussion centered on the difficulties inherent in reconstructing the political and philosophical thought of such an influential, yet sparsely documented, period. However, as a standalone abstract summarizing a journal article, its primary limitation lies in its focus on describing a problem rather than outlining a specific research question, methodology, or argument. The text functions more as an extended historical preamble, eloquently articulating the lacunae in our understanding due to fragmented and heterogeneous sources. While it powerfully conveys the scholarly frustration with the lack of direct access to figures central to the intellectual history of humanity, it fails to indicate what the *paper itself* will contribute to navigating these challenges. The abstract leaves the reader uncertain about the specific analytical lens, interpretative framework, or new insights the article will offer concerning Sócrates or the political philosophy of his time, given the acknowledged limitations. Consequently, while the abstract establishes a rich and pertinent historical context and articulates a significant scholarly hurdle, it does not sufficiently function as a summary of a paper's unique contribution. For publication, the abstract would benefit greatly from a clearer articulation of the article's specific thesis, the methodology employed to approach the textual gaps, or the particular re-evaluation or argument it puts forth regarding Sócrates or the political philosophy of the era. As presented, it raises crucial questions about historical understanding but does not yet signal how the accompanying paper intends to answer them, leaving the specific scope and findings of the research undefined.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.