RESUMO Esboça-se neste artigo uma possível via de interpretação ao problema ético-estético, ou ainda ético-poiêtico da criação de si, a partir de uma reavaliação da noção de hipocrisia, enquanto arte do engano e arte do ator, reaproximando-a da hypókrisis [ὑπόκρισις] grega. Para tanto, procura-se estabelecer um diálogo, ou mesmo um contraponto, com aqueles pensadores que, nas preleções de Foucault, conformaram na antiguidade clássica e helenística os elementos para se pensar, por meio do discurso parrêsiástico e da prática da áskêsis, a (...) criação de si enquanto estética da existência. O lastro para essa compreensão vem de uma reavaliação das formas de inteligência estocástica e astuciosa que comandam a lida com a inconstância, a multiplicidade e os acasos - formas às quais os gregos atribuíram o nome da deusa Mêtis [Μήτις]. Mais afeitas a estas inconstâncias, práticas tais como: a simulação, a dissimulação e a ênfase - próprias da arte do engano - ganham sob essa ótica uma feição de virtuosidade que o pensamento filosófico hegemônico, afeito à retidão e ao enfrentamento heroico diante do real, dificilmente se disporia a reconhecer. ABSTRACT This paper outlines a possible way of interpreting the ethical-aesthetic or ethical-poiêthical problem of the creation of self, from a re-evaluation of the concept of hypocrisy, while art of deception and the art of the actor, reconnecting it with the greek hypókrisis [ὑπόκρισις]. For it aims to establish a dialogue, or even a counterpoint, with those thinkers who, in Foucault's lectures, conformed in classical and Hellenistic antiquity elements to think, through the parhêsiástic discourse and the practice of áskêsis, the creation of self while an aesthetics of existence. The ballast for this understanding comes from a re-evaluation of forms of stochastic and astute intelligence who command the dealings with the fickleness, the multiplicity and the accidents - which forms the Greeks attributed the name of the goddess Mêtis [Μήτις]. More related to these uncertainties, practices such as: the simulation, dissimulation and the emphasis - related to some art of deception - win under this optics a feature of virtuosity that the hegemonic philosophical thought, wont to the righteousness and the heroic confrontation facing the real, would hardly accept. (shrink)

In this article, we discuss the question about how the practices of deceiving become a matter of discussion on moral philosophy and how they could be thought beyond the sieve of this conviction. As we intend to defend, an answer to this question should refer to the Greek thought, particularly, the Platonic thought in dialogues: Hippias minor and The republic, taking as horizon the problem of the disambiguation of Alêtheia, and the exclusion, by philosophical thought, of the forms of clever (...) and astute intelligence that the Greeks named in honor to the goddess Mêntis. On the other hand, should also imply a distinction of perspectives inherent to what we call by deceiving, which put on opposite sides of the deceiver and the deceived, according to the acknowledgement, or not, of the deceiving. Under this bias, we argue that, for the Greeks, the problem wouldn't be mainly the mistake itself – although platonic thought points that – but being deceived, and mainly, self-deceived. (shrink)

Since a reading of young Nietzsche’s criticism of the desire of knowledge that guides modernity – particularly regarding to the distinctions he operated between: a) two postures facing reality: the theoretical optimism and the tragic pessimism ; and b) two types of man: the theoretical and the artist ones; and c) two kinds of philosophy and philosophers: the one of the desperate knowledge and the other, of the tragic knowledge – we aim to defend, as an access-key to nietzschean’s thought (...) from the period of The Birth of Tragedy , the presence of a larger, gnosiological distinction between two forms of access to real: via knowledge [ Erkenntni ? ] and via understanding [ Verständnis ] – ???????? [ epistéme ] and ?????? [ gnôsis ] –, leading respectively to the targets of science and wisdom. (shrink)

This article aims to investigate the assumptions that lead to a conviction by moral philosophy of the various practices of deceit commonly involved under the name of hypocrisy. The argument is developed around three questions: first, on the assumptions under which the various practices and strategies of deceit – such as: simulation, dissimulation and irony – become a problem to moral philosophy. Secondly, in order to understand how the hypocrisy, originally assigned to the art of the actor, comes to be (...) part of the moral sphere designating, as art of deception, the set of those morally reprehensible strategies. Finally, how could be set a way opposed to this conviction. As I argue, that would happen with a double presumption: a distinction of perspectives between deceiving and being deceived– with their respective modes of evaluation – and through a re-evaluation of thought forms linked to astute intelligence that the Greeks called metis. Under these assumptions, hypocrisy could be linked to the ethical-poietical agenda of the creation of self. (shrink)

This article deals with Nietzsche’s ethical problem of the constitution of an exceptional character, under two fronts: first, under a negative bias, as opposed to the morality of the herd. Later, on its constructive or affirmative time, properly as creation of self . The leitmotif of this double presentation is the defense of aspects from what we associate with the concept of hypocrisy as a key to an interpretation of that constitution. First, as an art of dissimulation, in the form (...) of an individual's refuge amidst the morality of the herd. Later, as the actor's art, in the practices which Nietzsche associates to the self-constitution. (shrink)