L'article s'attaque aux racines mêmes du « mystère platonicien » en partant du constat de son caractère proprement « inexplicable »: qu'un auteur, dont on possède l'ensemble de l'œuvre écrite autorise des lectures, non seulement diverses, ce qui est légitime, mais également contradictoires, n'a aucun sens. L'article indique brièvement les éléments qui expliquent cette situation paradoxale et met en valeur les contributions de l'École de Tübingen (Krämer, Gaiser), qui insistent sur les « auto-témoignages » de Platon et sur la tradition (...) indirecte en vue d'une compréhension tout à fait nouvelle de Platon. L'auteur tente ensuite de dissiper quelques-unes des équivoques les plus graves qui grèvent le débat qu'elles ont suscité. L'article expose les analyses de Reale, qui éclairent d'un jour nouveau la valeur paradigmatique de cette nouvelle position, et l'apport de Szlezák, qui produit l'analyse des techniques d'écriture employées par Platon. Les commentaires de Movia et de Migliori prouvent finalement la puissance herméneutique du « nouveau paradigme » et apportent une série d'approfondissements explicatifs, surtout au sujet de la dialectique. The article tackles the roots of the « Plato mystery », beginning with its « inexplicable » existence. It is a nonsensical that an author, whose written corpus we possess, is not only open to different valid interpretations, but even to contradictory ones. After pointing out the elements behind this paradoxical situation, the contributions of the Tübingen school (Krämer, Gaiser) that enhance Plato's own testimony and the indirect tradition in respect of a renewed Platonic comprehension, are underlined. The author then attempts to eliminate some of the major misunderstandings which blocked the previous debate. The article exposes Reale's analysis, who clarifies the paradigmatic value of the new proposal, and the Szlezák's contribution, who threats the analysis of the writing techniques of Plato. Finally Movia's and Migliori's commentaries verify the hermeneutical capabilities of the « new paradigma » and bring a set of thorough examination of the dialectic mainly. (shrink)

Vários estudiosos dedicados ao pensamento de Platão defendem atese segundo a qual o texto do ateniense é incongruente,contraditório e até mesmo “irremediavelmente estranho. Nesteartigo, tentamos demonstrar em que medida a crítica ao texto dePlatão deve recair não sobre o seu gênio literário ou seu talentofilosófico extraordinários – hipótese obviamente absurda –, mas,isso sim, sobre a qualidade do intérprete e do método usado paraestudar o pensamento do filósofo. Aqui, entre outras coisas,analisamos, com base em trechos emblemáticos dos própriosdiálogos, o conceito platônico (...) de “escrito-jogo, verdadeiramentefundamental para a compreensão das aparentes desarmonias dotexto platônico. (shrink)

This essay is based on two premises. The first concerns the vision of writing proposed by Plato in _Phaedrus_ and especially the conception of philosophical writing as a maieutic game. The structurally polyvalent way in which Plato approaches philosophical issues also emerges in the dialogues. The second concerns the birth and the development of historical analysis in parallel with the birth of philosophy. On this basis the text investigates a series of data about the relationship between Plato and "the facts". (...) 1) If we compare the _Apology of Socrates_ with other sources, we discover a series of important “games” that Plato performs to achieve the results he proposes. 2) The famous passage of _Phaedo_ 96A-102A, which concludes with the Ideas and with a reference to the Principles, expresses definite judgments on the Presocratics. 3) In his works Plato attributes to the sophists some merits, even if the outcome of their contri-bution is overall negative. 4) However, in the fourth complicated diairesis of the _Sophist_, there is a "sophist of noble stock", an educator who can only be Socrates. 5) Plato in the _Sophist_ shows the weakness of the _Gigantomachy_, and proposes an adequate definition of the beings: the power of undergoing or acting. This reveals, before the _Philebus_ and the _Timaeus_, the dynamic and dialectical nature of his philosophy In summary, a multifocal vision emerges, adapted to an intrinsically complex reality. (shrink)