Er?stica: uma arte do falar e argumentar em Plat?o e Arist?teles

• Ano de defesa: 2019
• Autor(a) principal: Couto, Daiana Carolina da Silva Fernandes
• Orientador(a): Costa, Admar Almeida da
• Banca de defesa: Costa, Admar Almeida da, Haddad, Alice Bitencourt, Maciel, Marcelo da Costa, Menezes Neto, Nelson de Aguiar
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro
• Programa de Pós-Graduação: Programa de P?s-Gradua??o em Filosofia
• Departamento: Instituto de Ci?ncias Humanas e Sociais
• País: Brasil
• Palavras-chave em Português: Er?stica; Plat?o; Arist?teles; Arte de falar; Apar?ncia; Plausibilidade
• Palavras-chave em Inglês: Eristic; Art of Speaking; Appearence; Plausibility
• Área do conhecimento CNPq: Filosofia
• Link de acesso: https://tede.ufrrj.br/jspui/handle/jspui/5537

An art, the art of speaking and arguing, named eristic, from two ancient greek philosophers, Plato and Aristotle was the study object developed in the present dissertation. The eristic can be understood as an art of speaking, through a verbal dispute, which involves the practice of convincing, even if this practice is only in an apparent mode, through plausible arguments and not necessarily true ones. For such investigation, a selection of works of these philosophers was done, in which the eristic is approached. For Plato, the selected dialogues were Euthydemus, Meno and Sophist. The Euthydemus dialogue was selected because it straightly addresses the eristic, through the discussion between the brothers Euthydemus and Dionisodorus with the interlocutors Socrates, Clinias and Ctesipo, where the brothers make a demonstration of this art of speaking and arguing, showing the eristic in practice. The Meno dialogue was chosen because it exhibits the eristic as holder of numbing powers, such powers able to involve every person in a discussion, driving her to a state of aporia, besides presenting the eristic paradox, through the discussion between Socrates and Menon, and a slight participation of Menon?s slave. Finally, the Sophist dialogue was adopted because it is possible to observe the singularities of the philosopher, of the sophist and the eristic, outlining the role of each of them, especially in the discussion between Teeteto and the Stranger from Elea. For Aristotle, the treaty named Sophistic Refutation or Sophistic Elenchos was chosen, because in this treaty Aristotle systematized the eristic, confirming its definition realized in the Topics, as well as describing the way of participating of na eristic dispute, besides describing how the interlocutors have to make their questions and offer the answers in na eristic way, especially through the goal and utility of the eristic. Therefore, it is possible to highlight the influence of Plato in the thought of his disciple Aristotle, and the educational feature that the eristic has, especially for the people who wanted to speak in public, as in assemblies and courts. It is in this context of the education that the eristic presents itself as a positive and strong point. An eristically educated person becomes skilled in formulating plausible arguments and with a high value of convincing, thus, consequently the person becomes skilled in debating on every subject with every person, always achieving success in the debate or at least na apparent success.