A inocência infantil como potência do falso: platôs entre as fábulas de Platão e a criança de Nietzsche-Deleuze

• Autor(a) principal: Nascimento, Aldo Antônio Tavares do
• Data de Publicação: 2022
• Outros Autores: [e-mail]
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da UERJ
• Texto Completo: http://www.bdtd.uerj.br/handle/1/18802
• topic: In-between; Cave; Child; Guardian; Priest; In-between combat; Entre; Caverna; Criança; Guardião; Sacerdote; Combate-entre; CIENCIAS HUMANAS::FILOSOFIA::METAFISICA

This dissertation aims to show that, far from philosophical distance, between Plato and Nietzsche, there is a composition of signs (for the latter) or concepts (for the former) to enable the understanding of this concept common to both philosophers, that is, that of in-between. Thus, we see that, without understanding this sign or concept, the relation between Plato and Nietzsche is obstructed and, when we state that there are threads weaving these two philosophers, we assert a seam between The Republic and Thus Spoke Zarathustra through the cave-child and the priest-guardian. After thinking of the noble in-between in The Republic and The Prince and the false in-between in The Sophist and Hamlet, this Dissertation focuses on the child as the third element in The Republic and as the third metamorphosis in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, always admitting the relationship of power between the young age and politics insofar as the child is the power of the false. Within the allegory of the cave, this Research concentrated on what is the false, where children, with their immobile bodies, look fixedly at shadows projected on the wall, which allowed us to weave on the aesthetic act of playing. This Dissertation argues that the reversal of Platonism – in fact, already performed by Plato himself and expanded by Nietzsche – occurs in the pages of Thus Spoke Zarathustra, where the third Nietzschean metamorphosis reverses the third Platonic element. For this purpose, we interpret the First and Second Parts of this literary-philosophical work in order to show the contrast between the sad-reactive power of the donkey and the priest and the joyful-active power of the child, showing that both powers carry out not the combat against – the combat that belongs to the second metamorphosis, that of the lion –, but the in-between combat (combat-entre), a concept Gilles Deleuze showed in Critical, Clinical. Considering that the concept of in-between is present in this entire master’s Dissertation, the question is what in-between is capable of. The work ends with Deleuze since the French philosopher expands this concept as heir to the Plato-Nietzsche composition.