Submitted by Filipe dos Santos (fsantos@pucsp.br) on 2016-11-01T11:27:10Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Bruno Loureiro Conte.pdf: 944920 bytes, checksum: b6e263ad63d757cb036b9fc2e713d92a (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-11-01T11:27:10Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Bruno Loureiro Conte.pdf: 944920 bytes, checksum: b6e263ad63d757cb036b9fc2e713d92a (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-09-16 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico / The aim of this investigation is to establish the place of the so-called Doxa section in Parmenides’ Poem, both in terms of its textual reconstruction and of its theoretical value. The task is justified, in the one hand, by the acknowledgement that the modern picture of the Poem, with its division into two main Parts, Alêtheia (Truth) and Doxa (Opinion), is not in complete agreement with our sources. In this perspective, the dichotomical principle adopted by modern editors of the fragments of Parmenides is in lack of proper scrutinity. We begin thereby with a careful review of the sources, with the objective of determining the precise thematic content referred to in the tradition by the expression ta pros doxan. Particular attention is dedicated to the testimonies of Simplicius and Aristotle. In the other hand, the dominant view in the scholarly litterature, with its tendency to undermine the value of “opinions” in Parmenides’ thought, faces the problem of explaining why a Cosmogony is present in the so-understood Second Part of the Poem. Drawing from our investigation of the sources, we propose a deflationary hypothesis about the Doxa, which is to be regarded as comprehending verses B8.51-61 and B9.1-4 (according to Diels-Kranz numbering of the fragments). As a result, it is shown that this section is to be inserted, together with the Cosmogony properly speaking, into the larger context of a Diakosmêsis, and an interpretative hypothesis is elaborated trying to understand its positive theoretical value, in terms of what has been seen in the tradition as the postulation of cosmological principles (arkhai), corresponding in the Poem to a “cosmical arrangement” (diakosmos) of opposites. According to this hypothesis, however, the Doxa is to be interpreted not only as a physical theory, but also as implying epistemologicalcritical aspects, as well as in the grounding of Parmenides’ philosophy of language, thus revealing its rôle in the global argument of the Poem / O objetivo desta investigação é determinar o lugar da assim chamada seção da Doxa no Poema de Parmênides, tanto do ponto de vista de sua reconstituição textual quanto de seu estatuto teórico. O trabalho se justifica, de um lado, a partir da constatação de que a representação moderna do Poema, dividindo-o em duas Partes principais, Alêtheia (Verdade) e Doxa (Opinião), não concorda com alguns aspectos noticiados pela doxografia. Desse ponto de vista, coloca-se em questão o princípio dicotômico adotado pelos editores modernos no estabelecimento do texto parmenídeo que nos chega fragmentariamente. Trata-se assim, em um primeiro momento, de investigar com cuidado as fontes, procurando a partir delas determinar o conteúdo temático preciso que a tradição identificou através da expressão ta pros doxan. Particular atenção é dedicada aos testemunhos de Simplício e de Aristóteles. De outro lado, a visão predominante na literatura interpretativa, que tende a simplesmente desvalorizar as “opiniões” para o pensamento de Parmênides, depara-se com o problema de explicar a razão da presença de uma Cosmogonia na assim entendida Segunda Parte do Poema. Apresentamos, a partir da investigação das fontes, a hipótese de uma versão deflacionista da Doxa, composta pelos versos B8,51-61 e B9,1-4 (numeração da edição Diels-Kranz). A partir daí, mostramos a sua inserção, em conjunto com a Cosmogonia propriamente dita, no contexto mais amplo de uma Diakosmêsis, e desenvolvemos uma hipótese interpretativa que procura mostrar o seu estatuto teorético positivo, o que a tradição viu como a postulação de princípios cosmológicos (arkhai), e que identifica-se no poema a um “arranjo cósmico” (diakosmos) dos contrários. De acordo a essa hipótese, no entanto, a Doxa pode ser interpretada não apenas como uma teoria física, mas também segundo aspectos de suas implicações crítico-epistemológicas e para os fundamentos de uma filosofia da linguagem parmenídea, o que revela o seu papel no conjunto do argumento do Poema

Notre thèse consiste en une édition et traduction des témoignages sur le philosophe présocratique Mélissos de Samos dans l’Antiquité, et un commentaire qui se concentre sur l’histoire de l’interprétation de ce penseur. Notre objectif est de montrer comment Mélissos a été compris par les auteurs anciens en fonction de leur perspective et des connaissances dont ils disposaient, et de présenter les grandes orientations de cette lecture à travers l’Antiquité. Une telle étude est particulièrement intéressante pour Mélissos étant donné qu’il est l’objet d’une doxographie certes riche mais qui peut être analysée dans son intégralité. De plus, elle nous offre un éclairage sur la place de l’éléatisme dans l’histoire de la pensée. Nous avons proposé pour chaque témoin une analyse de leur interprétation de Mélissos, mais nous sommes concentréssur trois grandes lectures : celle d’Aristote, de Pseudo-Aristote dans le MXG et la réinterprétation néoplatonicienne par Philopon et Simplicius. Notre édition présente la quasi-intégralité des textes anciens qui mentionnent Mélissos, et est accompagnée d’un apparat critique sélectif composé à partir des éditions déjà existantes, mais modifié en fonction de nos propres choix éditoriaux. Elle est accompagnée d’une traduction annotée en français. / My dissertation contains an edition and translation of the testimonies on the Presocratic philosopher Melissus of Samos in Antiquity, and a commentary focusing on the history of the way in which he has been interpreted. My aim is to show how he has been understood by ancient writers according to their own agenda and to the knowledge available to them, and to present the main lines of the reception of Melissus throughout Antiquity. A study of this kind is of particular interest in the case of Melissus since he offers a rich material that can be nonetheless analysed in its entirety. Moreover, it provides us with some insights on the place occupied by Eleatism in the intellectual history. For each witness I gave an analysis of theirinterpretation of Melissus, but I concentrated on four main authors: Aristotle, the MXG’s Pseudo-Aristotle and the Neoplatonists Philoponus and Simplicius. My edition includes almost every ancient text that mentions Melissus with a selective critical apparatus, based on the already existing editions, but modified in accordance with my own editorial choices. The edition is accompanied by a French translation with notes.