Submitted by Automa??o e Estat?stica (sst@bczm.ufrn.br) on 2017-04-03T21:33:41Z No. of bitstreams: 1 RobertoSolinoDeSouza_DISSERT.pdf: 463652 bytes, checksum: 4bfb3031965a398a25930a0fc1ccf9f5 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Arlan Eloi Leite Silva (eloihistoriador@yahoo.com.br) on 2017-04-10T19:24:31Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 RobertoSolinoDeSouza_DISSERT.pdf: 463652 bytes, checksum: 4bfb3031965a398a25930a0fc1ccf9f5 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-04-10T19:24:31Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 RobertoSolinoDeSouza_DISSERT.pdf: 463652 bytes, checksum: 4bfb3031965a398a25930a0fc1ccf9f5 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-12-12 / Este trabalho examina a possibilidade de que S?crates esteja atacando um homem de palha no Teeteto, 152a, quando explica o dito de Prot?goras de que ?o homem ? a medida de todas as coisas? como sendo express?o de um relativismo vulgar que iguala o conhecimento ? mera percep??o. Parte da sugest?o de Leo Strauss de que os grandes escritores do passado fizeram uso de uma t?cnica peculiar, que ele denomina metaforicamente de ?escrita entre linhas?, visando defender suas ideias heterodoxas da persegui??o pol?tica, enquanto expressam abertamente ideias conformadas ?s opini?es amplamente aceitas na sociedade. Busca demonstrar que a sugest?o de Strauss ? v?lida e que na maior parte da hist?ria da filosofia a escrita entre linhas foi aceita amplamente e s? recentemente esquecida. Busca clarificar a sugest?o de Strauss e extrair regras m?nimas que possam orientar uma leitura do trecho citado do Teeteto. Considera ao final que uma leitura entre linhas do citado trecho pode indicar que a hip?tese examinada est? correta e sugere a chamada ?digress?o? (172c?177c) como ponto de partida para uma interpreta??o straussiana do di?logo como um todo. / This work examines the possibility that Socrates is attacking a straw man in the Theaetetus, 152a, when he explains Protagoras's dictum that ?man is the measure of all things? as embracing a vulgar form of relativism which takes knowledge as being merely perception. It begins with Leo Strauss?s suggestion that the great writers of the past made use of a peculiar technique, that he names metaphorically as ?writing between the lines,? aiming to protect their heterodox views from political persecution while expressing openly other views that conform to generally accepted opinion. It seeks to demonstrate that Strauss?s suggestion is a valid one and that writing between the lines was recognized throughout most Philosophy?s history and only recently forgotten. It also seeks to clarify Strauss?s suggestion and identify a minimal set of rules to guide the reading of that Theaetetus?s passage. In the end, it considers that reading between the lines of the said passage can point to the conclusion that the examined hypothesis is correct and suggests the so called ?Digression? (172c? 177c) as a starting point from where to begin a Straussian interpretation of the dialog as a whole.