No description available.

Nicolau Maquiavel foi um grande observador das ações políticas dos homens de seu tempo. Tanto quanto Secretário da República Florentina e, posteriormente em seu exílio, como um analista atento ao que ocorria na Europa pôde formular teses sobre o agir político e o comportamento do corpo social das comunidades políticas. De seus estudos emergiram ideias que possibilitaram o desdobramento do pensamento político precedente, mas o pensamento de Maquiavel promoveu inovações que marcariam a passagem do pensamento medieval para o moderno. Exemplo disso é a Teoria dos humores objeto deste estudo que defende a ocorrência de tumultos como um mal necessário para a conquista da liberdade. O instrumento necessário para que isso ocorra é a existência de boas leis, que regulem os conflitos sociais para que esses não desviem dos interesses coletivos. É na obra Discursos sobre a primeira década de Tito Lívio, especialmente no Livro I, que Nicolau Maquiavel analisou a temática dos Humores; sendo assim nosso estudo se deterá com mais atenção a essa obra. / Niccolò Machiavelli was a keen observer of the political actions of this time. As far as secretary of the Florentine Republic and later in exile, an attentive watcher to the situation in Europe was able to formulate theories on the political behavior and the social organization of political communities. Ideas emerged from his studies that enabled the deployment of the former political thought, but the Machiavellis thoughts promoted innovations that mark the passage from medieval to modern thought. An example of it is the Humor Theory object of this study which defends the occurrence of disorder as a necessary evil for the liberty conquest. The required instrument for this is the existence of good laws, which regulate social conflicts so that they do not deviate from the collective interests. It is in the book Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Lívio by Tito Lívio, especially in Book I, Niccolò Machiavelli analysed the template of humors; so our will be engaged more thoughfully to this work.

Nicolau Maquiavel foi um grande observador das ações políticas dos homens de seu tempo. Tanto quanto Secretário da República Florentina e, posteriormente em seu exílio, como um analista atento ao que ocorria na Europa pôde formular teses sobre o agir político e o comportamento do corpo social das comunidades políticas. De seus estudos emergiram ideias que possibilitaram o desdobramento do pensamento político precedente, mas o pensamento de Maquiavel promoveu inovações que marcariam a passagem do pensamento medieval para o moderno. Exemplo disso é a Teoria dos humores objeto deste estudo que defende a ocorrência de tumultos como um mal necessário para a conquista da liberdade. O instrumento necessário para que isso ocorra é a existência de boas leis, que regulem os conflitos sociais para que esses não desviem dos interesses coletivos. É na obra Discursos sobre a primeira década de Tito Lívio, especialmente no Livro I, que Nicolau Maquiavel analisou a temática dos Humores; sendo assim nosso estudo se deterá com mais atenção a essa obra. / Niccolò Machiavelli was a keen observer of the political actions of this time. As far as secretary of the Florentine Republic and later in exile, an attentive watcher to the situation in Europe was able to formulate theories on the political behavior and the social organization of political communities. Ideas emerged from his studies that enabled the deployment of the former political thought, but the Machiavellis thoughts promoted innovations that mark the passage from medieval to modern thought. An example of it is the Humor Theory object of this study which defends the occurrence of disorder as a necessary evil for the liberty conquest. The required instrument for this is the existence of good laws, which regulate social conflicts so that they do not deviate from the collective interests. It is in the book Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Lívio by Tito Lívio, especially in Book I, Niccolò Machiavelli analysed the template of humors; so our will be engaged more thoughfully to this work.

Ce mémoire entend mettre en lumière la solution au problème du mal développée par Philippe le Chancelier dans la Summa de bono (1225-1228). À cet effet, notre analyse se polarise sur la notion du mal qui occupe à la fois le système des transcendantaux et la division du bien créé découlant du principe du souverain bien. La somme est bâtie d’après la primauté de la notion du bien transcendantal, et fut rédigée par opposition avec la doctrine manichéenne des Cathares, en vogue au XIIIe siècle, qui s’appuyait sur la prééminence de deux principes métaphysiques causant le bien et le mal, d’où devaient procéder toutes les choses de la Création. Ceci explique que nous ayons privilégié de seulement examiner les notions du bien et du mal en un sens général, car c’est au stade universel de l’ontologie du bien que l’auteur défait la possibilité du mal de nature, en amont des ramifications du bien créé, déployées, à l’envi, dans les questions de la somme où les réponses sont assignées à des problèmes spécifiques. Nous offrons ici, pour la première fois, une traduction en français d’une série de questions ayant permis de mener à bien ce projet. / This master’s thesis intends to clarify Philip the Chancellor’s answer to the problem of evil in the Summa de bono (1225-1228). To this end, we focus on the concept of evil as located within the transcendental system and the division of created good resulting from the supreme good. This sum, which is conceived from the primacy of the transcendental notion of good, was drafted in opposition to the Manichean doctrine of Cathars, a belief popular in the thirteenth century, which states that two metaphysical principles cause good and evil and it is from these principles that all things are created by nature. For this reason, we decided to study the concepts of good and evil only in a general sense, because the author dismantles the possibility of natural evil at the universal level of the ontology of the good and, prior to the deployment of the created good, it is through the sum’s questions that specific problems can be resolved. Here, we offer for the first time a French translation of several questions useful to this project.

Ce mémoire entend mettre en lumière la solution au problème du mal développée par Philippe le Chancelier dans la Summa de bono (1225-1228). À cet effet, notre analyse se polarise sur la notion du mal qui occupe à la fois le système des transcendantaux et la division du bien créé découlant du principe du souverain bien. La somme est bâtie d’après la primauté de la notion du bien transcendantal, et fut rédigée par opposition avec la doctrine manichéenne des Cathares, en vogue au XIIIe siècle, qui s’appuyait sur la prééminence de deux principes métaphysiques causant le bien et le mal, d’où devaient procéder toutes les choses de la Création. Ceci explique que nous ayons privilégié de seulement examiner les notions du bien et du mal en un sens général, car c’est au stade universel de l’ontologie du bien que l’auteur défait la possibilité du mal de nature, en amont des ramifications du bien créé, déployées, à l’envi, dans les questions de la somme où les réponses sont assignées à des problèmes spécifiques. Nous offrons ici, pour la première fois, une traduction en français d’une série de questions ayant permis de mener à bien ce projet. / This master’s thesis intends to clarify Philip the Chancellor’s answer to the problem of evil in the Summa de bono (1225-1228). To this end, we focus on the concept of evil as located within the transcendental system and the division of created good resulting from the supreme good. This sum, which is conceived from the primacy of the transcendental notion of good, was drafted in opposition to the Manichean doctrine of Cathars, a belief popular in the thirteenth century, which states that two metaphysical principles cause good and evil and it is from these principles that all things are created by nature. For this reason, we decided to study the concepts of good and evil only in a general sense, because the author dismantles the possibility of natural evil at the universal level of the ontology of the good and, prior to the deployment of the created good, it is through the sum’s questions that specific problems can be resolved. Here, we offer for the first time a French translation of several questions useful to this project.