O conflito entre razão e paixão em Medeia sob a perspectiva da teoria aristotélica das paixões

Abstract

The present work intends to interpret the conflict between logos and pathos, in the protagonist Medea of the homonymous work, from the Aristotelian theory of passions. In the Rhetoric of the Passions, which is part of Aristotle's Rhetoric, anger is defined as the desire for revenge that involves sadness and con-tempt for a particular person. For Aristotle, the choleric thinks it's nice to think that you can get what you want, so he hopes that revenge will work, because he craves something possible. If we take Euripides' character Medea for a moment, we will see that this definition fits: Jason feels contempt for Medea and she relentlessly desires revenge on him, so much so that she finds a plausible, albeit extreme and un-justifiable solution – that of killing her own children – in order to satisfy the emotion felt, cholera, which is in no way irrational, or inhuman the, as long presumed among scholars. Therefore, we try to define first by which definition and theoretical current we will be guided by analyzing emotion, so that we can finally point out that we will not follow the interpretation of the conflict between pathos and logos, where these two elements are explained in opposition, as if they were two opposing and disconnected poles, in which emotion is considered an irrational part, source of unbridled and unconscious desires, and reason the conscious and controlling part of passions. An explanation already widely used for the conflict pre-sent in Medea, starting from the reading of Aristotelian ethics, and the phenomenon of acrasia, is that the soul of the character, when it clashes with him, would expose the appetizing part, of the irrational element, on the one hand, and the rational part, on the other. This aspect, we emphasize, will not be analyzed in our research. In fact, when we try to answer the question that worries us, as much as it leads us to focus on the most specific human capacity, that is, what distinguishes us from other ani-mals: rational activity, which allows the individual to reflect on his wills and desires before acting well in society, we in no way stress, or guide us by any author who places emotions as sources of irrationality, because, after all, they can be intelligent beacons that something needs to be changed in behavior, both of the one who feels the affection, and in the one who may have motivated the emergence of the af-fection. Based on this understanding, emotional responses will be had, which will depend on the per-sonality and character of the individual. In the case of Medea, before the event of philicide, his charac-ter can already be considered dubious, or at least prone to commit atrocities for the sake of his well-being: the killing of his own family members, which is counted other poetic material, other than that of the tragedigrapher. Thus, far from imputing an anachronic view to Euripides' work, we will offer, in this work, a reading that has its primary view in the Rhetoric of Aristotle's passions, given that for his study of emotions, the philosopher rescues elements of the tragic: human vulnerability in the face of fortune. Likewise, we will work with Ethics to Nicomachus in order to show, based on Nussbaum mainly, that the way of living based on rationality and balance of emotions, can be the output given by Aristotle to subtract or minimize the power of fortune in the life of the human being.