<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="static/CINECAstyle.xsl"?><OAI-PMH xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd"><responseDate>2026-09-22T09:08:05Z</responseDate><request verb="GetRecord" identifier="oai:iris.unica.it:11584/266374" metadataPrefix="oai_dc">https://iris.unica.it/oai/request</request><GetRecord><record><header><identifier>oai:iris.unica.it:11584/266374</identifier><datestamp>2022-10-20T09:34:10Z</datestamp><setSpec>com_11584_207615</setSpec><setSpec>com_11584_111066</setSpec><setSpec>col_11584_265854</setSpec></header><metadata><oai_dc:dc xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:doc="http://www.lyncode.com/xoai" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
<dc:title>Karl R. Popper lettore dei presocratici</dc:title>
<dc:creator>D'URSO, EMANUELE</dc:creator>
<dc:subject>Anassimandro</dc:subject>
<dc:subject>Anaximander</dc:subject>
<dc:subject>Democrito</dc:subject>
<dc:subject>Democritus</dc:subject>
<dc:subject>Eraclito</dc:subject>
<dc:subject>Heraclitus</dc:subject>
<dc:subject>Karl R. Popper</dc:subject>
<dc:subject>Parmenide</dc:subject>
<dc:subject>Parmenides</dc:subject>
<dc:subject>Senofane</dc:subject>
<dc:subject>Xenophanes</dc:subject>
<dc:subject>pre-socratics</dc:subject>
<dc:subject>presocratici</dc:subject>
<dc:subject>presocratics</dc:subject>
<dc:subject>Settore M-FIL/06 - Storia della Filosofia</dc:subject>
<dc:description>Can we evaluate Popper's attention to Presocratics in a broader and varied interpretative framework than that&#xd;
claimed so far by the critics? This work provides arguments to support a general reconsideration of this&#xd;
research question, mainly through a study of the sources used by Popper in reading the Presocratics&#xd;
philosophers, which prior literature has never addressed.&#xd;
Introduction summarizes, in 3 sections, the critical historiography on this subject. Comments are negative&#xd;
and focus on the notion of an instrumental projection of the falsificationism on the ancient philosophy and&#xd;
also on the paradoxical fall into the historicism by an avowedly anti-historicist philosopher. The only&#xd;
significant exception is the strong affinity of Giovanni Cerri with Popper, which however does not prevent&#xd;
points of divergence.&#xd;
We chose to devote Chapter I to the use of the sources in the reconstruction of Parmenides' thought,&#xd;
identifying six recurring topics: 1. Parmenides' Goddess; 2. Elea's Moon; 3. The elenchos and the apparent&#xd;
anachronism; 4. The fragment B 16; 5. Eleatic verisimilitude; 6. Theme of blindness and the language issue.&#xd;
Chapter II describes in five sections the use of the sources in the reading of the other Presocratics, with&#xd;
particular attention to rediscovery of Xenophanes (section 2), to the change in Heraclitus (section 3), as well&#xd;
as to the relationship between Parmenides, Xenophanes and Heraclitus (section 1). The two final sections are&#xd;
dedicated to reconstruction of Anaximander (section 4) and Democritus (section 5).&#xd;
Chapter III focuses on the presence of Presocratics' philosophy in the articulation of Popper's reflection,&#xd;
with the aim of searching for some implications of interpretive perspectives that Popper proposed within his&#xd;
own philosophy.&#xd;
The essay of 1965 Beyond the search for invariants (section 1) is not mentioned in the set of critical&#xd;
historiography addressing Popper's approach to Presocratics. However this essay is the only Popperian&#xd;
example of discussion of contemporary epistemological questions from the ancient age through a projection&#xd;
of Parmenides in the modern physic (section 1.2). The text is marked by a line oriented from the past to the&#xd;
present: this perspective can be framed as a counterexample compared to leitmotiv of the critics, which see in&#xd;
the Popper's attention for the ancients a mere projection of his falsificationism on the past to find full&#xd;
legitimacy. Section 1.1 reconstructs the use of different sources cited in this essay by comparing them with&#xd;
those referred to by Popper in his contributions of subsequent years, and shows the importance of Giorgio de&#xd;
Santillana in the cosmological popperian reading of the second part of the Pamenides' poem as well as in the&#xd;
hypothesis of Xenophanes' presence in Parmenides' cosmology.&#xd;
In section 2 we chose to show only a few examples, from the initial to the last Popper, to prove that the&#xd;
reference to Presocratics has remained for the author a constant of his philosophical proposal, whose threads&#xd;
are unravelled and intertwined in parallel with the pages dedicated, in an almost entirely private form, to the&#xd;
passionate philological and historiographical considerations discussed in this work.</dc:description>
<dc:date>2015-05-15</dc:date>
<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/doctoralThesis</dc:type>
<dc:identifier>http://hdl.handle.net/11584/266374</dc:identifier>
<dc:language>ita</dc:language>
<dc:relation>numberofpages:285</dc:relation>
<dc:rights>info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess</dc:rights>
<dc:publisher>Università degli Studi di Cagliari</dc:publisher>
<dc:rights>license:Non specificato</dc:rights>
</oai_dc:dc></metadata></record></GetRecord></OAI-PMH>