A Short Note on Metaphysics and its Relationship with the Arts

It has not been scientifically proven, in spite of René Descartes’1 (the foundational

father of Cartesianism and Rationalism) attempt of claiming otherwise in his Meditations

on First Philosophy – In Which the Existence of God and the Immortality of the Soul Are

Demonstrated, which presented the philosopher’s first impressions on metaphysics, as we

now demonstrate in the third chapter, «Meditation III: Concerning God, That He Exists»2.

So, to begin this essay out of curiosity and enrichment of study, Descartes divided his

ideas over the existence of God into three:

1) Adventitious;

2) Fictitious;

3) Innate.

Adventitious

The first kind is curiously related to the philosophical point of view he will reject in

the 17th century, when he lived most of his life, i.e. Empiricism3, fought for by Bishop

George Berkeley (1685–1753), David Hume [also known for scepticism (1711–1776)],

Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), John Locke [the most important contributor to the laying

1 1596-1650. 2 DESCARTES, René, 1979, Discurso do Método, trans. João Gama, intro. and notes Étienne Gilson,

Lisbon: Edições 70, pp. 31-32, 73-99. There are a total of six meditations, each of them prosily correspondent to six days meditating, origi-

nally published in Latin and then translated to French by the Duke of Luynes, supervised by Descartes. It is never too much to review our own work when translated into other languages, especially those we master.

3 ALVES, Maria de Fátima et al., 2008, Pensar Azul, Lisbon: Texto Editores. According to most Philosophy textbooks, Empiricism is the opposite perspective of Rationalism. To

make it easier to understand, it is all about nature and not necessarily reason (alone). Every species there are in planet Earth are considered to be an animal. However, humans are the only rational, hence the global domination and the separation from all the others, though we can obviously share our lives with some housebroken and even wild animals, depending on the quotidian, day-to-day lifestyles and world regions where people live. The empirical side of humans is thus related to their animal sphere. Nature «programs» living beings to react differently in several occasions, namely in regards to the food chain, when they serve either as predators or prey.

This is why many animals have the required abilities to catch and avoid getting caught. It is all impul-sive, without the capability of thinking at least twice.

out of Enlightenment (1632–1704)] and Jean-Jacques Rousseau [whose philosophical

views influenced the French Revolution and Romanticism4 in general (1712–1778)].

Fictitious

The second kind is related to imagination, the ability humans have to produce some-

thing which does not exist in their minds, then turning it into reality, i.e. the right cerebral

hemisphere, which is also responsible for the left side of our body, produces invented

aspects in one’s life, as well as memory storage, which enables people to remember at

least the shape of certain objects such as a chair or a table – no matter their formats, they

are always based on a, and pardon our redundancy, concrete concept, visually acquired

by the left cerebral hemisphere, held responsible by the right side of the body, as well as

many important functions such as communication – Broca’s area, related to the ability of

speech, is located in the left side of the human brain, though this may change on the count

of left-handedness. However, it is interesting that accentuation and intonation, being re-

lated to language and studied by the linguistic science of Prosody, are based in the right-

hand side of the brain, all of this because people can choose and thus imagine how they

wish to speak, an artistic characteristic that applies to just about everyone.

We will see in a short while how the philosopher responds to this as far as the exist-

ence of God is concerned.

Innate

Finally, regarding the third type, Descartes writes that God placed himself in us. This

is an innate (natural) idea because it is born with us. That is why the idea (antonym of

concept, we must stress) of God cannot be related to the others.

4 Ludwig van Beethoven (1770–1827), also an important figure in the course of Western society, specifically in music, naturally, marking the transition from Classicism to Romanticism, composed through the course of the French Revolution his 3rd Symphony. It was originally dedicated to Napoleon for all the efforts he was continuously doing for the liberation of France. When the French «hero» proclaimed himself Emperor of France and its satellite territories (including a great deal of the Austrian Empire, should he become victorious in the Battle of Aspern-Essling) in 1804, however, the Maestro tore the Symphony’s title-page in anger and rage, quite natural in his peculiar temperament. He named it later as Sinfonia Eroica, still in honour of Napoleon.

Immortal Beloved, directed by Bernard Rose, starring Gary Oldman as Beethoven and Jeroen Krabbé as his personal secretary, Anton Schindler, Columbia Pictures, 1994.

Now, when we hold on to a theory, just like us throughout these pages, we must

present actual facts that can indeed prove and defy common sense. That is why we recur

to scientific knowledge, which we study through epistemology. Let us take a look at Des-

cartes’ two arguments to prove the existence of the Almighty.

«Argument I

“Something cannot come from nothing.

1) The cause of an idea must have at least as much formal reality as the

idea has objective reality;

2) I have in me an idea of God. This idea has infinite objective reality;

3) I cannot be the cause of this idea, since I am not an infinite and perfect

being. I don't have enough formal reality. Only an infinite and perfect

being could cause such an idea;

4) So God — a being with infinite formal reality — must exist (and be the

source of my idea of God);

5) An absolutely perfect being is a good, benevolent being;

6) So God is benevolent...;

7) So God would not deceive me, and would not permit me to err without

giving me a way to correct my errors”.

Argument II

“[My existence and the causes to make it possible].

1) I exist;

2) My existence must have a cause;

3) The only possible ultimate causes are:

a) myself;

b) my always having existed;

c) my parents;

d) something less perfect than God;

e) God.

4) Not a. If I had created myself, I would have made myself perfect5;

5) Not b. This does not solve the problem. If I am a dependent being, I

need to be continually sustained by another6;

6) Not c. This leads to an infinite regress7;

7) Not d. The idea of perfection that exists in me cannot have originated

from a non-perfect being8;

8) Therefore, e. God exists”».

Descartes had a clear and distinct idea of God. So, in the same way that the cogito

was self-evident, so too was the existence of God.

However, if Descartes had had the chance of taking a look at our footnote counterar-

guments, we believe it would not be so easy for him to reply. This is no case of «Aunt

Sally»9, and António Damásio10, through his Descartes’ Error11, did not stand up to a

5 But do we know what perfection actually is? 6 This is not even the point, as there is no such thing as immortality for a living being to have been

born since Earth started to bear life billions of years ago (the Universe itself has not sprung since forever). 7 It may be so, but if it was not for our parents, would we exist either way? 8 But is God perfect? If He is, why did He not avoid the existence of the rebel angel, Satan, in the

shape of a serpent when it convinced Eve to eat the forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, thus producing the Original Sin and the expelling of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden? Why did they fall in the sin of Man? Why is there sin and corruption after all in the world created in six days that «He saw it was good»?

If God does not make mistakes, does not err, why did He feel the need of washing out Mankind in the Great Flood, rescuing Noah and his family alone? And though he did promise not to destroy the world again with water, Sodom and Gomorra were not spared, again on the count of the sin of Man.

This point of the story here is interesting, as it shows that in over two thousand years of a Church that has its origins in Judaism, both sharing the same God and Saviour/Prophet/Messiah, Jesus, it takes a man, allegedly imperfect, though he is representing God (Yahweh, in Hebrew) on earth, the Pope, to finally ponder upon marriage between people of the same sex.

And why is Abraham challenged to sacrifice Isaac? Why did God make a pact with Satan to drive Job mad? Why is there the need of Him testing Man’s faith and loyalty? If the people of Babel wanted to build a tower so they could be closer to God, why did He get jealous of their abilities, changed their languages and scattered them all over the world, which, by the way, shares neither a sole faith nor a sole deity?

Finally, why did he sacrifice his own son to a point where he asked «Father, why have you forsaken me?».

9 British expression meaning someone irrelevant in the scientific community is defying the name of the great.

10 Portuguese-American neuroscientist/neurobiologist, b. 1944. 11 Lisbon: Europa-América, 1995, awarded the Prémio Pessoa.

«straw man», he just told the truth. Reason cannot be separated from emotion, and the

legendary case of Phineas Gage demonstrates that well enough12.

In addition to this, there is a surprising fact about René Descartes many are not aware

of. He was said by close friends to be an atheist. We shall leave the reader to their own

conclusions.

Some people go even further and say there is no God at all, no heaven. It is all a story

written by allegedly wise men, the composers of the Bible.

José Saramago (1922–2010), the only Portuguese winner of the Nobel Prize for Lit-

erature (1998), is one of the most brilliant men of our time who clearly stated there really

is no such thing, though he did explore many of the biblical subjects in his oeuvres, com-

pletely modifying Christendom as we know it. Just to name a few titles, The Gospel Ac-

cording to Jesus Christ13, Death with Interruptions14 and Cain15. If this man lived in the

Middle Ages, especially from the reign of John III of Portugal beyond, he would have

been thrown in the fire16, just like his well-known character Baltasar, from Baltasar and

Blimunda17, the only novel studied in the Secondary Stage signed by him, which is some-

thing soon to be changed.

One of the biggest problems Philosophy faces today is divided into two different

possibilities, as we should expect right from the start. What is going on with intrinsic

values? Is there a crisis or a substitution of them? We can always take sides, prepare our

arguments for the debate and face the opposition. However, as we have already seen be-

fore plenty of times, we cannot claim our position is the only right, because there is no

such thing as absolute truth, no matter how paradoxical this statement may sound.

Debating is just that, it is about enriching, learning and sharing our knowledge with

what other parties have to say in order to keep seeking better lifetime quality for us to live

in community appropriately, notwithstanding we must have the right to private property,

especially when we work towards it, and not just nationalise everything and let either

Capitalism or Communism prevail alone.

That is how life works, it has to scale its components in order to obtain the required

balance. Extremism is fallacious, whichever the field (Politics [left or right-wing] is the

12 Vide note 11 for further reading. 13 Lisbon: Editorial Caminho, 1991. 14 Id., Ibd., 2005. 15 Id., Ibd., 2009. 16 José e Pilar, directed by Miguel Gonçalves Mendes, starring José Saramago and Pilar del Río as

themselves, JumpCut, O2, El Deseo, 2010. 17 Lisbon: Editorial Caminho, 1982.

most common to be associated to the vocable in hand and ever since recorded History we

know how civilisation has been destroying itself and is working its way towards failure,

for the thirst for power is the work of corruption once people enthrone it, even if before

they were humble and modest), but the Arts, also commonly left behind, have their say

in this too.

From the moment a convention is made, Art is not Art anymore. One thing is clear:

when we study aesthetics, we realise how much18 currents have travelled throughout thou-

sands of years, or 2,500 to be somewhat precise19. From 500 years of Classicism [Greco-

Roman, Hellenism and Roman] to the Christianity motifs’ stagnation in the Dark and

Middle Ages up to the Renaissance of the Classic themes comeback. After this period,

the Arts evolved into something new every 100 years until now. We are stuck in Contem-

poraneity because we are not satisfied with the changes we kept doing in our lives.

Just like planet Earth is living a cycle our pollution is messing with, so are we. And

this time it is not the Church’s fault. We have struck the Middle Ages again. Our lack of

contentment with ourselves and the world around us keeps throwing us towards change

to a point we cannot tell fashion from ridiculousness, kindness from marginality, Jehovah

from Lucifer.

Now this is a rather interesting religious debate. It is almost unthinkable to praise the

demoniac figure, taking into account all of Mankind’s recorded History. But the truth is,

however, that ever since the constitution of the Egyptian civilisation in the Near East,

multiple balances have been kept in the West between Good and Evil, Order and Chaos,

etc. In Christianity the same happens as well, though this denomination is looked at as

pure heresy. That is why the Church found a way to permanently destroy these heretics

by founding a new order, but we all know sects are like cockroaches, for a single squash

always brings the rest of the family to the funeral.

Gnosticism is at first sight the synonym of worshipping the devil, especially when

referring to a specific group of people, the Cathars, who originally lived in the southwest

of France and because of the Inquisition travelled to Catalonia in the 13th century, in

Spain, thus gaining their designation. For the Roman Catholic Church, what the Cathars

did was to praise Lucifer20 in detriment of God, whose power is so great that invoking His

18 The use of «much» and not «many» is deliberate; not to be confused with the possible interpretation of «how “many”».

19 We highlight the paradox. 20 Lux Ferre in Latin, «the bearer of Light».

name is always something vain. But the fact is His name is Jehovah, and He has an op-

posite21.

As we have mentioned before (and we can go back to the biblical Book of Genesis

in support for this story), Jehovah did not want Adam and Eve to even touch the Tree of

Knowledge, let alone eat an apple from it. Nevertheless, the first mentioned temptation

of Lucifer as a snake was to convince Eve to pick an apple from the tree, eat it and then

share it with Adam, who choked on it, but not to death. The forbidden fruit gave them

knowledge, they lost their innocence instantly. This demoniac work had them kicked out

of the Garden of Eden, never to be entered again. And because all of Mankind was cor-

rupt, it was wiped out by the Great Flood. We already know this passage.

What is really important is the Cathars did not root for Lucifer. They were the only

ones who kept the balance between the two deities. They knew that if only Jehovah was

followed, then they would be deprived from knowledge and would not possess any am-

bitions at all, and not necessarily frivolities only, but useful things as well. On the other

hand, by allowing Lucifer to smite Jehovah, then the world would fall into the hands of

the worst that can happen to a soul, making it corrupt and unworthy of Paradise, based

only on ambition, determinism and individualism. The concept of society would cease to

exist and Aristotle’s statement22 would not be true.

So the inevitable conclusion here is there has to be a balance on the grounds of just

about everything in the world, because there is no such thing as perfection, no matter how

much we aim at it. The problem is we have not yet made ourselves aware of that.

There is no value crisis going on, not as much as there is a substitution. There is a

scale and Humanity is looking for its balance, but we have not yet found it. We will,

maybe in a few years. Evolution stopped growing23 by centuries when it reached the 20th.

Now the time span is shorter, it goes by the decade and can be denominated by Music

starting from the 50s up to the 2000s, i.e. Jazz, Rock/Pop rock (Hippies), Disco, Pure/Syn-

thesised Rock, Gangster Rap/Hip-Hop and finally Mainstream. Now we are in the 2010s,

there are brave people who are trying to eradicate the preconceived and who are being

very much successful, not only because they are trying something new, but also because

they are mixing new waveforms with what has already been done and was good.

21 Id. 22 «Man is a political animal». 23 Unavoidable paradox.

Unfortunately, not everyone can find the balance that easily and cannot filter good

from bad. This happens for one particular reason Psychology supports, and that is the

failure to build a mentality the same age as the body. The Athenian motto was «a sound

mind in a sound body». The problem is they are not synchronised most of the times.

People grow physically, they age and there is nothing can be done to stop it, no matter

how young we wish to remain. However, the mind may not evolve as much as the body.

This is the consequence of a yet to be defined personality, even if the individual is already

an adult and is going for the middle age. It is not about education alone or the way some-

one was brought up, raised. It is about oneself, and one might not have yet gathered the

required tools to just think properly in consonance with particular situations.

People do not have to be ill to do psychotherapy. This is a process that can make a

person get better acquainted to themselves. Sometimes we believe we know ourselves

very well, better than anyone else, but that is a false statement. The neural iceberg is

shallow at surface, but how deep does it go underwater? It is always a question of risking

and trying to find out, not because of others’ advice, but for us and us alone.

For instance, it is said by some an actor needs not know how to sing properly. That

is rubbish, plain rubbish. An actor is a mime and Plato, hidden under the voice of his

master, Socrates, is wrong when he says Ion, the rhapsode, cannot speak or even stay

awake when talking about poets other than the greatest, Homer.

If we take a closer look, we can tell Socrates’ advocate cares about the need for Man

to get to know himself, for wisdom, according to him, is knowing not more than anybody

else, but rather what we know not, the synonym of Philosophy. He also believes

knowledge makes Man virtuous, erring only on the count of ignorance. Consciousness is

required in order to avoid mistakes. Considering he is fair, Man will have the concern of

perfecting not only himself, but everyone around him, thus becoming diviner.

So Ion is the rhapsode, i.e. he who recites poetry not belonging to him and without

the aid of a musical instrument. This is the point in which the difference between the

rhapsode and the bard is made. The latter recites his own poems while playing the lyre.

Together with the work on declamation (paid for and presented in rhapsodic competi-

tions), there is a mimic process24, therefore driving Plato’s Socrates to similarities be-

tween reciters and actors25, especially because their costumes are made of vivid colours

and fabrics and they also carry a golden crown on their heads.

Homer was the poet the rhapsodes privileged the most and that is why Ion claims to

be an expert of the Homeric poems, more than others. Socrates therefore wishes to know

the origins of poetry, whether in art or in divine inspiration. Until he is fully convinced

poetry comes from the Olympus, he will insist on the artistic perspective.

Ion, who is arriving from Epidaurus, where the Greeks celebrate Asclepius’s rhap-

sody festivities, tells Socrates he won the first prize, which is the pretext for the introduc-

tion of the essential, having the master state he actually envies rhapsodic art, for its prac-

titioner must wear flamboyant clothing and master the work of several poets, especially

Homer’s, the best and most divine of them all. It is necessary to understand the poet’s

work, otherwise it would not be possible for Ion to be a rhapsode, who is, in fact, the

interpreter of he who was inflated by the Muses’ inspiration. He fesses up what gave him

most trouble was to really understand Homer’s work, the poet for whom he best expresses

his thoughts than anyone else.

At this point, Socrates subtly challenges Ion into proving he is the best at compre-

hending Homer and his poetical oeuvre, to which he responds as being the best there is,

a specialist, we should add, only in Homer. With the obvious intent of confusing Ion so

he can actually realise what the master already knows to be true, Socrates refers to Hesiod,

another poet, as commenting several aspects of the day-to-day life, just like Homer. Ion

had said he was a specialist only as far as Homer was concerned, but can he exclusively

explain his words or Hesiod’s as well, considering the subjects are the same? Ion is con-

tradictory, here. Now he says he can explain the oeuvre of both poets.

Socrates then handles the dialogue in a different way. Both Homer and Hesiod talk

about divining art, a matter about which they will share and oppose opinions. On the

grounds of clairvoyance, Ion admits only a master of that art would be able to better ex-

plain the difference between the poets. This remark is really not innocent, as the intention

is to start figuring out who can better understand a specific art, and the pointer lies on

those who work on it.

24 Hence our introduction to this. 25 Idem.

After that, another matter steps above, the war and the relationships between good

and bad men. Socrates asks whether this is spoken of by poets other than Homer, so he

can perceive if the rhapsode is really specialised in the work of Homer. Ion acknowledges

there are many other poets who speak about war and the opposition between good and

evil, but they could not do it the same, extraordinary way the greatest poet did.

Plato’s master can now proceed without interruption with a few good examples, be-

ginning with this introit: only one person can confirm what is right or wrong on a certain

subject. For instance, the difference between healthy and junk food can only be realised

by the doctor. If there is the chance someone cannot acknowledge what is right about

something or what is wrong, than they will not be able to perceive the counterpart. Ion,

however, claims he can distinguish the poets who are actually right about something from

those who are not. However, there is something particular about this ability. Why does

the rhapsode feel sleepy when talking about poets other than the greatest, Homer, who

wakes him up into activeness all over again?

The answer is quite simple: Ion does not know Homer artistically or scientifically, as

there is a poetical art that would make him able to speak about every poet, just like there

is painting, sculpture or flute playing. For all three examples, Socrates asks Ion whether

he has already heard about someone who could actively speak of a renowned co-artist

and felt sleepy when mentioning some other artist from another branch of the arts. Ion

agrees with Socrates in every way, but cannot let go that it is his Homeric knowledge

which awakes him.

In the aftermath, Socrates states it is not art but rather a divine force which leads the

rhapsode to his undoubtful knowledge on Homer. In fact, good poets produce beautiful,

epic poetry because they are possessed and inspired by deities, the Muses, who lead them

to a determined path or genre. That is why they are better at epics than iambs, for instance.

Poetry is the result of irrationality. It only comes out when poets are out of control, in-

spired and possessed by the divine. Since poetry is gifted with several genres, epic poets

cannot produce encomiums, for the deity controlling them led them somewhere else. They

are therefore rudimentary in the field. Socrates still adds poets are not the authors of the

words they produce. The Muses are, expressing themselves through these humans with

the gift of poetry, making them their interpreters. The rhapsodes are by turn the interpret-

ers of poets.

This divine force is thusly and continuously perpetuated over everyone. First, the

poet. Second, the rhapsode. Finally, the spectators who listen to the rhapsode’s declama-

tion. A long ring chain is therefore created, connecting them all. The majority of poets is

connected to Homer, who is, after all, a divine poet. It is because he is possessed by

Homer that Ion can better speak of him than any other poet, who will probably make him

feel sleepy and bored.

Socrates clarifies the idea the arts are independent from each other, confronting Ion

with the fact he might not be aware of all the matters described by Homer, though the

rhapsode is willing to refute the statement. The master then asks Ion to recite the verses

from Iliad in which Nestor gives advice to his son Archilochus, so he can use it when

horseracing against Patroclus. The recitation deliberately explains only someone who is

truly acquainted to the art in question, such as the coachman, who would be able to tell

what is right and wrong about Homer’s verses.

Though he realises each artist can only understand their own art and none other, Ion

says the verses he understands best are all of them. However, the statement contradicts

the entire dialogue, as all arts are separated. Ion opposes and says he is aware of the type

of language utilised by a man or a woman, a slave or a freeman, a subordinate or a high-

ranking officer. Socrates disagrees, as Ion would not be able to understand medical or

looming language. However, he should know what a general might say to a soldier. None-

theless, the art of being a general is not the same as that of a rhapsode. Being so, how

would Ion know what to tell a soldier? Besides being a rhapsode, he is also a general,

though this does not mean all rhapsodes are generals and vice-versa, especially because

a good general is not a good rhapsode and, again, vice-versa.

Ion had promised Socrates he would prove to be a master at Homer’s art, but in the

end he could not keep his promise, for he is not that well informed because of art. It is

divine inspiration that makes him go berserk and irrational.

All of this may sound very amusing, but we must ask this ourselves quite seriously:

if only those who are specialised in a certain field may speak about it, why is Socrates so

well informed about pretty much everything? Is it really that correct to justify the master’s

knowledge and wisdom with the art of Philosophy? But are they not separated from each

other? Then how does he know what to say or think when it comes to medicine, for in-

stance? Medicine is not even a branch of the arts. It is all about science, any doctor can

confirm that. Physicians do not believe in art, there is a one in a million chance that might

happen.

A rhapsode can be a general and vice-versa, but one cannot be good at both. We do

not get his drift, as many people, not only in Ancient Greece but all over the world could

be specialised in one field alone and not be able to produce admirable results, just as much

others could simply not be so well educated like the academics and create vivid work.

Sometimes, experience is much better than debiting what books and scrolls have to offer.

Should Humanity solely rely on specialisations, we would be sentenced to death on our

own risk.

Also, we cannot forget a very important issue that will certainly discredit the master

of logic, who trapped Ion in his own reasons: Socrates did not believe in the gods, and

though the Muses are only demigods, they are divine nonetheless. How can someone say

poets get their inspiration through a divine force if they are misbelievers? More to that,

was Socrates a poet? How so, if he did not leave one piece of written evidence behind?

And even if it were oral poetry alone, he would be a mere rhapsode, not the poet himself.

Finally, there is something bothering us all up until today: how can Socrates know

how to govern a city, according to Plato’s Republic, if he never took the place of a ruler?

It is believed Socrates did not enjoy neither the Athenian, nor the general democratic

regime, as it was actually not flawless, imperfect. The conclusion is quite simple – Soc-

rates’ words had always been distorted by his disciple, Plato, who could not stand up for

his own convictions.

Whether we are playing in a musical or something a bit more classical like Greek

tragedy or Romantic drama, we must be good singers, no matter the case, for if we can

warm up to better enunciate, then we can also use the same exercises to keep our throats

from getting hoarse and sing, miming the sounds we listen to, that is the actor’s job, to

mime.

Tiago Filipe Castanheiro Lameiras

tlameiras@gmail.com

Tiago Lameiras was born in Lisbon, in 1990.

He has a Bachelor's Degree on Theatre – Acting (2011), taken at the Higher School

of Theatre and Film of Lisbon. He is currently completing his PhD on Communication,

Culture and Arts – Cultural Studies, at the Faculty of Human and Social Science of the

University of the Algarve with a thesis titled TAT | Teaching Art and Theatre.

He is a member of the Theater Studies Research Center for the Faculty of Letters of

the University of Lisbon.

He also has, among several publications, titles of his own such as Portvcale – A Epo-

peia Portuguesa da Contemporaneidade (Mosaico de Palavras, 2010), Viagem ao Centro

de Ti – Romance Trovado (Chiado Editora, 2012) and A Mão de Diónisos – Evangelho

Grego (EscrYtos | Grupo LeYa, 2013), as well as poetical collaborations in Chiado Edi-

tora's Poetry Anthologies Entre o Sono e o Sonho (Chiado Editora, 2012 – Present) and

Sinapsis's Enigma(s) (Sinapsis, 2015).

Bibliography

ALIGHIERI, Dante, 1321 (1472 – 1st Printed Ed.), A Divina Comédia, intro., trans. and

notes by Vasco Graça Moura, Lisboa: Quetzal Editores, 2011;

ALVES, Herculano et al., Bíblia Sagrada Para o Terceiro Milénio da Encarnação, Fá-

tima, Leiria, Portugal: Difusora Bíblica, 2000;

ANTUNES, David João Neves, 2002, A Magnanimidade da Teoria: Interpretar a Ética

em Teoria da Literatura, Lisboa: Assírio & Alvim;

BLOOM, Harold, 1998, Shakespeare: a Invenção do Humano, trans. José Roberto

O’Shea, Rio de Janeiro, Objetiva, 2001;

BONNARD, André, 1954, A Civilização Grega, trans. José Saramago, Lisboa: Edições

70, 2007;

DZIELSKA, Maria, 1995, Hipátia de Alexandria, trans. Miguel Serras Pereira, Lisboa:

Relógio d’Água, 2009;

Von GOETHE, Johann Wolfgang, 1829, Fausto: Uma Tragédia, intro., trans. and glos-

sary by João Barrento, Lisboa: Relógio d’Água, 1999;

HAGEN, Rose-Marie and HAGEN, Rainer, 2005, Egipto: Pessoas, Deuses, Faraós,

trans. Maria da Graça Crespo, rev. Paula Nascimento and Cristina Oliveira, Cologne:

Taschen;

HITLER, Adolf, 1925, Mein Kampf, trans. James Murphy, Mumbai: Jaico Publishing

House, 2009;

HUGO, Victor, 1827, Preface to Cromwell, «Famous Prefaces» col., The Harvard Clas-

sics, 1909-14;

PAVIS, Patrice, 1996, Dicionário de Teatro, trans. coord. by J. Guinsburg and Maria

Lúcia Pereira, São Paulo: Editora Perspectiva, 2001;

PLATO, Íon, trans. Victor Jabouille, Lisboa: Editorial Inquérito, 1988.

PLATO, A República, trans. Maria Helena da Rocha Pereira, Lisboa: Fundação Calouste

Gulbenkian, 2010;

RAMOS, Mercês Sousa, 2009, Teoria do Caos – Potencialidades na Modelização da

Aprendizagem de Conceitos Científicos, Lisboa: Edições Colibri/Instituto Politécnico de

Lisboa;

SAVATER, Fernando, Ética para um Jovem, trans. Miguel Serras Pereira, Lisboa: Dom

Quixote, 2005;

SCHULZ, Regine and SEIDEL, Matthias (ed.), 1997, Egipto – O Mundo dos Faraós,

trans. Luís Anjos, Sandra Barros, Daniel de Carvalho, Cristina Conceição and Filomena

Martins, Colónia, Alemanha: Könemann Verlagsgesellschaft, 2001.