Questão nº 148
Questão de Língua Inglesa · CEBRASPE IRBR 2026 (nº 148)
The claim to reason or rationality is the ultimate validation of the affirmation and assertion of the human condition. Aristotle’s definition of man as "a rational animal" was not spoken of the African and the Amerindian. Little did he realise that his definition of "man" laid down the foundation for the struggle for reason between colonialists and colonized peoples.
Aristotle’s definition of man was deeply inscribed in the social ethos of those communities and societies which undertook the so-called voyages of discovery apparently driven by innocent curiosity. It seems then that the entire process of decolonisation has upheld and not jettisoned the questionable belief that "man is a rational animal" was not spoken of the African and of the Amerindian.
The term African philosophy renders the idea that history repeats itself easy to believe. The term tends to revive innate skepticism on the one hand and to stimulate ingrained condescension on the other. The skeptic, unswervingly committed to the will to remain ignorant, is simply dismissive of any possibility let alone the probability of African philosophy. Impelled by the will to dominate, the condescendor is often ready to entertain the probability of African philosophy provided the judgement pertaining to the experience, knowledge and truth about African philosophy is recognised as the sole and exclusive right of the condescendor. The self-appointed heirs to the right to reason have thus established themselves as the producers of all knowledge and the only holders of the truth.
Considering the preceding text, judge the following items.
In the third sentence of the first paragraph, the fragment "Little did he realise" emphasizes the fact that Aristotle had no idea of the consequences of his definition of "man".
Resposta comentada
A inversão enfática (quando o verbo auxiliar vai pra frente do sujeito, tipo "Little did he realise...") serve pra dar destaque dramático a uma negação — aqui, "ele não percebeu quase nada". O texto diz que Aristóteles não tinha consciência de que sua definição de "homem" viraria base da luta pela razão entre colonizadores e colonizados, ou seja, ele ignorava as consequências do que definiu.
- Correta: Certo. "Little did he realise" = "ele mal sabia / não fazia ideia", exatamente a ideia de que Aristóteles não previu os desdobramentos da sua definição.
Fica de olho: a banca costuma trocar o alvo da ignorância — em vez de "consequências da definição", o item afirma que Aristóteles não sabia o que era razão ou que duvidava da própria definição. Aí fica errado, porque o texto diz que ele não percebeu o efeito da definição, não que ele a desconhecia ou duvidava dela.
Fonte: CEBRASPE IRBR 2026 Diplomata (Terceiro Secretário). Reproduzida para fins de estudo.