Dopo il sapere totale. Maieutica e giustizia in Arendt e Patoĉka

This article explores the relevance of maieutics for legal thought, focusing on its role within legal institutions. It reconsiders the accounts of maieutics proposed by Hannah Arendt and Jan Patočka, employing the distinction between knowing and understanding as a critical lens for legal analysis. Within this framework, Socrates is interpreted as a parrhesiastēs, and the distinction between parrhēsia and isegoria is examined with respect to its juridical significance. The article argues that, in the legal domain, truth, meaning, and justice are inseparable, and that the distinction between knowing and understanding is central to the problem of nomological difference, as theorized by Bruno Romano.