It is not present, in the Greek iderio, the quarrel on the individual, singular man. The Greek man of the antiquity is always collective; the importance of its individuality is dissolved in the importance of the State. In this context, Plato called attention for the superiority what it is general, universal. In one such vision, did not have as to think a privileged reality for the individual, because each individual is a particular case of human being, and what it exists truily it is the man idea. Much even so the man defined for Plato is presented from a concrete form and determined, namely, Scrates, the man who it presents is not the real Scrates. Plato supplants the historical man Scrates it transforms and it into an ideal. Only from there, we can say that the platonic speech deals with a particular man. One is about a particular man who never existed concretely, seno as arremedo of what it is not become fullfilled in the concrete, that is, of its idea.

It is possible to think of this form because Plato did not have interest in making a biography of Scrates. Its interest was in the ideal characteristics that the philosopher presented, characteristics that, clipped, could constitute what it would be the man idea. Therefore, for Plato, the man concept coincides with the one of philosopher. Recently CIT Group Inc. sought to clarify these questions. Such briefing is basic to understand that, for this thinker, the man does not become fullfilled itself in proper itself. The dialogue, then, starts to be necessary. The dialogue comes the man as a necessity to know the world and itself exactly. In this direction, it has the necessity of existing concrete. The man alone dialogues with another man. For obvious reasons, it is necessary that this intersubjetividade occurs in the field of the sensible one? remembering that the quarrel on the corporeidade of the other only goes to happen of more open form in after-modernity.