The purpose of this paper is to elaborate some considerations about the musical issue from the poetic-hermeneutic ontology started by Heidegger. It has for support, among others, the essay ‘Der Ursprung des Kunstwerkes’, but during our discussion, other works and authors will appear as possibilities of dialogue from the necessities of the path. Under the musical perspective, the paper takes on principle the thesis which affirms the music in a pre-representational condition as original poetic responding to the primordial question that (...) starts all philosophy. Having it in focus, we structure the text in three main pillars of inquiry based on the musical happening: a) the reference between music and musical works; b) the role of the musicians and the audience-listeners; c) the musical knowledge. Guided by both, thesis and principles, we structure four parts interrelated whose titles are: 1) work and sound/sonority; 2) music and musical creation; 3) work, musical performing interpretation, and musical composition; 4) knowledge [coda]. The present way of organization has the intention of merging the issues proposed by the titles in order for them to be thought from the own perspectives of each section. (shrink)

The paper examines Posterior Analytics II 11, 94a20-36 and makes three points. (1) The confusing formula ‘given what things, is it necessary for this to be’ [τίνων ὄντων ἀνάγκη τοῦτ᾿ εἶναι] at a21-22 introduces material cause, not syllogistic necessity. (2) When biological material necessitation is the only causal factor, Aristotle is reluctant to formalize it in syllogistic terms, and this helps to explain why, in II 11, he turns to geometry in order to illustrate a kind of material cause that (...) can be expressed as the middle term of an explanatory syllogism. (3) If geometrical proof is viewed as a complex construction built on simpler constructions, it can in effect be described as a case of purely material constitution. (shrink)

This is a translation, made by myself, of the paper to be published in Portuguese in the journal Discurso, 2020, in honour of the late professor Oswaldo Porchat. I discuss what Aristotle was trying to encode when he said that the object of scientific knowledge is necessary, or that what we know (scientifically) cannot be otherwise etc. The paper is meant as a continuation of previous papers—orientated towards a book on the Posterior Analytics—and thus does not discuss in much detail (...) key passages, as the very definition of scientific knowledge in APo I.2, or passages from APo I.4 and I.6 (for these, I refer to my previous papers). This paper is mainly focused on Aristotle’s references to his notion of scientific knowledge both in other passages from the APo and in other treatises. I intend to show that there is a progressive, intrinsic relation between the two requirements by which scientific knowledge is defined. It is not true that each of these requirements stems from a different source. The Causal-Explanatory requirements gives Aristotle the general heading. Then, the Necessity Requirement ranges over the explanatory relation between explanans and explanandum and thereby specifies what sort of cause is sctricly required for having scientific knowledge of a given explanandum. Now, Aristotle was also concerned with the necessary truth of the elemental predications that constitute a demonstration. My claim that the Necessity Requirement ranges over the explanatory relation does not ignore that concern, and does not deny it. My claim is that Aristotle’s main focus, and main concern, consists in stressing that the explanatory factor to be captured in scientific knowledge of a given explanandum is such that cannot be otherwise. (shrink)

Esta dissertação visa oferecer uma interpretação da verdade prática em Aristóteles que explique o papel causal da razão prática com relação à ação humana. Nossa hipótese é de que a verdade prática depende fundamentalmente da efetividade causal da razão prática na ação, visto que a razão prática, por sua relação com o desejo, consistiria em algo que é simultaneamente da verdade e da ação, de sorte que a verdade prática não seria uma verdade que apenas pode levar à ação, mas (...) uma verdade que efetivamente leva à ação, ou melhor, ela seria verdade justamente por levar à ação. Para tanto, analisaremos o sentido em que a razão prática é causa de ação mostrando que a realização de seu a verdade está inequivocamente ligada ao desempenho dessa função causal, não podendo se reduzir ao fato de a razão prática descobrir ou se valer de proposições verdadeiras. (shrink)

I present Aristotle’s theory of causation in a way that privileges a comparison with contemporary discussion on causation. I do so by selecting in Aristotle’s theory points that are interesting to contemporary discussion and by translating Aristotle in the contemporary philosophical terminology. I compare Aristotle’s views with Mackie’s (1993/1965) and Sosa’s (1993/1980). Mackie is a humean regularist regarding the metaphysics of causal necessity, but his theory postulates some formal aspects of the causal relation which are similar to the Aristotelian theory. (...) By introducing the notion of causal field as a third causal relatum – a sample in which the cause must be picked out as a explanation coextensive to the effect –, Mackie holds a point very similar to Aristotle, inasmuch as both defend that the causal relation is triadic and both have the extensional desideratum. Sosa (1993/1980) defends that every cause necessitates its effect, arguing against classical Humeanism, and he also proposes a causal pluralism. Both these theses are clearly Aristotelian. Aristotle comprehends that the causal relation has three relata: a subjacent C, a property of that subjacent A and a cause B that explains why such property is attributed to that subjacent. The subjacent is similar to Mackie’s notion of causal field, for in regard to it the cause must be coextensive to the property. But Aristotle also says that for each explanandum (property attributed to a subjacent of which one aims to investigate a cause) there is only one cause, which necessitates it. Sosa and Aristotle are similar because both develop a causal pluralism from a theory of causes as having intrinsic necessitation. For Aristotle, causes/explanations [aitiai] are central for attaining scientific knowledge, and its triadic structure determines the syllogistic structure of scientific demonstrations. Aristotle’s theory of causation also involves comprehending the actualisation of capacities (dispositional properties of objects) affirming that the causal relation is resultant from intrinsic properties of the objects, and the cause B is the essence of the explanandum. (shrink)