Neste artigo apresentamos, de forma concisa e em português, alguns elementos-chave dos principais debates contemporâneos na filosofia da memória. Nosso principal objetivo é tornar essas discussões mais acessíveis aos leitores de língua portuguesa, fornecendo uma atualização importante para esforços anteriores (Sant’Anna & Michaelian, 2019a). Começamos introduzindo a noção de viagem no tempo mental, a qual estabelece a base empírica para a metodologia empregada em trabalhos recentes, antes de apresentar dois debates centrais. Primeiro, o debate entre causalistas e simulacionistas sobre a (...) teoria da lembrança filosoficamente correta (§2). Segundo, o debate entre continuístas e descontinuístas sobre a relação entre lembrança episódica e certas formas de imaginação (em particular, o pensamento episódico acerca do futuro) (§3). Na segunda parte do artigo, apresentamos e exploramos dois tópicos de discussão crescente: a natureza do sentimento de passado característico da memória episódica (§4) e questões de meta-nível relativas ao próprio caráter das controvérsias exploradas na primeira parte do artigo (§5). (shrink)

Os realistas diretos sobre a memória episódica alegam que um sujeito que lembra está em contato direto com um evento passado. No entanto, como seria possível estar em contato direto com um evento que deixou de existir? Este é o assim-chamado problema da cotemporalidade. A solução padrão para este problema, a qual foi proposta por Sven Bernecker, consiste em distinguir entre, por um lado, a ocorrência de um evento, e, por outro lado, a existência de um evento, de modo que (...) um evento deixa de ocorrer sem deixar de existir – esta é a solução eternista para o problema da cotemporalidade. No entanto, alguns filósofos da memória – notadamente Kourken Michaelian – alegam que a adoção de uma metafísica eternista do tempo seria um preço metafísico muito alto a ser pago para se defender as intuições dos realistas diretos sobre a memória. Ainda que eu concorde com essas críticas, buscarei mostrar duas coisas. Primeiro, que este tipo de “argumento do senso comum” não é decisivo. Segundo, que a proposta de Bernecker permanece sendo a melhor solução para o problema da cotemporalidade. (shrink)

Direct realists about episodic memory claim that a rememberer has direct contact with a past event. But how is it possible to be acquainted with an event that ceased to exist? That’s the so-called cotemporality problem. The standard solution, proposed by Sven Bernecker, is to distinguish between the occurrence of an event and the existence of an event: an event ceases to occur without ceasing to exist. That’s the eternalist solution for the cotemporality problem. Nevertheless, some philosophers of memory claim (...) that the adoption of an eternalist metaphysics of time would be too high a metaphysical price to be paid to hold direct realist intuitions about memory. Although I agree with these critics, I will try to show two things. First, that this kind of “common sense argument” is far from decisive. Second, that Bernecker’s proposal remains the best solution to the cotemporality problem. (shrink)

Remembering is one of the most characteristic and most puzzling of human activities. Personal memory, in particular - the ability mentally to travel back into the past, as leading psychologist Endel Tulving puts it - often has intense emotional or moral significance: it is perhaps the most striking manifestation of the peculiar way human beings are embedded in time, and of our limited but genuine freedom from our present environment and our immediate needs. Memory has been significant in the history (...) of philosophy as much in relation to ethics and to epistemology as in theories of psyche, mind, and self. (shrink)

The article deals with the formation of understanding and interpretation of the phenomenon of memory in the European philosophical tradition. The historical-cultural and linguistic-semantic connections of the ideological paradigm of Ancient Greek thinkers and philosophers are researched. In article revealded a peculiarities of the main philosophical categories of Plato’s philosophy in the context of explaining the phenomenon of memory and memories. We realized a distinction for better understanding of the phenomenon of memory for ancient culture into two branches: 1) memory (...) as a natural property of man and 2) memory as a technique, as a skill for perfection, as an instrument. We emphasize that ancient categories: eidos, logos and cosmos are the central of the theory of memory of the western tradition, which we can also observe in the treatises left by Plato. Also we analyzed the connection between the Platonian theory of memory and the development of knowledge about memory paradigm. Memory for Plato is determined by a metaphysical character, like immortal knowledge, it is a way of human transcendence. An intelligent soul for Plato is the translator of eternal knowledge of things through which we learn not only the world, but also receive knowledge about ourselves, our true perceptual perception, and represent our ideas in real forms. The soul of man for Plato, due to memory, connects human existence from outside the physical space and time, where there is simultaneously the past, present and future, which at the metaphysical level are united into a concrete conceptual design of memory. Thus, the Platonic theory of memory as a reproduction of knowledge can not relate to the development of the art of memory, but has a direct connection with the development of the paradigm of knowledge about memory and allows us to understand the concept of memory as a philosophical and cultural phenomenon. We noted that the theory of Plato’s memory resembles the same categories as the art of memory, it is a category of “place” bearing memory-reflection in the memory of the soul and “image” of true knowledge. (shrink)