This paper addresses the question of the relation between mortal and immortal time in the Iliad as it is represented by the physical act of falling. I begin by arguing that falling serves as a point of reference throughout the poem for a concept of time that is specifically human. It is well known that mortals fall at the moment of death in the poem, but it has not been recognized that the movement of the fall is also connected with (...) the time of birth, aging, and generation. In light of the significance of falling for mortals, I then go on to examine the problematic case of two particular immortals who fall in the Iliad. When Hephaestus tumbles down to earth from Olympus, and when Ares is knocked flat on the battlefield, both gods, I argue, also “fall into” human time. This complicates their status as ageless and eternal beings, and draws into question the different temporal registers at work in the narrative . The single action of falling brings together several key concepts in the poem which hinge on the issue of the separation between the mortal and immortal spheres in the Iliad. (shrink)

At the end of the 1960s “Supports/Surfaces” artists start deconstructing paintings to jeopardize their representational qualities. Claude Viallat and Daniel Dezeuze, for example, process canvases and frames to highlight their phisical aspect as opposed to the illusionistic realm or representation. This way polarities such as form/space and illusionistic space/real space start having a new, dialectic relationship.

In this paper a uniform methodology to perform natural\ndeduction over the family of linear, relevance and intuitionistic\nlogics is proposed. The methodology follows the Labelled\nDeductive Systems (LDS) discipline, where the deductive process\nmanipulates {\em declarative units} -- formulas {\em labelled}\naccording to a {\em labelling algebra}. In the system described\nhere, labels are either ground terms or variables of a given {\em\nlabelling language} and inference rules manipulate formulas and\nlabels simultaneously, generating (whenever necessary)\nconstraints on the labels used in the rules. A set of natural\ndeduction style (...) inference rules is given, and the notion of a\n{\em derivation} is defined which associates a labelled natural\ndeduction style ``structural derivation'' with a set of generated\nconstraints. Algorithmic procedures, based on a technique called\n{\em resource abduction\/}, are defined to solve the constraints\ngenerated within a structural derivation, and their termination\nconditions discussed. A natural deduction derivation is then\ndefined to be {\em correct} with respect to a given substructural\nlogic, if, under the condition that the algorithmic procedures\nterminate, the associated set of constraints is satisfied with\nrespect to the underlying labelling algebra. Finally, soundness\nand completeness of the natural deduction system are proved with\nrespect to the LKE tableaux system \cite{daga:LAD}.\footnote{Full\nversion of a paper presented at the {\em 3rd Workshop on Logic,\nLanguage, Information and Computation\/} ({\em WoLLIC'96\/}), May\n8--10, Salvador (Bahia), Brazil, organised by Univ.\ Federal de\nPernambuco (UFPE) and Univ.\ Federal da Bahia (UFBA), and\nsponsored by IGPL, FoLLI, and ASL.}. (shrink)

This study aimed to carry out an analysis of the figure of euthanasia and its ethical implications. Addressed to aspects of bioethics and principlism, the theory developed by Beauchamp and Childress. Also presented is the right philosopher Ronald Dworkin position, in favor of euthanasia. Euthanasia is a complex, multidisciplinary subject, your debate is very timely because of the medical possibilities of keeping a person alive indefinitely, regardless of their suffering. The search for alternatives should continue in order to defend the (...) autonomy of patients in their end of life choices and to respect their dignity. (shrink)

This thesis will survey several prominent approaches to analysing causation, discuss their differences and similarities, and look at a number of problems which are common to all of them. I will be arguing for the following claims about how we should approach the process of analysing causation. Firstly, I will be arguing that a reductive analysis is desirable, since if we can reductively analyse causation in terms of something empirically accessible, we can explain how it is possible to know anything (...) about causation. I will argue that to reductively analyse causation is to find out what kind of facts ground causal facts. Secondly, I will argue, following Hall and Strevens, that there are two kinds of causation, causal difference making and causal influence. This two-tiered approach explains the cases where we are tempted to ascribe conflicting characteristics to our concept of causation. Thirdly, I will argue that causal influence grounds causal difference making and that it does so necessarily. That the grounding relation holds necessarily is important for defending the two-tiered approach against the objection that it would yield a disjunctive account. (shrink)