The author reveals a fundamentally significant parallel in the definitions of the method of cognition through a comparison of things and essences, attested in Aristotle’s “Eudemian Ethics” and in Ecclesiastes. With this particular attention is paid to the consideration of the semantic field of key terms used in the corresponding formulations. The examples of Ecclesiastes's application of the methodology of cognition developed by him demonstrate that his “pessimistic” and “skeptical” statements are only judgments with which sometimes directly opposite premises are (...) compared in the process of his reasoning, which results in rather optimistic conclusions; so that the “inconsistency” of Ecclesiastes proves to be only seeming. (shrink)

Насколько дефекты культурного окружения людей сбивают их с толку, поскольку находятся в противоречии с их биологическими, т.е. жизненно важными потребностями, я хотел бы проиллюстрировать на примере сна, приснившегося мне в ночь с 13 на 14 апреля 2023 года.

Ziel meines Beitrages ist die These zu vertreten, dass das Triebmodell Nietzsches durch eine Auseinandersetzung mit dem schopenhauerianischen Prinzip des Willens zum Leben entwickelt wurde. Dieses Modell lässt sich als einen durchgehenden Versuch interpretieren, mit den begrifflichen Schwierigkeiten der Willensmetaphysik Schopenhauers umzugehen, die Nietzsche bereits im Jahre 1868 in der Leipziger Aufzeichnungen identifiziert hat. Was Nietzsche für besonderes verwerflich an dem Projekt Schopenhauers einer post-Kantischen Metaphysik hält, das ist im Wesentliche die Tatsache, dass er bei Durchführung dieses Projektes den alten (...) Dualismus von Leib und Seele durch einen neuen Dualismus, der Dualismus von Willen und Vorstellung, bzw. Willen und Verstand ersetzt hat. Der neue Dualismus Schopenhauers resultiert aus einer Reform unseres vorreflexiven Willensbegriffes. Bei dieser Reform habe Schopenhauer, so Nietzsche, die intentionale Qualität des Wollens „heraus subtrahirt“, so dass was „er ‚Wille‘ nennt“ „ein blosses leeres Wort“ sei (KSA, 13, 14[121], S. 301). Noch wichtiger als die Pluralität ist in Nietzsches Augen die Intentionalität, die als ein wesentliches Merkmal des Willensbegriffes gilt. Wollen und Vorstellen sind nicht ‚losgetrennt zu denken‘; von Wollen zu reden „ohne von vornherein einen Intellekt anzunehmen, der sich vorstellen konnte was man will“ macht keinen Sinn, weil „einen solchen Willen in’s Blaue (oder in’s Dasein!) giebt es nicht“ (KSA, 9, 4[310], S. 178). Das Triebmodell Nietzsches ist eine begriffliche Entfaltung dieser prinzipiellen Nicht-Übereinstimmung. Während Schopenhauer seine Willensmetaphysik aus dem Modell des Begehrens konzipiert, dem zufolge „wir werden durch unsere Begierden gelenkt: nicht durch unsere nützlichen und vernünftigen Interessen, geschweige durch unsere Tugend und Weisheit“ (KSA, 9, 5[27], S. 187), hat Nietzsche sich entschieden, „sich der Analogie des Menschen zu Ende [zu] bedienen“ (KSA, 11, 36[31], S. 563), d. h., bei seiner theoretischen Philosophie eine Anthropomorphisierungsstrategie zu verfolgen. Diese Strategie kann insoweit legitimiert werden, als man fähig ist, unser menschliches Bild von moralischen Vorstellungen und Gefühle zu befreien und „den Menschen nämlich zurück[zu]übersetzen in die Natur; über die vielen eitlen und schwärmerischen Deutungen und Nebensinne Herr [zu]werden, welche bisher über jenen ewigen Grundtext homo natura gekritzelt und gemalt wurden [...]“ (JGB, 230). Ein realistisch konzipiertes politisches Modell, wobei die Macht als Hauptbegriff auftritt, erlaubt Nietzsche unser triebhaftes Leben zu beschreiben, ohne unsere nützlichen und vernünftigen Interessen, unsere Tugend, Weisheit und Dummheit, unsere kompromiss- und vertragsfähige Natur ausklammern zu müssen. Zum Schluss unseres Beitrages wird die Frage gestellt, inwieweit das aus dem politischen Bereich konzipierte Triebmodell zu dem sogenannten Homunkulus-Fehlschluss führt und inwieweit diese Art von Fehlschluss zu vermeiden ist. (shrink)

Paper presented at the symposium on the occasion of the retirement of Sven Ove Hansson. The symposium took place on 13-14 December 2019 at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden.

Formulação de Ração para Caprinos -/- APRESENTAÇÃO -/- O material Formulação de Ração para Caprinos, assim como a edição para ovinos, visa servir de alicerce para demonstrar as exigências nutricionais atualizadas dos caprinos, além das equações que servem para determinar a exigência do animal em uma determinada situação. Além disso, demonstra a avaliação bromatológica dos principais alimentos utilizados para a alimentação do rebanho no Brasil, esses valores da composição nutricional servem de base, assim como as exigências para as técnicas matemáticas (...) empregadas na formulação manual de dietas. A abordagem desse material é a apresentação das exigências nutricionais dos caprinos mediante as bases científicas como o NRC (2007); e, através de equações de predileções, apresentar as exigências nutricionais sob as condições brasileiras, principalmente sob condições em que deverão ser incrementados uma dada porcentagem das exigências, por exemplo para os caprinos em atividade intensa e/ou moderada no semiárido nordestino. Posteriormente, apresentar exemplos práticos de formulação de dietas mediante as técnicas matemáticas empregadas para tal. Será abordada situações reais onde um profissional pode se deparar no cotidiano de propriedades caprinocultoras. O texto também é dividido em três capítulos com as exigências nutricionais, composição dos principais alimentos e a formulação prática de dietas que visem suprir as necessidades dos animais de forma clara e objetiva, com a finalidade de servir de ferramenta para que os produtores rurais, técnicos, zootecnistas, nutricionistas etc. possam conseguir elaborar dietas para fornecer uma ração de boa qualidade física e nutricional. -/- SUMÁRIO -/- EXIGÊNCIAS NUTRICIONAIS DOS CAPRINOS 1 Equações de predição do consumo de matéria seca (CMS) 2 Algumas exigências para caprinos 4 Tabelas de requerimentos nutricionais dos caprinos 6 Concentrações de nutrientes necessárias em rações de caprinos (% da MS) 12 Energia metabolizável para caprinos 15 Relação volumoso:concentrado (v:c) para caprinos 17 ALIMENTOS PARA CAPRINOS 19 FORMULAÇÃO DE RAÇÃO PARA CAPRINOS 34 RAÇÕES PRONTAS PARA CAPRINOS 78 CONCLUSÕES 86 REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS 87 -/- -/- EXIGÊNCIAS NUTRICIONAIS DOS CAPRINOS -/- Para formular dieta para os caprinos, devemos seguir os mesmos passos tal qual para as demais espécies de interesse zootécnico. Os passos a serem seguidos para a elaboração de rações são: Após a caracterização do rebanho a ser alimentado, devemos buscar as equações de predileção para estimar as exigências nutricionais do lote servindo de alicerce para que a ração final obtenha as mesmas quantidades de nutrientes tal qual os animais requerem, por exemplo, um caprino reprodutor da raça Boer de 50 kg de PV sob condições de trabalho moderado, onde devemos incluir 50% da exigência da mantença, exige cerca de 795 g de NDT/ kg de MS ingerida, então após estabelecer os alimentos disponíveis e a composição bromatológica dos mesmos, o resultado final do balanceamento deverá ser igual a exigência de NDT do animal, podendo haver pouco excesso ou pouco défice. Como citado em outros trabalhos, as exigências dos animais variam em função do peso, idade, estado fisiológico etc. e que, para a elaboração de dietas, os nutrientes mais comumente trabalhados são a proteína bruta (PB), as necessidades energéticas podendo-se utilizar os nutrientes digestíveis totais (NDT), energia metabolizável (EM), energia digestível (ED) ou energia líquida (EL), as necessidades minerais dando ênfase aos de maior importância que são cálcio e fósforo e, raramente, as necessidades vitamínicas. Existem diferentes fontes teóricas e científicas que dispõem de tabelas de requerimentos nutricionais da espécie caprina de acordo com diferentes fatores, sendo eles os de peso vivo; ganho ou perda de peso; estado produtivo ou improdutivo de carne ou leite; animal em início, meio ou fim da gestação com um ou dois fetos; fêmeas paridas em lactação com uma ou duas crias ao pé etc. Também, segundo o NRC para caprinos (1981) e o para pequenos ruminantes (2007), os fatores de atividade leve, moderada ou intensa são levados em consideração. Apresentarei aqui algumas equações para predizer as exigências líquidas e as principais tabelas de requerimentos nutricionais dos caprinos expressas com base na necessidade do animal ou em percentual da ração, que servirão de base teórica para a formulação prática de rações para animais em diferentes situações. Equações de predição do consumo de matéria seca (CMS) É comum, na literatura acerca da criação e, principalmente, sobre a nutrição de caprinos observar que os especialistas trabalham com porcentagens de fornecimento de ingestão ou consumo de matéria seca (IMS ou CMS) para os animais de acordo com três fatores, um leva em consideração a origem do animal, outro o estado fisiológico e outro a categoria do animal. Para aclarar melhor vejamos a tabela 1 sobre as porcentagens de matéria seca em função do peso vivo para os caprinos. Tabela 1: Porcentagens ideais de consumo de matéria seca de acordo com o peso vivo de caprinos em diferentes etapas e origens Tipo de animal CMS em % do PV Cabras de origem temperada 5 a 6 Cabras de origem tropical 4 a 5 Mantença 3 Cabras gestantes 2,2 a 2,8 Cabras em lactação 3 a 5 Cabritos em crescimento 2,5 a 3 Fonte: Adaptações de BORGES & GONÇALVES, 2011 e SILVA & VALLE, 2018. No entanto, existem diferentes fórmulas para estimas as exigências de consumo de matéria seca dos caprinos, uma, apesar de não completa, é estabelecida pelo INRA, outras apresentadas pelo AFRC estimam para caprinos em mantença e lactação. Outras formas simplificadas indicam um consumo em porcentagem de acordo com o estado fisiológico ou origem. A equação de ingestão de matéria seca (IMS) determinada pelo INRA (1988) leva em consideração a produção de leite (se houver), o ganho diário de peso (se houver) e a porcentagem de volumoso fornecida ao caprino. IMS (g/dia) = (423,2 x kg leite/dia) + 27,8 x kg0,75 + (440 x kg de GPD) + (6,75 x %de volumoso) -/- Para um exemplo prático utilizando a fórmula proposta, suponhamos um caprino macho adulto (descartar a produção de leite = 0) com 50 kg PV, com ganho de peso diário de 100 g e recebendo uma dieta baseada em 80% de volumoso de boa qualidade, a IMS será: IMS (g/dia) = 27,8 x 50 kg0,75 + (440 x 0,1) + (6,75 x 80) = 1974 g MS/dia = 3,5% PV Outro exemplo prático utilizando a fórmula proposta pelo INRA, suponhamos uma cabra da raça Saanen com 60 kg de PV e produzindo 5 litros de leite/dia com 3,5% de gordura, com ganho de peso diário de 30 g e recebendo apenas concentrado, logo descartamos a parte volumosa então, a IMS será: IMS (g/dia) = (423,2 x 5) + (27,8 x 60 kg0,75) + (440 x 0,03) = 2730 g MS/dia = 4,54% PV Agora, a mesma cabra recebe suplementação volumosa à base de 40%, então: IMS (g/dia) = (423,2 x 5) + (27,8 x 60 kg0,75) + (440 x 0,03) + (6,75 x 40) = 3000 g MS/dia = 5% PV Outra forma de estimar a ingestão de matéria seca em gramas por dia é a proposta pelo AFRC (1993) que leva em consideração dois fatores, o peso vivo e a produção leiteira (com 3,5% de gordura), se houver, para cabras leiteiras prenhes e em lactação: CMS (kg/animal/dia) = 0,062 x PV0,75 + 0,305 x PL -/- Para utilizar essa fórmula, suponhamos uma cabra da raça Saanen, de 50 kg de PV, produzindo 5 kg de leite com 3,5% de gordura. Qual deverá ser seu consumo em matéria seca? CMS = 0,062 x 500,75 + 0,305 x 5 = 2,69 kg de MS/dia ou 5,38% do PV em MS Para caprinos adultos em mantença, o AFRC sugere a fórmula: CMS (kg/animal/dia) = 0,522 + 0,0135 x PV -/- Utilizando essa fórmula, qual deverá ser o CMS de um caprino da raça Alpina em mantença, que possui peso vivo de 45 kg? CMS = 0,522 + 0,0135 x 45 = 1,13 kg de MS/dia ou 2,5% do PV em MS Algumas exigências para caprinos Energia metabolizável (EM): 101,38 kcal/kg de PV0,75 para mantença, ou 2,0 a 2,4 Mcal/kg de MS 7,25 kcal/g de ganho de peso para animais em crescimento 1,25 Mcal/kg de leite com 4% de gordura para cabras em lactação Proteína bruta (PB): 32 g PB/Mcal de Energia digestível (ED) (EM = ED x 0,82) 4,15 g de PB/kg de PV0,75 para animais em mantença 0,284 g de PB/g de ganho para animais em crescimento 7,76 g de PB/kg de PV0,75 para cabras gestantes 96,9 g PB/kg de leite com 4% de gordura para cabras em lactação Minerais: Os principais minerais usados na formulação de ração para ruminantes são Ca e P, logo a estimativa de suas exigências são imprescindíveis, uma vez que a mistura elaborada pode apresentar deficiência de um ou ambos os minerais. O NRC (2007) propõe as seguintes equações para o cálculo dos requerimentos de Ca e P, em diferentes categorias: 1. Mantença: Cálcio (g) = ((0,623 x CMS) + 0,228)/0,45 Fósforo (g) = (0,081 + (0,88 x CMS))/0,65 Onde: CMS = consumo de matéria seca em kg/dia. 2. Crescimento: Cálcio (g) = (11 x GPD)/0,45 Fósforo (g) = (6,50 x GPD)/0,65 Onde: GPD = ganho de peso diário em kg. 3. Produção de leite: Cálcio (g) = (1,40 x L)/0,45 Fósforo (g) = (1,00 x L)/0,65 Onde: L = produção de leite em kg. É importante ressaltar que os requerimentos para cabras em lactação devem ser somados com os de mantença; dessa forma, como exemplo prático, uma cabra com 50 kg de PV que produz 3 kg de leite/dia requer cerca de 11,5 g de Ca (9,3 g de mantença + 2,2 g de produção). -/- 4. Gestação: Cálcio (g) = (0,23 x NC x PMnasc.)/0,45 Fósforo (g) = (0,132 x NC x PMnasc.)/0,65 Onde: NC = número de crias e PMnasc. = peso médio esperado da cria ou crias ao nascimento. Resumidamente, o NRC (2007) apresenta algumas indicações: 2 a 3 g de cálcio/kg de leite produzido ou 0,114 a 0,163% de Ca da MS 1,4 a 2,1 g de fósforo/kg de leite produzido ou 0,084 a 0,122% de P da MS Sal (NaCl): 0,5% da MS diariamente Potássio (K): 0,8% da MS diariamente Enxofre (S): 0,16% da MS diariamente Magnésio (Mg): 0,2% da MS diariamente -/- Tabelas de requerimentos nutricionais dos caprinos Resumidamente, a composição do concentrado dos caprinos, de acordo com a categoria, e as quantidades a serem fornecidas/animal/dia é a seguinte: Tabela 2: Composição do concentrado e quantidades fornecidas Fonte: CODEVASF, 2011. Agora, vamos dividir os requerimentos dos caprinos de acordo com situações, conforme os dados obtidos por NRC (2007), NUNES (1998) e RIBEIRO (1997): Tabela 3: Caprinos em mantença PV (kg) CMS (kg/animal¹) CMS (% PV) PB (g) PB (%) EM (Mcal) NDT² (g) NDT (%) Ca (g) P (g) 10 0,28 2,8 25 9 0,57 160 57 1 1 20 0,49 2,4 40 8,2 0,96 270 55 1 1 30 0,66 2,2 50 7,6 1,30 360 55 2 1,5 40 0,82 2,0 65 8 1,60 450 55 2 1,5 50 0,97 1,9 80 8,2 1,90 530 55 3,5 2,5 60 1,11 1,8 90 8 2,20 610 55 3,5 2,5 70 1,25 1,8 95 7,6 2,50 680 55 4 3 80 1,40 1,7 105 7,5 2,70 750 54 4 3 90 1,50 1,65 120 8 3,00 820 55 4 3 100 1,62 1,6 130 8 3,20 900 56 5 3,5 -/- 1 – para converter matéria seca em matéria natural, dividir o valor em MS pela porcentagem de MS do ingrediente. Por exemplo, em uma ração encontrou-se 100 g MS de milho, sabendo-se que a % de MS do milho é 90%, então: 100/0,9 = 112 g de milho com base na matéria natural. 2 – 1 kg de NDT equivale a 4,4 Mcal de energia digestível (ED) e 1 Mcal de ED = 0,82 Mcal de EM. Tabela 4: Mantença e baixa atividade (incremento de 25% dos valores de mantença da tabela 3) – manejo extensivo, pastagem tropical e gestação inicial PV (kg) CMS (kg/cab./dia) PB (g) EM (Mcal) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 10 0,3 30 0,71 200 1 0,7 20 0,5 50 1,20 335 2 1,4 30 0,67 60 1,62 452 2 1,4 40 0,84 80 2,02 560 3 2,1 50 0,99 90 2,38 662 4 2,8 60 1,14 105 2,73 760 4 2,8 70 1,28 120 3,07 852 5 3,5 80 1,41 130 3,39 942 5 3,5 90 1,54 145 3,70 1030 6 4,2 100 1,67 155 4,01 1114 6 4,2 Por exemplo, um animal com 40 kg de PV em mantença e submetido a baixa atividade, deverá receber PB na base de: Mantença: 65 g/dia + (65 x 25%) = 80 g/dia de PB Tabela 5: Mantença e média atividade (incremento de 50% dos valores de mantença da tabela 3) – terreno semiárido, pastagens levemente acidentadas (em encosta) e gestação inicial PV (kg) CMS (kg/cab./dia) PB (g) EM (Mcal) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 10 0,36 33 0,86 239 1 0,7 20 0,60 55 1,44 400 2 1,4 30 0,81 74 1,95 543 3 2,1 40 1,01 93 2,42 672 4 2,8 50 1,19 110 2,86 795 4 2,8 60 1,37 126 3,28 912 5 3,5 70 1,53 141 3,68 1023 6 4,2 80 1,69 156 4,06 1131 6 4,2 90 1,85 170 4,44 1236 7 4,9 100 2,01 184 4,82 1336 7 4,9 -/- Por exemplo, um animal com 50 kg de PV em mantença e vivendo sob condições de média atividade (clima semiárido como algumas regiões de Pernambuco), deverá receber NDT na base de: Mantença: 530 g/dia + (530 x 50%) = 795 g/dia de NDT Tabela 6: Mantença e alta atividade (incremento de 75% dos valores de mantença da tabela 3) – terreno árido, vegetação escassa, pastagens montanhosas e gestação inicial PV (kg) CMS (kg/cab./dia) PB (g) EM (Mcal) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 10 0,42 38 1,00 278 2 1,4 20 0,70 64 1,68 467 2 1,4 30 0,95 87 2,78 634 3 2,1 40 1,18 108 3,46 784 4 2,8 50 1,39 128 4,10 928 5 3,5 60 1,60 146 4,69 1064 6 4,2 70 1,79 165 5,27 1194 6 4,2 80 1,98 182 5,81 1320 7 4,9 90 2,16 198 6,35 1442 8 5,6 100 2,34 215 6,88 1559 8 5,6 -/- Por exemplo, um animal com 30 kg de PV em mantença, sob condições de clima árido e alta atividade, deverá receber NDT na base de: Mantença: 360 g/dia + (360 x 75%) = 630 g/dia ou 634 g como está na tabela 6 Tabela 7: Exigência para 100 g de ganho de peso diário PV (kg) CMS (kg/animal) PB (g) EM (Mcal) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 10 0,1 29 0,42 116 1,32 0,73 20 0,2 29 0,57 159 1,43 0,71 30 0,3 28 0,72 199 1,49 0,7 40 0,4 27 0,88 245 1,54 0,69 50 0,4 26 1,03 286 1,58 0,68 60 0,5 25 1,19 331 1,61 0,67 70 0,5 24 1,36 379 1,64 0,67 -/- Tabela 8: Exigências para gestação de cabras em diferentes períodos PV (kg) Período CMS (kg/cab./dia) PB (g) EM (Mcal) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 40 Início 1,07 77 2,45 680 3 2 4º mês 1,07 159 2,94 816 5 2,5 5º mês 0,97 215 4,10 1141 7 3 50 Início 1,20 91 2,84 789 3,5 2,5 4º mês 1,20 173 3,35 932 6 3,1 5º mês 1,09 235 4,56 1268 8,5 3,7 60 Início 1,33 105 3,19 887 4 3 4º mês 1,33 187 3,70 1027 7 3,8 5º mês 1,21 253 4,90 1363 10 4,5 70 Início 1,47 118 3,51 975 4,5 3,5 4º mês 1,47 200 4,01 1114 8 4,4 5º mês 1,34 273 5,23 1454 11,5 5,3 80 Início 1,60 130 3,84 1068 5 4 4º mês 1,60 212 4,25 1458 9 5 5º mês 1,46 293 5,41 1504 13 6 -/- Tabela 9: Requerimentos adicionais para a produção de 1 kg de leite segundo a % de gordura. Incluem-se os requisitos para aleitamento de filhote único, gêmeos ou trigêmeos no respectivo nível de produção leiteira Gordura (%) PB (g) EM (Mcal) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 2,5 60 1,20 330 2 1,5 3,0 65 1,21 335 2 1,5 3,5 70 1,23 340 2 1,5 4,0 75 1,25 345 3,5 2,5 4,5 80 1,26 350 3,5 2,5 5,0 85 1,28 355 3,5 2,5 5,5 90 1,29 360 4 3 6,0 95 1,31 365 4 3 -/- Tabela 10: Requerimentos por kg de leite com 3,5% de gordura – cabras alpinas PB (g) EM (Mcal) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 70 1,22 345 4 2 -/- Tabela 11: Requerimentos por kg de leite com 4,7% de gordura – cabras anglo-nubianas PB (g) EM (Mcal) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 80 1,50 415 6 4 -/- Tabela 12: Requerimentos para cada 0,1% de variação no teor de gordura do leite PB (g) EM (Mcal) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 10 0,30 80 0,5 0,5 -/- Tabela 13: Requerimentos adicionais para gestação tardia CMS (kg/cab./dia) PB (g) PB (%) EM (Mcal) NDT (g) NDT (%) Ca (g) P (g) 0,71 80 11 1,42 395 56 2 1,5 -/- Tabela 14: Requerimentos adicionais para ganho de peso diário (GPD) de 50 g CMS (kg/cab./dia) PB (g) PB (%) EM (Mcal) NDT (g) NDT (%) Ca (g) P (g) 0,18 15 8,5 0,36 100 55,5 1 1 -/- Tabela 15: Requerimentos adicionais para ganho de peso diário (GPD) de 100 g CMS (kg/cab./dia) PB (g) PB (%) EM (Mcal) NDT (g) NDT (%) Ca (g) P (g) 0,36 30 8,5 0,88 200 55,5 1 1 -/- Tabela 16: Requerimentos adicionais para ganho de peso diário (GPD) de 150 g CMS (kg/cab./dia) PB (g) PB (%) EM (Mcal) NDT (g) NDT (%) Ca (g) P (g) 0,54 45 8,5 1,32 300 55,5 2 1,5 -/- Seguindo o mesmo raciocínio da tabela 2 da CODEVASF, a tabela 17 apresenta valores de proteína bruta e quantidade de MS para caprinos de corte e leite em diferentes estágios produtivos. Tabela 17: Exigências de PB e quantidade de MS de caprinos em diferentes estágios Etapa produtiva PB % Quantidade/cab./dia Caprinos de corte Pré-desmame 18 110 – 150 g Pós-desmame 16 230 – 340 g Crescimento/engorda 14 450 g Flushing 14 – 16 450 g – 1,4 kg Gestação (2º e 3º mês) 14 – 16 230 – 450 g Gestação (último mês) 14 – 16 340 – 910 g Lactação (1 cria) 14 – 16 340 – 570 g Lactação (2 crias) 14 – 16 910 g Fêmeas de reposição 16 230 – 450 g Machos adultos 14 < 230 g Caprinos leiteiros Pré-desmame (2-4 meses) 18 Ad libitum Crescimento (4º mês até 6-8 semanas antes do parto) 14 – 16 450 – 680 g Fêmeas secas 14 – 16 450 – 910 g Fêmeas lactantes 14 – 16 330 g/kg de leite Machos adultos 14 – 16 450 – 910 g Fonte: adaptação de PARDO RINCÓN, 2007. pp. 567-568. Concentrações de nutrientes necessárias em rações de caprinos (% da MS) De forma geral, as rações para os caprinos seguem os mesmos padrões das dietas elaboradas e fornecidas para os ovinos. No entanto, sabendo-se que as exigências de ambas as espécies são diferentes, é necessário compreendermos que mesmo uma ração servindo para os ovinos e caprinos, esta pode não fornecer as quantidades desejadas pelos caprinos, ou ainda, a ração poderá conter excesso de nutrientes para este animal e acarretar problemas metabólicos e de eficiência alimentar, além das perdas econômicas uma vez que será adquirida e fornecida uma ração que não irá alcançar seu objetivo. Dito isto, através da literatura acerca da produção, nutrição e alimentação de caprinos de corte e leiteiros, a tabela 18 apresenta os níveis recomendados de rações para os caprinos de acordo com a categoria e estado fisiológico do animal, levando-se em consideração os requerimentos das tabelas 2 a 16 e os níveis de nutrientes de acordo com as grandes fábricas de ração recomendam e formulam as dietas. Tabela 18: Concentrações de nutrientes para rações de caprinos com base na % da MS Mantença CMS 1,5-3% PV - PB 10% - NDT 55% - EM (Mcal/kg) 2,0 - Ca 0,35% MS – P 0,25% MS Mantença CMS 1,8-2,4% PV – PB 7% - NDT 53% - Ca 0,3-0,8% MS – P 0,25-0,40% MS Gestação precoce CMS 2,4-3,0% PV – PB 9-10% - NDT 53% - Ca 0,3-0,9% MS – P 0,2-0,4% MS Gestação tardia CMS 2,4-3,0% PV – PB 13-14% - NDT 53% - Ca 0,3-0,9% MS – P 0,2-0,4% MS Lactação CMS 2,8-4,6% PV – PB 12-17% - NDT 53-66% - Ca 0,3-0,8% MS – P 0,25-0,45% MS Caprinos leiteiros castrados ganhando 100-150 g/diaa CMS 3,3-3,8% PV – PB 12% - NDT 67% - Ca 0,3-0,4% MS – P 0,3-0,35% MS Caprinos de corte castrados ganhando 100-150 g/diaa CMS 3,0-3,4% PV – PB 15-17% - NDT 67% - Ca 0,4% MS – P 0,3% MS Caprinos leiteiros inteiros ganhando 100-150 g/diaa CMS 3,2-3,7% PV – PB 10-15% - NDT 67-86% - Ca 0,4% MS – P 0,3% MS Caprinos de corte inteiros ganhando 100-150 g/diaa CMS 3,3-3,7% PV – PB 15% - NDT 67% - Ca 0,4% MS – P 0,3% MS Cabras gestantes CMS 2,2-2,8% PV – PB 20-24% - NDT 55-65% - Suplemento mineral 3% Cabras em lactação CMS 3,0-5,0% PV – PB 16-24% - NDT 65% - Ca 0,75 g/kg – P 0,3 Creep-feeding para cabritos CMS Ad libtum – PB 12-18% - NDT 80% Caprinos em crescimento CMS 2,5-3,0% PV – PB 14% - NDT 55-70% - Relação Ca:P 2:1 Machos adultos CMS 2,5-3,5% PV – PB 14-16% - NDT 60% - Relação Ca:P 2:1 Reprodutores em serviço CMS 2,5-3,0% PV – PB 10% - NDT 65% Confinamento de caprinos PB 14% - NDT 65% - Ca 0,8 % – P 0,4% Fonte: adaptação de BORGES & GONÇALVES, 2011 e NRC, 2007. A tabela 19 apresenta os valores de energia metabolizável (EM) em MJ/dia e a concentração proteica para formular rações para caprinos. Para transformar MJ em Mcal, saiba que 1 MJ equivale a 0,24 Mcal. Note que as concentrações de energia, proteína e/ou NDT, aportados nas tabelas aqui presentes variam em função das equações de predição ao qual são calculados os requerimentos. Tabela 19: Valores simples para formular rações para ovinos e caprinos em diferentes cenários de produção Estágio produtivo EM (MJ/dia) PB (%) Mantença EMm = 0,12 x PV + 1,5 6 – 8 Rápido crescimento EMm x 2 14 – 16 Gestação (3-4 meses) 1 feto EMm + 3 8 – 10 2 fetos EMm + 4 Gestação (último mês) 1 feto EMm + 4 8 – 10 2 fetos EMm + 8 Lactação (1º mês) 1 cria EMm + 8 12 – 14 2 crias EMm + 12 Fonte: DA SILVA, 2021. Por exemplo, utilizando a tabela 19, calcular a EM requerida em Mcal/dia para cabra Saanen de 60 kg de PV em mantença e depois para a mesma cabra em lactação com 1 cria: Mantença: 0,12 x 60 + 1,5 = 8,7 MJ para Mcal: 8,7 x 0,24 = 2,09 Mcal/dia Lactação: 8,7 + 8 = 16,7 MJ para Mcal: 4 Mcal/dia Note que os valores de produção devem ser adicionados aos de mantença. As exigências minerais dos caprinos, segundo autores, e o nível máximo tolerável na dieta são apresentadas na tabela 20. Tabela 20: Exigências minerais de caprinos MACROMINERAIS CHURCH (2002) (% MS) HART (2011) (% MS) NRC (2005) Nível máximo (% MS) Ca 0,2 – 0,8 0,3 – 0,8 1,5 P 0,2 – 0,4 0,25 – 0,4 0,6 Mg 0,1 – 0,2 0,18 – 0,4 0,6 K 0,5 – 0,8 0,8 – 2,0 2 S 0,15 – 0,25 0,2 – 0,32 0,3 – 0,5 Na 0,09 – 0,18 0,2 4 Cl 0,09 – 0,18 0,2 MICROMINERAIS CHURCH (2002) mg/kg MS HART (2011) mg/kg MS NRC (2005) Nível máximo (mg/kg MS) Co 0,1 – 0,2 0,1 – 10 25 Cu 7 – 11 10 – 80 15 Fe 30 – 50 50 – 1000 500 I 0,1 – 0,8 0,5 – 50 50 Mn 20 – 40 0,1 – 3 2000 Mo 0,5 0,1 – 3 5 Se 0,1 – 0,2 0,1 – 3 5 Zn 20 – 33 40 – 500 300 -/- Energia metabolizável para caprinos A energia metabolizável é a parte da energia bruta que não aparece em fezes, urinas e nos gases produtos da fermentação (principalmente metano). É determinada pela subtração das perdas de energia na urina e gases combustíveis da energia digestível (ED) consumida. É um pouco mais precisa que a ED em termos de estimativa da energia disponível, porém mais caro para determiná-la. Compara-se com a energia proveniente do NDT menos a energia dos gases da fermentação. Determinamos através da fórmula: EM = EB (energia bruta) – (energia perdida em fezes + energia perdida em gases da fermentação + energia perdida na urina) -/- Em muitos cálculos da formulação de dietas para animais de produção é utilizada a energia metabolizável no lugar do NDT. Logo, apresentamos as exigências de energia metabolizável dos caprinos em função do peso e da categoria fisiológica do animal. 1. Mantença (EMm): Pré-desmame (nascimento aos 3 meses de idade): Fêmeas e machos castrados 0,107 Mcal/kg PV0,75 Machos inteiros 0,125 Mcal/kg PV0,75 -/- Crescimento (do desmame aos 18 meses de idade): Fêmeas e machos castrados 0,128 Mcal/kg PV0,75 Machos inteiros 0,149 Mcal/kg PV0,75 -/- Adultos (> 18 meses de idade): Fêmeas e machos castrados 0,120 Mcal/kg PV0,75 Machos inteiros 0,138 Mcal/kg PV0,75 -/- 2. Ganho de peso (EMg): Pré-desmame 0,00320 Mcal/kg PV0,75 Crescimento 0,00552 Mcal/kg PV0,75 Adultos 0,00681 Mcal/kg PV0,75 -/- 3. Produção de leite (EMl): EMl (Mcal/dia) = (kg de leite x 1,179943) x ((1,4694 + (0,4025 x %gordura))/3,079) 4. Gestação (EMgest): EMgest (Mcal/dia) = (- 15,467 - (1,1439 x PMnasc) + (0,26316 x D) - (0,0021667 x NC) – (0,0010963 x D2) + (0,011772 x PMnasc x D) - (0,98352 x PMnasc x NC) + (0,011735 x PMnasc x D x NC)) x 0,239 Onde: PMnasc = peso médio esperado da cria ou crias ao nascimento em kg; D = dias de gestação e NC = número de crias. As exigências nutricionais dos caprinos servem de alicerce para a elaboração de uma dieta, uma vez que, diante os cálculos, é necessário estimar uma quantidade x de um dado alimento para suprir uma exigência final seja proteica, energética ou qualquer outra. Essas tabelas de exigências dos caprinos servem de base após a caracterização do lote para que deve ser elaborada uma mistura. Por exemplo, um lote de caprinos com 30 kg de peso vivo em mantença, quais são as exigências de cada animal? Basta consultar a tabela 3 deste manual para depois ser levantado os alimentos e a composição destes e começar a elaborar a dieta. Relação volumoso:concentrado (v:c) para caprinos Além do balanceamento dos nutrientes necessários, a relação v:c da dieta depende, basicamente, da qualidade do volumoso e da ração concentrada. Se o volumoso possuir boa qualidade, consequentemente seu valor nutricional será melhor e, para caprinos em mantença por exemplo, pode ser empregado em 100% da ração; por sua vez, se o volumoso possuir péssima qualidade nutricional será necessária a adição de concentrado na dieta diária do animal, não esquecendo de que essa ração concentrada deverá atender os requisitos do animal, logo a ração deverá ser de boa qualidade e balanceada. Além da qualidade do volumoso e/ou concentrado, a relação v:c depende também do objetivo final de criação, isto é, se é necessário engordar os animais em menos tempo para abate, ou em pastagem etc., portanto, também depende da necessidade de ganho de peso diário para os animais, uma vez que a finalidade é um GPD maior é utilizada uma relação concentrada maior que a volumosa. Segundo estudos, a relação volumoso:concentrado influencia diretamente em padrões como consumo de matéria seca, presença de fibras, digestibilidade da matéria seca e nutrientes e atividades de mastigação e ruminação. Segundo esses estudos, uma relação mais próxima de 50:50 aumenta o teor de fibra, aumenta a ingestão de MS e aumenta a digestibilidade da MS, mas diminui a da fibra, e diminuem as atividades físicas da mastigação e o processo de ruminação. O NRC, 2007 sugere as proporções de v:c para caprinos as mesmas dos ovinos, que são divididas em diferentes situações. -/- Exemplos de proporções de volumoso e concentrado na dieta de caprinos PV Kg VOLUMOSO % CONCENTRADO % Mantença 70 100 0 Cabras secas 70 100 0 Últimas 4 semanas de gestação 70 85 15 Últimas 4-6 semanas de lactação 1 cria 70 85 15 Últimas 4 semanas de gestação 70 65 35 Primeiras 6-8 semanas de lactação com 1 cria 70 65 35 Últimas 4-6 semanas de lactação com 2 crias 70 65 35 Primeiras 6-8 semanas de lactação com 2 crias 70 65 35 Cabras secas – primeiras 15 semanas de gestação 55 85 15 Cabras – últimas 4 semanas de gestação 55 70 30 Cabras – últimas 4 semanas de gestação 55 60 40 Cabras – primeiras 6-8 semanas de lactação com 1 cria 55 60 40 Cabras – primeiras 6-8 semanas de lactação com 2 crias 55 50 50 Cabras de reposição 30 65 35 40 65 35 50-70 85 15 Machos para reposição 40 70 30 60 70 30 80-100 70 30 Engorda 30 40 60 40 25 75 50 20 80 Cabritos recém-desmamados até adultos 10 10 90 20 15 85 30 15 85 40-60 15 85 Fonte: DA SILVA, 2021. -/- ALIMENTOS PARA CAPRINOS -/- De forma geral, sabemos que os alimentos dividem-se em dois grupos os alimentos volumosos e os concentrados. Os volumosos são aqueles que possuem carga nutritiva menor e que o animal deve consumir em maior quantidade para suprir suas exigências nutricionais, o teor de proteína desses alimentos é variável, mas, na maior parte, não ultrapassa os 20%; por sua vez, a quantidade de fibra é grande já que esse grupo engloba as forragens, pastagens, fenos, palhas, silagens, raízes, tubérculos etc. Dentro da classificação de alimentos volumosos, ainda encontramos os volumosos “proteicos” que são representados pelas forrageiras leguminosas e algumas gramíneas. Os concentrados, por sua vez, são aqueles com alta carga nutricional e que o animal, mesmo consumindo poucas quantidades (em torno de 1 kg), supre todas suas exigências nutricionais; estes são divididos em alimentos que fornecem mais energia do que proteína (energéticos) como o milho, e nos que fornecem mais proteína que energia (proteicos) como o farelo de soja. Existem uma série de alimentos que podem ser utilizados na alimentação dos caprinos. Existem ainda, os alimentos provenientes da caatinga com alto potencial para a alimentação dos caprinos; a composição proteica desses alimentos e a parte comestível que pode ser fornecida aos caprinos é apresentada na tabela 21. Como a maioria dos caprinos são criados em regiões onde há escassez alimentar e baixas oportunidades de fornecimento de ração concentrada, há os alimentos não usuais que possuem enorme capacidade para manter os animais ou para que continuem produzindo em períodos de seca, por exemplo. Na região semiárida do Brasil, os alimentos não-convencionais mais comumente utilizados são cactáceas como coroa de frade, mandacaru e a palma; e outros como algaroba, faveira, moringa, umbu, maniçoba, leucena, aveloz etc. Uma das melhores alternativas alimentares em épocas de escassez é a produção e o fornecimento de fenos de gramíneas locais, silagem de sorgo e girassol. Tabela 21: Forragens nativas do nordeste brasileiro usadas como alimento Fonte: CODEVASF, 2011. A composição bromatológica dos ingredientes utilizados na alimentação dos caprinos, que é indispensável para a elaboração de dietas que supram os requisitos é apresentada na tabela 22. Tabela 22: Composição bromatológica dos alimentos utilizados na alimentação de caprinos Alimento MS% PB% EE% EM (Mcal/kg) NDT% Ca% P% Concentrados energéticos Algaroba farelo integral 85 8,6 0,54 - - 0,31 0,14 Arroz farelo desengordurado 88,2 16,8 1,66 2,1 24,9 0,09 1,8 Arroz farelo desfinitizado 90,8 18 1,65 - - 0,31 2,04 Arroz farelo integral 88,9 13,4 16,4 3,3 87,5 0,11 1,73 Arroz farelo parboilizado 91,2 16,2 24,25 - - - 0,09 Arroz grão c/casca 89,1 8,2 3,9 2,0 56,1 0,09 0,08 Continuação MS% PB% EE% EM (Mcal/kg) NDT% Ca% P% Arroz grão s/casca 86,2 8,5 1,2 - - 0,04 0,16 Aveia grão 90,4 14,6 3,8 3,2 83,3 0,13 0,35 Batata 29,1 3,1 0,3 3,1 84,6 0,33 0,08 Batata doce - 6 0,6 - - 0,05 0,11 Beterraba 14 2 0,4 - - 0,18 0,12 Cacau farelo 88,8 15,9 4,5 2,4 64,5 0,74 0,5 Centeio grão 88,4 18,1 1,9 - - 0,68 0,42 Cevada grão 89,9 12,4 1,5 2,8 76,8 0,05 0,37 Dendê torta 91 15,4 9,3 3,1 82,3 0,2 0,75 Faveira vagem 77,3 11,2 1,25 - 72,5 - - Mandioca raspa 87,7 2,8 0,5 3,0 82,2 0,21 0,07 Milheto grão 88,1 12,1 3,2 - - - - Milho grão/fubá 88 9 4 3,3 87,7 0,03 0,26 MDPS 87,9 7,1 3,15 2,8 75,9 0,04 0,22 Milho espiga silagem 55,2 8,1 3,7 3,2 85,9 0,05 0,27 Milho gérmen farelo 89,9 11 22,9 3,9 103,8 0,03 0,42 Milho grão reidratado silagem 65,8 9,3 4,7 3,75 99,6 - - Milho silagem grão úmido 66,7 9,2 4,6 3,3 88,2 0,03 0,25 Polpa cítrica 88,4 6,9 3,1 2,9 78,3 1,8 0,13 Soja casca 90,1 12,6 2,2 2,7 72,5 0,52 0,16 Sorgo grão 88 9,3 2,9 3,1 84,4 0,07 0,29 Sorgo grão reidratado silagem 65,3 9,15 3,4 3,0 79,9 - - Trigo farelo 87,6 16,7 3,6 2,95 77,3 0,17 1,01 Trigo grão 89,1 14,2 1,45 - - - - Concentrados proteicos Algodão caroço 90,6 23,1 19,2 3,45 88,2 0,27 0,75 Algodão farelo 28 89,8 28 2,0 2,8 68,1 0,26 0,77 Algodão farelo 38 89,7 38 1,5 2,7 65,6 0,24 0,97 Algodão farelo 42 90,5 42 1,6 3,0 69,8 0,22 0,96 Algodão torta 90,4 29,6 9,5 3,0 75,6 0,28 0,58 Continuação MS% PB% EE% EM (Mcal/kg) NDT% Ca% P% Amendoim farelo 89,4 56 1,3 3,9 89,5 0,18 0,62 Amiréia 90,6 200 5,0 - 22 0,12 0,08 Babaçu farelo 90 20,6 1,6 2,75 71,9 0,13 0,36 Babaçu torta 90,8 19,3 8,0 3,0 78 0,15 0,69 Crambe farelo 89,1 35,9 1,2 3,1 73,9 0,29 0,47 Canola farelo 89,4 40,1 2,5 3,5 83,4 0,62 0,82 Colza farelo 91,2 40 5,2 - - 0,65 1,34 Colza grão 93,3 23,6 43,7 - - 0,24 0,81 Farinha de ostras 95,7 33,7 - - - 36,2 5,3 Fava grão 87,1 22,2 0,9 2,6 - 0,12 0,53 Feijão moído 89,6 24,2 1,5 3,2 80,8 0,54 0,43 Guandu grão 88,5 21,1 0,8 2,5 - 0,1 0,32 Guandu grão tostado 89,3 20,3 0,8 2,5 - 0,1 0,31 Girassol farelo 90,2 31,4 1,9 2,9 71,1 0,3 0,9 Linhaça integral 90 21 34 - - 0,25 0,5 Linhaça torta - 32 3,5 - 75 0,4 0,8 Linhaça farelo 92 34 1,0 - - 0,6 0,6 Mamona farelo 89,6 38 2,7 2,95 70,9 0,7 0,77 Mamona farelo detoxificado 89,2 38,1 1,5 2,9 69,3 1,46 0,65 Mamona torta 89,2 31,8 7,0 3,3 81,6 0,72 0,84 Mamona torta detoxificada 86,3 34 5,5 3,0 73,9 2,14 0,8 Milho glúten 60 90,6 60 2,8 3,8 83,9 0,05 0,44 Milho glúten farelo 21 88,8 21 2,8 3,0 76,7 0,16 0,7 Nabo forrageiro torta 91,9 37,3 18,1 3,7 91,2 0,36 1,71 Milho (DDGS) 91,2 31,8 8,2 - 89 0,05 0,86 Resíduo de cervejaria 22,3 25,6 6,3 3,6 92,2 0,33 0,78 Milho – (DDG) 87,5 23,6 12,7 3,4 86,2 0,05 0,32 Milho (WDG) 31,8 32 6,7 - 93 0,05 0,35 Soja farelo 87 45 2,0 3,4 73 0,3 0,61 Soja farelo extrusado 96,7 41 10,6 3,7 89,7 0,07 0,57 Soja grão 92,8 37 18,8 4,1 87 0,25 0,58 Continuação MS% PB% EE% EM (Mcal/kg) NDT% Ca% P% Soja grão tostado 91,7 39,1 21 3,9 94,2 0,25 0,49 Ureia 97,9 280 - - - - - Coprodutos e/ou subprodutos Arroz palha 89 4,4 - - - - - Abacaxi desidratado 87,1 8,8 1,5 2,1 58,8 0,41 0,18 Acerola subproduto 84,2 11,7 2,4 1,85 51,2 0,41 0,18 Aveia palha 88,8 4,6 2,3 - - - - Batata doce folha - 26,8 - - - - - Batata doce rama 17,4 11,5 2,3 2,4 66,8 1,44 0,32 Cana-de-açúcar bagaço 91 2,0 0,69 1,7 46,6 0,21 0,07 Café casca 84,8 10,1 1,6 1,8 49,7 0,33 0,13 Capim elefante colmo 22 5,8 - 2,0 55,9 - - Caju subproduto suco 88,7 13,9 3,1 - 47,2 0,43 0,1 Maça bagaço 9,9 9,8 - - - - - Mandioca casca 88,6 4,5 1,15 2,7 74,5 0,48 0,06 Maracujá subproduto 85,8 11,9 2,4 1,85 50,8 0,53 0,13 Trigo palha 90 3,9 - - - - - Uva bagaço 35,2 15,9 - - - - - Forragens secas Alfafa feno 85,8 18,7 2,0 2,1 66,4 1,17 0,33 Alfafa feno peletizado 90 25 - - - - - Aveia feno 90 10 2,3 2,0 54 0,4 0,27 Aveia preta feno 87,7 9,9 1,75 - - - - Azevém feno 93 13,5 1,4 - - - - Brachiaria B. feno 88 4,2 1,2 1,9 54 0,33 0,11 Brachiaria D. feno 89 7 1,35 1,9 54,5 0,27 0,14 Cevada feno 90 9 2,1 2,1 57 0,3 0,28 Coast-cross feno 87 10,5 1,75 1,9 53 0,27 0,38 Capim elefante feno 87,3 6 1,8 1,8 52 0,24 0,18 Capim gordura feno 90,7 4,5 2,2 1,5 45 - - Continuação MS% PB% EE% EM (Mcal/kg) NDT% Ca% P% Capim jaraguá feno 90 6,5 - - 53 0,47 0,12 Capim tifton 85 feno 88 9,9 1,45 2,2 57,7 0,33 0,27 Jureminha feno 88 15,9 2,0 1,9 51,7 - - Maniçoba feno 86 12 4,2 2,1 56,2 - - Trevo feno 89 16 2,2 2,1 57 1,73 0,24 Trigo feno 90 9 2,0 2,1 57 0,21 0,22 Triticale feno 90 10 - 2,0 56 0,3 0,26 Silagens (pré-secado) Alfafa silagem 30 18 3,0 2,0 55 1,4 0,29 Arroz silagem planta 37 8,5 - - - - - Aveia preta silagem 23,4 11 2,9 - - - - Aveia silagem 35 12 3,2 2,2 60 0,34 0,3 Azevém silagem 22,4 10,6 1,9 - - - - Cana-de-açúcar silagem 25,7 3,5 1,7 1,9 54,8 0,3 0,05 Cana silagem 0-0,5% CAO 28,9 2,8 1,1 2,2 62 - - Cana silagem 0,5% ureia 28,6 10 - - - - - Cana silagem 1% ureia 31 15 - - - - - Cana silagem 1,5% ureia 29 18 - - - - - Capim-colonião silagem 32 6,6 2,6 1,5 47,3 - - Capim-colonião silagem 2% melaço 26 2,3 1,2 1,5 54 - - Capim elefante silagem 27,5 5,5 2,2 1,7 50 0,31 0,2 Capim elefante silagem 1,5% melaço 23,7 1,5 0,9 0,25 13,3 - - Capim elefante silagem 3% melaço 19,2 1,1 0,8 0,2 11 - - Capim elefante silagem 4% melaço 18,8 1,1 0,7 0,2 10,3 - - Capim elefante silagem 7,5% melaço 19,3 1 0,7 - 11 - - Capim jaraguá silagem 32,2 1,4 0,9 - 15,4 - - Capim mombaça silagem 24,4 7,4 1,7 1,7 49,4 0,44 0,12 Cevada silagem 30 18 3,0 2,0 55 1,4 0,29 Estilosantes silagem 29,3 11,8 1,8 1,8 49 - - Continuação MS% PB% EE% EM (Mcal/kg) NDT% Ca% P% Girassol silagem 24,7 9,6 12,4 2,0 56,1 1,02 0,24 Mandioca silagem raiz 40,4 1,2 0,2 1,4 - 0,09 0,04 Milho silagem 31,1 7,2 2,9 2,3 63,8 0,28 0,19 Milheto silagem 19 15 3,8 2,3 62,7 - - Milho silagem sem espiga 21,3 6,4 1,4 1,9 53,6 - - Soja silagem 25,8 17,8 9,5 2,3 60 - - Sorgo silagem 32 9 2,7 2,1 59 0,48 0,21 Sorgo forrageiro silagem 28,1 6,3 3,4 2,3 63,9 0,14 0,14 Sorgo silagem com tanino 27,6 7,1 2,1 2,2 61,7 - - Sorgo silagem sem tanino 28 7,4 2,2 2,2 61 - - Triticale silagem 26,3 14 1,4 2,1 58 0,66 0,4 Trigo silagem 33 12 3,2 2,1 59 0,4 0,28 Forragens verdes Amendoim forrageiro 22,8 18,4 1,9 2,1 54,5 2,1 0,22 Cana-de-açúcar 28,9 2,8 1,5 2,3 64,5 0,24 0,08 Capim-angola 92 4,2 - - 42,6 0,1 0,19 Capim braquiária brizantha 34 6,9 2,0 1,8 52 0,31 0,11 Capim bb (46-60 dias) 20,8 9,5 4,0 2,0 55,7 0,71 0,47 Capim bb (61-90 dias) 24,9 6,5 4,0 2,1 58 0,46 0,38 Capim bb (91-120 dias) 27,7 4,8 1,2 1,9 54 0,58 0,17 Capim braquiária marandu 33,2 7,7 2,0 1,8 51,5 0,28 0,09 Capim bm (61-90 dias) 37,8 5,5 1,8 1,8 53 0,08 0,05 Capim braq. marandu outono 31 11,8 1,4 2,0 55 - - Capim bm primavera 27 11,3 2,0 2,1 58,7 - - Capim bm verão 29 12,3 1,8 2,0 54 - - Capim bb MG4 23 9,2 1,9 1,9 52,6 - - Capim bb MG4 (61-90 dias) 29 6,4 1,5 1,9 53 - - Capim bb piatã (61-90 dias) 34 4,7 1,7 1,9 55,8 - - Capim bb xaraés 23 9,3 1,5 2,0 56 0,6 0,09 Capim braquiária decumbens 28,5 6,7 1,8 1,8 51,5 0,4 0,1 Capim bd (61-90 dias) 27,8 7,2 2,1 1,7 49,3 0,3 0,19 Continuação MS% PB% EE% EM (Mcal/kg) NDT% Ca% P% Capim bb (91-120 dias) 30 5,7 2,1 1,9 55,2 0,3 0,2 Capim bd (121-150 dias) 43,7 5,1 2,1 2,0 56,7 0,72 0,28 Capim braquiária humidícola 28 7,4 2,5 1,9 54,8 0,38 0,12 Capim buffel (61-90 dias) 34,6 7,8 1,8 1,8 52,3 - - Capim coast cross 32,6 12,2 2,5 - 65,4 0,46 0,16 Capim colonião outono 29,4 14,7 1,3 - - - - Capim colonião primavera 23,4 14,6 1,6 - - - - Capim colonião verão 26,7 16,5 2,6 - - - - Capim elefante 21,7 7 2,3 1,7 50 0,36 0,23 Capim elefante pastejo 24,5 3,3 0,8 0,3 15,7 - - Capim gordura 28 6,9 1,3 2,1 58 0,24 0,07 Capim gordura pastejo 24,8 1,7 0,8 - 8,5 - - Capim jaraguá 29,7 2,7 0,8 - 16,3 - - Capim massai (61-90 dias) 29,5 8 2,1 1,8 51,6 - - Capim mombaça 27 11 1,7 1,9 53 0,74 0,19 Capim mombaça (61-90 dias) 26,8 8,3 1,4 1,8 52 - 0,11 Capim setária (61-90 dias) 21,7 9 1,4 1,9 53,7 - - Capim sudão 19 12,9 2,9 2,0 55 - - Capim tanzânia 23,4 9,5 2,4 1,8 51 0,59 0,14 Capim tanzânia (61-90 dias) 31 5,6 1,7 1,8 53 - - Capim tifton 68 23 13,4 2,9 - - - 0,08 Capim tifton 85 27 12,9 2,0 1,4 39,5 0,54 0,5 Capim-de-rhodes 89 9,6 3,2 - 56,6 - - Crotalária 88,6 15,9 2,7 - 48,9 - - Cunhã 29 16,6 5,1 2,6 69,5 - 0,18 Galáxia 90 13,8 3,6 - 53,5 - - Gliricídia 22 17 5,4 2,2 59 - - Leucena 32 21,2 3,9 2,7 69 0,86 0,18 Maniçoba 24,8 19,4 7,1 2,5 65,3 - 0,18 Milheto 20 12,2 3,1 2,2 60 0,72 0,26 Mororó 47,4 11,3 3,8 2,3 62 - - Continuação MS% PB% EE% EM (Mcal/kg) NDT% Ca% P% Palma miúda 11,3 4,1 2,6 2,3 64,2 3,84 0,22 Sabiá 43,6 12 4,3 2,3 62,2 - - Sorgo forrageiro 24 6,9 3,0 1,8 51,6 0,13 0,13 Forragens verdes e cultivadas Alfafa 25 22 2,7 - 65 1,64 0,23 Aveia branca 90 15 - - - - - Aveia preta 21 8 1,6 2,2 61,5 0,31 0,25 Aveia + Azevém (cultivada) 19 19 4,8 - - - - Azevém 15 15 3,6 - 68 0,43 0,28 Azevém pré-florescimento 17,5 15 1,7 2,4 66,6 0,42 0,3 Azevém início floresc. 22,4 12 1,5 2,3 63 0,45 0,27 Cana-de-açúcar caule 26 2,9 3,2 - - - - Cana-de-açúcar caule+folhas 24 7 3,0 2,3 63,5 0,23 0,21 Centeio 25 13 1,5 2,2 60 0,26 0,29 Cornichão 21 18 2,0 2,3 63 0,92 0,27 Festuca 24 8,5 1,8 2,3 64 0,32 0,3 Trevo branco 16 19 2,1 2,4 64 1,1 0,37 Amendoim branco 36,6 16,8 2,4 2,4 67 1,23 0,18 Braquiarão - 9 1,7 2,3 57 0,3 0,17 Capim colonião (20-60 dias) - 11-5 - - 61-47 0,45¹ 0,24² Capim pangola 35 7,5 - - 55 - - Guandu (40->90 dias) - 21-13 - - - - - Fontes alternativas (Nordeste) Coroa de frade 11 8 3,5 2,5 - 2,06 0,17 Facheiro 10,5 7,5 2,4 2,5 - 5,03 0,12 Mandacaru 14,5 3,5 1,8 2,5 - 3,06 0,07 Palma gigante 12 5 1,9 2,5 - 2,35 0,13 Xique-xique 13 6 1,3 1,7 48,3 3,12 0,07 Cana-de-açúcar caldo 23 0,3 - 2,0 - 0,01 0,02 Cana-de-açúcar levedura 89 35 1,9 2,0 - 0,48 0,73 Continuação MS% PB% EE% EM (Mcal/kg) NDT% Ca% P% Coco farelo 91 24 9,0 3,0 - 0,29 0,51 Capim buffel feno 87 4,5 1,2 1,2 - 0,21 0,06 Capim tifton feno 91 8,5 1,6 1,75 53 0,49 0,14 Cunhã feno 90,5 18 2,7 3,0 - 0,43 0,18 Erva-sal feno 89 9 1,6 - - 0,77 0,04 Feijão bravo feno 80 11,5 3,3 3,0 51 - - Flor de seda feno 75 14 6 1,9 - 2,6 0,22 Guandu feno - 14 2,7 - - - 0,11 Leucena feno 91 21 3,2 2,8 55 1,18 0,29 Mata-pasto feno 89 9,5 - - - 1,75 0,12 Sorgo forrageiro feno 90,8 4,2 - 2,0 - 0,4 0,22 Canafístula 40,8 12,9 4,6 2,0 54 - - Capim elefante roxo 20 8,5 3,5 - - 0,42 0,41 Géria 88 16 1,0 - - 1,17 0,21 Feijão dos arrozais 24 17 5,0 2,7 69 2,6 0,04 Glicirídia casca - 13 0,9 - - 2,06 0,18 Glicirídia caule - 5,6 0,4 - - 0,44 0,07 Glicirídia folha - 22,7 2,0 - - 2,44 0,18 Guandu parte aérea 35 19 5,0 - - 0,89 0,12 Jurema preta 35 12 9,0 - - 0,67 0,25 Leucena caule 49,4 7,5 2,1 - - 0,56 0,69 Leucena folha 35,5 24 2,2 - - 2,18 0,2 Mandioca folha 45 22 5,5 2,5 - 0,91 0,23 Siratro 25 16 2,7 - - 1,02 0,16 Umbuzeiro folha 15 15 8,6 - - 1,29 0,22 Mandioca parte aérea silagem 12,3 18 3,6 2,0 53 1,21 0,14 Caju castanha 97,5 21,9 40,1 5,5 128,9 - - Caju castanha farelo amêndoa 95 23,5 47 3,5 - 0,6 0,25 Caju farelo pseudofruto 89,5 14,8 6,0 - 75 0,06 0,04 Coco amêndoa farelo 96 25 21,7 2,7 - 0,31 0,26 Goiaba subproduto 55 8 4,7 - 35,7 0,15 0,36 Continuação MS% PB% EE% EM (Mcal/kg) NDT% Ca% P% Mandioca bagaço 87,6 2 0,6 - 65 0,14 1,8 Maracujá subproduto 92 11 0,7 1,8 52 0,42 0,22 Melão subproduto 92 14 2,1 0,95 37 0,56 0,8 Milho palha 92,3 5,1 0,4 2,5 54 0,15 0,13 Fontes de minerais Calcário 100% MS – 38% Ca e 1% Mg Calcário calcítico 100% MS – 33,6% Ca Calcário dolomítico 92% MS – 20,3% Ca e 9,6% Mg Cloreto de potássio 100% MS – 39,6% K Flor de enxofre 100% MS – 96% S Fosfato bicálcico 100% MS – 23% Ca – 18% P – 1% Mg – 0,08% K e 0,13% Na Fosfato tricálcico 99,6% MS – 40,2% Ca e 16% P Iodato de potássio 100% MS – 59,3% I Óxido de magnésio 98% MS – 0,58% Ca – 53,8% Mg e 0,03% Na Sal comum 99% MS – 39,5% Na – 2,7% Mn e 9,9% Zn – 1,3% Cu Selenito de sódio 100% MS – 45,6% Se Sulfato de cobalto 100% MS – 20% Co Sulfato de cobre 100% MS – 25,4% Cu Sulfato de manganês 100% MS – 32,5% Mn Sulfato de zinco 100% MS – 35% Zn Fontes proteicas de origem animal³ Proibidos na alimentação de ruminantes dada a IN MAPA – 8/2004 Art. 1º Fonte: DA SILVA, 2021. Na formulação de ração para os animais de produção, é importante levar em consideração que dos mais variados alimentos citados supra, e de tantos outros usados na alimentação e que não são usuais, existem perigos dado os fatores antinutricionais presentes nestes. Por exemplo, os taninos presentes no sorgo, as aflatoxinas presentes no farelo de amendoim, a sojina presente no farelo de soja, o efeito laxativo do farelo de trigo etc. Logo, quando se deseja formular uma dieta, é necessário obedecer às recomendações e nível de uso do ingrediente em quantidade ou porcentagem na ração. A tabela 23 mostra os níveis recomendados dos principais ingredientes para rações de caprinos. Tabela 23: Níveis recomendados de ingredientes para rações de caprinos Ingrediente Quantidade Milho 70% ou mais (depende) Farelo de soja Sem restrição de uso Grão de sorgo Substitui 100% do milho Farelo de trigo 10 – 40% Farelo de arroz Até 20% Farelo de arroz desengordurado 10 – 30% Farelo de amendoim 100 – 400 g/cab./dia Farelo de algodão Até 40% (não recomendável para reprodutores) Casca de amendoim 5% Aveia 70% Centeio moído 40% Polpa seca de cevada 40% Farelo de linhaça 15% Fubá de milho 50% Proteinoso de milho 25% Glúten de milho 10 – 25% Sabugo de milho desintegrado 5% Caroço de algodão 25% Farelo de girassol 30% Ureia 2% Casca de algodão 40% Casca de arroz 15% Torta de girassol Até 30% Torta de colza Até 20% Torta de linhaça Até 20% Torta de mamona 5 – 10% Torta de gergelim Até 30% Raiz fresca mandioca 1 – 2% do PV Polpa cítrica Até 30% Melaço de cana 150 – 230 g/cab./dia Melaço de cana em pó Até 5% Farelo de coco Até 30% Feijão Até 15% Gergelim Até 30% Girassol 20 – 30% Ureia 50 g/100 kg PV Bananeira Até 20% Farelo de cacau Até 30% Farelo de café Até 20% Bagaço de cana Até 30% Cana-de-açúcar picada fresca 1 – 2 kg/cab./dia Centeio 40 – 40% Cevada 40 – 60% Semente de girassol 400 – 500 g/cab./dia Torta de girassol 200 – 300 g/cab./dia Farelo integral de mandioca Até 50% Farelinho de trigo 150 g/cab./dia Grão de trigo Até 50% Fonte: DA SILVA, 2021; NUNES, 1998 e TEIXEIRA, 1998. Além dos alimentos convencionais ou não acima citados, existem os alimentos chamados de subprodutos que possuem alto potencial nutricional para a alimentação animal. A tabela 24 apresenta a composição de subprodutos da agricultura com alto potencial para serem utilizados na formulação de ração como ingrediente e/ou suplemento. Tabela 24: Composição de subprodutos e alimentos não usuais para rações de caprinos Alimento MS (%) PB (%) NDT (%) EE (%) FB (%) Ca (%) P (%) Abacate, farelo desengordurado 91 20,3 50 1,2 19,3 - - Abacate, casca 24 6,9 90 34,9 24,5 0,11 0,18 Continuação MS (%) PB (%) NDT (%) EE (%) FB (%) Ca (%) P (%) Abacate, semente 41 4,9 90 3,8 5,9 0,04 0,20 Abacaxi 14,7 2,7 80,1 1,4 2,7 0,14 0,07 Abacaxi, bagaço 87 4,6 68 1,5 20,9 0,27 0,13 Abacaxi, coroa 16 10 42,8 3,1 23,1 - - Abacaxi, cortado verde 18 7,8 56 2,2 27 0,28 0,08 Arroz, casca 92 3,3 12 0,8 42,9 0,10 0,08 Banana, polpa fruto 24 4,5 84 0,8 2,1 0,03 0,11 Batata, farelo tubérculo 89 8,4 90 0,4 7,3 0,16 0,25 Batata, tubérculo fresco 23 9,5 81 0,4 2,4 0,04 0,24 Batata, silagem tubérculo 25 7,6 82 0,4 4 0,04 0,23 Batata-doce, planta 20 19,5 49,4 2,5 14,5 - - Batata-doce, tubérculo 31 5 80 1,3 6 0,09 0,13 Batata-doce, farelo tubérculo 90 5,4 80 1 3,7 0,17 0,16 Beterraba-forrageira 13,8 11,3 79,2 0,6 7,5 0,22 0,22 Cenoura 12 9,9 84 1,4 9,1 0,4 0,35 Cenoura, planta 16 13,1 74 3,8 18,1 1,94 0,19 Cenoura, polpa 14 6,4 62,8 7,8 18,6 - - Cevada, palha 91 4,3 49 1,9 42 0,3 0,07 Laranja, silagem do bagaço 11,3 8,8 65 2,2 17,7 - - Limão, bagaço 93 6,9 77 1,5 15,9 - - Ervilha, feno da planta 88 13,6 58 2,5 30,2 1,39 0,28 Ervilha, silagem da rama 25 13,1 57 3,3 29,8 1,31 0,24 Ervilha, farelo da vagem 90 19,7 84 1,6 26,3 - - Feijão, palha 90 6,8 51 1,5 44,5 1,85 0,14 Feijão, farelo da palha 92,1 7,7 44,1 1,5 39,6 - - Gergelim, torta da semente 94,7 38 88,8 26 4 - - Maça, bagaço 89 4,9 69 5,1 17 0,13 0,12 Maça, silagem do bagaço 21,4 7,8 74 6,3 20,6 0,1 0,1 Maça, fruto 17 2,8 70 2,2 7,3 0,06 0,06 Melão 4,1 11,5 70,7 3,3 23 - - Melão, torta 6,1 11,5 74,6 3,3 23 - - Continuação MS (%) PB (%) NDT (%) EE (%) FB (%) Ca (%) P (%) Pera 17,3 - 86,7 - - - - Pera, bagaço 91,5 6,1 70,6 2,1 23,8 2,38 0,12 Pêssego 10 8,7 80 3,7 10,3 - - Repolho 9,5 25,3 85,3 4,2 15,8 0,64 0,35 Repolho, folhas 14,8 14,4 66,7 2,5 14,3 0,63 0,21 Romã, bagaço 26 8,4 68,4 4,9 16,6 - - Soja, palha 88 5,2 44 1,4 44 1,59 0,06 Tomate, bagaço 92 23,5 58 10,3 26,4 0,43 0,60 Tomate, silagem do bagaço 29,5 19,2 63,9 14,6 44,9 0,5 0,47 Tomate, fruto 6 16,4 69 5 9,1 0,16 0,49 Uva, bagaço 91 13 33 7,9 31,9 0,61 0,06 Uva, farelo 90 30,2 - - - - - Fonte: NUNES, 1998. -/- FORMULAÇÃO DE RAÇÃO PARA CAPRINOS -/- A formulação de dietas para caprinos de corte ou leiteiros é análoga ao esquema de formulação para os demais ruminantes. Sempre é necessário categorizar os animais para determinar situações como peso vivo do animal, estado fisiológico, isto é, se está produzindo ou não, idade etc.; posteriormente, faz-se necessário a busca pelas exigências nutricionais dos animais mediante a literatura, seja através das publicações do NRC, AFRC ou CSIRO, caso o lote possua peso diferente das tabelas, por exemplo média de 27 kg de PV, basta utilizar as equações de predição para determinar as exigências de MS, PB, NDT ou EM, Ca e P; encontrada as exigências dos caprinos é necessário a avaliação de quais são os ingredientes disponíveis na propriedade e sua composição nutricional para ser utilizado de métodos matemáticos ou programações de computador para balancear as quantidades de cada um para que possam suprir a exigência do animal. Aqui, apresentarei situações de formulação práticas, que o profissional poderá se deparar no cotidiano profissional, dos quais os animais serão alimentados com o uso do creep-feeding; e animais em mantença, confinados para o ganho de peso, sob pastejo, gestantes e, por fim, em lactação. Para a determinação das exigências dos animais utilizarei os valores aqui descritos que foram compilados do NRC, 2007 e NUNES, 1998 descritos nas tabelas do capítulo 1. Para os alimentos serão usados os valores aqui presentes e compilados de diversos autores e descritos na tabela 20 do capítulo 2. A abordagem matemática utilizada para formular as dietas serão explicadas pelos métodos de formulação do quadrado de Pearson simples, que balanceia apenas um nutriente, ou duplo, que balanceia mais de um nutriente; pelo método algébrico com duas equações e dois ingredientes, ou três equações e três ou mais ingredientes, do qual esse método é capaz de sempre balancear dois ou três nutrientes, sendo os usados a PB e NDT. Os cálculos serão explicados de forma didática visando a facilidade para todos. EXEMPLO 1: formular dieta para uso em creep-feeding, para lote de cabritos com média de 10 kg PV e CMS à vontade. A ração deverá conter 20% PB e 80% de NDT. Os alimentos disponíveis são fubá de milho, raspa de mandioca e farelo de soja. Deixar 2% para suplemento mineral e sal. Determine o aporte mineral da dieta final. 1º passo: determinação da composição dos alimentos: Ingrediente MS % PB % NDT % Ca % P % Fubá de milho 91 10 86 0,02 0,29 Raspa de mandioca 88 3 69 0,15 0,80 Farelo de soja 89 47 81 0,25 0,65 -/- 2º passo: montar o sistema com 3 equações e 3 incógnitas onde x é milho, y raspa de mandioca e z farelo de soja: Equação MS: x + y + z = 98 Equação PB: 0,1x + 0,03y + 0,47z = 20 Equação NDT: 0,86x + 0,69y + 0,81z = 80 3º passo: resolvendo o sistema, vamos obter: x +y +z = 98 0,1x +0,03y +0,47z = 20 0,86x +0,69y +0,81z = 80 x +y +z = 98 0,1x +0,03y +0,47z = 20 0,432y -3,232z = -92 (-8,6 foi adicionada a linha 3) x +y +z = 98 -0,07y +0,37z = 10,2 0,432y -3,232z = -92 ( -0,1 foi adicionada a linha 2) x +y +z = 98 -0,07y +0,37z = 10,2 -0,949z = -29,051 (6,171 foi adicionada a linha 3) x + y +z = 98 y -5,286z = -145,714 -0,949z = -29,051 (a 2ª linha foi dividida -0,07) x +y +z = 98 y -5,286z = -145,714 z = 30,627 (a 3ª linha foi dividida -0,949) -/- 3ª linha: z = 30,6 -/- 2ª linha: y -5,286z = -145,714 -/- Use as variáveis já calculadas: y -5,286⋅30,627 = -145,714 -/- Resolva y: y = 16,2 -/- 1ª linha: x +y +z = 98 -/- Use as variáveis já calculadas: x +⋅16,169 +⋅30,627 = 98 -/- Resolva x: x = 51,2 -/- 4º passo: verificação da ração: Ingrediente MS kg PB kg NDT kg Ca g P g Fubá de milho 51,2 5,1 44 10,2 148,5 Raspa de mandioca 16,2 0,5 11,2 24,3 129,6 Farelo de soja 30,6 14,4 24,8 76,5 198,9 TOTAL 98 20 80 111 477 Exigência 98 20 80 - - DÉFICE - - - - - -/- 5º passo: a relação Ca:P é de 0,23:1, como para ruminantes o ideal é entre 1:1 e 2:1, é necessário a adição de uma fonte de Ca para aumentar a quantidade do mesmo na ração e aumentar a relação. Usando 2 kg (ER de 2%) de calcário, teremos: 1 kg calc. ---------- 0,38 kg Ca 2 kg calc. ---------- x kg Ca X = 0,76 kg de Ca. O total de Ca na ração será 871 g. E a relação agora será de 1,8:1, ideal. 6º passo: composição final da ração para creep-feeding para cabritos: Ingrediente MS kg MN kg % final MN PB kg NDT kg Ca g P g Fubá de milho 51,2 56,3 50,6 5,1 44 10,2 148,5 Raspa de mandioca 16,2 18,4 16,6 0,5 11,2 24,3 129,6 Farelo de soja 30,6 34,4 31 14,4 24,8 76,5 198,9 Calcário 2 2 1,8 - - 760 - TOTAL 100 111,1 100 20 80 871 477 Exigência 100 - 100 20 80 - - DÉFICE - - - - - - - -/- 7º passo: segundo o NRC, o CMS de um cabrito com essas características é de 0,3 kg/dia. Então a ração deverá ser composta por: Ingrediente CMS g MS g MN g PB g NDT g Fubá de milho 300 153,6 168,8 15,4 132,1 Raspa de mandioca 48,6 55,2 1,5 33,5 Farelo de soja 91,8 103,1 43,2 74,4 Calcário 6 6 - - TOTAL 300 300 333,1 60 240 -/- As 60 g da PB equivalem aos 20% e os 240 g de NDT equivalem a 80%. Por fim, para uma boa ração de uso em creep-feeding para cabritos com 10 kg PV, são necessários 170 g de milho moído, 60 g de raspa de mandioca, 110 g de farelo de soja e 6 g de calcário. -/- EXEMPLO 2: você foi convidado para trabalhar em uma fazenda que produz leite de cabras da raça Saanen, a média da produção leiteira é de 5 kg/dia com um teor de 3,5% de gordura. Forneça ração volumosa em até 20% da MS total. Os alimentos disponíveis para a ração volumosa são silagem de milho e feno de braquiária; para a mistura concentrada são milho moído, ureia e farelo de soja. Dados o CMS é de 3 kg/dia e o peso médio do lote de 50 kg. 1º passo: determinação das exigências nutricionais da cabra: Exigência CMS kg PB kg NDT kg Ca g P g (1) Mantença 3,0 0,075 0,530 3 2,1 Prod./kg 0,068 0,342 4 1,5 (2) Prod./kg x 5 0,340 1,71 20 7,5 (1 + 2) TOTAL 3,0 0,415 2,24 23 9,6 TOTAL % 100 13,8 74,7 0,77 0,32 -/- 2º passo: composição dos alimentos disponíveis: Ingrediente MS % PB % NDT % Ca % P % Silagem de milho 27 8 65 0,52 0,16 Feno de braquiária 89 8 60 0,23 0,10 Milho moído 90 9 86 0,02 0,29 Ureia 100 280 - - - Farelo de soja 90 45 84 0,29 0,65 -/- 3º passo: como 600 g (20% CMS) deverá ser aportada pela ração volumosa, vamos fornecer 300 g MS de ambos os volumosos. Teremos, então: Volumosos MS kg PB kg NDT kg Ca g P g Silagem 0,3 0,024 0,195 1,6 0,5 Feno 0,3 0,024 0,180 0,7 0,3 TOTAL 0,6 0,048 0,375 2,3 0,8 Exigência 3,0 0,415 2,24 23 9,6 DÉFICE 2,4 0,367 1,865 20,7 8,8 -/- 4º passo: a ração concentrada deverá conter 0,367 kg de PB e 1,865 kg de NDT. Vamos fornecer uma quantidade fixa de 50 g de ureia, então: 50 x 280/100 = 140 g PB Calculando o novo défice da PB: 0,367 – 0,140 = 0,227 5º passo: montamos o sistema de duas equações e duas incógnitas para determinar a quantidade de x milho moído e y farelo de soja necessárias para suprir 0,227 kg PB e 1,865 kg de NDT. Lembrando que o défice de MS é de 2,4, ou seja, o total final de x + y não deverá ser superior. Equação PB: 0,09x + 0,45y = 0,227 Equação NDT: 0,86x + 0,84y = 1,865 Respondendo direto, já que aprendemos o método de resolução anteriormente: 0,86x + 0,84y = 1,865 0,86x + 4,30y = 2,17 0 - 3,46y = 0,305 y = 0,305/3,46 y = 0,088 kg de farelo de soja, ou 90 g. Substituindo y na equação PB: 0,09x + 0,45(0,09) = 0,227 0,09x + 0,0405 = 0,227 0,09x = 0,227 – 0,0405 0,09x = 0,1865 x = 2,07 kg de milho moído, ou 2,1 kg. 6º passo: verificação da ração concentrada: Ingrediente MS kg PB kg NDT kg Ca g P g Milho 2,1 0,189 1,8 0,42 6,1 Ureia 0,05 0,140 - - - Farelo de soja 0,09 0,040 0,07 0,26 0,6 TOTAL 2,24 0,369 1,87 0,68 6,7 Exigência 2,4 0,367 1,865 20,7 8,8 DÉFICE 0,16 - - 20 2,1 -/- 7º passo: ajuste mineral para suprir o défice de 2,1 g de P com fosfato bicálcico e 20 g de Ca com calcário. Fazendo as relações, análogas a anteriores, e sabendo-se que o FB contém 18% de P e 23% de Ca e o calcário possui 38% de Ca, encontramos: Para P: 11,7 ou 12 g de fosfato bicálcico contendo 2,1 g de P e 2,8 g de Ca Para Ca: 45,5 g de calcário contendo 17,2 g de Ca 8º passo: composição final da dieta: Volumosos MS kg MN kg % final PB kg NDT kg Ca g P g Silagem de milho 0,3 1,1 27,6 0,024 0,195 1,6 0,5 Feno de braquiária 0,3 0,34 8,5 0,024 0,180 0,7 0,3 Concentrados Milho moído 2,1 2,33 58,6 0,189 1,8 0,42 6,1 Ureia 0,05 0,05 1,3 0,140 - - - Farelo de soja 0,09 0,1 2,5 0,040 0,07 0,26 0,6 Calcário 0,046 0,046 1,2 - - 17,4 - Fosfato bicálcico 0,012 0,012 0,3 - - 2,7 2,1 TOTAL 2,9 3,98 100 0,417 2,24 23,1 9,9 Exigência 3,0 - 100 0,415 2,24 23 9,6 DÉFICE - - - - - - -/- Por fim, uma ração para cabras Saanen com 50 kg PV e produzindo 5 kg leite/dia com 3,5% de gordura, são necessários 600 g de mistura volumosa à base de 50% de silagem de milho e 50% de feno de braquiária e 2,6 kg de ração concentrada à base de 2,4 kg de milho, 100 g de farelo de soja, 50 g de ureia e 50 g para calcário e fosfato bicálcico. O CMS de cada cabra com essa ração será de 2,9 kg/dia, ou seja, dentro dos limites de 3 kg/dia, segundo o NRC, 2007. A relação Ca:P é 2,3:1, sendo uma relação aceitável, já que ruminantes suportam uma relação até 3:1. -/- EXEMPLO 3: formule uma dieta para animais em mantença situados na região semiárida de Pernambuco. Os animais possuem peso médio de 40 kg e estão em condições de atividade média, ou seja, 50% a mais dos requisitos de mantença segundo o NRC, 2007. Os alimentos disponíveis são capim tifton verde e fubá de milho. Dados o CMS é de 1,1 kg/dia. 1º passo: determinação das exigências nutricionais do animal: Exigência MS kg PB kg NDT kg Ca g P g Mantença 1,1 0,064 0,448 3 2 X50% 0,032 0,224 2 1,5 TOTAL 1,1 0,096 0,672 5 3,5 TOTAL % 100 8,8 61,1 0,45 0,32 -/- 2º passo: composição dos alimentos disponíveis: Ingrediente MS % PB % NDT % Ca % P % Capim tifton 27 13 40 0,54 0,50 Fubá de milho 90 9 85 0,02 0,29 -/- 3º passo: montando o sistema de equações onde x milho e y capim terão que fornecer 0,096 kg de PB e 0,672 kg de NDT: Equação PB: 0,09x + 0,13y = 0,096 Equação NDT: 0,85x + 0,40y = 0,672 Resolvendo o sistema direto, temos: 0,85x + 0,40y = 0,672 0,85x + 1,223y = 0,907 0 + 0,823y = 0,235 y = 0,235/0,823 y = 0,286 kg de capim tifton, ou 290 g. Substituindo y na equação PB: 0,09x + 0,40(0,286) = 0,096 0,09x + 0,037 = 0,096 0,09x = 0,096 – 0,037 0,09x = 0,059 x = 0,656 kg de milho moído, ou 660 g. 4º passo: verificação da ração: Ingrediente MS kg PB kg NDT kg Ca g P g Milho 0,656 0,059 0,558 0,1 1,9 Capim tifton 0,286 0,037 0,114 1,5 1,4 TOTAL 0,942 0,096 0,672 1,6 3,3 Exigência 1,1 0,096 0,672 5 3,5 DÉFICE 0,158 - - 3,4 0,2 -/- 5º passo: adição de fosfato bicálcico e calcário ao milho para suprir o défice de P e Ca: Para P: 1,2 g de fosfato bicálcico fornecerá 0,2 g de P e 0,28 g de Ca. Para Ca: 8,2 g de calcário fornecerá 3,1 g de Ca. 6º passo: verificação final da dieta: Ingrediente MS g MN g % final PB g NDT g Ca g P g Capim tifton 286 1060 58,9 37 114 1,5 1,4 Fubá de milho 656 729 40,6 59 558 0,1 1,9 Calcário 8,2 8,2 0,45 - - 3,12 - Fosfato bicálcico 1,2 1,2 0,05 - - 0,28 0,2 TOTAL 951,4 1798,4 100 96 672 5 3,5 Exigência 1100 - 100 96 672 5 3,5 DÉFICE - - - - - - - -/- Por fim, para mantença de lote de caprinos no semiárido com atividade média e 40 kg de PV, são necessários, para fins práticos, 1,1 kg de capim tifton, 730 g de milho misturado com 9 g de calcário e 1,5 g de fosfato bicálcico. A MS da ração satisfaz completamente as exigências de CMS do animal e sobre espaço de 0,149 kg de MS que o animal poderá ingerir com outras fontes de alimentos para um possível início de ganho de peso. A relação Ca:P da mistura é de 1,4:1. -/- EXEMPLO 4: um pequeno produtor de caprinos de Belo Jardim-PE deseja manter seu lote de animais no período da seca, onde a vegetação é escassa e o clima semiárido. Os alimentos disponíveis na propriedade são algarobeira e sementes de guandu. O lote de animais possui média de 40 kg PV. O CMS é de 1,1 kg/dia. 1º passo: exigências nutricionais do animal: Segundo o NRC, 1981 para uma seca e um clima tipicamente semiárido como o de Belo Jardim, são necessários acréscimos de 75% das exigências de mantença, ou seja, é necessário adicionar 75% a mais do valor de mantença para obter as exigências finais. Logo: Exigência MS kg PB kg NDT kg Ca g P g Mantença 1,1 0,063 0,448 3 2 X75% 0,047 0,336 3 2 TOTAL 1,1 0,110 0,784 6 4 TOTAL % 100 10 71,3 0,55 0,36 -/- 2º passo: composição dos alimentos disponíveis: Ingrediente MS % PB % NDT % Ca % P % Algaroba 89 9 70 0,4 0,15 Guandu 89 23 80 0,15 0,45 -/- 3º passo: montando o sistema e respondendo direto vamos obter: Equação PB: 0,09x + 0,23y = 0,110 Equação NDT: 0,70x + 0,80y = 0,784 Resolvendo o sistema direto, temos: 0,70x + 0,80y = 0,784 0,70x + 1,789y = 0,856 0 - 0,989y = -0,072 y = -0,072/-0,989 y = 0,073 kg de sementes de guandu, ou 80 g. Substituindo y na equação PB: 0,09x + 0,23(0,08) = 0,110 0,09x + 0,0184 = 0,110 0,09x = 0,110 – 0,0184 0,09x = 0,0916 x = 1,02 kg de algaroba, ou 1,1 kg. 4º passo: verificação da ração: Ingrediente MS kg PB kg NDT kg Ca g P g Algaroba 1,02 0,092 0,715 4,1 1,5 Guandu 0,08 0,018 0,65 0,1 0,4 TOTAL 1,1 0,110 0,780 4,2 1,9 Exigência 1,1 0,110 0,784 6 4 DÉFICE - - - 1,8 2,1 -/- 5º passo: ajuste mineral para suprir Ca e P: Para P: 12 g de fosfato bicálcico tem 2,1 g de P e 2,7 g de Ca 6º passo: composição final da dieta: Ingrediente MS g MN g % final PB g NDT g Ca g P g Algaroba 1020 1146 91,8 92 715 4,1 1,5 Guandu 80 90 7,2 18 65 0,1 0,4 Fosfato bicálcico 12 12 1,0 - - 2,7 2,1 TOTAL 1112 1248 100 110 780 6,9 4 Exigência 1100 - 100 110 784 6 4 DÉFICE - - - - - - - -/- Por fim, para manter um lote de caprinos na seca com média de 40 kg PV, é necessário o fornecimento de, para fins práticos, 1200 g de algaroba, 100 g de sementes de guandu e 12 g de fosfato bicálcico. O CMS da dieta é ideal e a relação Ca:P é de 1,7:1. -/- EXEMPLO 5: formular dieta para caprinos reprodutores. Os alimentos disponíveis são palma miúda, triticale e farelo de algodão. O peso médio do reprodutor é de 70 kg e o CMS de 1,26 kg/dia. Por fim, calcular o aporte mineral da dieta. Será fornecido 1 kg de palma in natura/cabeça. 1º passo: exigências para caprino reprodutor com 70 kg PV: Exigência CMS kg PB g NDT g Ca g P g TOTAL 1,26 203 695 5 3 TOTAL % 100 16 55,1 0,4 0,24 -/- 2º passo: composição dos alimentos disponíveis: Ingrediente MS % PB % NDT % Ca % P % Palma 9 4 70 2 0,31 Triticale 87 14 85 0,04 0,32 Farelo de algodão 90 33 70 0,2 0,8 -/- 3º passo: fornecimento fixo de 1 kg de palma: Volumoso MS g PB g NDT g Ca g P g Palma 90 3,6 63 1,8 0,3 Exigência 1260 203 695 5 3 DÉFICE 1170 199,4 632 3,2 2,7 -/- 4º passo: calcular mistura de x triticale e y farelo de algodão que atenda a demanda de 0,1994 kg de PB e 0,632 kg de NDT. Montando a equação e resolvendo direto teremos: Equação PB: 0,14x 0,33y = 0,1994 Equação NDT: 0,85x + 0,70y = 0,632 Fator de multiplicação: 6,071 (0,85/0,14) Equação NDT: 0,85x + 0,70y = 0,632 Equação 3: 0,85x + 2,00y = 1,211 0 - 1,30y = 0,579 y = 0,445 kg de farelo de algodão Substituindo na equação PB: 0,14x + 0,33 x 0,445 = 0,1994 0,14x + 0,1469 = 0,1994 0,14x = 0,1994 – 0,1469 0,14x = 0,0525 x = 0,375 kg de triticale 5º passo: verificação da ração: Ingrediente MS g PB g NDT g Ca g P g Triticale 375 52,5 319 0,15 1,2 Farelo de algodão 445 146,9 312 0,9 3,6 TOTAL 820 199,4 631 1,05 4,8 Exigência 1170 199,4 632 3,2 2,7 DÉFICE - - - 2,15 - -/- 6º passo: ajuste mineral com calcário para suprir o défice de 2,15 g de Ca: 5,7 ou 6 g de calcário tem 2,3 g de Ca 7º passo: composição final da dieta: Ingrediente MS g MN g % final PB g NDT g Ca g P g Palma 90 1000 51,8 3,6 63 1,8 0,3 Triticale 375 431 22,3 52,5 319 0,15 1,2 Farelo de algodão 445 494,5 25,6 149,9 312 0,90 3,6 Calcário 6 6 0,3 - - 2,3 - TOTAL 916 1931,5 100 203 695 5 3 Exigência 1260 - 100 203 694 5,15 5,1 DÉFICE 344 - - - - - - -/- O CMS é inferior do que o recomendado, no entanto, as exigências foram supridas pelos alimentos. São necessários 1 kg de palma e uma mistura concentrada de 430 g de triticale, 500 g de farelo de algodão e 6 g de calcário/cabeça/dia. A relação Ca:P é de 1:1. -/- EXEMPLO 6: formular dieta para caprinos reprodutores que necessitam de 16% de PB e 60% de NDT. Os alimentos disponíveis são milho, silagem de capim-elefante e farelo de soja. Deixar 2% de ER para suplement. (shrink)

REFLEXÃO SOBRE A METODOLOGIA DO ENSINO DE FILOSOFIA -/- -/- REFLECTION ON THE METHODOLOGY OF PHILOSOPHY TEACHING -/- -/- Por: Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro da Silva – IFPE-BJ, CAP-UFPE e UFRPE. E-mails: [email protected] e [email protected]. WhatsApp: (82)9.8143-8399. -/- -/- -/- Etimologicamente, a palavra método é constituída pelos termos gregos metá, "por meio de", e hodós, "caminho". O método é, portanto, um "caminho por meio do qual" chegamos a um fim, atingimos determinado objetivo. -/- Vejamos qual é o desafio para o professor (...) estabelecer seu método, tendo em vista os fins pedagógicos do ensino de filosofia. Comecemos comparando a metodologia do filósofo com a do cientista, para constatarmos uma diferença fundamental: os cientistas procuram manter certa '"cumplicidade metodológica", caracterizada pelo que se chamou de paradigma, um modelo comum a todos os cientistas de um determinado campo do saber, durante um período do tempo; já os filósofos não são unânimes quanto às regras do método, de modo que os caminhos percorridos por eles são diferentes, como percebemos no contato com o pensamento de Platão, Descartes, Espinosa, Hegel, Husserl, para citar apenas alguns. -/- Ao escolher o programa das aulas com o conteúdo a ser discutido em cada ano do curso, ocorre algo semelhante: nas disciplinas das áreas de matemática e ciências da natureza, por exemplo, o campo do saber é aceito pela comunidade científica, o que orienta o professor dessas disciplinas na composição daquele conteúdo. Já para a aula de filosofia, existe mais flexibilidade de escolha tanto do conteúdo como da metodologia empregada. -/- A diferença entre o ensino das demais disciplinas e o ensino da filosofia nos coloca a seguinte questão: "Se não existe um método único para orientar os filósofos - já que não há uma filosofia, mas filosofias qual o sentido, aqui, de buscar um método para ensinar a filosofar?". De fato, o professor-filósofo possui sua visão de mundo, como todo ser humano integrado a seu tempo, ciente dos problemas éticos e políticos diante dos quais toma partido. Nesse sentido, ele teria também o seu próprio método, acrescido esse fato ao conhecimento que o professor dispõe de história da filosofia. -/- Contudo, pode-se reavaliar essa objeção se destacarmos a possibilidade de alternativas metodológicas que poderão enriquecer a atividade pedagógica. -/- 1. Riscos de instrumentalizar a filosofia -/- O compromisso do professor com o exercício do filosofar decorre de não ser o seu objetivo encaminhar os alunos na direção "certa" ou "guiá-los como um farol" para que "não se extraviem". A aula de filosofia cria um espaço de discussão de conceitos, exposição plural de ideias e problematização para que permita aos educandos desenvolverem as competências necessárias para pensar por conta própria, ou seja, para a autonomia intelectual. -/- Qual seria, então, o objeto do ensino de filosofia no ensino médio? Dizendo de outra forma, a aula de filosofia teria objetivos além do próprio filosofar? -/- Vejamos alguns exemplos de risco de instrumentalização da filosofia. -/- 1.1 O ensino de filosofia é neutro? -/- Trata-se de uma questão metodológica indagar se seria possível a neutralidade do professor em filosofia. Podemos perguntar: "1Jm professor de filosofia cristão ou ateu, liberal ou marxista, platônico ou nietzschiano pode ou não repercutir nas aulas sua formação e suas preferências?". -/- É ilusório imaginar a total neutralidade nesse campo. Podemos destacar na formação do professor-educador três aspectos importantes: -/- • qualificação: o professor precisa adquirir os conhecimentos indispensáveis ao ensino de um conteúdo específico; -/- • formação pedagógica: a atividade educativa supera os níveis do senso comum para se tornar uma atividade sistematizada; -/- • formação ética e política: o professor educa com base em valores. -/- Assim diz o professor Antônio Joaquim Severino, a propósito da formação de todo e qualquer educador: -/- Sem dúvida, um curso de formação de educadores pressupõe necessariamente um mínimo de habilitação técnica, fundada n um campo de conhecimentos científicos. [...] Também ao educador, como a qualquer outro profissional, impõe-se a exigência da competência, entendida como domínio de conteúdos, dos métodos, das técnicas especializadas relativas à área dos conhecimentos educacionais. [...] -/- Mas, sem prejuízo deste compromisso com a competência, os cursos de formação de educadores têm que assumir um outro compromisso: o de dar sólida formação política, mediante adequada conscientização dos aspectos políticos, económicos e sociais da realidade histórica em que se desenvolvem os processos educacionais nos quais atuará o futuro educador. [...] Todo projeto educacional será necessariamente um projeto politico e não há como evitá-lo. A educação, como qualquer outra atividade humana, não é um processo neutro. Considerá-la assim é reforçar posições politico-ideológicas consolidadas (1966, p. 13-14). (Temas Básicos de Educação e Ensino). -/- No entanto, espera-se que, no ensino médio, o professor não se restrinja às suas preferências, porque a sala de aula é o espaço por excelência do pluralismo e da diversidade. Desnecessário dizer que não é desejável qualquer tipo de proselitismo, que abre caminho para uma doutrinação sectária. Ao contrário, é salutar oferecer um leque maior de concepções filosóficas. -/- Não nos referimos, no entanto, a uma "assepsia" pela qual os alunos não tenham acesso às posições assumidas pelo professor. Evitar a parcialidade em temas socialmente controversos não significa abster-se de opinar, desde que sua posição esteja ancorada em argumentações firmadas na sua experiência com a história da filosofia e aberta ao debate plural. -/- Com essas ponderações, não se pretende indicar regras de conduta ao professor, mas apenas acenar com a necessidade de refletir sobre alternativas entre parcialidade e neutralidade do ensino a fim de não instrumentalizar a filosofia. -/- 1.2 A filosofia “ensina” cidadania? -/- Uma polêmica despertada pelo artigo 2° da LDB de 1996 nos ajuda a refletir um pouco mais sobre o tema do risco da instrumentalização da filosofia: -/- A educação, dever da família e do Estado, inspirada nos princípios de liberdade e nos ideais de solidariedade humana, tem por finalidade o pleno desenvolvimento do educando, seu preparo para o exercício da cidadania e sua qualificação para o trabalho (BRASIL, 1996). -/- No que se refere ao ensino de filosofia, a pergunta é a seguinte: "Pode-se dizer que um dos objetivos da filosofia no ensino médio é ensinar cidadania?". Esse questionamento não visa negar a importância de educar para a cidadania, mas convém saber como fazê-lo. -/- Posicionando-se sobre esse debate, vejamos o que diz o documento do MEC Orientações Curriculares para o Ensino Médio, elaborado em 2006: -/- Independentemente, neste momento, de qualquer avaliação acerca da concepção que se apresenta na legislação, cabe ressaltar, em primeiro lugar, que seria criticável tentar justificar a filosofia apenas por sua contribuição como um instrumental para a cidadania. Mesmo que pudesse fazê-lo, ela nunca deveria ser limitada a isso. Muito mais amplo é, por exemplo, seu papel no processo de formação geral dos jovens (BRASIL, 2006, p. 25-26). -/- Após ressaltar que preparar para a cidadania é "um papel do conjunto das disciplinas e da política pública voltada para essa etapa da formação", lemos na mesma página do referido documento: -/- A pergunta que se coloca é: qual a contribuição especifica da filosofia em relação ao exercício da cidadania para essa etapa da formação? A resposta a essa questão destaca o papel peculiar da filosofia no desenvolvimento da competência geral de fala, leitura e escrita — competência aqui compreendida de um modo bastante especial e ligada à natureza argumentativa da filosofia e à sua tradição histórica. [realce nosso] Cabe, então, especificamente à filosofia, a capacidade de análise, de reconstrução racional e de crítica a partir da compreensão de que tomar posições diante de textos propostos de qualquer tipo (tanto textos filosóficos quanto textos não filosóficos e formações discursivas não explicitadas em textos) e emitir opiniões acerca deles é um pressuposto indispensável para o exercício da cidadania (BRASIL, 2006, p. 25-26). -/- A educação para a cidadania, portanto, não se reduz necessariamente à leitura de textos específicos sobre cidadania, embora estes não sejam desconsiderados. O ensino de filosofia tem como objetivo desenvolver a competência discursivo-filosófica. Não há cidadania se não for alcançada a autonomia do pensar crítico, que, na filosofia, tem o seu diferencial pelo recurso à tradição filosófica. Ao levantar problemas, a filosofia estimula a indagação e fortalece a capacidade de conceituação e argumentação. -/- -/- REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS -/- ARANHA, M. L. de A.; MARTINS, H. P. Filosofando: Introdução à Filosofia. 6ª ed. São Paulo: Moderna, 2016. -/- BRASIL. Ministério de Educação e Cultura. Ciências humanas e suas tecnologias. In: Orientações Curriculares para o Ensino Médio. Brasília: Ministério da Educação; Secretaria de Educação Básica, 2006. -/- ______________________________________. Parâmetros Curriculares Nacionais. Ensino Médio: Bases Legais. Brasília: MEC, 1999. -/- FOLSCHEID, D.; WUNENBURGER, J. J. Metodologia filosófica. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 1997. -/- GALLO, S. Metodologia do ensino de filosofia: uma didática para o ensino médio. Campinas: Papirus, 2012. -/- KOHAN, W. O. (Org.). Políticas do ensino de filosofia. Rio de Janeiro: DP6A, 2014. -/- SEVERINO, J. A. Educação, ideologia e contraideologia. 1ª ed. São Paulo: EPU, 1966. -/- Estimule a criatividade, respeite o direito autoral. -/- Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro da Silva © 2019. (shrink)

Creativity pervades human life. It is the mark of individuality, the vehicle of self-expression, and the engine of progress in every human endeavor. It also raises a wealth of neglected and yet evocative philosophical questions: What is the role of consciousness in the creative process? How does the audience for a work for art influence its creation? How can creativity emerge through childhood pretending? Do great works of literature give us insight into human nature? Can a computer program really be (...) creative? How do we define creativity in the first place? Is it a virtue? What is the difference between creativity in science and art? Can creativity be taught? The new essays that comprise The Philosophy of Creativity take up these and other key questions and, in doing so, illustrate the value of interdisciplinary exchange. Written by leading philosophers and psychologists involved in studying creativity, the essays integrate philosophical insights with empirical research. CONTENTS I. Introduction Introducing The Philosophy of Creativity Elliot Samuel Paul and Scott Barry Kaufman II. The Concept of Creativity 1. An Experiential Account of Creativity Bence Nanay III. Aesthetics & Philosophy of Art 2. Creativity and Insight Gregory Currie 3. The Creative Audience: Some Ways in which Readers, Viewers and/or Listeners Use their Imaginations to Engage Fictional Artworks Noël Carroll 4. The Products of Musical Creativity Christopher Peacocke IV. Ethics & Value Theory 5. Performing Oneself Owen Flanagan 6. Creativity as a Virtue of Character Matthew Kieran V. Philosophy of Mind & Cognitive Science 7. Creativity and Not So Dumb Luck Simon Blackburn 8. The Role of Imagination in Creativity Dustin Stokes 9. Creativity, Consciousness, and Free Will: Evidence from Psychology Experiments Roy F. Baumeister, Brandon J. Schmeichel, and C. Nathan DeWall 10. The Origins of Creativity Elizabeth Picciuto and Peter Carruthers 11. Creativity and Artificial Intelligence: a Contradiction in Terms? Margaret Boden VI. Philosophy of Science 12. Hierarchies of Creative Domains: Disciplinary Constraints on Blind-Variation and Selective-Retention Dean Keith Simonton VII. Philosophy of Education (& Education of Philosophy) 13. Educating for Creativity Berys Gaut 14. Philosophical Heuristics Alan Hájek. (shrink)

On page 14 of "Reconceptions in Philosophy and Other Arts and Sciences" (section 4 of chapter 1) by Nelson Goodman and Catherine Z. Elgin is written: “Since ‘blue’ and ‘green’ are interdefinable with ‘grue’ and ‘bleen’, the question of which pair is basic and which pair derived is entirely a question of which pair we start with”. This paper points out that an example of interdefinability is also that one about the predicate “grueb”, which is a predicate that applies to (...) an object if the object either is green and examined before time b, or is non-green and not examined before time b. The three predicates “green”, “grueb”, “examined before time b” are interdefinable. According to Goodman, since the predicates “blue” and “green” are interdefinable with the predicates “grue” and “bleen”, “if we can tell which objects are blue and which objects are green, we can tell which ones are grue and which ones are bleen” [pages 12-13 of “Reconceptions in Philosophy and Other Arts and Sciences”]. But , even though the predicates “green” and “examined before time b” are interdefinable, being able to tell if an object is green does not imply being able to tell if an object is examined before time b. The interdefinability among three elements is a type of interdefinability present, for example, also among the logical connectives. Another example of interdefinability is that one about a decidable predicate PD, which is interdefinable with an undecidable predicate PU: therefore even though we can tell whether an object is PD and whether an object is non-PD, we cannot tell whether an object is PU (since PU is an undecidable predicate) and whether an object is non-PU. Although the predicates PD and PU are interdefinable, the possibility to determine whether an object is PD does not imply the possibility to determine whether an object is PU (since PU is an undecidable predicate). Similarly, although the predicates “green” and “grue” are interdefinable, the possibility to determine whether an object is “green” even in absence of temporal information does not imply the possibility to determine whether an object is “grue” even in absence of temporal information. These and other examples about “grue” and “bleen” point out that even in case two predicates are interdefinable, the possibility to apply a predicate P does not imply the possibility to apply a predicate interdefinable with P. And that the possibility to apply the predicate “green” without having temporal information does not imply the possibility to apply the predicate “grue” without having temporal information. According to Goodman, if it is possible to determine if an object is green without needing temporal information, then it is also possible to determine if an object is grue without needing temporal information. But, knowing that an object is both green and grue implies temporal information: in fact, we know by definition that a grue object can only be: 1) either green (in case the object is examined before time t); 2) or blue (in case the object is not examined before time t). Thus, knowing that an object is both grue and green, we know that we are faced with case 1, the case of a grue object that is green and examined before time t. Then the paper points out why the Goodman-Kripke paradox is a paradox about meaning that cannot have repercussions on induction. Finally the paper points out why Hume’s problem is a problem different from Goodman’s paradox and requires a specific treatment. (shrink)

Resumo A transferência de embriões em bovinos tem o objetivo principal de aprimorar o melhoramento genético e otimizar a reprodução bovina A importância dessa prática é destacada pela sua contribuição para a maximização de características desejadas nos rebanhos, como qualidade de carne, eficiência reprodutiva e resistência a condições ambientais adversas. Este trabalho descreve e analisa as técnicas avançadas utilizadas nesse processo, incluindo seleção genômica, sexagem de embriões, produção in vitro, protocolos não cirúrgicos, sincronização reprodutiva, criopreservação de embriões e uso de (...) marcadores de fertilidade. A compreensão aprofundada dessas técnicas é fundamental para o sucesso da transferência de embriões, bem como para a capacidade de personalizar e aprimorar as características específicas dos rebanhos. Enfatizando a importância da expertise de profissionais especializados em reprodução bovina, este trabalho busca oferecer uma visão abrangente das práticas atuais e avanços tecnológicos nesse campo. Ao unir ciência e prática, torna-se importante a comparação de técnicas, bem como relacionar resultados eficientes para promover qualidade genética, trazer a sustentabilidade e envolver a técnica em um cenário atualizado da indústria. Palavras-chave: Embriões; Hormônio; Reprodutor. -/- Abstract Embryo transfer into cattle has the main objective of improving genetic improvement and optimizing bovine reproduction. The importance of this practice is highlighted by its contribution to maximizing desired characteristics in herds, such as meat quality, reproductive efficiency and resistance to environmental conditions adverse. This work describes and analyzes the advanced techniques used in this process, including genomic selection, embryo sexing, in vitro production, non-surgical protocols, reproductive synchronization, embryo cryopreservation and the use of fertility markers. An in-depth understanding of these techniques is critical to the success of embryo transfer, as well as the ability to customize and enhance specific herd characteristics. Emphasizing the importance of the expertise of professionals specialized in bovine reproduction, this work seeks to offer a comprehensive view of current practices and technological advances in this field. When combining science and practice, it becomes important to compare techniques, as well as relate efficient results to promote genetic quality, bring sustainability and involve the technique in an updated industry scenario. Keywords: Embryos; Hormone; Reproducer. -/- REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS ABIEC. Associação Brasileira das Indústrias Exportadoras de Carnes. Beef Report. Perfil da Pecuária no Brasil. v.6, p. 7, 2021. ALVAREZ, R. Transfer of blastocysts derived short-term in culture of quality morulae in vivo. Domestic Animals. v.9, p. 790, 2007. ALVES, N. G. Atividade Ovariana em Fêmeas Bovinas da Raça Holandesa e Mestiças Holandês x Zebu, Durante Dois Ciclos Estrais Normais Consecutivos. Revista Zootecnia. v.7, p. 86, 2002. ANDRADE, J. Use of hormone treatments to superovulation Nelore donors. Reproduction Science. v.9, p. 70, 2002. Associação Brasileira de Inseminação Artificial (ASBIA). Index Asbia 2021. v.7, p. 6, 2021. Associação Brasileira de Inseminação Artificial (ASBIA). Index ASBIA Mercado, v.8, p. 6, 2019. BARROS, C. M. Tratamentos superestimulatórios utilizados em protocolos para a transferência de embriões bovinos. Acta Scientiae Veterinariae. v.9, p.8, 2007. BARUSELLI, P. S. Avaliação do mercado de IATF no Brasil. Boletim Eletrônico do Departamento de Reprodução Animal – FMVZ/USP, 1. ed., v.8, p.7, 2019. BARUSELLI, P. S.; CATUSSI, B. L. C.; ABREU, L. A.; ELLIFF, F. M.; SILVA, L. G.; BATISTA, E. S.; CREPALDI, G. A. Evolução e perspectivas da Inseminação Artificial em bovinos. Revista Brasileira de Reprodução Animal, v.43, n.2, p.308-314, 2019. 13 BARUSELLI, P. S. IATF gera ganhos que superam R$ 3,5 bilhões nas cadeias de produção de carne e de leite. Boletim Eletrônico do Departamento de Reprodução Animal/FMVZ/USP, 2.ed., v.8, n.8, p.7, 2019. BINELLI, M. Anti-luteolytic to improve in cattle. Acta Scientiae Veterinariae. v.9, p.8, 2001. BÓ, G. A. Manipulação hormonal do ciclo estral em doadoras e receptoras de embrião bovino. Acta Scientiae Veterinariae. v.9, p.7, 2004. BÓ, G.; MAPLETOFT, R. Evaluation and of bovine. Animal Reproduction. v.8, p.9, 2013. BUSS, V. Efeito da dose e momento da administração de eCG em protocolos de IATF aplicados e vacas de corte em anestro. Universidade Federal do Pampa, Dissertação – Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciência Animal, v.8, n.8, p.9, 2020. Centro de Estudos Avançados em Economia Aplicada (CEPEA). Boletim do leite. São Paulo, Ano 25, n.286, 2019. CHAVES, D. F.; ALVES, M. J. Protocolo de receptoras de embriões: índices de aproveitamento de corpo lúteo e taxa de prenhez. Animal Reproduction. v.9, p.7, 2023. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Fisiologia Clínica do Ciclo Estral de Vacas Leiteiras: Desenvolvimento Folicular, Corpo Lúteo e Etapas do Estro. 2020. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Transferência de Embriões nos Animais e a Indústria de Embriões no Brasil. 2020. DALCIN, L.; LUCCI, C. M. Criopreservação de embriões de animais de produção: princípios criobiológicos e estado atual. Rev. Bras. Reprod. Anim. v.7, p.7, 2010. DANTAS, K. S. A. Seleção de receptoras em um programa de transferência de embriões (PIVE) em bovinos no nordeste do Brasil. Ciência Animal. v.9, p.7, 2018. D’AVILA, C. A.; MORAES, F. P.; LUCIA J. R. T.; GASPERIN, B. G. Hormônios utilizados na indução da ovulação em bovinos – Artigo de revisão. Revista Brasileira de Reprodução Animal, v.43, n.4, p.797-802, 2019. DEMÉTRIO, D. G. B. Colheita e transferência de embriões bovinos. Dissertação (Mestrado em Reprodução Animal) – Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia da UNESP, Campus de Botucatu, São Paulo. v.9, p.76, 2003. FAO – Organização das Nações Unidas para a Alimentação e Agricultura. O Estado da Insegurança Alimentar e Nutrição no Mundo (SOFI) 2021. Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia da UNESP. v.4, n.6, p.6, 2021. FILHO, L. C. C. Fatores que interferem na eficiência reprodutiva de receptoras de embrião bovino. Arq. Ciênc. Vet. Zool. v.7, p.9, 2013. GONZÁLEZ, F. H. D. Introdução a Endocrinologia Reprodutiva Veterinária. UFRGS. v.9, p.7, 2002. GOODHAND, K. In vivo recovery and vitro embryo from bovine aspirated at frequencies or FSH treatment. Animal Reproduction. v.8, p.87, 1999. 14 HAFEZ, E. S. E.; HAFEZ, B. Reprodução animal. 7ed. Barueri: Manole. v.7, p.7, 2004. HONORATO, M.T. Importância da escolha de receptoras em um programa de transferência de embriões em bovinos. Barueri: Manole. v.8, p.6, 2013. HOPPER, R. Bovine Reproduction. Blackwell. v.8, p.8, 2015. IBGE. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Pesquisa da Pecuária Municipal 2021 (PPM 2021). IBGE. v.9, n.7, p.7, 2021. KONIG, H. E.; LIEBICH, H. G. Anatomia dos animais domésticos: texto e atlas colorido. Vol.2. Porto Alegre: Artmed, v.2, p.4, 2004. MARTINS, F. S. Fatores reguladores da foliculogênese em mamíferos. Rev Bras Reprod Anim. v.3, p.9, 2008. MELLO, R. R. C. Desenvolvimento folicular inicial em bovinos. Rev. Bras. Reprod. Anim. v.8, p.9, 2013. OLIVEIRA, A. F. M. Principais hormônios que controlam o comportamento reprodutivo e social das fêmeas ruminantes – Revisão. Rev. Bras. Reprod. v.9, p.8, 2014. OLIVEIRA, C. S. Biotécnicas da Reprodução em Bovinos. EMBRAPA, v.8, p.8, 2014. PASA, C. Transferência de embriões em bovinos. Biodiversidade. v.9, p.9, 2008. PENITENTE FILHO, J. M. Produção de embriões bovinos in vivo e in vitro. Revista CFMV, Ano XX. v.8, p.8, 2014. PHILLIPS, P. E.; JAHNKE, M. M. Embryo Transfer (Techniques, Dono rs, and Recipients). Vet Clin Food Anim, v.9, p.8, 2016. RODRIGUES, J.; BERTOLINI, M. Biotecnologias da reprodução animal: de Aristóteles à edição gênica. Rev. Bras. Reprod. Anim. v.8, p.7, 2019. SANTOS, K. J. G. Biotecnologias reprodutivas e fisiologia reprodutiva da fêmea bovina – conhecimento para o sucesso. Rev. Bras. Reprod. Anim. v.8, p.98. 2012. SANTOS, P. H. Impactos da superestimulação ovariana sobre a diferenciação das células da granulosa bovina. Dissertação de Mestrado em Farmacologia e Biotecnologia – UNESP, v.8, p.8. 2017. SILVA, P. R. B. Regulação farmacológica do ciclo estral de bovinos. UNESP. v.9, p.8. 2011. (shrink)

This book concerns the foundations of epistemic modality and hyperintensionality and their applications to the philosophy of mathematics. I examine the nature of epistemic modality, when the modal operator is interpreted as concerning both apriority and conceivability, as well as states of knowledge and belief. The book demonstrates how epistemic modality and hyperintensionality relate to the computational theory of mind; metaphysical modality and hyperintensionality; the types of mathematical modality and hyperintensionality; to the epistemic status of large cardinal axioms, undecidable propositions, (...) and abstraction principles in the philosophy of mathematics; to the modal and hyperintensional profiles of the logic of rational intuition; and to the types of intention, when the latter is interpreted as a hyperintensional mental state. Chapter 2 argues for a novel type of expressivism based on the duality between the categories of coalgebras and algebras, and argues that the duality permits of the reconciliation between modal cognitivism and modal expressivism. I also develop a novel topic-sensitive truthmaker semantics for dynamic epistemic logic, and develop a novel dynamic epistemic two-dimensional hyperintensional semantics. Chapter 3 provides an abstraction principle for epistemic (hyper-)intensions. Chapter 4 advances a topic-sensitive two-dimensional truthmaker semantics, and provides three novel interpretations of the framework along with the epistemic and metasemantic. Chapter 5 applies the fixed points of the modal μ-calculus in order to account for the iteration of epistemic states in a single agent, by contrast to availing of modal axiom 4 (i.e. the KK principle). The fixed point operators in the modal μ-calculus are rendered hyperintensional, which yields the first hyperintensional construal of the modal μ-calculus in the literature and the first application of the calculus to the iteration of epistemic states in a single agent instead of the common knowledge of a group of agents. Chapter 6 advances a solution to the Julius Caesar problem based on Fine's `criterial' identity conditions which incorporate conditions on essentiality and grounding. Chapter 7 provides a ground-theoretic regimentation of the proposals in the metaphysics of consciousness and examines its bearing on the two-dimensional conceivability argument against physicalism. The topic-sensitive epistemic two-dimensional truthmaker semantics developed in chapters 2 and 4 are availed of in order for epistemic states to be a guide to metaphysical states in the hyperintensional setting. -/- Chapters 8-12 provide cases demonstrating how the two-dimensional hyperintensions of hyperintensional, i.e. topic-sensitive epistemic two-dimensional truthmaker, semantics, solve the access problem in the epistemology of mathematics. Chapter 8 examines the interaction between my hyperintensional semantics and the axioms of epistemic set theory, large cardinal axioms, the Epistemic Church-Turing Thesis, the modal axioms governing the modal profile of Ω-logic, Orey sentences such as the Generalized Continuum Hypothesis, and absolute decidability. These results yield inter alia the first hyperintensional Epistemic Church-Turing Thesis and hyperintensional epistemic set theories in the literature. Chapter 9 examines the modal and hyperintensional commitments of abstractionism, in particular necessitism, and epistemic hyperintensionality, epistemic utility theory, and the epistemology of abstraction. I countenance a hyperintensional semantics for novel epistemic abstractionist modalities. I suggest, too, that observational type theory can be applied to first-order abstraction principles in order to make first-order abstraction principles recursively enumerable, i.e. Turing machine computable, and that the truth of the first-order abstraction principle for hyperintensions is grounded in its being possibly recursively enumerable and the machine being physically implementable. Chapter 10 examines the philosophical significance of hyperintensional Ω-logic in set theory and discusses the hyperintensionality of metamathematics. Chapter 11 provides a modal logic for rational intuition and provides a hyperintensional semantics. Chapter 12 avails of modal coalgebras to interpret the defining properties of indefinite extensibility, and avails of hyperintensional epistemic two-dimensional semantics in order to account for the interaction between the interpretational and objective modalities and truthmakers thereof. This yields the first hyperintensional category theory in the literature. I invent a new mathematical trick in which first order structures are treated as categories, and Vopenka's principle can be satisfied because of the elementary embeddings between the categories and generate Vopenka cardinals while bypassing the category of Set in category theory. Chapter 13 examines modal responses to the alethic paradoxes. Chapter 14 examines, finally, the modal and hyperintensional semantics for the different types of intention and the relation of the latter to evidential decision theory. (shrink)

We reconsider the pragmatic interpretation of intuitionistic logic [21] regarded as a logic of assertions and their justi cations and its relations with classical logic. We recall an extension of this approach to a logic dealing with assertions and obligations, related by a notion of causal implication [14, 45]. We focus on the extension to co-intuitionistic logic, seen as a logic of hypotheses [8, 9, 13] and on polarized bi-intuitionistic logic as a logic of assertions and conjectures: looking at the (...) S4 modal translation, we give a de nition of a system AHL of bi-intuitionistic logic that correctly represents the duality between intuitionistic and co-intuitionistic logic, correcting a mistake in previous work [7, 10]. A computational interpretation of cointuitionism as a distributed calculus of coroutines is then used to give an operational interpretation of subtraction.Work on linear co-intuitionism is then recalled, a linear calculus of co-intuitionistic coroutines is de ned and a probabilistic interpretation of linear co-intuitionism is given as in [9]. Also we remark that by extending the language of intuitionistic logic we can express the notion of expectation, an assertion that in all situations the truth of p is possible and that in a logic of expectations the law of double negation holds. Similarly, extending co-intuitionistic logic, we can express the notion of conjecture that p, de ned as a hypothesis that in some situation the truth of p is epistemically necessary. (shrink)

This volume offers very selected papers from the 2014 conference of the “International Association for Computing and Philosophy” (IACAP) - a conference tradition of 28 years. - - - Table of Contents - 0 Vincent C. Müller: - Editorial - 1) Philosophy of computing - 1 Çem Bozsahin: - What is a computational constraint? - 2 Joe Dewhurst: - Computing Mechanisms and Autopoietic Systems - 3 Vincenzo Fano, Pierluigi Graziani, Roberto Macrelli and Gino Tarozzi: - Are Gandy Machines really local? (...) - 4 Doukas Kapantais: - A refutation of the Church-Turing thesis according to some interpretation of what the thesis says - 5 Paul Schweizer: - In What Sense Does the Brain Compute? - 2) Philosophy of computer science & discovery - 6 Mark Addis, Peter Sozou, Peter C R Lane and Fernand Gobet: - Computational Scientific Discovery and Cognitive Science Theories - 7 Nicola Angius and Petros Stefaneas: - Discovering Empirical Theories of Modular Software Systems. An Algebraic Approach. - 8 Selmer Bringsjord, John Licato, Daniel Arista, Naveen Sundar Govindarajulu and Paul Bello: - Introducing the Doxastically Centered Approach to Formalizing Relevance Bonds in Conditionals - 9 Orly Stettiner: - From Silico to Vitro: - Computational Models of Complex Biological Systems Reveal Real-world Emergent Phenomena - 3) Philosophy of cognition & intelligence - 10 Douglas Campbell: - Why We Shouldn’t Reason Classically, and the Implications for Artificial Intelligence - 11 Stefano Franchi: - Cognition as Higher Order Regulation - 12 Marcello Guarini: - Eliminativisms, Languages of Thought, & the Philosophy of Computational Cognitive Modeling - 13 Marcin Miłkowski: - A Mechanistic Account of Computational Explanation in Cognitive Science and Computational Neuroscience - 14 Alex Tillas: - Internal supervision & clustering: - A new lesson from ‘old’ findings? - 4) Computing & society - 15 Vasileios Galanos: - Floridi/Flusser: - Parallel Lives in Hyper/Posthistory - 16 Paul Bello: - Machine Ethics and Modal Psychology - 17 Marty J. Wolf and Nir Fresco: - My Liver Is Broken, Can You Print Me a New One? - 18 Marty J. Wolf, Frances Grodzinsky and Keith W. Miller: - Robots, Ethics and Software – FOSS vs. Proprietary Licenses. (shrink)

PLEASE NOTE: This is the corrected 2nd eBook edition, 2021. ●●●●● _Critique of Impure Reason_ has now also been published in a printed edition. To reduce the otherwise high price of this scholarly, technical book of nearly 900 pages and make it more widely available beyond university libraries to individual readers, the non-profit publisher and the author have agreed to issue the printed edition at cost. ●●●●● The printed edition was released on September 1, 2021 and is now available through (...) all booksellers, including Barnes & Noble, Amazon, and brick-and-mortar bookstores under ISBN 978-0-578-88646-6. ●●●●● In light of the length of this book, readers who would like to have a more detailed description of the book's objectives and method may find it helpful to read the detailed and clearly written Wikipedia entry about this work: From the Wikipedia search page, use the search phrase "Critique of Impure Reason". At least at the time of this writing (11/29/2021), the Wikipedia entry is well-researched and accurate. ●●●●● In addition, a "Primer on Bartlett's CRITIQUE OF IMPURE REASON" has been made available by the author. It is available under its title through PhilPapers and other philosophy online archives. ●●●●● COMMENDATIONS OF THIS WORK, from the back cover of the published edition: ●●●●● “I admire its range of philosophical vision.” – Nicholas Rescher, Distinguished University Professor of Philosophy, University of Pittsburgh, author of more than 100 books. ●●●●● “Bartlett’s _Critique of Impure Reason_ is an impressive, bold, and ambitious work. Careful scholarship is balanced by original analyses that lead the reader to recognize the limits of meaning, knowledge, and conceptual possibility. The work addresses a host of traditional philosophical problems, among them the nature of space, time, causality, consciousness, the self, other minds, ontology, free will and determinism, and others. The book culminates in a fascinating and profound new understanding of relativity physics and quantum theory.” – Gerhard Preyer, Professor of Philosophy, Goethe-University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, author of many books including _Concepts of Meaning_, _Beyond Semantics and Pragmatics_, _Intention and Practical Thought_, and _Contextualism in Philosophy_. ●●●●● “[This work’s] goal is of a unique and difficult species: Dr. Bartlett seeks to develop a formal logical calculus on the basis of transcendental philosophical arguments; in fact, he hopes that this calculus will be the formal expression of the transcendental foundation of knowledge.... I consider Dr. Bartlett’s work soundly conceived and executed with great skill.” – C. F. von Weizsäcker, philosopher and physicist, former Director, Max-Planck-Institute, Starnberg, Germany. ●●●●● “Bartlett has written an American “Prolegomena to All Future Metaphysics.” He aims rigorously to eliminate meaningless assertions, reach bedrock, and place philosophy on a firm foundation that will enable it, like science and mathematics, to produce lasting results that generations to come can build on. This is a great book, the fruit of a lifetime of research and reflection, and it deserves serious attention.” — Martin X. Moleski, former Professor, Canisius College, Buffalo, NY, studies of scientific method, the presuppositions of thought, and the self-referential nature of epistemology. ●●●●● “Bartlett has written a book on what might be called the underpinnings of philosophy. It has fascinating depth and breadth, and is all the more striking due to its unifying perspective based on the concepts of reference and self-reference.” – Don Perlis, Professor of Computer Science, University of Maryland, author of numerous publications on self-adjusting autonomous systems and philosophical issues concerning self-reference, mind, and consciousness. ●●●●● ●●●●● The _Critique of Impure Reason: Horizons of Possibility and Meaning_ comprises a major and important contribution to philosophy. Thanks to the generosity of its publisher, this massive 885-page volume has been published as a free open access eBook (3.75MB) as well as an open access printed edition. It inaugurates a revolutionary paradigm shift in philosophical thought by providing compelling and long-sought-for solutions to a wide range of philosophical problems. In the process, the work fundamentally transforms the way in which the concepts of reference, meaning, and possibility are understood. The book includes a Foreword by the celebrated German philosopher and physicist Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker. ●●●●● In Kant’s _Critique of Pure Reason_ we find an analysis of the preconditions of experience and of knowledge. In contrast, but yet in parallel, the new _Critique_ focuses upon the ways—unfortunately very widespread and often unselfconsciously habitual—in which many of the concepts that we employ _conflict_ with the very preconditions of meaning and of knowledge. ●●●●● This is a book about the boundaries of frameworks and about the unrecognized conceptual confusions in which we become entangled when we attempt to transgress beyond the limits of the possible and meaningful. We tend either not to recognize or not to accept that we all-too-often attempt to trespass beyond the boundaries of the frameworks that make knowledge possible and the world meaningful. ●●●●● The _Critique of Impure Reason_ proposes a bold, ground-breaking, and startling thesis: that a great many of the major philosophical problems of the past can be solved through the recognition of a viciously deceptive form of thinking to which philosophers as well as non-philosophers commonly fall victim. For the first time, the book advances and justifies the criticism that a substantial number of the questions that have occupied philosophers fall into the category of “impure reason,” violating the very conditions of their possible meaningfulness. ●●●●● The purpose of the study is twofold: first, to enable us to recognize the boundaries of what is referentially forbidden—the limits beyond which reference becomes meaningless—and second, to avoid falling victims to a certain broad class of conceptual confusions that lie at the heart of many major philosophical problems. As a consequence, the boundaries of _possible meaning_ are determined. ●●●●● Bartlett, the author or editor of more than 20 books, is responsible for identifying this widespread and delusion-inducing variety of error, _metalogical projection_. It is a previously unrecognized and insidious form of erroneous thinking that undermines its own possibility of meaning. It comes about as a result of the pervasive human compulsion to seek to transcend the limits of possible reference and meaning. ●●●●● Based on original research and rigorous analysis combined with extensive scholarship, the _Critique of Impure Reason_ develops a self-validating method that makes it possible to recognize, correct, and eliminate this major and pervasive form of fallacious thinking. In so doing, the book provides at last provable and constructive solutions to a wide range of major philosophical problems. ●●●●● CONTENTS AT A GLANCE ▪▪▪▪▪ Preface ▪▪▪▪▪ Foreword by Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker ▪▪▪▪▪ Acknowledgments ▪▪▪▪▪ Avant-propos: A philosopher’s rallying call ▪▪▪▪▪ Introduction ▪▪▪▪▪ A note to the reader ▪▪▪▪▪ A note on conventions ▪▪▪▪▪ ▪▪▪▪▪ ▪▪▪▪▪ PART I ▪▪▪▪▪ ▪▪▪▪▪ WHY PHILOSOPHY HAS MADE NO PROGRESS AND HOW IT CAN ▪▪▪▪▪ 1 Philosophical-psychological prelude ▪▪▪▪▪ 2 Putting belief in its place: Its psychology and a needed polemic ▪▪▪▪▪ 3 Turning away from the linguistic turn: From theory of reference to metalogic of reference ▪▪▪▪▪ 4 The stepladder to maximum theoretical generality ▪▪▪▪▪ ▪▪▪▪▪ ▪▪▪▪▪ PART II ▪▪▪▪▪ THE METALOGIC OF REFERENCE ▪▪▪▪▪ A New Approach to Deductive, Transcendental Philosophy ▪▪▪▪▪ 5 Reference, identity, and identification ▪▪▪▪▪ 6 Self-referential argument and the metalogic of reference ▪▪▪▪▪ 7 Possibility theory ▪▪▪▪▪ 8 Presupposition logic, reference, and identification ▪▪▪▪▪ 9 Transcendental argumentation and the metalogic of reference ▪▪▪▪▪ 10 Framework relativity ▪▪▪▪▪ 11 The metalogic of meaning ▪▪▪▪▪ 12 The problem of putative meaning and the logic of meaninglessness ▪▪▪▪▪ 13 Projection ▪▪▪▪▪ 14 Horizons ▪▪▪▪▪ 15 De-projection ▪▪▪▪▪ 16 Self-validation ▪▪▪▪▪ 17 Rationality: Rules of admissibility ▪▪▪▪▪ ▪▪▪▪▪ ▪▪▪▪▪ PART III ▪▪▪▪▪ PHILOSOPHICAL APPLICATIONS OF THE METALOGIC OF REFERENCE ▪▪▪▪▪ Major Problems and Questions of Philosophy and the Philosophy of Science ▪▪▪▪▪ 18 Ontology and the metalogic of reference ▪▪▪▪▪ 19 Discovery or invention in general problem-solving, mathematics, and physics ▪▪▪▪▪ 20 The conceptually unreachable: “The far side” ▪▪▪▪▪ 21 The projections of the external world, things-in-themselves, other minds, realism, and idealism ▪▪▪▪▪ 22 The projections of time, space, and space-time ▪▪▪▪▪ 23 The projections of causality, determinism, and free will ▪▪▪▪▪ 24 Projections of the self and of solipsism ▪▪▪▪▪ 25 Non-relational, agentless reference and referential fields ▪▪▪▪▪ 26 Relativity physics as seen through the lens of the metalogic of reference ▪▪▪▪▪ 27 Quantum theory as seen through the lens of the metalogic of reference ▪▪▪▪▪ 28 Epistemological lessons learned from and applicable to relativity physics and quantum theory ▪▪▪▪▪ ▪▪▪▪▪ PART IV ▪▪▪▪▪ HORIZONS ▪▪▪▪▪ 29 Beyond belief ▪▪▪▪▪ 30 _Critique of Impure Reason_: Its results in retrospect ▪▪▪▪▪ ▪▪▪▪▪ SUPPLEMENT ▪▪▪▪▪ The Formal Structure of the Metalogic of Reference ▪▪▪▪▪ APPENDIX I ▪▪▪▪▪ The Concept of Horizon in the Work of Other Philosophers ▪▪▪▪▪ APPENDIX II ▪▪▪▪▪ Epistemological Intelligence ▪▪▪▪▪ References ▪▪▪▪▪ Index ▪▪▪▪▪ About the author. (shrink)

In Brazil, the social demand for veterinary expertise is growing. However, there is still a shortage of professionals trained in this area to apply specific knowledge to each case. Studies and research into forensic veterinary medicine are necessary for veterinary experts to assist in investigations and legal proceedings. Veterinary medicine has subjects on its curriculum that cover the knowledge needed to apply in the fields of animal health, public health and the environment. The interaction between human and veterinary medicine, as (...) well as other areas of health, is of great importance in the prevention and control of various diseases, both in animals and humans. Some cases of infectious bovine abortion have a major impact not only on cattle farming and animal health, but also on public and environmental health. The concept of "One Health" integrates human medicine and health professionals. In this context, knowledge of infectious abortive diseases that affect animal, human and environmental health is fundamental. Cattle are affected by specific infectious abortive diseases, caused by pathogens with different forms of presentation and transmission mechanisms. These include brucellosis, leptospirosis and listeriosis, which are potentially zoonotic diseases. Controlling these diseases can contribute to effective public health actions and reduce global health risks. In order to establish the diagnosis of these diseases, it is essential to properly collect specimens from live or dead animals under biosafety and biosecurity conditions, following the chain of custody for each case. These procedures allow for greater success in diagnosing the suspected agent and facilitate the investigation of other causes. Animal health standards for the prophylaxis and control of these diseases are established by specific legislation, including those of the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply (MALS). This literature review was based on current knowledge on the Pubmed platform, Google Scholar, articles and textbooks. The aim of this article is to identify, understand and discuss the main infectious abortive diseases of cattle in the legal and forensic context, which have an impact on cattle farming, animal health, food safety, public and environmental health. -/- Referências bibliográficas Abdullah, N. M., Mohammad, W. M. Z. W., Shafei, M. N., Sukeri, S., Idris, Z., Arifin, W. N., Nozmi, N., Saudi, S. N. S., Samsudin, S., & Zainudin, A.-W. (2019). Leptospirosis and its prevention: knowledge, attitude and practice of urban community in Selangor, Malaysia. BMC Public Health, 19(1), 1–8. Agrimani, D. S. R., Rui, B. R., Cruz, I. V, Romano, R. M., & Lopes, H. C. (2011). Retenção de Placenta em Vacas e Éguas: Revisão de Literatura. Revista Científica Eletrônica de Medicina Veterinária, 9(16), 1–12. Albuquerque, F. R. G., Dessanti, G. A., Neto, J. A. A., Marinho, M. R., & Barros, R. B. P. (2018). Os efeitos e consequências da leptospirose na gestação. Cadernos da Medicina-UNIFESO, 1(1), 75–82. Alencar, Á. G. (2001). Do conceito estratégico de segurança alimentar ao plano de ação da FAO para combater a fome. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 44(1), 137–144. Almeida, Í. C., Sena, L. M., Maretto, V., & Martins, C. B. (2019). Aspectos relacionados a retenção de placenta em vacas. PUBVET, 13(1), 1–7. Amaral, J. B., & Tremori, T. M. (2022). Exame de corpo de delito nas perícias de bem-estar em bovinos leiteiros: Revisão. PUBVET, 16(4), 1–14. Amaral, J. B., Tremori, T. M., Silva, W. L., & Reis, H. M. G. (2023). Perícias legal e forense no laboratório veterinário: Revisão. PUBVET, 17(7), e1420. Amaral, J. B., Trevisan, G., Tremori, T. M., & Guerra, S. T. (2018). Fundamentos e aplicações da medicina veterinária forense no bem-estar de bovinos leiteiros: Revisão. PUBVET, 12(2), 1–13. Antoniassi, N. A. B., Santos, A. S., Oliveira, E. C., Pescador, C. A., & Driemeier, D. (2007). Diagnóstico das causas infecciosas de aborto em bovinos. Biológico, 69(2), 69–72. Assis, A. C. S. G., & Braga, R. S. (2020). Responsabilidade técnicas na medicina veterinária. Medvep. Autran, A., Alencar, R., & Viana, R. B. (2017). Cinco liberdades. PETVet Radar, 1(3), 1–2. Barancelli, G. V., Silva-Cruz, J. V., Porto, E., & Oliveira, C. A. F. (2011). Listeria monocytogenes: ocorrência em produtos lácteos e suas implicações em saúde pública. Arquivos Do Instituto Biológico, 78, 155–168. Barbosa, G., Baptista, R. F., Naame, G., & Batalha, F. (2023). Principais irregularidades identificadas pela vigilância sanitária em açougues localizados no município de Nilópolis, Rio de Janeiro. PUBVET, 17(3), 1–9. Basso, D. P., Balzan, V. Z., Schrenk, R. D., Santos, J. L. L., & Cardoso, J. S. (2022). Suspeita de infecção por Rhodococcus equi em pônei neonato: relato de caso. Salão Do Conhecimento, 8(8). BRASIL (1968). Lei Federal nº 5.550, de 28 de dezembro de 1968. Dispõe sobre o exercício da profissão de Médico Veterinário e cria os Conselhos Federal e Regionais de Medicina Veterinária. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, DF, 29 dez. 1968. BRASIL (1990). Lei Federal nº 8.080, de 19 de setembro de 1990. Dispõe sobre as condições para a promoção, proteção e recuperação da saúde, a organização e o funcionamento dos serviços correspondentes e dá outras providências. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, DF, 20 set. 1990. BRASIL (1998). Lei Federal nº 9.605, de 12 de fevereiro de 1998. Dispõe sobre as sanções penais e administrativas derivadas de condutas e atividades lesivas ao meio ambiente, e dá outras providências. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, DF, 13 fev. 1998. BRASIL (1998). Ministério da Saúde, Conselho Nacional de Saúde, Resolução 287, de 8 de outubro de 1998. Dispõe sobre o Plenário do Conselho Nacional de Saúde em reunião nos dias 7 e 8 de 1998. BRASIL (2017). Decreto Federal nº 9.013, de 29 de março de 2017. Estabelece normas para a inspeção técnica e fiscalização sanitária de animais vivos, produtos e subprodutos de origem animal. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, DF, 30 mar. 2017. BRASIL (2006). Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento. Instrução Normativa MAPA nº 65, de 3 de novembro de 2006. Estabelece padrões para garantir a qualidade do sêmen utilizado na reprodução bovina. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, DF, 6 nov. 2006. BRASIL (2013). Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento. Instrução Normativa MAPA nº 50, de 21 de novembro de 2013. Estabelece diretrizes para a coleta de materiais biológicos destinados a exames laboratoriais em animais terrestres. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, DF, 22 nov. 2013. BRASIL (2017). Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento. Instrução Normativa MAPA nº 44, de 20 de setembro de 2017. Estabelece medidas para o controle e erradicação da leptospirose bovina. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, DF, 21 set. 2017. BRASIL (2018). Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento. Portaria MAPA nº 1.138, de 8 de junho de 2018. Normas para a prevenção, controle e erradicação da brucelose e da tuberculose animal. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, DF, 11 jun. 2018. BRASIL (2017). Instrução normativa nº 10, de 3 de março de 2017. Brasília, Distrito Federal: Diário Oficial da União. 2017. Carvalho, R. F. B., Santos, H. P., Mathias, L. A., Pereira, H. M., Paixão, A. P., Costa Filho, V. M., & Alves, L. M. C. (2016). Frequência de brucelose bovina em rebanhos leiteiros e em seres humanos na região central do estado do Maranhão, Brasil. Arquivos do Instituto Biológico, 83, e1042014. Castro, J. R., Salaberry, S. R. S., Cardoso Neto, A. B., Ávila, D. F., Souza, M. A., & Lima-Ribeiro, A. M. C. (2010). Leptospirose canina-Revisão de literatura. PUBVET, 4, Art-917. Castro, J. R., Salaberry, S. R. S., Ribeiro, V. C., Souza, M. A., & Lima-Ribeiro, A. M. C. (2010). Brucelose canina-Revisão de literatura. PUBVET, 4(41), Art-981. CFMV. (2017). Código de ética do médico veterinário. Diário Oficial da União. Chaiblich, J. V., Lima, M. L. S., Oliveira, R. F., Monken, M., & Penna, M. L. F. (2017). Estudo espacial de riscos à leptospirose no município do Rio de Janeiro (RJ). Saúde em Debate, 41, 225–240. Coiro, C. J., Langoni, H., Silva, R. C., & Ullmann, L. S. (2011). Fatores de risco para leptospirose, leishmaniose, neosporose e toxoplasmose em cães domiciliados e peridomíciliados em Botucatu-SP. Veterinária e Zootecnia, 18(3), 393–407. Correa Júnior, F. F., & Silva, J. R. G. (2021). Responsabilidade técnica de animais de produção na área de produção animal – Confinamento de bovinos. In A. C. S. G. Assis & R. S. Braga (Eds.), Responsabilidade técnico na medicina veterinária. MED VET Livros. Corrêa, S. H. R., Vasconcelos, S. A., Teixeira, A. A., Dias, R. A., Guimarães, M. A. B., & Ferreira Neto, J. S. (2000). Epidemiologia da leptospirose em animais silvestres na Fundação Parque Zoológico de São Paulo. Brazilian Journal of Veterinary and Animal Science, 41(3), 189–193. Costa, M. (2001). Brucelose bovina e equina. In F. Riet-Correa, A. L. Schild, & R. A. A. Lemos (Eds.), Doenças de ruminantes e equinos (pp. 187–197). Varela Editora e Livraria Ltda. Cruz, C. D., Martinez, M. B., & Destro, M. T. (2008). Listeria monocytogenes: Um agente infeccioso ainda pouco conhecido no Brasil. Alimentos e Nutrição, 19, 195–206. Dallari Júnior, J. A. (2021). Direito médico veterinário. Editora Recanto. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Relação e Efeitos Bioquímico-nutricionais Sobre a Retenção de Placenta em Vacas. 2020. Dias, F. E. F., Aoki, S. M., Mesquita, L. G., Nunes, C. M., & Garcia, J. F. (2006). Detecção de Leptospira pomona em sêmen bovino por eletroforese capilar fluorescente. Brazilian Journal of Veterinary Research and Animal Science, 43(3), 394–399. Donate, B. R. S., Prado, L. B., Espinoza, L. H. C., Fernandes, M. C., Pedrão, M. B. M., & Santos, E. W. C. O. (2022). Conhecimento da população brasileira quanto à leptospirose, sua profilaxia e transmissão. PUBVET, 16(5), 1–8. Esteves, S. B., Santos, C. M., Silva, B. C. S., Salgado, F. F., Guilloux, A. G. A., Cortez, A., Lucco, R. C., & Miotto, B. A. (2023). Time for change? A systematic review with meta-analysis of leptospires infecting dogs to assess vaccine compatibility in Brazil. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 105869. Ferreira Júnior, J. A., Nascimento, K. A., & Miguel, M. P. (2015). Aborto e morte neonatal por Listeria monocytogenes em ruminantes. Revista de Literatura: Clínica e Cirurgia de Grandes Animais, 14, 85–89. Ferreira, V., Wiedmann, M., Teixeira, P., & Stasiewicz, M. J. (2014). Listeria monocytogenes persistence in food-associated environments: epidemiology, strain characteristics, and implications for public health. Journal of Food Protection, 77(1), 150–170. Fogaça, D. C., Dutra, H., & Oliveira, C. H. (2018). Leptospirose em propriedade rural com histórico de aborto em vacas leiteiras no município de Trindade, Estado de Goiás: Relato de Caso. Enciclopédia Biosfera, 15(27), 108–120. França, C. R., Silva, I. L. N., Costa, W. A., Ferreira, V. L., Castro, L. L., & Toniolli, R. (2023). Aborto em bovinos e bubalinos: Causas específicas e inespecíficas. Ciência Animal, 33(1), 114–128. Freitas, J. A., Galindo, G. A. R., Santos, E. J. C., Sarraf, K. A., & Oliveira, J. P. (2001). Risco de brucelose zoonótica associado a suínos de abate clandestino. Revista de Saúde Pública, 35(1), 101– 102. Genovez, M. E. (2014). Brucelose humana reemerge como preocupante doença ocupacional. Boletim APAMVET, 5(5), 15–19. Genovez, M. E. (2016). Leptospirose em animais de produção. In J. Megid, M. G. Ribeiro, & A. C. Paes (Eds.), Doenças Infecciosas em Animais de Produção e de Companhia (pp. 378–386). Roca, Brasil. Genovez, M. E., & Pituco, E. M. (2020). Causas infecciosas de mortalidade embrionária e fetal em bovinos. In J. Megid, M. G. Ribeiro, & A. C. Paes (Eds.), Doenças infecciosas em animais de produção e de companhia. Roca Ltda. Gombas, D. E., Chen, Y., Clavero, R. S., & Scott, V. N. (2003). Survey of Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat foods. Journal of Food Protection, 66(4), 559–569. Gonçalves, R. C., Faleiro, J. H., Santos, M. N. G., Carvalho, S. A., & Malafaia, G. (2016). Micro- organismos emergentes de importância em alimentos: Uma revisão de literatura. Revista de Saúde e Biologia, 11, 71–83. Kahn, L. H. (2017). Perspective: The one-health way. Nature, 543(7647), S47–S47. Kells, J., & Gilmour, A. (2004). Incidence of Listeria monocytogenes in two milk processing environments, and assessment of Listeria monocytogenes blood agar for isolation. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 91(2), 167–174. Krauzer, A. S., Acher, D. P. F., Oliveira, K. D., Gabriel, J., & Berto, V. (2022). Avaliação do conhecimento dos proprietários e vacinação contra às doenças reprodutivas em bovinos das propriedades na linha Cocal-Rondônia. Revista Ibero-Americana de Humanidades, Ciências e Educação, 8(10), 1893–1902. Kuibida, K. V., & Borges, C. M. N. (2021). Responsabilidade técnica na área de produção animal: confinamento de bovino. Medvep, 179–201. Langoni, H. (1999). Leptospirose: aspectos de saúde animal e de saúde pública. Revista de Educação Continuada Em Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia Do CRMV-SP, 2(1), 52–58. Larson, C. R., Dennis, M., Nair, R. V, Llanes, A., Peda, A., Welcome, S., & Rajeev, S. (2017). Isolation and characterization of Leptospira interrogans serovar Copenhageni from a dog from Saint Kitts. JMM Case Reports, 4(10), e005120. Lawinsky, M. L. J., Ohara, P. M., Elkhoury, M. R., Faria, N. C., & Cavalcante, K. R. L. J. (2010). Estado da arte da brucelose em humanos. Revista Pan-Amazônica de Saúde, 1(4), 75–84. Leitão, M. V. N., & Cantarino, L. (2021). Hospital escola de grandes animais: Papel na vigilância de zoonoses de importância em saúde pública. PUBVET, 15(7), 1–6. Lima, N. T. S., Araújo, L. R. T., Araújo, B. V. S., Batista, V. H. T., Veloso, L. S., & Leite, A. I. (2020). A Saúde Única na perspectiva da educação popular em saúde. Research, Society and Development, 9(10), e8839109314. Llano, H. A. B. (2013). Revisão e situação atual da brucelose e leptospirose em bovinos no Brasil e na Colômbia. Seminário Apresentado Junto à Disciplina Seminários Aplicados Do Programa de Pós- Graduação Em Ciência Animal Da Escola de Veterinária e Zootecnia da Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia. Loureiro, A. P., & Lilenbaum, W. (2020). Genital bovine leptospirosis: A new look for an old disease. Theriogenology, 141, 41–47. Macedo, I., Homem, J. S., & Carlot, P. A. (2021). A importância da brucelose bovina na saúde pública - Revisão Bibliográfica. Anais Congrega MIC, 17, 7–10. Machado, G. B., Neto, A. C. S., Dewes, C., Fortes, T. P., Pacheco, P. S., Freitas, L. S., Felix, S. R., & Silva, É. F. (2017). Leptospirose Humana: uma revisão sobre a doença e os fatores de risco associados à zona rural. Science And Animal Health, 5(3), 238–250. Maia, A. K., & Pagotto, R. F. (2018). Atuação do médico veterinário na área forense. In G. C. M. Garcia, Y. S. Gonçalves, K. A. Rosa, & L. R. Wolf (Eds.), Tópicos em medicina veterinária legal. Universidade Federal do Paraná, UFPR. Massad, M. R. R., & Massad, J. M. (2017). Responsabilidade profissional. In R. A. Tostes, S. T. J. Reis, & V. V Castilho (Eds.), Tratado de Medicina Veterinária Legal. Medvep. Medeiros, M. I. M., & Oliveira, H. F. (2021). Responsabilidade técnica na área ambiental. In A. C. S. G. Assis & R. S. Braga (Eds.), Responsabilidade técnico na medicina veterinária. MED VET Livros. Megid, J., Ribeiro, M. G., & Paes, A. C. (2016). Doenças infecciosas em animais de produção e de companhia. Guanabara, Koogan. Meirelles-Bartoli, R. B., Sousa, D. B., & Mathias, L. A. (2014). Aspectos da brucelose na saúde pública veterinária. PUBVET, 8, 1136–1282. Mesquita, M. O., Trevilato, G. C., Saraiva, L. H., Schons, M. S., & Garcia, M. I. F. (2016). Material de educação ambiental como estratégia de prevenção da leptospirose para uma comunidade urbana reassentada. Cadernos Saúde Coletiva, 24(1), 77–83. Mineiro, A. L. B. B., Bezerra, E. E. A., Vasconcellos, S. A., Costa, F. A. L., & Macedo, N. A. (2007). Infecção por leptospira em bovinos e sua associação com transtornos reprodutivos e condições climáticas. Arquivo Brasileiro de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia, 59, 1103–1109. Miranda, M. (2018). A contribuição do médico veterinário a saúde única-one health. Psicologia e Saúde em Debate, 4(Suppl1), 34. Mohammed, H. O., Atwill, E., Dunbar, L., Ward, T., McDonough, P., Gonzalez, R., & Stipetic, K. (2010). The risk of Listeria monocytogenes infection in beef cattle operations. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 108(1), 349–356. Nardi Júnior, G., Ribeiro, M. G., Monteiro, F. M., Jesus, T. L., & Vieira, R. M. (2012). Brucelose em touros: Uma visão da doença no Brasil com ênfase ao diagnóstico e sua importância ao agronegócio. Tekhne e Logos, 3(3), 33–53. Nascimento, A. J. S., & Nardi Júnior, G. (2022). Programa de controle e erradicação da brucelose e tuberculose animal. Tekhne e Logos, 13(2), 34–43. Nascimento, R. A. P. (2017). Gestão de laboratórios oficiais de defesa agropecuária. Universidade de Brasília. Nobre, M. M., Azevedo, R. A., Campos, E. F., Lage, C. F. A., Glória, J. R., Saturnino, H. M., & Coelho, S. G. (2018). Impacto econômico da retenção de placenta em vacas leiteiras. Pesquisa Veterinária Brasileira, 38(3), 450–455. NUTRICIONAL. (2011). Plano Nacional de Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional: 2012/2015. Ministério da Agricultura. Oliveira, S. V., Arsky, M. L. N. S., & Caldas, E. P. (2013). Reservatórios animais da leptospirose: Uma revisão bibliográfica. Saúde (Santa Maria), 39(1), 9–20. Oliveira-Neto, R. R., Souza, V. F., Carvalho, P. F. G., & Frias, D. F. R. (2018). Nível de conhecimento de tutores de cães e gatos sobre zoonoses. Revista de Salud Pública, 20, 198–203. Ortigoza, S., & José, M. (2018). Aborto bovino: Revisión de sus factores etiológicos. In Universidad Cooperativa de Colombia (pp. 1–22). Universidad Cooperativa de Colombia, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud. Pellegrin, A. O., Guimaraes, P. H. S., Sereno, J. R. B., Figueiredo, J. P., Lage, A. P., Moreira, E. C., & Leite, R. C. (1999). Prevalência da leptospirose em bovinos do Pantanal Mato-Grossense. Corumbá: Embrapa Pantanal, 1999. Pereira, P. A. C., Ferreira, A. M., & Carvalho, L. B. (2009). Perfil sorológico das leptospiroses em rebanhos bovinos leiteiros da região do Vale do Parnaíba-SP. Revista Brasileira de Reprodução Animal, 28(3), 174–176. Pfuetzenreiter, M. R., Zylbersztajn, A., & Avila-Pires, F. D. (2004). Evolução histórica da medicina veterinária preventiva e saúde pública. Ciência Rural, 34(5), 1661–1668. Pinillos, R. G. (2018). One welfare: A framework to improve animal welfare and human well-being. Cabi. Poester, F. P., Goncalves, V. S. P., & Lage, A. P. (2002). Brucellosis in Brazil. Veterinary Microbiology, 90(1–4), 55–62. Porto, Y. F., Pinto Neto, A., Bernardi, F., Possa, M. G., Mota, M. F., Martinez, A. C., Merlini, L. S., & Berber, R. C. (2018). Occurrence of brucellosis, leptospirosis and neosporosis in cows with retained placenta in Southwest Paraná, Brazil. Pesquisa Veterinária Brasileira, 38(8), 1537–1542. Radostits, O. M., Gay, C. C., Blood, D. C., Hinchcliff, K. W., & McKenzie, R. A. (2010). Clínica Veterinária: um tratado de doenças dos bovinos, ovinos, suínos, caprinos e eqüinos (Vol. 1). Guanabara Koogan. Ramos, T. M. V., Balassiano, I. T., Silva, T. S. M., & Nogueira, J. M. R. (2022). Leptospirose: Características da enfermidade em humanos e principais técnicas de diagnóstico laboratorial. Revista Brasileira de Análises Clínicas, 53(3), 211–218. Ribeiro, A. C. A., Araújo, R. V., Rosa, A. S. M., Silva, P. N., Moraes, S. C., & Katagiri, S. (2020). Zoonoses e educação em saúde: Conhecer, compartilhar e multiplicar. Brazilian Journal of Health Review, 3(5), 12785–12801. Rocha, C. F., Mol, J. P. S., Garcia, L. N. N., Costa, L. F., Santos, R. L., & Paixão, T. A. (2017). Comparative experimental infection of Listeria monocytogenes and Listeria ivanovii in bovine trophoblasts. Plos One, 12, 1–13. Rocha, N. S. (2017). Corpo de delito e processos por erro médico veterinário. In R. A. Tostes, S. T. J. Reis, & V. V Castilho (Eds.), Tratado de medicina veterinária legal. Medvep. Rossi, M., Paiva, A., Tornese, M., Chianelli, S., & Troncoso, A. (2008). Brotes de infección por Listeria monocytogenes: Una revisión de las vias que llevan a su aparición. Revista Ciencia y Tecnologia, Escuela de Postgrado, 25, 328–335. Sá, M. I., & Ferreira, C. (2007). Importância das zoonoses na segurança alimentar. Infoqualidade, 11, 14–17. Sakate, R. I., Aragon, L. C., Raghiante, F., Landgraf, M., Franco, B. D. G. M., & Destro, M. T. (2003). Quantificação de Listeria monocytogenes em salames fatiados embalados a vácuo. Archivos Latinoamericanos de Nutrición, 53, 1–5. Salmanov, A. G., Kotsyumbas, I. Y. А., & Trokhymchuk, V. V. (2018). One World — One Health. International Journal of Antibiotics and Probiotics, 2(1), 8–17. Santana, L., Novelli, M., Vidal, A., Pereira, S., Gasparinni, L., Alvarenga, A. M. O., & Motta, O. J. R. (2020). Brucelose: atualização para a prática clínica. Saúde Dinâmica, 5(3), 1–14. Santos-Filho, A. M. P., & Mayrink, R. R. (2017). Medicina Veterinária Forense. In J. A. Velho, G. C. Geiser, & A. Espíndula. (Eds.), Ciências Forenses, uma introdução às principais áreas da criminalística moderna. Millennium. Schmitt, C. I., Krug, F. D. M., Cereser, N. D., & Pinto, F. R. (2017). Brucelose: uma questão de saúde pública. REDVET. Revista Electrónica de Veterinária, 18(9), 1–17. Silva, H. R., Gianoglou, F. M., Campos, M. F., Graciano, E. M. A., & Toledo, R. C. C. (2016). Listeriose: Uma doença de origem alimentar pouco conhecida no Brasil. Higiene Alimentar, 30, 17– 20. Simões, L. S., Sasahara, T. H. C., Favaron, P. O., & Miglino, M. A. (2016). Leptospirose–Revisão. PUBVET, 10, 111–189. Slowinski, K., Tremori, T. M., Massad, M. R. R., Tasaka, A. C., & Rocha, N. S. (2016). Responsabilidade ética e civil do médico-veterinário no ambiente hospitalar. Revista de Educação Continuada em Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia Do CRMV-SP, 14(2), 30–37. Snak, A., & Osaki, S. C. (2019). Uma revisão sobre três importantes agentes causadores de aborto em bovinos: Neospora caninum, Leptospira sp. e Trypanosoma vivax. Revista de Ciência Veterinária e Saúde Pública, 6(1), 160–195. Sobrinho, O. P. L., Véras, G. M. C., Silva, L. F. B., Oliveira, L. S., Xavier, R. S., Alvim, J. F., Costa, D. A. S., Pereira, Á. I. S., Carlos, M. A. S., Cantanhede, E. K. P., & Santos, M. L. C. (2018). Brucelose bovina: Situação epidemiológica em rebanhos no município de Codó-MA. PUBVET, 12(12), 1–4. Souza, A. O. (2010). Listeriose na gravidez. Revista Médica de Minas Gerais, 20, 433–434. Suárez, Á. C. A., & Parra, C. A. B. (2017). Actualización de la leptospirosis bovina en Colombia. Conexión Agropecuaria JDC, 7(1), 57–77. Tonin, A. A., Azevedo, M. I., Escobar, T. P., Casassola, I., Santos, L. G., Cocco, M., Martins, J. L. R., Schaefe, P. C., & Badke, M. R. T. (2010). Leptospirose bovina: aumento na incidência da Leptospira interrogans sorovar butembo no rebanho do Estado de Santa Catarina, Brasil. Acta Veterinaria Brasilica, 4(4), 294–297. Topazio, J., Tonin, A. A., Machado, G., Noll, J. C. G., Ribeiro, A., Moura, A. B., Carmo, G. M., Grosskopf, H. M., Martins, J. L. R., & Badke, M. R. T. (2015). Antibodies to Leptospira interrogans in goats and risk factors of the disease in Santa Catarina (West side), Brazil. Research in Veterinary Science, 99, 53–57. Tremori, T. M., & Rocha, N. S. (2013). Exame do corpo de delito na Perícia Veterinária (ensaio). Revista de Educação Continuada em Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia do CRMV-SP, 11(3), 30–35. Urzêda, M., Ribeiro, P. G. M., Nascente, E. P., Espíndola, W. R., Teodoro, J. V. S., Gonçalves, G. B., Carneiro, Y. F., & Souza, W. J. (2020). Soroprevalência de leptospirose em fêmeas bovinas na microrregião do Vale Do Rio Dos Bois, Goiás, Brasil. Brazilian Journal of Development, 6(9), 69614–69622. Vallim, D. C., Barroso Hofer, C., Lisbôa, R. de C., Barbosa, A. V., Rusak, L. A., Reis, C. M. F., & Hofer, E. (2015). Twenty years of Listeria in Brazil: Occurrence of Listeria species and Listeria monocytogenes serovars in food samples in Brazil between 1990 and 2012. BioMed Research International, 2015. Vasconcelos, C. H., Fonseca, F. R., Lise, M. L. Z., & Arsky, M. (2012). Fatores ambientais e socioeconômicos relacionados à distribuição de casos de leptospirose no Estado de Pernambuco, Brasil, 2001-2009. Caderno de Saúde Coletiva, 20(1), 49–56. Viana, K. F., & Zanini, M. S. (2009). Perfil de produtores frente à vacinação contra doenças infecciosas abortivas em rebanhos bovinos do município de Alegre/ES. Archives of Veterinary Science, 14(2), 103–108. Vitas, A. I., & Garcia-Jalon, V. A. E. I. (2004). Occurrence of Listeria monocytogenes in fresh and processed foods in Navarra (Spain). International Journal of Food Microbiology, 90(3), 349–356. (shrink)

RESUMO A Transferência de Embrião (TE) em bovinos se trata de uma técnica mundialmente disseminada com objetivo de aumentar a capacidade reprodutiva da fêmea. Mantém vínculo direto com outras técnicas das biotecnologias da reprodução, como, a Ovum Pick-Up (OPU), Produção In Vitro e In Vivo de embriões (PIVE) e Transferência de Embrião em Tempo Fixo (TETF), sendo estas, técnicas que fazem parte de um processo, que vai desde a seleção de doadoras, passando pelo preparo dos embriões até sua inovulação em (...) receptoras criteriosamente selecionadas. Com seu avanço, várias tecnologias de manejo vêm sendo implantadas: formas no transporte de embriões, protocolos de sincronização de doadoras e receptoras, e protocolos de recuperação de oócitos para produção de embriões. Isto infundiu a tecnologia, porém, os investimentos previstos para a produção de um animal de alto mérito genético limita sua utilização. Contudo, esta análise abordou avanços tecnológicos essenciais para o sucesso da TE, incluindo novos protocolos, sexagem de embriões, além do uso de embriões congelados Direct Transfer (DT) e vitrificados. No entanto, é claro que o sucesso do procedimento está no processo como um todo, em destaque ressalta-se que é de grande valia que o profissional apto a executar a técnica esteja sempre preparado e atualizado garantindo qualidade, eficiência e sustentabilidade na pecuária. Esta revisão foi desenvolvida com o propósito de adquirir conhecimento teórico, de forma detalhada e crítica, nas técnicas e procedimentos de Transferência de Embriões em bovinos, incluindo a colheita, manipulação e implantação de embriões. Palavras-chaves: Bovino, doadora, embrião, receptora. ABSTRACT Embryo Transfer (ET) in cattle is a globally widespread technique aimed at enhancing the reproductive capacity of females. It is closely linked to other techniques in reproductive biotechnologies, such as Ovum Pick-Up (OPU), In Vitro and In Vivo Embryo Production (PIVE), and Timed Embryo Transfer (TET), all of which are part of a process that ranges from donor selection, through embryo preparation, to their inoculation into carefully chosen recipients. With its advancement, various management technologies have been implemented: including methods for embryo transport, synchronization protocols for donors and recipients, and oocyte recovery protocols for embryo production. Although technology has been infused, the anticipated investments for producing animals of high genetic merit limit its widespread use. However, this analysis addressed essential technological advances for the success of ET, including new protocols, embryo sexing, as well as the use of frozen-thawed (DT) and vitrified embryos. Nevertheless, it is clear that the success of the procedure lies in the entire process. Notably, it emphasizes the significant value of having a qualified professional who is always prepared and updated to ensure quality, efficiency, and sustainability in livestock farming. This literary review was developed with the purpose of acquiring theoretical knowledge, in a detailed and critical way, on the techniques and procedures of Embryo Transfer in cattle, including the collection, manipulation and implantation of embryos. Keywords: Bovine, donor, embryo, recipient. -/- REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS BARUSELLI, P.S; MADUREIRA, E.H. Controle farmacológico do ciclo estral em ruminantes. 2000, Anais.. São Paulo: Fundação da Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia, USP, 2000. BARUSSELI, P.S. et al. Importância do emprego da eCG em protocolos de sincronização para IA, TE e SOV em tempo fixo. Biotecnologia de reprodução em bovinos (3° Simpósio Internacional de Reprodução Animal Aplicada). 2008. BRANDÃO, G.V.R. Revisão de Literatura: Transferência de Embrião em Bovinos. Curitibanos-SC, 2019. BUENO, A.P.; BELTRAN, M.P.; Produção in vitro de embriões bovinos. Revista Científica Eletrônica De Medicina Veterinária. ISSN 1679-7353, ano VI, n.11, Julho, 2008. CAETANO, S.G; SILVA, N.V.S. Inseminação artificial de bovnos em tempo fixo (IATF) – Revisão de literatura. UNIFUCAMP, Monte Carmelo- M.G, Junho, 2023. CARVALHO, V.H.S. et al. Impactos das biotécnicas da reprodução animal e o melhoramento genético na pecuária de corte. PUBVET, São Luis De Montes Belos, v.17, n.8, p.1-10, 2023 DANTAS, K.S.A.; NUNES, C. C. C.; FERREIRA, J.; DANTAS, R. A. A. Seleção de receptoras em um programa de transferência de embriões (PIVE) em bovinos no Nordeste do Brasil. Ciência Animal, Fortaleza, v. 28, p. 1-14, 2018. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Fisiologia Clínica do Ciclo Estral de Vacas Leiteiras: Desenvolvimento Folicular, Corpo Lúteo e Etapas do Estro. 2020. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Fisiologia da Reprodução de Bovinos Leiteiros: Aspectos Básicos e Clínicos. Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro da Silva, 2022. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Fisiologia do ciclo estral dos animais domésticos. Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro da Silva, 2021. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Transferência de Embriões nos Animais e a Indústria de Embriões no Brasil. DIAS, L.R.O. Fatores que afetam a produção de embriões pela Transferência Intrafolicular de Ovócitos Imaturos (TIFOI) em bovinos. 2021. 85 f. Tese (Doutorado em [nome do programa]) - Faculdade de Agronomia e Medicina Veterinária, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, 2021. DOMINGUES, P.F.; LANGONI, H. Manejo Sanitário Animal. Editora de Publicações Biomédicas Ltda - EPUB, Rio de Janeiro, 2001. 209 p. EMBRAPA. MINERAIS NA EFICIÊNCIA REPRODUTIVA DE BOVINOS. SÃO CARLOS- SÃO PAULO 2008. FIDELIS, C.A.S. Inseminação artificial em tempo fixo intracornual profunda em bovinos. Dissertação (mestrado acadêmico). Araguaína - TO, 2019. GONÇALVES, R.L.R.; VIANA, J.H.M. Situação atual da produção de embriões bovinos no Brasil e no mundo. In: Anais do XXIII Congresso Brasileiro de Reprodução Animal, 2019, Gramado, RS, 2019, p. 156-159. GOUVEIA, F.F. A Produção in vitro de embriões Bovinos. Monografia (Conclusão do curso de Medicina Veterinária) – Faculdade de Agronomia e Medicina Veterinária, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, DF, 2011. GREGIANINI, J.T.F. et al. Avaliação de embriões bovinos utilizando sêmen sexado e convencional. In: SEMINÁRIO DA EMBRAPA ACRE DE INICIAÇÃO CIENTÍFICA E PÓS-GRADUAÇÃO, 4., 2021, Rio Branco, AC. Atividades agropecuárias e florestais para o desenvolvimento sustentável da Amazônia: Anais... Rio Branco, AC: Embrapa Acre, 2022. Pôster. GUARDA, A.C.A. Biotecnologia na reprodução animal: Uma visão teórico/prática de produção in vitro de embriões bovino. 2023. 28p. Trabalho de Conclusão de curso (Bacharelado de Zootecnia). Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia Goiano – Câmpus Rio Verde, Rio Verde, GO, 2023. HAFEZ, E.S.E.; HAFEZ. Reprodução animal / [coordenador de tradução da 7. ed. original Renato Campanarut Barnabe]. – Barueri, SP : Manole, 2004, il.; HONORATO, M.T. et al. Importância da escolha de receptoras em um programa de transferência de embriões em bovinos. PUBVET, Londrina, V. 7, N. 19, Ed. 242, Art. 1601, Outubro, 2013. HOPPER, R.M. Bovine Reproduction. Wiley Blackwell, Capítulo 78, p. 723-733, 2015. LIMA, Fabio Junior Arruda. Transferência de embriãos em tempo fixo em bovinos: Relato de Caso. Trabalho de Conclusão de Curso (graduação em medicina veterinária)- Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina-Campus Curitibanos. Curitibanos, 2018. MACHADO, R. et al. Metodologia para obtenção de concepto bovino. Embrapa Pecuária Sudeste, ISSN 1981-2078, São Carlos-SP, 2009. Disponível em:. Acessado em 11 de outubro, 2023 BASTOS, M.R. et al. Criopreservação de embriões bovinos produzidos in vitro. In: MENDONÇA, P. P. et al. (Org.). Tópicos Especiais em Ciência Animal XI. 1. ed. Alegre: CAUFES, 2022. Capítulo 13. MELO, R. et al. Utilização de ECG e FSH em protocolos de superovulação em bovinos. Manejo, Nutrição e Produção Animal: Tópicos Atuais em Pesquisa, v. 1, n. 1, p. 110-116, 2023. OLIVEIRA, C.S. et al. Biotécnicas da Reprodução em Bovinos. EMBRAPA, 2014. PASA, C. Transferência de embriões em bovinos. Biodiversidade, v. 7, n. 1, 2008. PAZZIM, L.V.L. Transferencia de embriões em bovinos: Revisão de literatura. Monografia (Trabalho conclusão de curso) - Universidade federal de Santa Catarina. Curitibanos, 2021. PENITENTE FILHO, J.M. et al. Produção de embriões bovinos in vivo e in vitro. Revista CFMV, Ano XX, p. 73-82, 2014. PENITENTE FILHO, J.M. Produção de Embriões Bovinos In Vivo e In Vitro. 2011. 22 f. Monografia (Especialização) - Curso de Medicina Veterinária, UFV, Viçosa, 2011. PILLA, L.F.C. Congelamento ultra-rapido de embriões bovinos com etilenoglicol associado ou não a trealose. 2005. 37f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Area de concentração em Fisiopatologia da Reprodução), Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria. RIBEIRO, L.V.P.; RIGOLON, L.P.; CAVALIERI, F.L.B.; SEKO, M.B.; MARTINEZ, A.C.; RIBEIRO, M.G.; MARTINS, R.R.; ÁVILA, M.R.; DE CONTI, J.B. Recuperação de oócitos e recuperação in vitro de embriões de vacas estimuladas com FSH ou eCG. Archivos de zootecnia. v. 60, n. 232, p. 1021-1029, 2011. ROCHA, J.R.; SANTOS, L.M. As vantagens da sexagen de embriões em bovinos. Revista científica eletrônica de medicina veterinária, ano IV, n.8, janeiro de 2007. RUBIN, M.I.B; Histórico dos 20 anos da Sociedade Brasileira de Tecnologia de Embriões, 2005. SANTOS, P.H. Impactos da superestimulação ovariana sore a diferenciação das celulas da grranulosa bovina. Dissertação de Mestrado em Farmacologia e Biotecnologia - UNESP. 2017. SEIDEL, G.E.J.; SEIDEL, S. M. Training manual for embryo transfer in cattle 2005. SENEDA, M.M.; ESPER, C.R.; GARCIA, J.M.; ANDRADE, E.R. Aspecto técnicos e biológicos da obtenção de oócitos bovinos: Revisão de Literatura. Ciências agrárias, Londrina, v. 23, n. 1, p. 101-110, 2002. SILVA, D.P.; TOLEDO, H.R.P.; SILVA, R.A.B.; CARVALHO, G.F.; MELO, A.F.; GARCIA, M.S.; et al. Transferência Intrafolicular de Ovócitos Imaturos (TIFOI): revisão de literatura. Zootecnia: Pesquisa e práticas contemporâneas - volume 2, 255-266, 2021. SPELL, A.R.; BEAL, W.E.; CORAH, L.R.; LAMB, G.C. Evaluating recipient and embryo factors that affect pregnancy rates of embryo transfer in beef cattle. Theriogenology, v. 56, p. 287-297, 2001. SPRÍCIGO, J.F.W.; DODE, M.A.N. Transferência Intrafolicular de Ovócitos Imaturos (TIFOI): uma Alternativa para Produção de Embriões Bovinos. Embrapa Recursos Genéticos e Biotecnologia, Brasília, 2016. VALLE, E.R. O ciclo estral de bovinos e os métodos de controle. EMBRAPA, 1991. VIANA, J.H.M. Classificação de embriões bovinos produzidos in vivo. Comunicado Técnico (EMBRAPA). ISSN 1678-3131, Juiz De Fora-MG, Novembro, 2009. VIANA, J.H.M. 2017 Statistics of embryo production and transfer in domestic farm animals: Is it a turning point? In 2017 more in vitro-produced than in vivo-derived embryos were transferred worldwide. Embryo Transfer Newsl, v.36(4), p.8-25, 2018. VIANA, J.H.M.; SIQUEIRA, L.G.; PALHAO, M.P.; CAMARGO, L.S.A.; Features and perspectives of the Brazilian in vitro embryo industry. Anim Reprod, v.9, p.12-18, 2012. WÜNSCHE JÚNIOR, A.G et al. Avaliação de uma segunda lavagem uterina sobre a recuperacão de embriões em vacas Nelore. Semina: Ciências Agrárias, Londrina, v. 29, n.3, p. 677-684, jul./set. 2008. (shrink)

Examining the status of cacao production, challenges, and prospects of cacao farmersin Zamboanga del Norte province were done in this study. The investigation revealed that cacaofarming was practiced by males (244 or 65.10%) and female cacao farmers (34%) who areprimarily married with secondary educational backgrounds. Most cacao farmers were theirproductive age ranging from 50-59 years old (42.93%), 40-49 years old (34.4%). However,fewer young people engaged in cacao farming aged below 40 years old (7.46%). The primaryoccupation of the respondents was farming (...) (86.13%), tilling their owned land (84.53%), andwith an average annual income below 60,000 pesos (50.40%). The average farm size was at 1-3hectares (80.00%), having a plain (40.27%) to rolling topography (47.47%) planted with UF 18(50.13%) and BR 25 (49.87%) varieties of cacao. Intercropping was observed (99.20%) withcoconut (79.20%) and banana (14.67%) planted along with cacao. Pest infestation of stem borer(59.73%) and bugs (22.67%) were observed at a low level (79.20%) and controlled usingLamdacyhalothrin (86.40%) as a chemical spray. Moreover, cacao diseases in farms were at alow incidence level (74.13%), with vascular streak dieback (53.06%) as the most commondisease among farms, and the method of controlling the spread was using chemicals (53.60%)and synthetic pesticides (100%) as a spray. Farms established 2 years from sowing (90.13%)observed farm management practices such as weeding twice a year (45.33%), fertilizerapplication 4 times a year (88.00%) using 1-3 bags per hectare (85.06%). Cacao trees produced0.50-1.50 (50.00%) of seeds per tree. Cacao products are sold in dried form (60.98%) withprices ranging from 81-100/kilogram through cooperative (100%). Farmers faced numerouschallenges, the most significant of which were the high cost of routine maintenance (such ascleaning/brushing) and shortage of laborers. The accessibility from the farm to the market roadwas also seen as a challenge among them. The province's cacao agricultural stakeholdersextended to support services to farmers such as free planting materials, credit assistance, cacaoproduction seminars, and post-harvest facilities, which were all considered valuable to farmersin addressing the challenges they faced on cacao farming and production. (shrink)

This book tells the story of modern ethics, namely the story of a discourse that, after the Renaissance, went through a methodological revolution giving birth to Grotius’s and Pufendorf’s new science of natural law, leaving room for two centuries of explorations of the possible developments and implications of this new paradigm, up to the crisis of the Eighties of the eighteenth century, a crisis that carried a kind of mitosis, the act of birth of both basic paradigms of the two (...) following centuries: Kantian ethics and utilitarianism. The new science of natural law carried a fresh start for ethics, resulting from a mixture of the Old and the New. It was, as suggested by Schneewind, an attempt at rescuing the content of Scholastic and Stoic doctrines on a new methodological basis. The former was the claim of existence of objective and universal moral laws; the latter was the self-aware attempt at justifying a minimal kernel of such laws facing skeptical doubt. What Bentham and Kant did was precisely carrying this strategy further on, even if restructuring it each of them around one out of two alternative basic claims. The nineteenth- and twentieth-century critics of the Enlightenment attacked both not on their alleged failure in carrying out their own projects, but precisely on having adopted Grotius’s and Pufendorf’s project. What counter-enlightenment has been unable to spell out is which alternative project could be carried out facing the modern condition of pluralism, while on the contrary, if we takes a closer look at developments in twentieth-century ethics or at on-going discussions on practical issues, we might feel inclined to believe that Grotius’s and Pufendorf’s project is as up-to-date as ever. -/- Table of Contents -/- Preface I. Fathers of the Reformation and Schoolmen 1.1. Luther: passive justice and the good deeds; 1.2. Calvin: voluntarism and predestination; 1.3. Baroque Scholasticism; 1.4. Casuistry and Institutiones morales -/- II Neo-Platonists, neo-Stoics, neo-Sceptics 2.1. Aristotelian, neo-Platonic, neo-Epicurean and neo-Cynic Humanists; 2.2. Oeconomica and the art of living; 2.3. Neo-Stoics; 2.4. Neo-Sceptics; 2.5. Moralistic literature -/- III Neo-Augustinians 3.l. The Jansenists on natura lapsa, sufficient grace, pure love; 3.2. Nicole on the impossibility of self-knowledge; 3.3. Nicole on self-love and charity; 3.4. Nicole against civic virtue, for Christian civility; 3.5. Malebranche on general laws and necessary evil; 3.6. Malebranche on Neo-Augustinianism and Platonism. -/- IV Grotius, Pufendorf and the new moral science 4.1. Grotius against Aristotle and the sceptics; 4.2. Mersenne and Gassendi; 4.3. Descartes on ethics as the last branch of philosophy’s tree; 4.4. Hobbes on scepticism and the new moral science; 4.5. Spinoza on the new moral science as a descriptive science;4.6. Locke on voluntarism and probabilism; 4.7. Pufendorf on natural law as an exact science; 4.8. Pufendorf on physical and moral entities; 10. Pufendorf on self-preservation -/- V The empiricist version of the new moral science: from Cumberland to Paley 5.1. Cumberland against Hobbesian voluntarism; 5.2. Cumberland and theological consequentialism; 5.3. Cumberland on universal benevolence and self-love; 5.4. Shaftesbury on the moral sense; 5.5. Hutcheson on natural law and moral faculties; 5.6. Gay, Brown, Paley and theological consequentialism. -/- VI The rationalist version of the new moral science: from Cudworth to Price 6.1. The Cambridge Platonists; 6.2. Shaftesbury on the moral sense; 6.3. Butler and a third way between voluntarism and scepticism; 6.4. Price and the rational character of moral truths; -/- VII Leibniz’s compromise between the new moral science and Aristotelianism 1.Leibniz against voluntarism; 2.Leibniz against the division between the physical and the moral good; 3.Leibniz on la place d’autrui and theological consequentialism; 4.Thomasius, Wolff, Crusius -/- VIII French eighteenth-century philosophers without the new moral science 8.1. The genealogy of our ideas of virtue and vice; 8.2. Maupertuis and moral arithmetic 8.3. The philosophes and the harmony of interests; 8.4. Rousseau on corruption, self-love, and virtue; 8.5. Sade on the merits of vice -/- IX Experimental moral science: Hume and Adam Smith 9.1. Mandeville’s paradox; 9.2. Hutcheson on the law of nature and moral faculties; 9.3. Hume on experimental moral philosophy and the intermediate principles; 9.4. Hume’s Law; 9.5. Hume on the fellow-feeling; 9.6. Hume on natural and artificial virtues and disinterested pleasure for utility; 9.7. Adam Smith’s anti-realist metaethics; 9.8. Adam Smith on self-deception and the paradox of happiness; 9.9. Adam Smith on sympathy and the impartial spectator; 9.10. Adam Smith on the twofold criterion for moral judgement and its paradox; 9.11. Reid on the refutation of scepticism and the self-evidence of duty -/- X Kantian ethics 10.1. Kantian metaethics: moral epistemology; 10.2. Kantian metaethics: moral ontology; 10.3. Kantian metaethics: moral psychology; 10.4. Kantian normative ethics; 10.5. Kant on the impracticability of applied ethics; 10.6. Kantian moral anthropology; 10.7. Civilisation and moralisation; 10.8. Theology on a moral basis and the origins of evil; 10.9. Fichte and the transformation of theoretical philosophy into practical philosophy XI Bentham and utilitarianism 11.1. Bentham’s linguistic theory; 11.2. Bentham’s moral ontology, psychology, and theory of action; 11.3. The principle of greatest happiness; 11.4. The critique of religious ethics; 11.5. The new morality; 11.6. Interest and duty; 11.7. Virtues; 11.8. Private ethics and legislation -/- XII Followers of the Enlightenment: liberal Judaism and Liberal Theology 12.1. Mendelssohn; 12.2. Salomon Maimon; 12.3. Haskalā and liberal Judaism; 12.4. Liberal Theology. -/- XIII Counter-Enlighteners 13.1.Romanticism and the fulfilment of individuality as the Summum Bonum; 13.2. Hegel on history as the making of liberty; 13.3. Hegel on the unhappy consciousness and the beautiful soul; 13.4. Hegel on Morality and Sittlichkeit; 13.5. Marx on ideology, alienation, and praxis; 13.6. Schopenhauer on compassion; 13.7. Kierkegaard on faith beyond ethics. -/- XIV Followers of the Enlightenment: intuitionists and utilitarian 14.1 Whewell‘s criticism of utilitarianism; 14.2 Whewell on morality and the philosophy of morality; 14.3 Whewell on the Supreme Norm; 14.4 Whewell on the conflict between duties; 14.5 Mill and the proof of the principle of utility; 14.6 Mill’s eudemonistic utilitarianism; 14.7 Mill on rules -/- XV Followers of the Enlightenment: neo-Kantians and positivists 15.1. French spiritualism; 15.2. Neo-Kantians: the Marburg school; 15.3. Neo-Kantians: the Marburg school; 15.4. Comte’s positivism and the invention of altruism; 15.5. Social Darwinism; 15.6. Wundt and an ethic of humankind -/- XVI Post-enlighteners: Sidgwick 16.1. Criticism of intuitionism; 16.2. On ethical egoism; 16.3. Criticism of utilitarianism -/- XVII Post-enlighteners: Durkheim 17.1. Sociology as physics of customs; 17.2. Morality as physics of customs and as practical science; 17.3. On Kantian ethics and utilitarianism; 17.4. The variability of moralities;17.5. Social solidarity as end and justification of morality; 17.6. Secular morality as “sociodicy”; XVIII Post-enlighteners: Nietzsche 18.1. On the Dionysian; 18.2. On the deconstruction of the world of values 18.3 On the twofold genealogy of moralities; 18.4. On ascetics and nihilism; 18.5. Normative ethics of self-fulfilment -/- Bibliography / Index of names / Index of concepts -/- . (shrink)

RESUMO A bovinocultura sempre esteve atrelada ao desenvolvimento do Brasil e, pensando no avanço, as exigências da máxima eficiência nos sistemas de criação foi pautada na forma de como conseguir realizar a reprodução de bovinos com ênfase na eficiência econômica e reprodutiva. O objetivo deste trabalho é elucidar as principais biotecnologias que auxiliam na maior produtividade reprodutiva de bovinos. Dessa forma, o estudo foi realizado usando artigos do banco de dados do Google acadêmico e SciELO, além de livros do acervo (...) pessoal e sites oficiais. Com o manejo reprodutivo aplicado na bovinocultura, é possível identificar pontos a serem melhorados e implantação de práticas que auxiliam no incremento da eficiência reprodutiva como a estação de monta, que concentra a fertilização dos animais em uma determinada época do ano, o uso do índice de escore corporal, o qual consegue determinar a viabilidade da vaca a ser fertilizada, e a identificação da idade a puberdade, na qual a novilha com 60% de peso vivo quando adulta pode estar apta para reprodução, indicando que a nutrição é um fator importante para reduzir o intervalo entre partos, bem como na indução da precocidade, que ainda pode ser maximizada por uso de bioestimuladores. Assim como a implantação do uso de biotecnologias, que podem adicionar aos planteis, indivíduos geneticamente superiores, saudáveis e eficientes. Dentre as biotecnologias, a inseminação artificial é a mais usada no Brasil, com capacidade de fertilizar vacas com sêmen de touros de genética superior, nacional ou importado. Podem ser citadas ainda as técnicas de transferência de embriões e produção in vitro de embriões como tecnologias a serviço do desenvolvimento da eficiência reprodutiva. A utilização de protocolos hormonais no ciclo estral objetiva a sincronização do estro das vacas para facilitar o emprego das biotecnologias. São vários os protocolos usados para essa finalidade, sendo Ovsynch a base de GnRH e prostaglandina com até 50% de eficácia, protocolos à base de estradiol e progesterona com eficácia de até 86,6%, e protocolos que usam gonadotrofina coriônica equina (eCG), indicados para animais magros por condicionar maior diâmetro folicular, o qual é relacionado com aumento na taxa de prenhez. Dessa maneira, as práticas e tecnologias citadas neste estudo são usadas na reprodução assistida de bovinos. PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Criopreservação. Estro. Gestação. Hipófise. Nutrição. ABSTRACT Cattle farming has always been linked to Brazil’s development and, thinking about advancement, the requirements for maximum efficiency in breeding systems was based on how to achieve the reproduction of cattle with an emphasis on economic and reproductive efficiency. The objective of this work is to elucidate the main biotechnologies that help in the greater reproductive productivity of cattle. Thus, the study was done using articles from the Academic Google and SciELO databases, as well as books from the personal collection and official websites. With the reproductive management applied in cattle farming, it is possible to identify points to be improved and implement practices that help to increase reproductive efficiency, such as the breeding season, which concentrates the fertilization of animals at a certain time of year, use of the body score index, which can determine the viability of the cow to be fertilized, identification of age at puberty, in which the heifer with 60% live weight as an adult may be suitable for reproduction, indicating that nutrition is an important factor in reducing the interval between births, as well as in inducing precocity, which can still be maximized by the use of biostimulators. As well as the implementation of the use of biotechnology, which can add genetically superior, healthy and efficient individuals to the breeding stock. Among the biotechnologies, artificial insemination is the most used in Brazil, with the capacity to fertilize cows with superior genetic bull semen, whether national or imported. Embryo transfer techniques and in vitro embryo production can also be cited as technologies in the service of the development of reproductive efficiency. The use of hormonal protocols in the estrous cycle aims at synchronizing the estrus of cows to facilitate the use of biotechnologies. There are several protocols used for this purpose, with Ovsynch being based on GnRH and prostaglandin with up to 50% efficacy, protocols based on estradiol and progesterone with efficacy of up to 86.6%, and protocols that use equine chorionic gonadotropin (eCG), indicated for lean animals because they condition larger follicular diameter, which is related to an increase in the pregnancy rate. Thus, the practices and technologies mentioned in this study can help the assisted reproduction of cattle. KEYWORDS: Cryopreservation. Estro. Gestation. Hypophysis. Nutrition. -/- REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS -/- ALENCAR, M.M. Perspectivas para o melhoramento genético de bovinos de corte no Brasil. In: Embrapa Pecuária Sudeste-Artigo em anais de congresso (ALICE). In: REUNIÃO ANUAL DA SOCIEDADE BRASILEIRA DE ZOOTECNIA, 41., 2004, Campo Grande, MS. Palestras... Campo Grande: SBZ, 2004, p. 358-367., 2004. ALVES, H.A.G. Otimização da produtividade económica e reprodutiva de uma exploração de bovinos de carne. Dissertação de mestrado em Medicina Veterinária no Curso de Mestrado em Medicina Veterinária, conferido pela Universidade Lusófona de Humanidades e Tecnologias, 2014. AZEVEDO, C. et al. O protocolo hormonal ovsynch e suas modificações em vacas leiteiras de alta produção: uma revisão. Archivos de zootecnia, v. 63, n. 241, p. 173- 187, 2014. BARBOSA, C.F. et al. Inseminação artificial em tempo fixo e diagnóstico precoce de gestação em vacas leiteiras mestiças. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, v. 40, p. 79- 84, 2011. BARBOSA, F.A. et al. Produtividade e eficiência econômica de sistemas de produção de cria, recria e engorda de bovinos de corte na região sul do estado da Bahia. Arquivo Brasileiro de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia, v. 62, p. 677-685, 2010. BARBOSA, R.T.; MACHADO, R. Panorama da inseminação artificial em bovinos. Embrapa Pecuária Sudeste-Documentos (INFOTECA-E), 2008. BARREIROS, T.R.R. et al. Dynamics of follicular growth and progesterone concentrations in cyclic and anestrous suckling Nelore cows (Bos indicus) treated with progesterone, equine chorionic gonadotropin, or temporary calf removal. Theriogenology, v. 81, n. 5, p. 651-656, 2014. BARUSELLI, P.S. et al. Evolução e perspectivas da inseminação artificial em bovinos. Revista Brasileira de Reprodução Animal, v. 43, n. 2, p. 308-314, 2019. BATISTELLA, M. et al. Geotecnologias e gestão territorial da bovinocultura no Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, v. 40, p. 251-260, 2011. BERLITZ, C.G.B. Impacto do estresse ambiental na reprodução de bovinos de corte. Trabalho de Conclusão em Medicina Veterinária. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande Do Sul, 2019. BORDINHON, S.G. Aspectos gerais das fases de cria e recria de bovinos leiteiros. Trabalho de Conclusão de Curso. Curso Medicina Veterinária, Universidade Federal De Santa Catarina, 2021. CAMARGO, L.M. et al. Influência dos escores de condição corporal e da heterose sobre os resultados da inseminação artificial em tempo fixo. Revista Eletrônica Biociências, Biotecnologia e Saúde, v. 10, n. 19, p. 7-16, 2017. CAMPOS, C.C. et al. Gonadorelin at the outset and/or end of an ovulation synchronization progesterone estradiol benzoate-based protocol in Nellore females. Semina: Ciências Agrárias, v. 37, n. 1, p. 173-181, 2016. CARNEIRO JR, J.M.; DE ASSIS, G.M.L. Objetivos e critérios de seleção em bovinos de corte em fase de cria. Embrapa Acre-Artigo de divulgação na mídia (INFOTECA-E), 2016. CARRIJO, M.S.; LINHARES, W.D.; BARCELOS, K.A. Descrição do manejo produtivo, reprodutivo e sanitário de 10 rebanhos leiteiros localizados em 7 municípios do estado de Goiás. Pubvet, v. 2, n. 28, p. 279-294, 2008. CASTRO, S.V. et al. Agentes crioprotetores intracelulares: características e utilização na criopreservação de tecido ovariano e oócitos. Acta Scientiae Veterinariae, v. 39, n. 2, p. 1-17, 2011. CEREZETTI, M.B. et al. Alternativas Para Substituição Do Uso De Implantes Vaginais De Progesterona Na Inseminação Artificial Em Tempo Fixo Em Bovinos. Revista de Ciência Veterinária e Saúde Pública, v. 6, n. 2, p. 416-433, 2019. CEZAR, I.M. et al. Sistemas de produção de gado de corte no Brasil: uma descrição com ênfase no regime alimentar e no abate. Campo Grande, MS: Embrapa Gado de Corte, 2005. COLAZO, M.G.; MAPLETOFT, R. Fisiología del ciclo estral bovino. Ciencia Veterinaria, v. 16, n. 2, p. 31-46, 2017. CONERA, VII. Manejo reprodutivo de bovinos: potencialidade e desafios. Acta Veterinaria Brasilica, v. 8, p. 317-319, 2014. CUNHA, J.M. et al. Aspectos Fisiológicos Do Ciclo Estral Em Bovinos. In: Anais Colóquio Estadual de Pesquisa Multidisciplinar (ISSN-2527-2500) & Congresso Nacional de Pesquisa Multidisciplinar. 2019. CUNHA, R.R. et al. Inseminação artificial em tempo fixo em primíparas Nelore lactantes acíclicas. Arquivo Brasileiro de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia, v. 65, p. 1041-1048, 2013. CUNNINGHAM, J. Tratado de fisiologia veterinária. Elsevier Health Sciences, 2011. Da Silva, E. I. C. (2022). Fisiologia da Reprodução de Bovinos Leiteiros: Aspetos Básicos e Clínicos (1st ed.). Belo Jardim. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Fisiologia do ciclo estral dos animais domésticos. Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro da Silva, 2021. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Puberdade e Estacionalidade Reprodutiva dos Animais. 2020a. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Reprodução Animal: Inseminação Artificial. 2020b. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Transferência de Embriões nos Animais e a Indústria de Embriões no Brasil. 2020c. D’AVILA, C.A. et al. Hormônios utilizados na indução da ovulação em bovinos–Artigo de revisão. Revista Brasileira de Reprodução Animal, v. 43, n. 4, p. 797-802, 2019. DAVIDSON, A.P.; STABENFELDT, G.H. Controle do desenvolvimento gonadal e dos gametas. Tratado de fisiologia veterinária (Cunningham), p. 408-415, 2014. DIAS, E.A.R. et al. O uso de ECG influencia a taxa de concepção em vacas Nelore de diferentes condições corporais submetidas ao mesmo protocolo de IATF?. Boletim de Indústria Animal, v. 70, n. 3, p. 215-220, 2013. DYCE, K.M.; SACK, W.O.; WENSING, C.J.G. Tratado de anatomia veterinária. 4.ed. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier, 2010. FERNANDES, A.F.A.; OLIVEIRA, J.A.; QUEIROZ, S.A. Escore de condição corporal em ruminantes. Ars Veterinaria, v. 32, n. 1, p. 55-66, 2016. FERRAZ, P.A. et al. Dinâmica folicular e taxa de concepção de vacas Nelore sincronizadas com diferentes protocolos de indução da ovulação. Archives of Veterinary Science, v. 18, n. 4, 2013. FERREIRA, R.M. et al. Synchronization treatments previous to natural breeding anticipate and improve the pregnancy rate of postpartum primiparous beef cows. Theriogenology, v. 114, p. 206-211, 2018. FILHO, L.C.C. et al. Fatores que interferem na eficiência reprodutiva de receptoras de embrião bovino. Arq. Ciênc. Vet. Zool., v. 16, n. 2, p. 201-208, 2013. FONSECA, R.S. Manejo nutricional, reprodutivo e biotécnicas para incrementar a eficiência reprodutiva em rebanhos de vacas de corte. Dissertação de Mestrado. Universidade Federal de Viçosa, 2018. FONSECA, V.O. et al. Parâmetros reprodutivos de touros Nelore (Bos taurus indicus) criados a pasto, em de diferentes faixas etárias. Arquivo Brasileiro de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia, v. 71, p. 385-392, 2019. FONTES, A.R.C. Transferência de Biotecnologia. Revista Online de Pesquisa: Propriedade Intelectual, v. 2, n. 2, p. 98-110, 2019. GALVÃO, A.L.C.O. Fertilidade de touros e suas interações com fatores relacionados as fêmeas em programas de inseminação artificial em tempo fixo. Tese de Doutorado. Universidade de São Paulo, 2021. GOTTSCHALL, C.S. et al. Avaliação do desempenho reprodutivo de vacas de corte lactantes submetidas à IATF a partir da aplicação do GnRH, da manifestação estral, da reutilização de dispositivos intravaginais e da condição corporal. Acta Scientiae Veterinariae, v. 40, n. 1, p. 1-10, 2012. GOTTSCHALL, C.S. et al. Influência da indução à puberdade e do peso vivo sobre a resposta reprodutiva em novilhas de corte. Revista Veterinária em Foco, v. 16, n. 2, 2019. GOUVEIA, F.F. A Produção in vitro de embriões bovinos. Monografia (Trabalho de Conclusão de Curso) – Faculdade de Agronomia e Veterinária, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, 2011. GUASTI, P.N.; MONTEIRO, G.A.; PAPA, F.O. Componentes do plasma seminal e sua influência sobre a criopreservação e fertilidade de espermatozoides equinos. Veterinária e Zootecnia, v.19, n.2, p.169-180, 2012. GUIMARÃES, J.D. et al. Seleção e manejo reprodutivo de touros zebu. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, v. 40, p. 379-388, 2011. HAFEZ, E.S.E. Reprodução Animal, 7 ed. São Paulo: Manole Ltda, 2004. HARTMANN, W. et al. Influência do escore de trato reprodutivo e da circunferência escrotal dos touros sobre a antecipação da puberdade em novilhas Nelore. Tuiuti: ciência e cultura, v. 7, n. 62, p. 140-165, 2021. HILL, R.W.; WYSE, G.A.; ANDERSON, M. Fisiologia Animal-2. Artmed Editora, 2016. KONIG, H.E.; LIEBICH, H.G. Anatomia dos animais domésticos. 6ª ed. Porto Alegre: Artmed, 2016. LEITE, P.A. et al. Criopreservação do sêmen bovino. Journal of Health Sciences, v. 13, n. 4, 2011. LUSTOSA, A.A. et al. Aspectos relevantes na produção comercial de embriões bovinos por meio da técnica biotecnológica de fertilização in vitro: Revisão. Pubvet, v. 12, p. 130, 2018. MACHADO, R. et al. Escore da condição corporal e sua aplicação no manejo reprodutivo de ruminantes. Embrapa Pecuária Sudeste-Circular Técnica (INFOTECA-E), 2008. MARQUES JR, P.A. Manejo reprodutivo de bovinos. Ciência Animal, p. l2548-l2548, 2012. MARQUES, L.R. et al. Detecção de estro e desempenho reprodutivo de vacas leiteiras: Revisão. Research, Society and Development, v. 9, n. 7, 2020. MARTINS, C.F. et al. Inseminação artificial: uma tecnologia para o grande e o pequeno produtor. Embrapa Cerrados-Documentos (INFOTECA-E), 2009. MEIRELLES, C. et al. Eficiência da inseminação artificial com sêmen sexado bovino. Archives of Veterinary Science, v. 13, n. 2, 2008. MELLO, R.R.C. et al. Produção in vitro (PIV) de embriões em bovinos. R. Bras. Reprod. Anim., p. 6458-6458, 2016. MELLO, R.R.C. Puberdade e maturidade sexual em touros bovinos. Agropecuária Científica no Semiárido, v. 10, n. 3, p. 11-28, 2015. MELO, A.F. et al. Efeitos do estresse térmico na produção de vacas leiteiras: Revisão. Pubvet, v. 10, p. 721-794, 2016. MORETTO, B.; TÚLIO, L.M.; JUNIOR, E.M.Z. Influência dos diferentes escores corporais na taxa de prenhez de vacas zebuínas. Arquivos Brasileiros de Medicina Veterinária FAG, v. 1, n. 1, 2018. MOYES, C.D.; SCHULTE, P.M. Princípios de fisiologia animal. Artmed Editora, 2009. MURPHY, B.D. Equine chorionic gonadotropin: an enigmatic but essential tool. Animal Reproduction (AR), v. 9, n. 3, p. 223-230, 2018. NEPOMUCENO, D.D. Efeito do manejo nutricional sobre a maturação do eixo reprodutivo somatotrófico no início da puberdade de novilhas Nelore. Tese de Doutorado. Universidade de São Paulo, 2013. NETO, A.P. et al. Reutilização de implante intravaginal de progesterona para sincronização de estro em bovinos. Arquivos de Ciências Veterinárias e Zoologia da UNIPAR, v. 12, n. 2, 2009. OLIVEIRA C.G.A.; JÚNIOR, M.B.C. Métodos de detecção de estro e falhas relacionadas. Pubvet, v. 9, p. 348-399, 2015. OLIVEIRA, C.S. et al. Biotécnicas da Reprodução em Bovinos. EMBRAPA, 2014. OLIVEIRA, F.R.P.; CARDOSO, D.; OLIVEIRA, F.V. História da inseminação artificial. Zootecnia: Nutrição e Produção Animal, 2020. OLIVEIRA, L.; SILVA, R.S. Tempo é dinheiro: implementação de Estação de Monta e IATF. 2019. OLIVEIRA, R.B.; SILVA JR, B.A.; CAVALCANTE, T.H.C. Indução de novilhas para protocolo de inseminação artificial em tempo fixo: Revisão. PUBVET, v. 12, p. 133, 2018. PAZZIM, L.V.L. Transferência de embriões em bovinos: revisão de literatura. Trabalho Conclusão do Curso (Graduação em Medicina Veterinária) - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Centro de Ciências Rurais, 2021. PEGORARO, L.M.C.; SAALFELD, M.H.; PRADIEÉ, J. Inseminação Artificial em Bovinos. Embrapa Clima Temperado-Documentos (INFOTECA-E), 2016. PEIXER, P.F. et al. Produção in vitro de embriões bovinos. Revista ESPACIOS, [s.l.], v. 39,n.16, 2018. PENITENTE FILHO, J.M. et al. Produção de embriões bovinos in vivo e in vitro. Revista CFMV, Ano XX, p. 73-82, 2014. PESCARA, J. O efeito do estresse térmico em vacas leiteiras e suas implicações nutricionais. [S. l.], 2012. Disponível em. Acesso em: 15 nov. 2021. PINHEIRO NETO, F.S.A. et al. Avaliação da IATF em novilhas Girolando utilizandose diferentes protocolos com sêmen sexado: comunicação breve, Rev. Bras. Reprod. Anim., Belo Horizonte, v.39, n.3, p.362-366, 2015. PTASZYNSKA, M. Compêndio de Reprodução Animal – Intervet, 2010. PUGLIESI, G. et al. Uso da ultrassonografia Doppler em programas de IATF e TETF em bovinos. Rev Bras Reprod Anim, v. 41, n. 1, p. 140-150, 2017. PURSLEY, J.R.; MEE, M.O.; WILTBANK, M.C. Synchronization of ovulation in dairy cows using PGF2α and GnRH. Theriogenology, v. 44, n. 7, p. 915-923, 1995. REZENDE, L.P. et al. Implantação de escrituração zootécnica em pequenas propriedades rurais no município de Grajaú-MA. Veterinária e Zootecnia, v. 27, p. 1- 16, 2020. RIBEIRO FILHO, A.L. et al. Diâmetro do folículo no momento da inseminação artificial em tempo fixo e taxa de concepção em vacas Nelore. Ciência Animal Brasileira, v. 14, p. 501-507, 2013. RICCI, G.D.; ORSI, A.M.; DOMINGUES, P.F. Estresse calórico e suas interferências no ciclo de produção de vacas de leite: revisão. Veterinária e Zootecnia, p. 9-18, 2013. RODRIGUES, J.L.; BERTOLINI, M. Biotecnologias da reprodução animal: de Aristóteles à edição gênica. Revista Brasileira de Reprodução Animal, v. 43, n. 2, p. 204-208, 2019. ROSA, P.P. et al. Life cycle systems of Replacement Females in Dairy Farms [Cria e recria de fêmeas de reposição em propriedades leiteiras]. Revista Eletrônica de Veterinária, 19(5), 1–12, 2018. SÁ FILHO, M.F. et al. Induction of ovarian follicular wave emergence and ovulation in progestin-based timed artificial insemination protocols for Bos indicus attle. Animal Reproduction Science, v.129, n.3, p132–139, 2011. SÁ FILHO, M.F. et al. Ovarian follicle diameter at timed insemination and estrous response influence likelihood of ovulation and pregnancy after estrous synchronization with progesterone or progestin-based protocols in suckled Bos indicus cows. Animal Reproduction Science, v. 120, n. 1-4, p. 23-30, 2010. SANTOS, B.D. Inseminação artificial em bovinos. Trabalho de conclusão de curso (Graduação em Agronomia). Instituto federal de São Paulo. Campus Barretos. 2016. SANTOS, J.F.D. et al. Qualidade do sêmen bovino criopreservado. Revista Espacios. Vol. 39, 2018. SANTOS, K.J.G. et al. Biotecnologias reprodutivas e fisiologia reprodutiva da fêmea bovina conhecimento para o sucesso. PUBVET, Londrina, V. 6, N. 36, Ed. 223, Art. 1483, 2012. SANTOS, P.H. Impactos da superestimulação ovariana sobre a diferenciação das células da granulosa bovina. Dissertação de Mestrado em Farmacologia e Biotecnologia – UNESP. 2017. SANTOS, S.A. et al. Condição corporal, variação de peso e desempenho reprodutivo de vacas de cria em pastagem nativa no Pantanal. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, v. 38, p. 354-360, 2009. SARTOR, G. Avaliação da taxa de prenhez em fêmeas bovinas de corte de diferentes categorias submetidas a protocolos de IATF. Trabalho Conclusão do Curso (Graduação em Medicina Veterinária) - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, campus Curitibano. Santa Catarina. 2017. SCOTT, C. et al. Estudo sobre as diferentes técnicas de sexagem de espermatozoides. Veterinária e Zootecnia, v. 25, n. 1, p. 21-29, 2018. SILVA, B.J. et al. O modelo dos “Cinco Domínios” do bem-estar animal aplicado em sistemas intensivos de produção de bovinos, suínos e aves. Revista Brasileira de Zoociências, v. 19, n. 2, 2018. SILVA, J.S. et al. Aspectos comerciais da transferência de embriões e fertilização in vitro em bovinos – revisão. Revista Eletrônica Nutritime. v. 12, n. 5, 2015. SILVA, M.A.N.; MELLO, M.R.B.; PALHANO, H.B. Inseminação artificial e inseminação artificial em tempo fixo em bovinos. Revista Científica do UBM, p. 79-97, 2021. SILVA, P.R.B. et al. Regulação farmacológica do ciclo estral de bovinos. Pubvet, v. 5, p. Art. 1251-1257, 2011. SILVA, R.R. et al. Produção in vitro de Embriões Bovinos: Estado da Arte. In: Colloquium Agrarie. 2017. SOARES, P.H.A.; JUNQUEIRA, F.S. Particularidades reprodutivas da fêmea bovina: Revisão. PUBVET, v. 13, p. 148, 2018. SOUZA, J.A.T. et al. Novos enfoques na avaliação andrológica de bovinos e sua contribuição no melhoramento genético do rebanho. Ciência Animal, p. 44-56, 2020. SOUZA, M.T.; SILVA, M.D; CARVALHO, R. Revisão integrativa: o que é e como fazer. Einstein (São Paulo), v. 8, p. 102-106, 2010. SOUZA, N.S.; ABADE, C.C. Produção in vitro de embriões bovinos: etapas de produção e histórico no Brasil. Ciência Veterinária UniFil, v. 1, n. 3, p. 95-108, 2019. STAUB, C.; JOHNSON, L. Review: Spermatogenesis in the bull. Animal, v.12, p.27- 35, 2018. STRELCZUK, G. Diagnóstico precoce de gestação em bovinos leiteiros. Monografia curso medicina veterinária. Faculdade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, 2015. STRINGFELLOW, D.A.; SEIDEL, S.M. Manual da Sociedade Internacional de Transferência de Embriões. IETS, p. 112-113, Illinois, 1998. TEIXEIRA, L.S. et al. Técnicas de melhoramento genético em bovinos para o aumento na produção de leite. Interfaces Científicas-Saúde e Ambiente, v. 2, n. 2, p. 81-87, 2014. TORRES-JÚNIOR, J.R.S. et al. Considerações técnicas e econômicas sobre reprodução assistida em gado de corte. Revista Brasileira de Reprodução Animal, p. 53-58, 2009. VALENTIM, J.K. et al. Fatores Nutricionais Aplicados à Reprodução de Ruminantes. UNICIÊNCIAS, v. 23, n. 2, p. 77-82, 2019. VALLE, E.R.; ANDREOTTI, R.; THIAGO, L.R.L.S. Técnicas de manejo reprodutivo em bovinos de corte. Embrapa Gado de Corte, 2000. VIANA, W. et al. Taxa de prenhez de vacas zebuínas com uso da inseminação artificial em tempo fixo (IATF) em fazendas do norte de Minas Gerais. Revista Científica Eletrônica de Medicina Veterinária, v. 24, n. 24, p. 1-8, 2015. VIEIRA, A.C.M.; PERIN, J.N.; DIAS, D.P.M. Preparo de rufiões bovinos por falopexia paramediana ventral. Nucleus Animalium, v. 7, n. 1, 2015. WEBB, R.; BURATINI, J. Desafios globais para o século XXI: o papel e a estratégia do setor agropecuário. Anais da XXX Reunião Anual da Sociedade Brasileira de Tecnologia de Embriões, p. 36, 2016. ZANDONAIDE, J.P.B. Efeito da suplementação de hidroxietilamido em diluidor comercial na criopreservação do sêmen bovino. Dissertação de Mestrado. Universidade de Uberaba, 2018. (shrink)

Collected and edited by Noah Levin -/- Table of Contents: -/- UNIT ONE: INTRODUCTION TO CONTEMPORARY ETHICS: TECHNOLOGY, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, AND IMMIGRATION 1 The “Trolley Problem” and Self-Driving Cars: Your Car’s Moral Settings (Noah Levin) 2 What is Ethics and What Makes Something a Problem for Morality? (David Svolba) 3 Letter from the Birmingham City Jail (Martin Luther King, Jr) 4 A Defense of Affirmative Action (Noah Levin) 5 The Moral Issues of Immigration (B.M. Wooldridge) 6 The Ethics of our (...) Digital Selves (Noah Levin) -/- UNIT TWO: TORTURE, DEATH, AND THE “GREATER GOOD” 7 The Ethics of Torture (Martine Berenpas) 8 What Moral Obligations do we have (or not have) to Impoverished Peoples? (B.M. Wooldridge) 9 Euthanasia, or Mercy Killing (Nathan Nobis) 10 An Argument Against Capital Punishment (Noah Levin) 11 Common Arguments about Abortion (Nathan Nobis & Kristina Grob) 12 Better (Philosophical) Arguments about Abortion (Nathan Nobis & Kristina Grob) -/- UNIT THREE: PERSONS, AUTONOMY, THE ENVIRONMENT, AND RIGHTS 13 Animal Rights (Eduardo Salazar) 14 John Rawls and the “Veil of Ignorance” (Ben Davies) 15 Environmental Ethics: Climate Change (Jonathan Spelman) 16 Rape, Date Rape, and the “Affirmative Consent” Law in California (Noah Levin) 17 The Ethics of Pornography: Deliberating on a Modern Harm (Eduardo Salazar) 18 The Social Contract (Thomas Hobbes) -/- UNIT FOUR: HAPPINESS 19 Is Pleasure all that Matters? Thoughts on the “Experience Machine” (Prabhpal Singh) 20 Utilitarianism (J.S. Mill) 21 Utilitarianism: Pros and Cons (B.M. Wooldridge) 22 Existentialism, Genetic Engineering, and the Meaning of Life: The Fifths (Noah Levin) 23 The Solitude of the Self (Elizabeth Cady Stanton) 24 Game Theory, the Nash Equilibrium, and the Prisoner’s Dilemma (Douglas E. Hill) -/- UNIT FIVE: RELIGION, LAW, AND ABSOLUTE MORALITY 25 The Myth of Gyges and The Crito (Plato) 26 God, Morality, and Religion (Kristin Seemuth Whaley) 27 The Categorical Imperative (Immanuel Kant) 28 The Virtues (Aristotle) 29 Beyond Good and Evil (Friedrich Nietzsche) 30 Other Moral Theories: Subjectivism, Relativism, Emotivism, Intuitionism, etc. (Jan F. Jacko). (shrink)

Background: Facial proportionality and symmetry are positively associated with perceived levels of facial attractiveness. -/- Objective: The aims of this study were to confirm and extend the association of proportionality with perceived levels of attractiveness and character traits and determine differences in attractiveness and character ratings between "anomalous" and "typical" faces using a large dataset. -/- Methods: Ratings of 597 unique individuals from the Chicago Face Database were used. A formula was developed as a proxy of relative horizontal proportionality, where (...) a proportionality score of "0" indicated perfect proportionality and more negative scores indicated less proportionality. Faces were categorized as "anomalous" or "typical" by 2 independent reviewers based on physical features. -/- Results: Across the ratings for all faces, Spearman correlations revealed greater proportionality was associated with attractiveness ( ρ = 0.292, P < 0.001) and trustworthiness ( ρ = 0.193, P < 0.001), while lesser proportionality was associated with impressions of anger (ρ = 0.132, P = 0.001), dominance (ρ = 0.259, P < 0.001), and threateningness ( ρ = 0.234, P < 0.001). Mann-Whitney U tests revealed the typical cohort had significantly higher levels of proportionality (-13.98 versus -15.14, P = 0.030) and ratings of attractiveness (3.39 versus 2.99, P < 0.001) and trustworthiness (3.48 versus 3.35, P < 0.001). -/- Conclusions: This study demonstrated that facial proportionality is not only significantly associated with higher ratings of attractiveness, but also associated with judgements of trustworthiness. Proportionality plays a role in evoking negative attributions of personality characteristics to people with facial anomalies. (shrink)

The essays in this volume explore those aspects of Kant’s writings which concern issues in the philosophy of mind. These issues are central to any understanding of Kant’s critical philosophy and they bear upon contemporary discussions in the philosophy of mind. Fourteen specially written essays address such questions as: What role does mental processing play in Kant’s account of intuition? What kinds of empirical models can be given of these operations? In what sense, and in what ways, are intuitions object-dependent? (...) How should we understand the nature of the imagination? What is inner sense, and what does it mean to say that time is the form of inner sense? Can we cognize ourselves through inner sense? How do we self-ascribe our beliefs and what role does self-consciousness play in our judgments? Is the will involved in judging? What kind of knowledge can we have of the self ? And what kind of knowledge of the self does Kant proscribe? These essays showcase the depth of Kant’s writings in the philosophy of mind, and the centrality of those writings to his wider philosophical project. Moreover, they show the continued relevance of Kant’s writings to contemporary debates about the nature of mind and self. Contents: 0. Introduction Anil Gomes and Andrew Stephenson 1. Kant, The Philosophy Of Mind, And Twentieth Century Analytic Philosophy Anil Gomes 2. Synthesis And Binding Lucy Allais 3. Understanding Non-Conceptual Representation Of Objects: Empirical Models Of Sensibility’s Operation Katherine Dunlop 4. Are Kantian Intuitions Object-Dependent? Stefanie Grüne 5. Intuition And Presence Colin McLear 6. Imagination And Inner Intuition Andrew Stephenson 7. Inner Sense And Time Ralf M. Bader 8. Can’t Kant Cognize Himself? Or, A Problem For (Almost) Every Interpretation Of The Refutation Of Idealism Andrew Chignell 9. A Kantian Critique Of Transparency Patricia Kitcher 10. Judging For Reasons: On Kant And The Modalities Of Judgment Jessica Leech 11. Kant On Judging And The Will Jill Vance Buroker 12. Self and Selves Ralph C. S. Walker 13. Subjects Of Kant’s First Paralogism Tobias Rosefeldt 14. The Lessons Of Kant’s Paralogisms Paul Snowdon. (shrink)

This paper’s outline is as follows. In sections 1-3 I give an exposi¬tion of the Mind-Body Problem, with emphasis on what I believe to be the heart of the problem, namely, the Percepts-Qualia Nonidentity and its incompatibility with the Physical Closure Paradigm. In 4 I present the “Qualia Inaction Postulate” underlying all non-interactionist theo¬ries that seek to resolve the above problem. Against this convenient postulate I propose in section 5 the “Bafflement Ar¬gument,” which is this paper's main thesis. Sections 6-11 (...) critically dis¬cuss attempts to dismiss the Bafflement Argument by the “Baf¬flement=Mis¬perception Equation.” Section 12 offers a refutation of all such attempts in the form of a concise “Asymmetry Proof.” Section 13 points out the bearing of the Bafflement Argument on the evolutionary role of consciousness while section 14 acknowledges the price that has to be paid for it in terms of basic physical principles. Section 15 summarizes the paper, pointing out the inescapability of interactionist dualism. (shrink)

A group of the last notebooks that Nietzsche wrote from 1888 to the final notebook of 1889. -/- Translator Daniel Fidel Ferrer. See: "Nietzsche's Notebooks in English: a Translator's Introduction and Afterward". pages 265-272. Total pages 390. Translation done June 2012. -/- Nietzsche's notebooks from the last productive year of life, 1888. Nietzsche's unpublished writings called the Nachlass. These are notebooks (Notizheft) from the year 1888 up to early January 1889. Nietzsche stopped writing entirely after January 6, 1889. -/- The (...) German notebooks of Nietzsche's included in these English translations: 12[1-2] Anfang 1888 13[1-5] Anfang 1888 - Fruhjahr 1888 14[1-227] Fruhjahr 1888 (first note says: Nizza, den 25. Marz 1888) 15[1-120] Fruhjahr 1888 16[1-89] Fruhjahr - Sommer 1888 17[1-9] Mai - Juni 1888 18[1-17] Juli - August 1888 19[1-11] September 1888 20[1-168] Sommer 1888 21[1-8] Herbst 1888 22[1-29] September - Oktober 1888 23[1-14] Oktober 1888 24[1-10] Oktober - November 1888 25[1-21] December 1888 - Januar 1889. (shrink)

The present investigation was undertaken to investigate the acute toxicity of cadmium, a heavy metal widely detected in the aquatic environment due to natural effects and anthropogenic activities, in freshwater teleost, Channa punctata (Bloch). The experiments for the bioassay were performed in semi-static test condition according to the standard guidelines. The behavioural changes in the fish were observed for all tested concentrations of the metal. The data obtained for bioassay were analyzed for median lethal concentrations (LC ) of the metal (...) by SPSS computer software. The LC 50 50 values, estimated by SPSS, with 95% confidence level were found to be:20.589 (18.326-23.221), 17.133 (14.840- 19.734), 11.815 (9.696 – 13.850) mg/L and 9.908 (7.635-12381) mg/L for cadmium chloride at 24, 48, 72 and 96 h exposure, respectively. (shrink)

Can new technology enhance purpose-driven, democratic dialogue in groups, governments, and societies? Online Deliberation: Design, Research, and Practice is the first book that attempts to sample the full range of work on online deliberation, forging new connections between academic research, technology designers, and practitioners. Since some of the most exciting innovations have occurred outside of traditional institutions, and those involved have often worked in relative isolation from each other, work in this growing field has often failed to reflect the full (...) set of perspectives on online deliberation. This volume is aimed at those working at the crossroads of information/communication technology and social science, and documents early findings in, and perspectives on, this new field by many of its pioneers. -/- CONTENTS: -/- Introduction: The Blossoming Field of Online Deliberation (Todd Davies, pp. 1-19) -/- Part I - Prospects for Online Civic Engagement -/- Chapter 1: Virtual Public Consultation: Prospects for Internet Deliberative Democracy (James S. Fishkin, pp. 23-35) -/- Chapter 2: Citizens Deliberating Online: Theory and Some Evidence (Vincent Price, pp. 37-58) -/- Chapter 3: Can Online Deliberation Improve Politics? Scientific Foundations for Success (Arthur Lupia, pp. 59-69) -/- Chapter 4: Deliberative Democracy, Online Discussion, and Project PICOLA (Public Informed Citizen Online Assembly) (Robert Cavalier with Miso Kim and Zachary Sam Zaiss, pp. 71-79) -/- Part II - Online Dialogue in the Wild -/- Chapter 5: Friends, Foes, and Fringe: Norms and Structure in Political Discussion Networks (John Kelly, Danyel Fisher, and Marc Smith, pp. 83-93) -/- Chapter 6: Searching the Net for Differences of Opinion (Warren Sack, John Kelly, and Michael Dale, pp. 95-104) -/- Chapter 7: Happy Accidents: Deliberation and Online Exposure to Opposing Views (Azi Lev-On and Bernard Manin, pp. 105-122) -/- Chapter 8: Rethinking Local Conversations on the Web (Sameer Ahuja, Manuel Pérez-Quiñones, and Andrea Kavanaugh, pp. 123-129) -/- Part III - Online Public Consultation -/- Chapter 9: Deliberation in E-Rulemaking? The Problem of Mass Participation (David Schlosberg, Steve Zavestoski, and Stuart Shulman, pp. 133-148) -/- Chapter 10: Turning GOLD into EPG: Lessons from Low-Tech Democratic Experimentalism for Electronic Rulemaking and Other Ventures in Cyberdemocracy (Peter M. Shane, pp. 149-162) -/- Chapter 11: Baudrillard and the Virtual Cow: Simulation Games and Citizen Participation (Hélène Michel and Dominique Kreziak, pp. 163-166) -/- Chapter 12: Using Web-Based Group Support Systems to Enhance Procedural Fairness in Administrative Decision Making in South Africa (Hossana Twinomurinzi and Jackie Phahlamohlaka, pp. 167-169) -/- Chapter 13: Citizen Participation Is Critical: An Example from Sweden (Tomas Ohlin, pp. 171-173) -/- Part IV - Online Deliberation in Organizations -/- Chapter 14: Online Deliberation in the Government of Canada: Organizing the Back Office (Elisabeth Richard, pp. 177-191) -/- Chapter 15: Political Action and Organization Building: An Internet-Based Engagement Model (Mark Cooper, pp. 193-202) -/- Chapter 16: Wiki Collaboration Within Political Parties: Benefits and Challenges (Kate Raynes-Goldie and David Fono, pp. 203-205) -/- Chapter 17: Debian’s Democracy (Gunnar Ristroph, pp. 207-211) -/- Chapter 18: Software Support for Face-to-Face Parliamentary Procedure (Dana Dahlstrom and Bayle Shanks, pp. 213-220) -/- Part V - Online Facilitation -/- Chapter 19: Deliberation on the Net: Lessons from a Field Experiment (June Woong Rhee and Eun-mee Kim, pp. 223-232) -/- Chapter 20: The Role of the Moderator: Problems and Possibilities for Government-Run Online Discussion Forums (Scott Wright, pp. 233-242) -/- Chapter 21: Silencing the Clatter: Removing Anonymity from a Corporate Online Community (Gilly Leshed, pp. 243-251) -/- Chapter 22: Facilitation and Inclusive Deliberation (Matthias Trénel, pp. 253-257) -/- Chapter 23: Rethinking the ‘Informed’ Participant: Precautions and Recommendations for the Design of Online Deliberation (Kevin S. Ramsey and Matthew W. Wilson, pp. 259-267) -/- Chapter 24: PerlNomic: Rule Making and Enforcement in Digital Shared Spaces (Mark E. Phair and Adam Bliss, pp. 269-271) -/- Part VI - Design of Deliberation Tools -/- Chapter 25: An Online Environment for Democratic Deliberation: Motivations, Principles, and Design (Todd Davies, Brendan O’Connor, Alex Cochran, Jonathan J. Effrat, Andrew Parker, Benjamin Newman, and Aaron Tam, pp. 275-292) -/- Chapter 26: Online Civic Deliberation with E-Liberate (Douglas Schuler, pp. 293-302) -/- Chapter 27: Parliament: A Module for Parliamentary Procedure Software (Bayle Shanks and Dana Dahlstrom, pp. 303-307) -/- Chapter 28: Decision Structure: A New Approach to Three Problems in Deliberation (Raymond J. Pingree, pp. 309-316) -/- Chapter 29: Design Requirements of Argument Mapping Software for Teaching Deliberation (Matthew W. Easterday, Jordan S. Kanarek, and Maralee Harrell, pp. 317-323) -/- Chapter 30: Email-Embedded Voting with eVote/Clerk (Marilyn Davis, pp. 325-327) -/- Epilogue: Understanding Diversity in the Field of Online Deliberation (Seeta Peña Gangadharan, pp. 329-358). -/- For individual chapter downloads, go to odbook.stanford.edu. (shrink)

Coronary arteries were studied on 110 postmortem human hearts during January 2000 to December 2001 in the department of Anatomy and Microbiology, Bangladesh Medical College to observed. The pattern of coronary dominance and its relation with atherosclerosis was observed. Atherosclerosis was found in 49(44.5%) samples, among which 37(56.%) were from male and 12(26.7%) from female hearts. This difference was significant (P<0.01). Right dominance was observed in 72 (65.5%) cases while 17 (15.5%) had left dominance and 21 (19.1%) had balanced type (...) of circulation. Balanced type of circulation was observed more among females (14; 66.7%) while left dominance was more frequent among males (13; 76.5 %). This deference on the basis of sex was significant (P<0.05). Significant (P<0.001) relationship was also observed between atherosclerosis and dominance of coronary artery. It may be concluded that atherosclerosis was present in almost half of the studied subjects and was found more among males. Left dominance was more frequently present among males it was associated with atherosclerosis. (shrink)

‘On Reference’ is a collection of 18 original articles. While united in their concern with reference, they deal with a large variety of topics, ranging from questions concerning the nature of reference, through the interaction of reference and cognition, to more specific questions about the semantics of particular referring expressions. The contributions are of high quality: thought provoking, insightful and engagingly written. Many have the potential to substantially advance the debate in their field. In this critical notice I will do (...) two things. I will focus on a cluster of four essays (Chs. 10-13) that are concerned with a single topic: the view that proper names are predicates. Apart from illustrating the above mentioned virtues, these essays are well suited to be discussed in conjunction due to their tightly connected subject matter. Before I get to this though, I will give brief summaries of the remaining 14 articles, where space constraints prevent me from discussing them in the detail they deserve. (shrink)

1 Introduction1 In the 1980s, hermeneutics was often incorporated into deconstructionism and literary theory. Rather than focus on authorial intentions, the nature of writing itself including codes used to construct meaning, socio-economic contexts and inequalities of power,2 Gadamer introduced a different perspective; the interplay between effects of history on a reader’s understanding and the tradition(s) handed down in writing. This interplay in which a reader’s prejudices are called into question and modified by the text in a fusion of understanding and (...) topic revitalized the study of the printed word. Gadamer’s turn to language for understanding the meaning of Being also appealed to the post-modern antipathy toward modernity and metaphysics.3 If the truth and validity of interpretations are limited to communities of language, then our mode of being in history cannot but be historical. This point of view rendered Gadamer’s phenomenological hermeneutics vulnerable to the critique of moral and epistemological relativism. However, Gadamer’s theory of interpretation also stems from re-examination of the beginning of knowledge in the Pre-Socratics and Plato, and on this basis, is receptive to another dimension of inquiry than that which was trending in North America. -/- At the East-West Center, University of Hawai’i at Manoa in 1982, Chung-ying Cheng for the first time introduced onto-hermeneutics to an audience of esteemed philosophers including Li Zehou, Ren Jiyu, Feng Youlan, and Zhang Liwen.4 In contrast to schools of deconstruction and literary theory that had disengaged the interpreter from trans-historical sources of meaning and truth, Cheng explained that interpreters exist within a cosmological order inextricable from responsibility to harmonize Heaven and Earth in creative acts of interpretation. By integrating Chinese cosmology into hermeneutics through ontology, he tacitly challenged philosophers in the West to re-examine assumptions about humanity’s place in nature and by implication, Gadamer’s recovery of the beginnings of knowledge in Western philosophy. -/- Cheng’s Neo-Confucianism is inspired by the method and goals of Thomé H. Fang. The following words by Fang seem to prefigure, although in an indistinct and bundled way, aspects of Cheng’s philosophy including a Mencian theory of human nature, comprehensive observation, and creativity: “In the very process of living in concord with creative Nature, Man is charged with an ideal to be fully realized in the light of the principle of comprehensive harmony.”5 Like Fang, Cheng reinvigorates Chinese culture and language, but not solely in order to vindicate the insights of Neo-Confucianism. He has studied Western thought, from pragmatism and the analytic school to German idealism and phenomenology, to unlock and clarify philosophical concepts within the Yijing tradition and thereby render them intelligible to Anglophones. The result has been an awakening of Western scholars to the moral and cultural consequences of decoupling their thought from metaphysical foundations that are neither dogmatic nor doctrinal. -/- Not unlike the dialectic of Gadamer’s dialogue form, onto-generative hermeneutics integrates contrary positions on the same topic in order to blend both sides into a world philosophy, or as Cheng says, a “totalizing or integrative theory,”6 not to be confused with a theoretical rewording of a theory. On the contrary, the universal scope and relevance of hermeneutics stems from personal experience. Just as Gadamer, in response to faction and strife, immersed himself in Plato during the war years, and developed a method with which to harmonize opposites, so too, according to On-cho Ng, was Cheng moved by faction, strife and political persecution to develop a path toward unity.7 Gadamer taught at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, and Cheng at the University of Hawai’i at Manoa among other institutions in North America. They facilitated trans-continental educational and cultural ties. Similar experiences yield similar insights irrespective of differences of time and place. Hence, authors in this issue who reside in Europe, China and North America, delineate the differences between Gadamer and Cheng, yet also, in light of Cheng’s onto-generative method and cosmology, develop integrative theories. Due to the page-budget restriction of the publisher, certain articles of this special theme will be subsequently published in the next issue. -/- 2 Integrative Theory This special issue of The Journal of Chinese Philosophy confirms a dimension of hermeneutics that Cheng has both motivated and inspired. The contributors do not abide by the conviction that since thought is mediated by language, interpretations cannot transcend culture. On the contrary, their research exemplifies the fruits of trans-historical onto-dialogical hermeneutics within limits defined by their field inquiry, organized into Parts I and II, around three themes: language, the philosophy of history and ethics. -/- Andrew Fuyarchuk introduces the theme of ontology in relation to Gadamer’s turn to language. Fuyarchuk argues that Chung-ying Cheng’s criticism of Gadamer’s hermeneutics is informed by Heidegger’s concept of Dasein and thereby overlooks how Gadamer’s Platonic-Pythagorean problem of the division between the One and Many is harmonized in the event of language, which in turn positions Gadamer in proximity to the presupposed grounds of receptivity in Cheng’s onto-generative hermeneutics. Lauren Pfister’s contributing article addresses the year 2000 meeting between Cheng and Gadamer in Heidelberg and expands the transhistorical grounds of meaning in Gadamer to matters of theology. Pfister’s summary of the written Chinese record of their conversation indicates that Cheng does not address the role of Christian philosophy and hence, the role of the inner word in Gadamer’s hermeneutics. This is important not only for detecting changes in Cheng’s philosophical development, but also for modifying his hermeneutics along the lines of a living conversation, possibilities explored by Pfister in a sequel to the article submitted to this issue. Nevertheless, by raising the issue of how Gadamer’s turn to language for understanding the meaning of Being extends possibilities in Cheng’s thought, Pfister anticipates the article by Katarina Gajdosova. She returns to the roots of Chinese thought during the Warring States period and broadens the meaning of names in recently excavated texts. Contrary to the conventions about how to understand terms, she appeals to both Heidegger’s ontology and Cheng’s notion of receptivity and creativity to reinterpret naming in relation to cosmology. Along the same lines, insofar as the event of Being is lingual, Jay Goulding captures its emergent structure in an evolving community of scholars and scholarship. He recalls his philosophical journey toward Cheng’s philosophy that begins in conversations with Gadamer at McMaster University in Hamilton, leads to Heidegger and Asian thought, expands into turning points with teachers and colleagues from various backgrounds that by increments contributed to Goulding’s formulation of “Daoist phenomenology.” -/- Although differing traditions guide their inquiries and research, Cheng and Gadamer recall the wisdom of the past to ameliorate the fragmentation in contemporary life. This leads them to re-examine the origins of philosophy; historical roots and thus sources of creative re-interpretations East and West whose affinities are developed in contributions by Hyun Höchsmann and Friederike Assandri. Höchsmann assesses convergences and divergences in the origins of Chinese and Western philosophy (Confucius and Socrates, the Yijing and Pre-Socratics) that culminates in pairing Gadamer’s understanding of paideia in the context of Plato’s political cosmology in the Timaeus with moral and social cultivation in The Western Inscription. She delineates the limits of this comparison which in turn justifies introducing Vattimo’s notion of locality. Assandri’s comparative analysis moves between India and China, Buddhism and Tang Daoism. Based on Gadamer’s argument that writing detaches concepts from their cultural moorings, she defines and applies three levels of understanding in onto-generative hermeneutics to Buddhist terms that were assimilated into the Benji Jing and in so doing clarifies essential dimensions of Daoism. -/- Contributions by Stephen Palmquist and Nicholas Brasovan position Cheng in relation to Kant and Gadamer by way of Aristotle’s ethics respectively. On the one hand, Palmquist plots Cheng’s evolving criticism of Kant’s moral philosophy and draws on crucial dimensions of Gadamer’s hermeneutics to reposition that criticism in a constructive relation to Kant’s emphasis on the philosophical conditions of morality while also indicating how religious dimensions of his thought answer Cheng’s concerns for lived moral action. For Palmquist, Gadamer enables a constructive criticism of Cheng. On the other hand, Brasovan compares Cheng’s Yijing-based account of moral deliberation with Gadamer’s Aristotelian-based ethics and reasons that in contrast to Cheng, Gadamer’s hermeneutical consciousness is disengaged from practical knowledge. For Brasovan, Cheng is a constructive critic of Gadamer. Palmquist and Brasovan’s divergent angles on Gadamer and Cheng map onto a dialectic of contrast and complementarity that constitutes the inner logic of Cheng’s philosophy. In other words, Gadamer and Cheng ought to be read alongside one another for the sake of removing discrepancies and contradictions, which constitutes the organic structure of their thinking. -/- 3 Our Mode of Being in History Is Not Historical The conversations between Cheng and Gadamer in this issue of The Journal of Chinese Philosophy pivot on language, philosophy of history and ethics within a comparative framework of analysis, but also explore the grounds that make the comparisons possible. Those grounds are informed by Chinese cosmology, and function to wrest Gadamer from the shadow of Heideggerian facticity and reposition him within the range of Cheng’s ideas about our place in nature that is embedded in his question about how mind emerges from inorganic matter.8 -/- For Gadamer scholars of Heidegger, human finitude, our ownmost individuating death ensures that hermeneutics is always open to the other as other, always on the way toward understanding the meaning of Being. To arrest the process in a concept of “the Absolute” cannot but represent someone’s point of view, and thereby render hermeneutics indistinguishable from ideology. However, insofar as finitude is defined by them in terms of an onto-theological concept of immorality, finitude is a metaphysical concept consistent with epistemologies and confuse beings with the meaning of Being. As a result, the celebrated political value of hermeneutics to always be on the way toward an understanding of the meaning of Being admits subtle variations on the same worldview that are insufficiently self-critical. -/- Gadamer scholars of Heidegger are right. A transformation in ethos and opening to the meaning of Being depends on awareness of finitude. Yet this awareness does not yield openness to more of the same, i.e., discourse structurally incapable of coming to unity but instead, for both Gadamer and Cheng, openness to a distinctly different ontological dimension of reality. As Sandra Wawrytko and So-Seong Park indicate,9 this ontological dimension is prefigured in the experience of being-as-a-whole or the totality of all possible relations in both Chinese totemic shamanistic rituals,10 and Greek Dionysian festivals.11 Through these religious experiences human ethos and therefore consciousness is expanded and elevated from being centered on one’s ownmost concerns toward an affinity with all sentient beings from insects and plants to animals. The channel for this affinity is an auditory disposition and hence, the emotions, compassion, and feeling response. -/- The capacity for an auditory disposition, or as Gadamer calls it, listening consciousness to respond to the inter-relationality and therefore inherent balance of nature is developed through music, song and dance of the religious rituals and festivals. They facilitate the unity of mind with nature. This use of music, that transforms ordinary consciousness, explains Cheng’s emphasis on the receptivity of feeling response in comprehensive observation, and Gadamer’s emphasis on openness to the other in attunement. However, an auditory disposition characteristic of pre-literate oral cultures that reveals the “All” need not rely on religion. As theorists about the evolution of language have explained,12 modern languages preserve their pre-historical past in music or prosody. That is to say, the song and dance that revealed the totality of inter-related beings to an ethos of comprehensive observation and attunement toward beings in classical civilizations is retained in the back-and-forth movement or rhythm of the dialogue form. Our mode of being in history is a mode of being in nature – through the music of language. -/- While alerting the reader to the limits of a nominalist interpretation, Gadamer expresses the inner law of the nature as follows: “in perishing there is always becoming, and in becoming there is always perishing.”13 Considered in process, opposites generate and blend into each other. This law of nature applies to everything.14 Hence, in a manner comparable to Pfister’s concluding insights, onto-dialogical hermeneutics is not only open to discrete events of otherness but moreover, to the moving structure of reality expressed, as Gajdosova suggests, in the existential moment of naming. Considered as interplay of tension and resolution with a life of its own, the dialectic of a dialogue is self-similar to the way in which an organism grows (by instinct). There is, therefore, a sense in which the art of interpretation extends the human mind into the eternal cycles of nature such that we participate in the articulation of the inner telos/homeostasis toward which all beings strive and importantly for Gadamer scholars of Heidegger, within the material limits of energy to which our embodied minds are self-evidently subject. In mortality there is always immortality. (shrink)

Results: We analyzed 1,402 surveys and 15 in-depth interviews. Many (32%) CL participants reported greater difficulty refilling medications and a minority (14%) reported greater difficulty accessing HIV care during the pandemic. Most (99%) Opt4Mamas participants reported no difficulty refilling medications or accessing HIV/pregnancy care. Among the CL participants, older women were less likely (aOR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.92–0.98) and women with more children were more likely (aOR = 1.13, 95% CI: 1.00–1.28) to report difficulty refilling medications. Only 2% of (...) CL participants reported greater difficulty managing FP and most (95%) reported no change in likelihood of using FP or desire to get pregnant. Qualitative analysis revealed three major themes: (1) adverse organizational/economic implications of the pandemic, (2) increased importance of pregnancy prevention during the pandemic, and (3) fear of contracting COVID-19. (shrink)

Original source :「委員会の論理」『世界文化』[Culture du monde], n° 13, janvier 1936, 2–17 ; n° 14, février 1936, 16–33 ; n° 15, mars 1936, 12–25. Repris dans nmz 1 : 46–108. La version des œuvres complètes présente un certain nombre de variantes par rapport à la première publication en 1936. « La logique des comités » a été traduit en espagnol par Agustín J. Zavala. Je remercie vivement Saitō Takako pour sa relecture et ses précieuses remarques.

Predication is a lingual relation. We have this relation when a term is said (λέγεται) of another term. This simple definition, however, is not Aristotle’s own definition. In fact, he does not define predication but attaches his almost in a new field used word κατηγορεῖσθαι to λέγεται. In a predication, something is said of another thing, or, more simply, we have ‘something of something’ (ἓν καθ᾿ ἑνὸς). (PsA. , A, 22, 83b17-18) Therefore, a relation in which two terms are posited (...) to each other in a way that one is said (predicated) of the other is a predication. The term of which the other term is said is called a subject (ὑποκειμένον) and the other, which is said about the subject, is called the predicate. Thus, in a predication the predicate is predicated of the subject; given that being predicated is almost as the same as being said. The relation between being said and being predicated is so close that ‘if something is said of a subject both its name and its definition are necessarily predicated of the subject.’ (Cat., 5, 2a19-26) This, however, is true only about the second genera and not the accidents. a) Nature of relation in predication What is Aristotle’s theory about the nature of the relation in a predication? How does he fundamentally understand this relation? Phil Corkum distinguishes between predication logic and traditional term logic and argues that the relation between subject and predicate in Aristotle is of the latter kind. While in predicate logic, subjects and predicates have distinct roles, they have the same role in traditional term logic. In predication logic, subjects refer, but predicates characterize. Thereupon, a sentence expresses a truth if the object to which the subject refers is correctly characterized by the predicate. In traditional term logic, both subjects and predicates refer and a sentences expresses a truth if both name one and the same thing. He concludes that Aristotle ‘problematically conflates prediction and identity claims’ because while he thinks both subjects and predicates refer, he would deny that a sentence is true just in case the subject and the predicate name one and the same thing. Based on this, Corkum believes that Aristotle’s core semantic is not identity but the weaker relation of constitution, which is a mereological interpretation: ‘All men are mortal’ is true just in case the mereological sum of humans is part of the mereological sum of mortals. b) Aristotle’s theory of predication: one or two theories? Frank Lewis finds an inconsistent gap between the theory of predication in the Categories and that in the later books of the Metaphysics VII, 6. So too Joan Kung, Terry Irwin, Daniel Graham. c) Distinction of ‘being said of’ and ‘being in’ Owen enumerates the texts in which Aristotle’s distinction between ‘being said of’ and ‘being in’ is asserted: OI. 11b38-12a17; To., 127b1-4; Cat. 1a20-b9; 2a11-14; 2a27-b6; 2b15-17; 3a7-32; 9b22-24 d) Predication in Aristotle and the standard ‘S is P’ Marie De Rijk Lambertus thinks that the ‘S is P’ pattern is misleading when it comes to express predication in Aristotle. In his view, ‘The Aristotelian procedure should be described in terms of appositively assigning an attribute (κατηγορούμενον) to a substrate (ὑποκείμενον), rather than ascribing a predicate to a subject by means of a copula…. The comment should be considered an attribute which is said to fall to a substrate, without understanding this procedure in terms of sentence predication.’ e) Aristotle’s predication: bipartite or tripartite? It is a difficulty to make Aristotle’s theories of name-verb predication and tripartite predication consistent. The reason is that tripartite is not consistant with his name-verb structure based on which he says that the predicate term is the ‘verb.’ (20a31; 20b1-2; 16a13-5) The problem is that in a tripartite form like ‘Socrates is white’ we cannot take ‘is white’ as the verb because, based on Aristotle himself, no part of a verb can be significant itself. (16b6-7) However, his assertions about the equivalences between the two structures (OI. 12, 21b9-10; PrA. 51b13-16; Met., 1017b22-30) must mean that they are not inconsistent in his own view. Thus, as Allen Bāck points, ‘Aristotle seems to think that he has a single, consistent theory.’ The sense of saying or speaking as the root sense of rhema makes the relation between predication (saying something of something) and verb more interesting. The use of rhema in the sense of a long expression approves this. In Plato’s work (399ac) where Socrates claims that the name anthropos derives from anthron ha opopen (‘he who examines what he has seen’) we have an onoma from, or in place of, a rhema. 1) Subject The subject (ὑποκειμένον) is that of which another term is said or predicated. Aristotle’s own definition is of a much more philosophical value: ‘By subject I mean that which is expressed by an affirmative term (λέγω δὲ ὑποκείμενον τὸ κάταφάσει δηλούμενον).’ (Met., K, 1067b18) Throughout Aristotle’s work, three kinds of subjects can be found: possible, prime and absolute subject. a) Possible subject Those things that can take the position of a subject in a predication we call possible subjects, no matter they can or cannot take the position of predicate in any predication. All terms except the ultimate predicates are possible subjects because they can take the position of subject. b) Prime subject Those that in any predication can only take the position of a subject and not the position of a predicate are prime subjects. (Cat., 5, 3a36-b2; Met., Z, 1028b36-1029a1) This is the truest sense of subject and belongs only to substances. (Met., Z, 1029a1-2) In fact, ‘that which is not predicated of a subject, but of which all else is predicated’ is a substance. (Met., Z, 1029a7-9) In Categories, besides primary substances (Cat., 2, 1b3-6), individual qualities are also said not to be able to be said of anything else. (Cat., 2, 1a23-29) Aristotle’s examples are a certain ‘knowledge-of-grammar’ (τὶς γράμματικὴ) and ‘an individual white’ (τὸ τὶ λευκὸν). Thus, although substances are indeed in the truest sense individuals and, thereby, in the truest sense primary subjects, other individuals can take the position of subject as well. c) Absolute subject While substances are prime subjects of all other things, there is still something of which substances can be predicated and this predication is not an accidental predication: matter. (Met., Z, 1029a21-24) This predication is, indeed, the predication of a ‘form or this’ on matter and material substance. (Met., Θ, 1049a34-36) The only thing that is absolutely a subject, therefore, and can be a predicate is prime matter (πρώτη ὓλη). (Met., Θ, 1049a24-27) d) Subject and substance The most important thing in being a substance is being a subject: ‘It is because the primary substances are subjects for all the other things and all the other things are predicated of them or are in them, that they are called substances most of all.’ (Cat., 5, 2b15-17) And what is nearer to this position is more a substance as a species is more a substance than a genus.’ (Cat., 5, 2b7-8) e) Primary versus accidental subject A subject is a primary subject in a predication when the predicate is predicated of it as itself. In such a case, the subject is the subject of the predicate qua itself and not qua something else. A subject, on the one hand, is an accidental subject when it is not the primary subject of the predicate that is predicated on it. It means that a subject is an accidental subject when the predicate is predicated of it not qua itself but qua something else. An accidental subject is, therefore, anything other than a substance. 2) Predicate as universal It is evident from our discussion of kinds of subjects that except matter, primary substances (if we ignore both accidental predication and cases of absolute subjects) and other individuals, everything else can take the position of a predicate. Since primary substances are individuals, it results that everything except matter and individuals are capable to take the position of predicate. The immediate consequence of this is that the predicate must be a universal. When individuals cannot take the position of predicate, this position cannot be taken by any particular. Therefore, only universals can be predicated of others. Moreover, albeit universals can be a simple subject (for another universal), they are not prime subjects. The closeness of universal and predicate is to the extent that Aristotle differentiates universal from subject. (Met., Θ, 1049a27-30) 3) Categories or classes of predicates Aristotle distinguishes ten highest classes into one of which each predicate must necessarily fall: substance (or what a thing is), quality, quantity, relation, place, time, position, state, activity and passivity. (Cat., 4, 1b25-27; To., I, 9, 103b20- ; PsA., A, 22, 83b13-23) The substance counted among predicates must refer to secondary and not primary substances not only because Aristotle insists that primary substances cannot be predicated but also from his own examples of the category of substance: man and animal. (To., I, 9, 103b25) However, if a predicate be asserted of itself or its genus be asserted of it, the predicate signifies substance or what is; but if ‘one kind of predicate is asserted of another kind,’ it signifies one of the other nines. (To., I, 9, 103b30) These categories are so comprehensive that no predicate can remain outside them so that even non-being has as many senses as categories. (Met., M, 1089a26-30) a) That whether Aristotle’s categories are merely linguistic or fundamentally ontological is a so much controversial dispute. Some like G. E. R. Lloyd believe that ‘categories are primarily intended as a classification of reality … rather than of the signifying terms themselves.’ b) Although Aristotle’s categories have been historically regarded as a classification of predications, there are some recent commentators like Jonathan Barnes that think it is classifying predicates and not predications. 4) Kinds of predicates In his introduction of Categories, as J. W. Thorp truly points out , Aristotle distinguishes between the category of substance and the other categories using μὲν ... δὲ construction. This construction illustrates that beside tenfold classification of categories, there is an even more crucial differentiation between two kinds of predicates: substance or what is on the one hand and the other nine ones on the other hand: the distinction between what is predicated of the subject as what it is and what is predicated of it as an accident. Therefore, we have three kinds of classification - a twofold, a fourfold and a tenfold-complicatedly classifying the same thing, viz. the predicate. Predicates can be divided also to four kinds: property, definition, genus and accident. (To., I, 4, 101b11-20) A property is that predicate that is convertible with its subject and does not signify its essence. A definition is that predicate that is convertible with its subject and signifies its essence. It is a genus if it is not predicated convertibly and is contained in the definition of its subject. And it is an accident if it is neither convertible nor contained in the definition of its subject. (To., I, 8, ^103b3) All of these four kinds are among categories. (To., I, 9, 103b20) It seems that there might be some kind of relation between the twofold and the fourfold distinction: whereas genus and definition are predicated as what it is, accidents are not so predicated. There seems to be some rules that determine to each of these four kinds each predicate belongs. At To., IV, 123b30ff. Aristotle asserts: ‘If B has a contrary and A does not, then B does not belong to A as its genus.’ There is a dispute around per se accidents (τὰ καθ’ αὑτὰ συμβεβηκότα) (Topics., 102a18) whether they must be regarded as either of the four kinds or as a fifth kind. Barnes (1970) argued that they ‘do not fit at all neatly into the fourfold classification.’ He argues that based on the definition of accidents at A, 5, 102b4-5, they must be accidents but based on another definition, A, 5, 102b6-7, they cannot be accidents. He also defends the view that they are not properties. Barnes concludes: ‘This shows that the two definitions are not equivalent, and hence that the ‘predicables’ are not well-defined.’ Demetris J. Hadgopoulos defends the view that the two definitions of accidents are equivalent and per se accidents are properties. 5) Five types of predications We have five kinds of predications based on our division of subjects and our discussion of predicates: simple, primary (itself divided to substantial and accident), accidental (itself divided to primary and secondary), aoincidental and absolute predication. a) Simple predication. This is a predication in which a universal is predicated of either a particular or a universal subject. This sense of predication includes all other senses except the first kind of accidental predication. b) Primary predication. This is a predication in which a universal is predicated of a primary subject, namely a substance. A primary predication is of two kinds: i) Substantial predication. A primary predication in which the predicate is part of, or is included in, the definition of the subject. The universal that is the predicate here is the definition or the genus or the species or the diferentia of the subject. It is this predication that Aristotle calls a unity: ‘A statement may be called a unity … because it exhibits a single predicate as inhering not accidentally in a single subject.’ (PsA., B, 10, 93b35-37) It is only substantial predicates that can be predicated of each other: ‘Predicates which are not substantial are not predicated of one another.’ (PsA., A, 22, 83b18-19) Aristotle defines a substantial predication also in another way. A predication in which a higher genus is predicated on a lower genus, species, a substance or an individual, (or a species is predicated on an individual) is a substantial predication. Therefore, a substantial predication is a predication in a series that has individuals on one of its ends and a general category on its other end. In fact, only substantial predicates can be predicated of one another. (PsA., A, 22, 83b17-19) This series cannot be an infinite series because otherwise not only substances would not be definable but also a genus would be equal to one of its own species. (PsA., A, 22, 83b7-10) -/- ii) Accident predication. A primary predication in which the predicate is not part of, or is not included in, the definition of its subject. The universal that is the predicate here is the property or the accident of the subject. c) Accidental predication. This is a predication in which the subject is not a primary subject and its predicate is a substance. This predication is of two kinds: i) Primary accidental predication. This is a predication in which an accident is predicated of substance. Such a predication can go ad infinitum, which is inferable from Aristotle’s assertion that the secondary accidental predication cannot go ad infinitum. ii) Secondary accidental predication. It is a predication in which an accident is predicated of another accident. Such a predication, Aristotle asserts, cannot go ad infinitum because even more than two accidents cannot be combined. Now what is the meaning of Aristotle’s assertion that we cannot continue this ad infinitum? Does it mean that we cannot continue the predication ‘The musician is white’ and say ‘The white is Athenian?’ But why not? Or maybe he means that by adding any predication, we are still in a condition of predicating two accidents of a substance on each other. -/- As primary subjects, substances can also take the position of predicate though not essentially but accidentally. In propositions like ‘the white is a log’ or ‘That big thing is a log’ we observe substance taking the position of predicate but this is only accidentally: ‘When I affirm ‘the white is a log,’ I mean that something which happens to be white is a log- not that white is the subject in which log inheres (οὐχ ὡς τὸ ὑποκείμενον τῷ ξύλῳ τὸ λευκόν ἐστι), for it was not qua white or qua a species of white that the white (thing) came to be a log (οὔτε λευκὸν ὄν οὔθ᾿ ὃπερ λευκόν τι ἐγἐνετο ξύλον), and the white (thing) is consequently not a log except incidentally.’ (PsA., 22, 83a3-9) Aristotle compares this accidental use of substance in the position of predicate with the substantial use of it in the place of a subject: ‘On the other hand, when I affirm ‘the log is white,’ I do not mean that something else, which happens to be a log, is white (οὐχ ὃτι ἓτερόν τί ἐστι λευκόν, ἐκείνῳ δὲ συμβέβηκε ξύλῳ εἶναι), (as I should if I said ‘the musician is white,’ which would mean ‘The man who happens also to be a musician is white’); on the contrary, log is here the subject- the subject which actually came to be white, and did so qua wood or qua a species of wood and qua nothing else.’ (PsA., 22, 83a8-14) Aristotle asks us not to call propositions like ‘The white is a log’ a predication at all or at least call them accidental predication instead of simple (ἁπλως) predication. (PsA., A, 22, 83a14-17) An accidental predication, in which we have a substance in the place of predicate, is different from an essential predication in that while the subject of an accidental predication is said to be the predicate not by itself but as something different with which it coincides, the subject of an essential predicate is said to be the predicate by itself and not because it is something else: ‘Since there are attributes which are predicated of a subject essentially and not accidentally- not, that is, in the sense in which we say ‘That white (thing) is a man,’ which is not the same mode of predication as when we say ‘The man is white’: the man is white not because he is something else but because he is man, but the white is man because ‘being white’ coincides with ‘humanity’ within one subject. Therefore, there are terms such as are essentially subjects of predicates. (PsA., A, 19, 81a24-29) This capability of ‘non-essentially and only accidentally’ being a subject does belong, in fact, to all sensible things. (PsA., A, 27a32-36) d) Coincidental predication. this is a predication in which none of the subject and predicate are a substance or an individual. In this predication, one of the accidents of a substance or individual is predicated of one of the other accidentals of the same substance or individual. For example, when it is said that ‘The white is musical,’ there is an individual, say Socrates, for which both of white and musical are accidents. e) Absolute predication. This is a predication in which a form or a substance is predicated of a matter or a material substance. Some commentators like Loux and Lewis regarded this predication as close to accident predication, both based on inherence. As R.M. Dancy points out, these predications make Aristotle’s theory of predication immanentist: not only accident predications are explained by the immanence of accidents in substances, some of the substantial predications, which were not explained in Categories, are also explained by the immanence of form in matter. It is interesting that in this kind of predication, it is the predicate and not the subject, which is in the strictest sense substance. As the central books of Metaphysics claim, the form is the substance. Thus, in this predication, substance gets away from the sense of ὑποκείμενον. Corkum mentiones 68a19 as the only instance where Aristotle explicitly claims that a term may be predicated of itself, a passage that is, in Corkum’s view, problematic. 6) Demonstrable predicates Those predicates are demonstrable that are so related to their subjects that there are other predicates prior to them predicable of their subjects (ἔτι δ᾿ ἄλλος, εἰ ὧν πρότερα ἄττα κατηγορεῖται). (PsA., A, 22, 83b32-34) 7) Series of predications Since it is possible for a predicate to be itself the subject of another predication, we can have a series of predications in which the predicate of a predication is the subject of the next predication. This series has the following features: a) It has a limit (in number) (PsA., A, 22, 83b14-16) on the side of subjects: there are subjects that cannot themselves be predicated (PsA., A, 27, 43a39-41), which are, as we noted, prime subjects: particulars, i.e. prime substances and other individuals. (PsA., A, 19-22) Aristotle calls them ultimate (ὓστατον). (PsA., 21, 82a36-b1) b) It has a limit (in number of kinds) (PsA., A, 22, 83b14-16) also on the side of predicates: there must be predicates that cannot be subjects. (PsA., A, 19-22; PsA., A, 27, 43a36-39) Aristotle calls them primary (πρῶτον). (PsA., A, 21, 82b1-4) These are the highest categories or the highest genera of categories. (PsA., A, 22, 83b14-16) c) The series has an escalating shape from mere subjects at its downside to mere predicates at its upside. It is Aristotle himself whos uses the words up and down in this sense. (e.g. PsA., A, 22, 83b2-3) d) The predications that lie between lowest and highest ones must be finite in number. (PsA., A, 19-22 especially: 20, 82a21-35) These have subjects and predicates, each capable of both of the roles of being subject and being predicated. A result of this fitness is that neither demonstration can go to infinity nor everything is demonstrable, the two points Aristotle always insist on. e) The upward side includes the more universal ones and the downward the more particular ones. (PsA., 20, 82a21-23) f) It follows from the above features that ‘neither the ascending nor the descending series of predications … are infinite.’ (PsA., A, 22, 83b24-25) g) Reciprocation and convertibility. Except in case of terms (i.e. subjects and predicates) that are at each of the ends of series of predications, namely ultimates and primaries, it is possible to reciprocate (ἀντιστρέφειν) terms and convert the predication. (PsA., A, 19, 82a15-20) h) Antipredication. Antipredication means that in a predication (S is P), the subject becomes the predicate of its predicate (P is S) in the same category its predicate was predicated on it. For example, if P is in the category of quality, antipredication means that S be predicated of P in the category of quality. In other words, P is a quality of S and S is a quality of P. Aristotle rejects this. (PsA., A, 22, 83a36-b3) i) Self-predication versus other-predication. Aristotle distinguishes between a predication in which a term is said of itself and a predication in which a term is said of another. (Phy., Δ, 2, 209a31-33) j) Predicablity (Cat., 5, 3a36-b2): 1) Primary substances and individuals are not predicable. 2) Secondary substances are of two kinds: genus and species i) Genus is predicable able both of the species and of the individuals. ii) Species is predicable of the individual. 3) Differentiae are predicable both of the species and of the individuals. 8) Predication as classification a) Richard Patterson believes that Aristotle’s so repeated construction using hoper (estin A hoper B) in Topics (120a23 sq., 122b19, 26sq., 123a, 124a18, 125a29, 126a21, 128a35. Also in Posterior Analytics (83a24-30) (Brunschwig’s list. ‘expresses the fact that A is a kind of B (esti A B tis), that A is a species of the genus B.’ 9) Universal predication Aristotle defines universal predication (κατὰ παντὸς κατηγορεῖσθαι) as such: ‘wherever no instance of the subject (τῶν τοῦ ὑποκειμέμνου) can be found of which the other term cannot be asserted.’ (PrA., A, 24b27-29) In this predication, the subject is included in another as in a whole (ἐν ὃλῳ εἶναι) and the predicate is predicated of all of the subject (κατὰ παντὸς κατηγορεῖσθαι). (PrA., A, 24b26-27) Attach another discussion we had about ἐν ὃλῳ here. 10) Quantity of predication A predication, truly stated, has a quantity, which is the number of objects under the name of the subject of which the predicate is predicated. The quantity of subject can be stated in four ways: a. Indefinite: when the predicate belongs or does not belong to the subject without any mark to show to haw many of the particulars under the name of the subject it does or does not belong. E.g. ‘Man is white’; ‘Man is not white.’ (PrA., A, 24a20; OI., I, 7, 17b8-12) b. Universal quantity: When the predicate belongs to all or none of the subject. E.g. ‘Every man is animal’; ‘No man is animal.’ (PrA., A, 24a18-19; OI., I, 7, 17b5-6) The contrary of a predication of a universal quality is a predication of a universal quality. E.g. the contrary of ‘Every man is white’ is ‘No man is white.’ (OI., I, 7, 17b20-23) c. Particular quantity: When the predicate belongs (or does not belong) to some of the subject. E.g. ‘Some men are white’; ‘Some men are not white.’ (PrA., A, 24a19-20) d. Single quantity: when the subject is a proper name of only one object. E.g. ‘Socrates is white’; ‘Socrates is not white.’ The contrary of this predication is of a single quantity: ‘Socrates is not white.’ (OI., I, 7, 17b38-18a4) 11) Convertibility of predication. Some predications are convertible, that is, it is possible to change the place of subject and predicate in a true proposition so that the converted proposition remains true. This is supposed to mean that given the truth of a predication, the truth of the converted predication is inferable. The convert form of a predication depends on its quantity. a. Indefinite quantity: This predication has no strictly true convert because its quantity is not stated. b. Universal quantity: It can be converted in two ways: i) A negative universal can be converted to a negative universal in which the terms are changed. E.g. ‘No pleasure is good’ can be converted to ‘No good is pleasure.’ (PrA., A, 2, 25a5-8 and a14-19) ii) An affirmative universal can be converted to an affirmative particular in which the terms are changed. E.g. ‘Every pleasure is good’ can be converted to ‘Some good is pleasure.’ (PrA., A, 2, 25a7-9) c. Particular quantity: If it is negative, it cannot be converted but if it is affirmative, it can be converted to an affirmative predication with particular quantity. E.g. ‘Some pleasure is good’ can be converted to ‘Some good is pleasure.’ (PrA., A, 2, 25a10-13 and a20-24) d. Single quantity: It cannot be converted. 12) Characteristics of relations between subject and predicate 1. A predicate is of a wider range than its subject. It is based on this fact that Aristotle: a) Prevents individuals to be predicate because there is nothing of which an individual be of a wider range. In other words, it is due to the fact that since an individual is only ‘one particular’ thing and, thus, cannot be of a wider extent than anything that Aristotle prevents them of being a predicate. Matthews, however, thinks we cannot use Socrates, a substance and an individual, in the place of predicate and say it of Socrates because ‘Socrates does not classify Socrates: it names him.’ b) Prevents differentia, species and things under species to be predicated of genus. (To., Z, 6, 144a27-) c) Prevents the species and the things under it to be predicated of the differentia. (To., Z, 6, 144b1-4) d) Also about the effect because it is wider than its subject. (PsA., B, 17, 99a) e) Each attribute is wider than every individual it is predicated on, though several attributes, collectively considered, might not be wider but exactly the substance of a thing. (PsA., B, 13, 96a32-b1) 2. The predicate of a predicate of a subject will be predicated of the subject too: ‘whenever one thing is predicated of another as of a subject, all things said of what is predicated will be said of the subject too.’ (Cat., 3, 1b10-15) In fact, it is due to its predication of the subject that it is predicated of its predicate. (Cat., 5, 2a36-b1) Moreover, what is not predicated of the predicate of a subject cannot be predicated of it as well. (PrA., A, 27, 43b22-27) Thus, what, for example, is not predicated of animal, cannot be predicated of man. 3. The predicate of a subject can be predicated of its predicates as well. (Cat., 5, 3a1-6) For example, you call the individual man grammatical and, thence, you call both a man and an animal grammatical. Nonetheless, the predicate of a subject belongs to it more properly than to its higher predicates. (PrA., A, 27, 43a27-32) 4. It is only the subject that can be distributed and not the predicate. (PrA., A, 27, 43b16-22; OI, I, 7, 17b12-16) Therefore, we can say e.g. ‘Every man is animal’ but we cannot say ‘Every man is every animal.’ 5. It is the reason of the relation between subjects and predicates, that is the reason of predication, which is the subject of inquiry. (Met., Z, 1041a20-24) In other words, since it is a meaningless inquiry to ask why a thing is itself (Met., Z, 1041a14-15), the only remaining meaningful inquiry is to ask why something is something else, i.e. to ask about the reason of predication. 6. A subject cannot categorize its predicate in the same category in which it is categorized by it. If e.g. A is a quality of B, B cannot be a quality of A. Therefore, there is no reciprocation in the same category. (PsA., A, 22, 83a36-39) 13) Characteristics of series of predications 1. A series of secondary accidental predication cannot go ad infinitum for not even more than two terms can be comnbined. For an accident is not an accident of an accident, unless it be because both are accidents of the same subject. (Met., Γ, 1007b1-4) 2. Infinite series cannot be traversed in thought. (PsA., A, 22, 83b6-7) 3. The predications of genera on each other must be ended and cannot go to infinity because otherwise not only substances would not be definable but also a genus would be equal to one of its own species. (PsA., A, 22, 83b7-10) Therefore, a series of predication of genera on each other must be limited on both sides. There must be an upward limit in general categories as well as a downward limit in individual because they cannot be predicated of others. Whatever lies between these limits can both be predicated of others and others be predicated of them. (PrA., A, 27, 43a36-43) 4. The order of predicates matters: it makes a difference whether the series be ABC or BAC. (PsA., B, 13, 96b25-32) . (shrink)

This paper aims to suggest a new approach to Plato’s theory of being in Republic V and Sophist based on the notion of difference and the being of a copy. To understand Plato’s ontology in these two dialogues we are going to suggest a theory we call Pollachos Esti; a name we took from Aristotle’s pollachos legetai both to remind the similarities of the two structures and to reach a consistent view of Plato’s ontology. Based on this theory, when Plato (...) says that something both is and is not, he is applying difference on being which is interpreted here as saying, borrowing Aristotle’s terminology, 'is is (esti) in different senses'. I hope this paper can show how Pollachos Esti can bring forth not only a new approach to Plato’s ontology in Sophist and Republic but also a different approach to being in general. -/- Keywords Plato; being; difference; image; pollachos esti; pollachos legetai 1. Being, Not-Being and Difference The three dialogues where the notion of "difference" attaches to the notion of being, namely Parmenides II, Sophist and Timaeus,and specifically the first two we try to discuss here. In these dialogues, Plato is going to achieve a new and revolutionary understanding of being which is not anymore based on the notion of "same" as it was before in Greek ontology. It was his discovery, I think, that the notion of being in the Greek ontology is attached to the notion of the "same" and it is because of this attachment that there have always been many problems understanding being especially after Parmenides. That being has always been relying on the "same" can be found out from the way most of the Presocratics understood it. It was based on such a relationship between being and "same" that a later Ionian, Heraclitus of Ephesus, rejected Being by rejecting its sameness: unable to be the same, being cannot be being anymore but becoming. Heraclitus’ criticism of his predecessors’ understanding of being was due to his discovery that what they call being is not the same but different in every moment. The relation of being and sameness reaches to its highest point in Parmenides. What Plato does in using the "difference" is nothing but the establishment of a creative relation between being and "difference". In this new relation, although he is in agreement with Heraclitus that being is not the same but different, he does not do it by use of becoming. He disagrees, on the other hand, with Parmenides that such a relation between being and difference leads to not being. At Parmenides 142b5-6 it is said that if One is, it is not possible for it to be without partaking (μετέχειν) of being (οὐσίας), which leads to the distinction of being and one: -/- So there would be also the being of the one (ἡ οὐσία του̑ ἑνὸς) which is not the same (ταὐτὸν) as the one. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be its being, nor the one would partake of it. (142b7-c1) -/- The fact that what is (ἔστι) signifies (σημαῖνον) is other (ἀλλο) than what One signifies (c4-5), is being taken as a reason for their distinction. The conclusion is that when we say 'one is', we speak of two different things, one partaking of the other (c5-7). Having repeated these arguments of the otherness of being and one at 143a-b, Parmenides says that the cause of this otherness can be neither Being nor One but "difference": -/- So if being is something different (ἕτερον) and one something different (ἕτερον), it is not by being one that the one is different from being nor by its being being that being is other than one, but they are different from each other (ἕτερα ἀλλήλων) by difference (τῷ ἑτερῳ) and otherness (ἄλλῳ). (143b3-6) -/- The fifth hypothesis, 'one is not' (160b5ff.) is also linked with the notion of difference. When we say about two things, largeness and smallness, that they are not, it is clear that we are talking about not being of different (ἕτερον) things (160c2-4). When it is said that something is not, besides the fact that there must be knowledge of that thing, we can say that it entails also its difference: 'difference in kind pertains to it in addition to knowledge' (160d8). Parmenides explains the reason as such: -/- For someone doesn’t speak of the difference in kind of the others when he says that the one is different from the others, but of that thing’s own difference in kind. (160e1-2) -/- Although the theory of being as "difference" is not fulfilled yet, an exact look at what occurs in Sophist can make us sure that this was the launching step for "difference" to get its deserved role in Plato’s ontology. The notion of the "difference" is not yet well-functioned in Parmenides because we can see that being is still attached to the same: -/- For that which is the same is being (ὄν γὰρ ἐστι τὸ ταὐτόν) (162d2-3). -/- The notion of difference in Sophist is the key element based on which a new understanding of being is presented and the problem of not being is somehow resolved. The friends of Forms, the Stranger says, are those who distinguish between being and becoming (248a7-8) and believe that we deal with the latter with our body and through perception while with the former, the real being (ὄντως οὐσίαν) with our soul and through reasoning (a10-11). Being is then bound with the "same" by adding: -/- You say that being always stays the same and in the same state (ἣν ἀεὶ κατὰ ταὐτὰ ὡσαύτως ἔχειν) but becoming varies from one time to another (δὲ ἄλλοτε ἄλλως). (248a12-13) -/- That the theory of the relation of being and capacity (247d8f., 248c4-5) matches more with becoming than with being (248c7-9) must be rejected because being is also the subject of knowledge which is kind of doing something (248d-e). It does, however, confirm that 'both that which changes and also change have to be admitted as existing things (ὄντα) (249b2-3). I believe that this is what Socrates would incline to do at Theaetetus 180e-181a, that is, putting a fight between two parties of Parmenidean being and Heraclitean becoming and then escaping. The solution is that becoming is itself a kind of being and we ought to accept what changes as being. This is what must be done by a philosopher, namely, to refuse both the claim that 'everything is at rest' and that 'being changes in every way' and beg, like a child, for both and say being (τὸὄν) is both the unchanging and that which changes (249c10-d4). This kind of begging for both is obviously under the attack of contradiction (249e-250b). For both and each of rest and change similarly are (250a11-12) but it cannot be said either that both of them change or both of them rest, being must be considered as a third thing both of the rest and change associate with (250b7-10). The conclusion is that 'being is not both change and rest but different (ἕτερον) from them instead' (c3-4). The notion of difference helps Plato to take being departed from both rest and change because it was their sophisticated relation with being that made the opposition of being and becoming. Plato is now trying to separate being from rest and, thus, from "same" by "difference". Such a crucial change is great enough to need a 'fearless' decision (256d5-6). The possibility of being of not being is resulted (d11-12) comes as the answer to the question 'so it’s clear that change is not being and also is being (ἡ κίνησις ὄντως οὐκ ὄν ἐστι καὶ ὄν) since it partakes in being?' (d8-9). It is then by the notion of difference that becoming is considered as that which both is and is not. This coincidence of being and not being about change is apparently similar to Socrates’ paradoxical statement at Republic 477a about what both is and is not. -/- Introduction The Republic 476-477 has always been a matter of controversy mainly about two interwoven points. The first problem is the meaning of being here; that whether what he has in mind is a veridical, existential or propositional sense of being. The second problem is his distinction between the objects of knowledge and opinion which seems to lead, some believe, to the Two Worlds (TW) theory. The crucial point in Republic is that what is considered between knowledge (ἐπιστήμης) and ignorance (α͗γνοιας), namely opinion, must have a different object that leads Socrates to draw the distinction of knowledge and opinion between their objects. The problem of understanding being in the fifth book of the Republic is that when it is said that the Form of F is F but a particular participating in F, both is and is not F, it sounds too bizarre and unacceptable. It cannot be imaginable how a thing can be existent and non-existent at the same time. At the first sight, the only solution seems to be the degrees of existence which is called by Annas (1981, 197) a 'childish fallacy' and a 'silly argument'. Kirwan (1974, 118) thinks that Republic V does not attribute 'any doctrine about existence' to Plato and Kahn (1966, 250) claims that the most fundamental value of einai when used alone (without predicate) is not "to exist" but "to be so", "to be the case" or "to be true". The problems of understanding being in Republic and Sophist besides the difficulties of the existential reading led scholars to the other senses of being, mostly related to the well-known Aristotelian distinctions between different senses of being. In the predicative reading, Annas, for example, refers this difference to the qualified and unqualified application. Whereas the Form of F is unqualifiedly F, a particular instance of F can be F only qualifiedly (1981, 221). Vlastos’ well-known substitution of 'degrees of reality' for 'degrees of being/existence' must be categorized as a predicative reading. Kahn thinks that the basic sense of being for Plato is 'something like propositional structure, involving both predication and truth claims, together with existence for the subject of predication' (2013, 96). Believing that the complete-incomplete distinction terminology is misleading about Plato, he thinks that semantic functions are only second-order uses of the verb and it is the predicative or incomplete function which is fundamental. Suggesting a veridical reading, Fine (2003, 70 ff) thinks that while both existential and predicative readings separate the objects of knowledge and belief, it is only her reading which does not force such separation of the objects and thus does not imply TW. Stokes (1998, 266) thinks that though Fine is right saying that Plato does not endorse TW in book V, she is wrong in rejecting existential in favor of the veridical reading. The reception of existential reading can be seen more obviously in Calvert who thinks, in agreement with Runciman, that 'it would be safer to say that Plato’s gradational ontology is probably not entirely free from degrees of existence' (1970, 46). At Sophist 254d-e Plato singles out five most important kinds (or Forms!?) in which the same (ταὐτὸν) and difference (θάτερον) are regarded besides being, rest and change. They are, therefore, neither the same nor the difference but share in both (b3). Being (τὸ ὄν) cannot be the same also because if they 'do not signify distinct things' both change and rest will have the same label when we say they are (255b11-c1). We have then four distinct kinds, being, change, rest and same, none of them is the other. The case of difference is more complicated. When the stranger wants to assess the relation of being and difference, he can say simply neither that they are distinct nor that they are not. He has to make an important distinction inside being to get able to draw the relation of being and difference: -/- But I think you'll admit that some of the things that are (τῶν ὄντων) are said (λέγεσθαι) by themselves (αὐτὰ καθ’ αὑτά) but some [are said] always referring to (πρὸς) other things (ἄλλα) (255b12-13) -/- The difference is always said referring to other things (τὸδέγ’ ἕτερον ἀεὶ πρὸς ἕτερον) (255d1). It pervades all kinds because each of them should be different from the others and is so due to the difference and not its own nature (253e3f.) After asserting that change is different from being and therefore both is and is not (256d), the difference is described as what makes all the other kinds not be, by making each different from being. Given that all of them are by being, this association of being and difference is the cause of their being and not-being at the same time, the issue that its version at RepublicV made all those controversies we discussed above: -/- So in the case of change and all the kinds, not being necessarily is (Ἔστιν ἄρα ἐξ ἀναγκης τὸ μὴ ὄν). Τhat’s because as applied to all of them, the nature of the difference (ἡ θατέρον φύσις) makes each of them not be by making it different from being. And we’re going to be right if we say that all of them are not in the same way. And conversely [we’re also going to be right if we say] that they are because they partake in being. (Sophist 256d11-e3) -/- Plato’s new construction of five distinct kinds and the role he gives to thedifference among them is aimed to resolve the old problem of understanding being which has always been annoying from the time of Heraclitus and Parmenides. Both the ontological status of becoming and that of not being were, in Plato’s mind, based on the absolute domination of the notion of the Same over being. Now, not only becoming is understandable as being but also not being which is not the contrary of being anymore but only different (ἕτερον) (257b3-4). Though I agree partly with Frede that the account of not being which is needed for false statements is more complicated than just saying, as Cropsey (1995, 101) says, that Plato is substituting 'X is not Y' with 'X is different from Y', I totally disagree with him that when we say X is not beautiful, Plato could not have thought that it is not a matter of its being different from beautiful because 'it would be different from beauty even if it were beautiful by participation in beauty' (1992, 411). Conversely, as we will discuss, it is exactly the relation of the beautiful thing, X, and the beautiful itself, in which X shares that is to be solved by the notion of not being as difference. Though it is beautiful because of sharing in beauty, X is not beautiful because it is different from beautiful itself. What the difference is to do is to show how something can both be and not be the same thing. The difference is what makes one thing both be and not be a certain other thing. This equips the difference with the ability to explain a certain thing’s not-being when it is. Thanks to the notion of difference, it is now possible to explain not only not being but also the simultaneous being and not being of a thing: 'What we call "not-beautiful" is the thing that ἕτερόν ἐστιν from nothing other than του̑ καλου̑ φύσεως' (257d10-11). The result is that not beautiful happens to be (συμβέβηκεν εἶναι) one single thing among kinds of beings (τι τῶν ὄντων τινὸς ἑνὸς γένους) and at the same time set over against one of the beings (πρός τι τῶν ὄντων αὖ πάλιν ἀντιτεθὲν) (257e2-4) and thus be something that happens to be not beautiful (εἶναί τις συμβαίνει τὸ μὴ καλόν); a being set over against being (ὄντος δὴ πρὸς ὄν ἀντίθεσις) (e6-7). Neither the beautiful is more a being (μα̑λλον ... ἐστι τῶν ὄντων) nor not beautiful less (e9-10) and thus both the contraries similarly are (ὁμοίως εἶναι) (258a1). This conclusion, it is emphasized again (a7-9), owes to θατέρου φύσις now turned out as being. Therefore, each of the many things that are of the nature of the difference and set over each other in being (τῆς τοῦ ὄντος πρὸς ἄλληλα ἀντικειμένων ἀντίθεσις) is being as being itself is being (αὐτοῦ τοῦὄν τοςοὐσία ἐστιν) and not less. They are different from, and not the contrary of, each other (a11-b3). This is exactly τὸμὴὄν, the subject of the inquiry (b6-7). Hence, not being has its own nature (b10) and is one εἶδοςamong the many things that are (b9-c3). Such far departing from Parmenides’ ontological principle is done on the basis of the nature of the difference. It was the discovery of such a notion that made the stranger brave enough to say that not being is each part of the nature of the difference that is set over against being (258d7-e3, cf. 260b7-8). That the relation of being and difference is difference is the key element of the new ontology. The difference is, only because of its sharing in being, but it is not that which it shares in but different from it (259a6-8). Not being is exactly based on this difference: ἕτερον δὲ τοῦ ὄντος ὄν ἔστι σαφέστατα ἐξ ἀνάγκης εἶναι μὴ ὄν (a8-b1). 2. Difference and the Being of a Copy We discussed above that the sense of being of particulars in Republic V made so many debates that whether being is there used in an existential sense or not. Particulars in Republic are regarded as images in the allegories of Line and Cave. The being of an image/copy makes, thus, the same problem. Plato’s analogy of original -copy for the relation of Forms and their particulars in Republic has obviously a different attitude to being. The main question is that what is the ontological status of a copy in respect of its original? Are there two kinds of being, 'real being' versus 'being' as Ketchum says (1980, 140) or only one kind? What is the difference of being in an original and its copy? Is it a matter of degrees of being or reality as some commentators have suggested? Is it a matter of being relational? By reducing the ontological issue to an epistemological one, Vlastos’ suggestion of degrees of reality in an article with the same name does neither, I think, pay attention to the problem nor resolve it. He agrees that Plato never speaks of "degrees" or "grades" of reality (1998, 219). What allows him to entitle it as such are some of Plato’s words in Republic as well as Plato’s words in some other dialogues (1998, 219). When Plato states that the Forms only can completely, purely or perfectly be real he means, Vlastos says, they are cognitively reliable (1998, 229); an obvious reduction of the issue to an epistemological one. He thinks that when in Republic we are being said that a particular’s being F is less pure than its Form, it is because it is not exclusively F, but it is and is not F and this being adulterated by contrary characters is the reason of our confused and uncertain understanding of it (1998, 222). Ketchum rightly criticizes Vlastos’ doctrine in its disparting from ontology thinking that 'to understand Plato’s talk of being as talk of reality is to obscure the close relation that exists between "being" and the verb "to be"' (1980, 213). He thinks, therefore, that οὐσία must be understοοd as being rather than reality, τὸὄν as "that which is" and not "that which is real" and … (ibid). His conclusion is that degrees of reality cannot interpret Plato correctly and we must accept degrees of being. Allen believes that a 'purely epistemic' reading of the passage in Republic is patently at odds with Plato’s text (1961, 325). He thinks that not only degrees of reality but also degrees of reality must be maintained (1998, 67). What Cooper suggests gets close to this paper’s solution: -/- Plato does not I think wish to suggest that existence is a matter of degree in the way in which being pleasant or painful is a matter of degree. Rather there are different grades of ontological status. (1986, 241) -/- A more ontological solution for the problem of understanding the being of a copy and its relation with the being of its original is suggested by the theory of copy as a relational entity. Based on this interpretation, 'the very being of a reflection is relational, wholly dependent upon what is other than itself: the original…' (Allen, 1998, 62). As relational entities, particulars have no independent ontological status; they are purely relational entities which derive their whole character and existence from Forms (ibid, 67). Although these relational entities are and have a kind of existence, we must also say that 'they do not have existence in the way that Forms, things which are fully real, do' (ibid). Allen (1961, 331) extends his theory to Phaedo where it is said that particulars are deficient (74d5-7, 75a2-3, 75b4-8), 'wish' to be like (74d10) or desire to be of its nature (75a2); an extension that, like F.C. white (1977, 200), I cannot admit. He correctly states that Plato did not start out with a doctrine of particulars as images and semblances but come to such a view after Phaedo, or perhaps after Republic V (1977, 202). Though we may not agree with him about Republic V, if we have to consider its last pages also, we must agree with him that not only the ontology of Phaedo but also that of Republic II-V (except the last pages of the latter book) are somehow different from (but at the same time appealing to) the ontology of original-copy which should exclusively assign to Sophist, Timaeus and RepublicVI-VII besides the last pages of book V. The answer to the problem of Plato’s sense of being in RepublicV can be reached only if we read Republic V based on and as following Sophist. We can find out his meaning of that which both is and is not only by the ontological status he assigns to a copy in Sophist. The kind of being of a copy in Sophist reveals as Plato’s key for the lock of the problem of not being. Let’s see how the ontological status of a copy is the critical point of Plato’s ontology. In the earlier pages of Sophist, we are still in the same situation about not being. To think that that which is not is is called a rash assumption (237a3-4) and Parmenides’ principle of the impossibility of being of not being is still at work (a8-9). At 237c1-4, the problem of "not being" is noticed in a new way which shows some kinds of a more realistic position to the problem of not being. Nevertheless, not being is still unthinkable, unsayable, unutterable and unformulable in speech (238c10). Soon after mentioning that it is difficult even to refuse not being (238d), the solution to the problem appears: the being of a copy (εἴδωλον) (239d). A copy is, says Theaetetus, something that is made referring to a true thing (πρὸς τἀληθινὸν) but still is 'another such thing (ἕτεροντοιου̑τον)' (240a8). Nevertheless, this 'another such thing' cannot be another such real or true thing. In answer to the question of the Stranger that if this 'another such thing' is the true thing (240a9), Theaetetus answers: οὐδαμῶς ἀληθινόν γε, ἀλλ’ ἐοικὸςμὲν (240b2). A copy’s being 'another such thing' does not mean another true thing but only a resemblance of it. Not only is not a copy another true thing besides the original, but it is the opposite of the true thing (b5) because only its original is the thing genuinely and being a copy is being the thing only untruly. The word ἐοικὸς is opposed to ὄντως ὄν in the next line (240b7): 'So you are saying that that which is like (ἐοικὸς) is not really that which is (οὐκ ὄντως [οὐκ] ὄν)'. But still a copy 'is in a way (ἔστι γε μήν πως)' (b9). While it is not really what it is its resemblance, it has its own being and reality because it really is a likeness (εἰκων ὄντως) (b11). The Stranger asks: -/- So it is not really what is (οὐκ ὄν ἄρα [οὐκ] ὄντως ἐστὶν) but it really is what we call a likeness (ὄντως ἣν λέγομεν εἰκόνα)? (b12-13) -/- This is Plato’s innovative ontological solution to the problem of not being. Theaetetus’ answer confirms this: 'Maybe that which is not is woven together with that which is' (c1-2). Therefore, a copy neither is what really is nor is not-being but only is what in a way is. Thanks to the ontological status of a copy, the third status intermediate between being and not being is brought forth. The essence of an image, in Kohnke’s words, does not consist 'solely in the negation of what is genuine and has real being' because otherwise 'it would be an ὄντως οὐκ ὄν,essentially and really a not being' (1957, 37). The characteristics of a copy can be summed up as folows: i) A copy is a copy by referring to a true thing (πρὸς τἀληθινὸν). ii) A copy is different from that of which it is a copy (ἕτερον). iii) A copy is not itself a true thing (ἀληθινόν) as that of which it is a copy but only that which is like it (ἐοικὸς). iv) It is not really that which really is (ὄντως ὄν) but only really a likeness (εἰκων ὄντως). The conclusion is that: v) A copy in a way (πως) is that means it both is and in not, the product of interweaving being with not being. This leads to the refutation of father Parmenides’ principle, accepting that 'that which is not somehow is (τό τε μὴ ὄν ὡς ἔστι)' and 'that which is, somehow is not (τό ὄν ὡς οὐκ ἔστι) (241d5-7). Besides copies and likenesses (εἰκόνων), we have also imitations (μιμημάτων) and appearances (φαντασμάτων) as the subjects of this new kind of being and thus false belief (241e3). In Timaeus, the world of becoming which cannot correctly be called and thus we have to call it "what is such" (τὸ τοιου̑τον) (49e5) or "what is altogether such" (τὸ διἀ παντὸς τοιου̑τον) (e6-7), consists solely of imitations (μιμημάτα) (50c5) which are identifiable only by the things that they are their imitations. The word τοιου̑τον which had been used to determine the situation of a copy in respect of its original, now becomes the definition of the world of becoming in which everything is an image of another thing, a Being, that stays always the same and is different and separated from its image. Cherniss, in my view rightly, draws attention to the very important point about the ontological status of an image that can at the same time be considered a criticism of the relational theory. What we are being said in Timaeus, he thinks,cannot be explained by saying that an image is not self-related and making its being relational. What is crucial about an image is that it 'stands for something, refers to something, means something and this meaning the image has not independently as its own but only in reference to something else apart from it' (1998, 296). This function finds its best explanation in the theory we are to suggest in the following. 3. πολλαχῶς ἔστι The best way to understand the ontological status of an image in Plato is to see first how his most clever pupil, Aristotle, resolved the same problem that Plato brought his theory of image for its sake. Aristotle’s theory of pollachos legetai is a brilliant and, at the same time, deviated version of Plato’s theory that is able, however, to help us read Plato in a better way. We discuss Aristotle’s theory to reach to a full understanding of Plato’s theory because it is, firstly, constructed in Aristotle in a more clear way and, secondly, it can also be taken as an evidence that our reading of Plato is legitimate. The phrase τὸ ὄν πολλαχῶς λέγεται, a so much repeated phrase in Aristotle’s works, is his resolution for some of the ontological problems of his predecessors all treating being as if it has only one sense. Aristotle is right in his criticism of the philosophical tradition specially Heraclitus, Parmenides and Plato since all did presuppose only one sense for being and his theory is, thus, a creative and revolutionary solution for many problems that all the past philosophers were stuck in. But it is at the same time somehow a borrowed theory. As we will discuss, both the structure of the doctrine and the problems it tries to resolve are the same as Plato’s doctrine (and even is comparable in its phraseology) though it is in Aristotle, as can be expected, a more clear and better structured doctrine. 1) Associated with the theory of pros hen and the theory of substance, the theory of several senses of being provides a structure which, I insist, is the best guide to understand Plato’s theory of Being in Sophist, Timeaus and Republic. a) Although the theory of pollachos legetai is not necessarily based on the theory of pros hen, they become tightly interdependent about being: -/- Being is said in many ways/senses (τὸ δὲ ὄν λέγεται μὲν πολλαχῶς) but by reference to one (πρὸς ἕν) [way/sense] and one kind of nature (μίαν τινὰ φύσιν). (Metaphysics 1003a33-34) -/- The doctrine of pros hen which is Aristotle’s initiative third alternative besides the homonymous and synonymous application of words, is primarily a linguistic theory that tries to provide a new theory to explain the different implementations of the same word. The pros hen implementation of being is to provide an alternative for the theory of the synonymous (in Plato: homonymous) implementation of being which says being is said in one sense (kath hen) (1060b 32-33). That both the pros hen and the kath hen implementation of a word has one thing (hen) as what is common, makes them in opposition to the homonymous implementation which does not consider anything in common. Whereas both pros hen and kath hen assume a common nature, with which all the implementations of the word have some kind of relation, their difference is that while kath hen takes all the implementations of the word as the same with the common nature, pros hen makes them different. Substance is called πρῶτον ὄν because it is said to be primarily: -/- For as is (τὸ ἔστιν) is predicated of all things, not however in the same way (οὐχ ὁμοίως) but of one sort of thing primarily and of others in a secondary way. So too τὸτί ἐστιν belongs simply (ἁπλῶς) to substance but in a limited sense (πῶς) to the others [other categories] (1030a21-23). -/- The word ἁπλῶς standing against κατὰ συμβεβηκός tries to make substance different from the accidents. When we are being said that τὸ ὄν πολλαχῶς λέγεται, it means that only the substance that is simply (ἁπλῶς) the ἕν, the common nature, τὸὄν. When we use the word 'being' about a substance, the being is said differently from when we use 'being' about an accident. The distinction between the substance and the other categories is a distinction between what simply is said to be and what only with reference to (pros) the substance is said to be. The doctrine of pros hen, changing kath hen to pros hen in respect of to on, makes a distinction that wants to show that while there is a kind of implementing the word being that is simply being, there is another kind which is called being only by reference to that which is simply being. In the doctrine of pros hen it is not so that all the things that are said to be are only by reference to a common one thing, but that while one thing is called being because it is that thing itself, the other things are called so without being that thing itself but only by referring to it. At the very beginning of book Γ, it is said that: -/- Being is said in many senses but all refer to one arche. Some things are said to be because they are substances, others because they are affections of substances, others because they are a process towards substances or destructions or privations or qualities of substances … (1003b5-9, cf. 1028a18-20) -/- Substance is what really is said to be and all other things that are said to be are said only in favor of it. This difference of substance from all other senses of being is what is, I believe, primarily aimed in Aristotle’s interrelated theories of pollachos legetai,pros hen and the theory of substance. b) The difference of the implementation of being in the case of substance and the accidents goes so deep that while substance is considered as the real being, the accidents are almost not being. An accident is a mere name (Metaphysics 1026b13-14) and is obviously akin to not being (b21). Aristotle adds that Plato was 'in a sense not wrong' saying that sophists deal with not being (τὸ μὴ ὄν) because the arguments of sophists are, above all, about the accidental (1026b13-16). At the beginning of book , he says about quality and quantity (which look to be more of a being than other accidents) that they are not existent (οὐδ̕ ὄντα ὡς εἰπεῖν) in an unqualified sense (ἁπλῶς) (1069a21-22). The two above-mentioned points, Aristotle’s (a) interwoven theories of pollachos legetai, pros hen and the theory of substance and (b) taking accidents almost as not being, comparedwith substance, brings forth a structure that I shall call Pollachos Legetai (with capital first letters). What is of the highest importance in this structure for me is the difference of substance from accidents and the kind of relation which is settled between them. There is a substance that without any qualification is said to be and the accidents that are said to be only by reference (pros) to it. Adding Aristotle’s point about accidents that they are nearly not being to this relation and difference, we can obviously see how much this structure is close to Plato’s original-copy ontology. We spoke of the relation of being and difference in Plato’s model and the way Plato construes the being of a copy. A copy is a copy only by referring to (pros) a model; it is different from (ἕτερον) that of which it is a copy; it is not itself a true thing as its model and not really that which is (ὄντως ὄν) but only is in a way (πῶς). If we behold the difference of substance and accident in the context of the theory of pollachos legetai and pros hen, we can observe its fundamental similarity with Plato’s original-copy theory in its structure. Allen draws attention to the fact that the relation between Forms and particulars in Plato’s original-copy model is 'something intermediate between univocity and full equivocity' (1998, 70, n. 24) and the same as what Aristotle calls it pros hen (ibid). What made us compare the two structures was not, of course, the complete similarity of two structures (we have to agree with many possible differences of the two theories) but exactly the specific relation between an original and its copy on the one hand, and a substance and its accident on the other hand. As substance and accident do not share a common character and the substance -accident model hints that they stand in a certain relation, there is no common character between the original and copy in Plato’s model as well. Furthermore, their similarity is not confined to their structure only; they are also aimed to solve the same problem. The central point of the theory is that all the predecessors took being in one sense and this was their weakness point. Besides the mentioned above passages about the relation of pollachos legetai and presocratics’, as well as Plato’s, ontology, the relation of the theory with the problem of not being is clear in several passages. In Metaphysics, it is said: 'Being is then said in many senses… It is for this reason that we say even of not being that it is not being' (1003b5-10). Discussing the accidental sense of being, Aristotle points that it is in the accidental way that we say, for example, that not-white is because that of which it is an accident is (1017a18-19, cf. 1069a22-24). We mentioned that he thought Plato was right saying that sophistic deals with not being because sophistic deals with accidental, which is somehow not being (1026b14-16). Plato turned sophistic not-being to what both is and is not and Aristotle to what accidentally is said to be. What helps Aristotle to resolve the problem of not being is his distinction between ἁπλῶς and κατὰ σθμβεβηκός. Aristotle’s "qua" (ᾕ) which is directly linked with his distinction between καθ’ αὑτο λέγεται and κατὰ συμβεβηκός λέγεται, is used to resolve the old problem of coming to be out of not being (Physics 191b4-10). He strictly asserts that his predecessors could not solve the problem because they failed to observe the distinction of "qua itself" from "qua another thing" (b10-13). He then continues: -/- We ourselves are in agreement with them in holding that nothing can be said simply (ἁπλως) to come from not being (μὴὄντος). But nevertheless we maintain that a thing may come to be from not being in an accidental way (κατὰ συμβεβηκός). For from privation which ὅ ἐστι καθ’ αὑτο μὴ ὄν, nothing can become. (Phy. 191b13-16, cf. b19-25) . (shrink)

‘...if you learn to think like Peter Cave – with freshness, humour, objectivity and penetration – you will have been amply rewarded.’ :::: Prof. Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, University of Notre Dame __________________ Chapter Titles:>>> ___ 1 Lao Tzu: The Way to Tao >>> 2 Sappho: Lover >>> 3 Zeno of Elea: Tortoise Backer, Parmenidean Helper >>> 4 Gadfly: aka ‘Socrates’ >>> 5 Plato: Charioteer, Magnificent Footnote Inspirer – ‘Nobody Does It Better’ >>> 6 Aristotle: Earth-Bound, Walking >>> 7 Epicurus: Gardener, Curing (...) the Soul, Ably Assisted by Lucretius >>> 8 Avicenna: Flying Man, Unifier >>> 9 Descartes: With Princess, With Queen >>> 10 Spinoza: God-Intoxicated Atheist >>> 11 Leibniz: Monad Man >>> 12 Bishop Berkeley, ‘That Paradoxical Irishman’: Immaterialist, Tar-Water Advocate >>> 13 David Hume: The Great Infidel or Le Bon David >>> 14 Kant: Duty Calls, Categorically >>> 15 Schopenhauer: Pessimism With Flute >>> 16 John Stuart Mill: Utility Man, With Harriet, Soul-Mate >>> 17 Søren Kierkegaard: Who? >>> 18 Karl Marx: Hegelian, Freedom-Fighter >>> 19 Lewis Carroll: Curiouser and Curiouser >>> 20 Nietzsche: God-Slaying Jester, Trans-Valuer >>>> 21 Bertrand Russell: Radical, Aristocrat >>> 22 G. E. Moore: Common-Sense Defender, Bloomsbury’s Sage >>> 23 Heidegger: Hyphenater >>> 24 Jean-Paul Sartre: Existentialist, Novelist, French >>> 25 Simone Weil: Refuser and Would-Be Rescuer >>> 26 Simone de Beauvoir: Situated, Protester, Feminist >>> 27 Ludwig Wittgenstein: Therapist >>> 28 Hannah Arendt: Controversialist, Journalist? >>> 29 Iris Murdoch: Attender >>> 30 Samuel Beckett: Not I >>>. (shrink)

This book provides a comprehensive overview of my recent theoretical work that aims to explain some of the more puzzling properties of life and mind, in particular agency, goal-directedness and consciousness. It contains published papers as well as new material. Table of contents: Preface - PART I: GROUNDWORK - 1. Introduction - 2. The basic mechanism - 3. Inclusive and extensive fitness - 4. Components of F and X - 5. The consequences: a preview - PART II: LIFE - 6. (...) What qualifies as life? - 7. Biological meaning - 8. Biological functions - PART III: MIND - 9. Minimal agency, goal-directedness and value - 10. Intentionality and meaning - 11. Language - 12. Consciousness - 13. The human self - PART IV: PHILOSOPHY - 14. Strong emergence - 15. The real, the true and the good - 16. Philosophical problems of consciousness - Epilogue - Appendix A: Summaries of computational simulations - Appendix B: Examples of minimal intentionality - References. -/- . (shrink)

Regarding the relation of Plato’s early and middle period dialogues, scholars have been divided to two opposing groups: unitarists and developmentalists. While developmentalists try to prove that there are some noticeable and even fundamental differences between Plato’s early and middle period dialogues, the unitarists assert that there is no essential difference in there. The main goal of this article is to suggest that some of Plato’s ontological as well as epistemological principles change, both radically and fundamentally, between the early and (...) middle period dialogues. Though this is a kind of strengthening the developmentalistic approach corresponding the relation of the early and middle period dialogues, based on the fact that what is to be proved here is a essential development in Plato’ ontology and his epistemology, by expanding the grounds of development to the ontological and epistemological principles, it hints to a more profound development. The fact that the bipolar and split knowledge and being of the early period dialogues give way to the tripartite and bound knowledge and benig of the middle period dialogues indicates the development of the notions of being and knowledge in Plato’s philosophy before the dialogues of the middle period. -/- Keywords Plato; early dialogues; middle dialogues; being; knowledge; development -/- Introduction The differences between two groups of the early and middle period dialogues have always been a matter of dispute. Whereas the developmentalists like Vlastos, Silverman (2002), Teloh (1981), Dancy (2004) and Rickless (2007) think that from the early to the middle dialogues Plato’s philosophy changes, at least in some essential points, the unitarists like Kahn, Cherniss and Shorey believe that there happens no development and the differences must be taken as natural, ignorable and even pedagogic. In his well-known article, Socrates contra Socrates in PLATO, Vlastos lists ten theses of difference between two groups of dialogues. The first group which includes Plato’s early dialogues he divides to 'elenctic' (Apology, Charmides, Crito, Euthyphro, Gorgias, Hippias Minor, Ion, Laches, Protagoras and Republic I) and 'transitional' (Euthydemus, Hippias Major, Lysis, Menexenus and Meno) dialogues. These transitional come after all the elenctic dialogues and before all the dialogues of the second group which compose Plato’s middle period dialogues, including (with Vlastos' chronological order) Cratylus, Phaedo, Symposium, Republic II-X, Phaedrus, Parmenides and Theaetetus (1991, 46-49). Vlastos asserts strictly that his list of differences are 'so diverse in content and method that they contrast as sharply with one another as with any third philosophy you care to mention, beginning with Aristotole’s' (ibid, 46). Vlastos’ list of differences between two Socrateses is considered a view breaking sharply between the early and the middle dialogues. Besides all ten differences between the two Socrateses in Vlastos’ list that can be supportive for our doctrine here, we intend to focus on some ontological as well as epistemological distinctions that have not completely been discussed hitherto. Contrary to the developmentalist theory of Vlastos, unitarian theory of Charles Kahn wishes to eliminate any substantial difference between the early and the middle dialogues. He distinguishes seven 'pre-middle' or 'threshold' dialogues including Laches, Charmides, Euthyphro, Protagoras, Meno, Lysis and Euthydemus from the other Socratic dialogues which he calls 'earliest group' (1996, 41). The threshold dialogues, Kahn thinks, 'embarke upon a sustained project' that is to reach to its climax in the middle period dialogues, namely Phaedo, Symposium and Republic. Believing in that there is no 'fundamental shift'between the early and middle dialogues (ibid, 40), Kahn thinks the Socratic dialogues are just the 'first stage' with a 'deliberate silence' towards the theories of later periods (ibid, 339). One of the reasons of the surprising fact that Plato gives no hint of the metaphysics and epistemology of the Forms in the early dialogues, he thinks, is the pedagogical advantages of aporia. He thinks that Plato 'obscurely', and mostly because of education, hinted to some doctrines and conceptions in his early dialogues and with the aim of clarifying them only in the later ones (ibid, 66). The seven threshold dialogues, Kahn asserts, 'had been designed from the first' to prepare the pupils and readers for the views expounded in the middle period dialogues (ibid, 59-60). To show that the differences of the two Socrateses of the early and middle period dialogue are in their onto-epistemological grounds and thence cannot be explained by a unitaristic view, we try to draw the ontological and epistemological principles of the early dialogues in the first part below in order to show, in the second part, that those principles have been developed in the middle period dialogues. -/- A. The Onto-Epistemologic Principles of the Early Dialogues Socratic dialogues are paradoxical about knowledge because while being knowledge-oriented always searching for knowledge, they deny it and even never discuss it directly. Three elements of Socrates’ way of searching Knowledge throughout the early dialogues, i.e. Socratic 'what is X?' question, his disavowal of knowledge and his elenctic method combined together produce something like a circle which works, more or less, in the same way in these dialogues. Though this circle is an embaressing inquiry always resulting in ignorance instead of knowledge, its motivation is surprisingly Socrates’ passionate enthusiasm for knowledge, an intensive love of wisdom. The starting point of this circle is Socrates’ confession of having no knowledge which might be explicitly asserted or presupposed, maybe because it was one of the famous characteristics of Socrates; a confession always paradoxically accompanied with his intense longing for knowledge (e.g., Gorgias 505e4-5). Every time Socrates encounters with someone who thinks he knows something (οἴεταί τι εἰδέναι) (Apology 21d5) and tries to examine him. This examination seems to be the simplest one asking just what it is that he knows. Socrates’ elenchus, therefore, is always connected with 'what is X?' (τίς ποτέ ἐστιν) question, a question that most of the early dialogues of Plato are concerned with; 'what is courage?' in the Laches, 'what is piety?' in Euthydemus, 'what is temperance?' in Charmides and 'what is beauty?' in Hippias Major. This question we call here 'Socratic question' and probably is the very question the historical Socrates used to employ, is tightly interrelated with both his disavowal and his elenchus. He disclaims knowledge because he cannot find the answer to the question himself and he rejects others’ since they cannot offer the correct answer too. Every interlocutor can claim he knows X, if and only if he can answer the Socratic question. Otherwise, he is more of an ignorant than of a knower of τί ποτέ ἐστι X. Knowing the answer to this question is, thus, knowledge’s criterion for Socrates. Having found out that he cannot answer what it is which he would claim to know, the interlocutor comes to the point Socrates was there at the beginning. The least advantage of this circle is that he becomes as wise as Socrates does about the subject, becoming aware that he does not know it. At the end of the circle they are both still at the beginning, not knowing what X is. So let us first take a glance at these three elements. Socratic disavowal of knowledge is strictly asserted in some passages. At Apology 21b4-5, Socrates says: -/- I do not know of myself being wise at all (οὔτε μέγα οὔτε σμικρὸν σύνοιδα ἐμαυτῷ σοφὸς ὤν) -/- Moreover, at 21d4-6: -/- None of us knows anything worthwhile (καλὸν κἀγαθὸν εἰδέναι) …. I do not know (οἶδα) neither do I think I know. -/- In Charmides Socrates speaks about a fear about his probable mistake of thinking that he knows (εἰδέναι) something when he does not (166d1-2). The somehow generalization of this disavowal can be seen in Gorgias. After calling his disavowal 'an account that is always the same' (509a4-5), Socrates continues (a5-7): -/- I say that I do not know (οἶδα) how these things are, but no one I have ever met, like now, who can say anything else without being absurd. -/- At the end of Hippias Major (304d7-8), Socrates affirms his disavowal of knowledge of 'what is X?' this time about the fine: -/- I do not know (οἶδα) what that is itself (αὐτὸ τοῦτο ὅτι ποτέ ἐστιν). Some other passages, however, made a number of scholars dubious about Socrates’ disavowal. Vlastos mentions Apology 29b6-7 as an evidence : 'that to do wrong and to disobey one’s master, both god and men, I know (οἶδα) to be evil and shameful'. He thinks that if we give this single text 'its full weight' it can suffice to show that Socrates does claim knowledge of a moral truth (1985, 7). Vlastos’ claim is not admittable since it would be too strange, I think, for a man like Socrates to violate his disavowal claim just after emphasizing it. We can see his claim just before the already mentioned passage: -/- And surely it is the most blameworthy ignorance to believe that one knows what one does not know. It is perhaps on this point and in this respect, gentlemen, that I differ from the majority of men and if I were to claim that I am wiser than anyone in anything it world be in this, that, as I have no adequate knowledge (οὐκ εἰδὼς ἱκανῶς) of things in the underworld, so I do not think I have (οὐκ εἰδέναι) (Apology 29b1-6) Vlastos tries to solve what he calls the 'paradox' of Socrates’ disavowal of knowledge distinguishing the 'certain' knowledge from 'elenctic' knowledge (1985, 11) and thinking that when Socrates avows knowledge, we must perceive it as an elenctic knowledge, a knowledge its content 'must be propositions he thinks elenctically justifiable' (ibid, 18). Irwin’s solution is the distinction of knowledge and belief. He approves that Socrates does not 'explicitly' make such a distinction, but still thinks that Socrates’ 'test for knowledge would make it reasonable for him to recognize true belief without knowledge, and his own claims are easily understood if they are claims to true belief alone' (1977, 40). While I agree with Vlastos up to a point, I strongly disagree with Irwin about the early dialogues. As I will try to show below, we are not permitted to consider any kind of distinction within knowledge in Socratic dialogues because only one category of knowledge is alluded to there and the distinction of knowledge and belief thoroughly belongs to the second Sorcates. Although no kind of distinction can be admittable here, I think Vlastos’ distinction can be accepted only if we regard it as a distinction between knowledge, which is unique and without any, even incomparable, rival, and a semi-idiomatic and ordinary one that is a necessary requirement for any argument, and thus, unavoidable even for someone who does not claim any kind of knowledge. An apparent evidence of this is Gorgias 505e6-506a4: -/- I go through the discussion as I think it is (ὡς ἄν μοι δοκῇ ἔχειν), if any of you do not agree with admissions I am making to myself, you must object and refute me. For I do not say what I say as I know (οὐδὲ γάρ τοι ἔγωγε εἰδὼς λέγω ἃ λέγω) but as searching jointly with you (ζητῶ κοινῇ μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν). -/- The minimal degree of knowledge everyone must have to take part in an argument, conduct it and use the phrase "I know" when it is necessary is what Socrates cannot deny. We can call it elenctic knowledge only if we agree that it is not the kind of knowledge that Socrates has always been searching, the one that can be accepted as the answer of Socratic 'what is X?' question. His disavowal of knowledge is applied only to the knowledge which can truly be the answer of Socratic question and pass the elenctic exam; a knowledge that, I believe, is never claimed by first Socrates. Socrates conducts his method of examining his interlocutors’ knowledge, our second element here, by almost the same method repeated in Socratic dialogues. That whether we are allowed to regard all the examinations of Socrates in the early dialogues as based on the same or not has been a matter of dispute. Vlastos himself (1994, 31) distinguished Euthydemas, Lysis, Menexenns and Hippias Major from the other Socratic dialogues because he thinks Socrates has lost his faith to elenchus in there. Irwin (1977, 38) distinguishes Apology and Crito where Socrates’ own convictions is present. Contrary to some scholars like Benson (2002, 107) who take elenchus in all the Socratic dialogues as a unique method, Michelle Carpenter and Ronald M. Polansky (2002, 89-100) argue pro the variety of methods of elenchus. Thomas C. Brickhouse and Nicholas D. Smith (2002, 145-160) even reject such a thing as Socratic elenchus which can gather all of the Socrates’ various arguments under such a heading. There can be no solution for the problem of elenchus, they think, is due to 'the simple reason that there is no such thing as 'the Socratic elenchos"'(p.147). Though we consider elenchus a somehow determined process and a part of Socratic circle in the early dialogues, all we assume is that whatever differences it might have in different dialogues, it has the same onto-epistemological principles and, thus, we are not going to take it necessarily as a unique method. This method sets out to prove that the interlocutors are as ignorant as Socrates himself is. That whether elenchus is constructive, capable of establishing doctrines as Vlastos (1994) or Brickhouse and Smith (1994, 20-21) believe or not is another issue to which this paper is not to claim anything. What is crucial for our discussion here is that elenchus does not reach to the very knowledge Socrates is looking for. This is strictly against Irwin who thinks that not only elenchus leads to positive results, 'it should even yield knowledge to match Socrates’ conditions'(1977, 68, cf. 48). He does not explain where and how they really yield to that kind of knowledge. He explains his elenctic method in his apology in the court (Apology 21-22), that how he used to examine wise men, politicians, poets and all those who had the highest reputation for their knowledge and every time found that they have no knowledge. If we accept, as I strongly do, that Socrates’ disavowal of his knowledge is not irony, it might seem more reasonable to agree that the process that has that disavowal as its first step cannot be irony as well. The key of the circle which can explain why Socrates disclaims knowledge and how he can reject others’ claim of having any kind of knowledge lies in the third element, Socratic question. In Hippias Major (287c1-2), Socrates asks: 'Is it not by Justice that just people are Just? (ἆρ᾽ οὐ δικαιοσύνῃ δίκαιοί εἰσιν οἱ δίκαιοι). He insists at 294b1 that they were searching for that by which (ᾧ) all beautiful things are beautiful (cf. b4-5, 8). At Euthyphro 6d10-11 it is said that the Socratic question is waiting for 'the form itself (αὐτὸ τὸ εἶδος) by which (ᾧ) all the pious actions are pious; and at 6d11-e1: -/- Through one form (που μιᾷ ἰδέᾳ) impious actions are impious and pious actions pious. -/- Since the X itself is that by which X is X, knowing 'X itself' is the only way of knowing X. It is probably because of this that Socrates makes the distinction between the ousia as a right answer to the question and effect as a wrong one: -/- I am afraid, Euthyphro, that when you were asked what piety is (τὸ ὅσιον ὅτι ποτ᾽ ἐστίν) you did not wish to make clear its nature itself (οὐσίαν … αὐτοῦ) to me, but you said some effect (πάθος) about it. (Euthp. 11a6-9) -/- 1. Knowledge of what X is Now it is time to look for the onto-epistemological principles of Socratic circle and its three elements. It cannot reasonably be expected from the first Socrates to present us explicitly and clearly formulated principles of his onto-epistemology when such explications cannot be found even in the second Socrates who has some obviously positive theoris. Since there must be some principles underlying this first systematic inqury of knowledge, we must seek to them and be satisfied with elicitation of the first Socratas’ principle. What will be drawn out as his principles cannot and must not, thus, be taken as very fix and dogmatic principles. Some very slightest principles and grounds suffice for our purposes here. The first principle that is the prima facie significance of the Socratic question and his implementation of all those elenctic arguments I call the principle of 'Knowledge of What X is' (KWX): -/- KWX To know X, it is required to know what X is. -/- Aristotle (Metaphysics 1078b23-25, 27-29, 987b4-8) takes Plato’s τί ἐστι question as seeking the definition of a thing that is the same as historical Socrates’ search but applying to a different field. That Plato’s 'what is X?' question was a search for definition became the prevailed understanding of this question up to now. I am going neither to discuss the answer of Socratic question nor to challenge taking it as definition. What I am to insist is that knowledge is attached firmly to the answer of the question: Knowledge of X is not anything but the knowledge of what X is. It entails, certainly, the priority of this knowledge to any other kind of knowledge about X but it also has something more fundamental about the relation of knowledge and Socratic question. Socrates’ exclusive focus on the answer of his question can authorize the consideration of such an essential role for KWX in his epistemolgoy. The total rejection of his interlocutors’ knowledge when they are unable to answer the question can be regarded as a strong evidence for it. Socrates’ elenctic method and his rejection of others’ knowledge in the early dialogues, which all end aporetically with no one accepted as knower and nothing as knowledge, prevent us from finding any positive evidence for this. We have to be content, therefore, of negative evidences which, I think, can be found wherever Socrates rejects his interlocutors’ knowledge when they are not able to give an acceptable answer to his 'what is X?' question. 2. Bipolar Epistemology Socrates’ rejection of his interlocutors’ knowledge has another epistemological principle as its basis. Let me call this principle Bipolar Epistemology' (BE): BE There is no third way besides knowledge and Ignorance. -/- BE says that about every object of knowledge there are only two subjective statuses: knowledge and Ignorance. Socrates’ disavowal, however, says nothing but that he is ignorant of knowledge of X because he does not know what X is. This means that BE is presupposed here. Socrates’ elenchus and his rejection of interlocutors’ having any kind of knowledge are the necessary results of the fact that he does not let any third way besides knowledge and ignorance. The first Socrates never let anyone partly know X or have a true opinion about it, as he would not let anyone know anything about X when he did not know what X is. -/- 3. Bipolar Ontology The principle of BE in first Socrates’ epistemology is parallel to another principle in his ontology. Plato’s bipolar distinction between being and not being is as strict and perfect as his distinction between knowledge and ignorance. This principle I shall call the principle of 'Bipolar Ontology' (BO): BO Being is and not being is not. BO is apparently the same with the well-known Parmenidean Principle of being and not being (cf. Diels-Kranz (DK) Fr. 2.2-5). Euthydemus’ statement against the possibility of false knowledge can be good evidence for this principle: -/- The things which are not surely do not exist (τὰ δὲ μὴ ὄντα … ἄλλο τι ἢ οὐκ ἔστιν). (Euthydemus 284b3-4) -/- He continues (b4-5): -/- There is nowhere for not being to be there (οὖν οὐδαμοῦ τά γε μὴ ὄντα ὄντα ἐστίν). -/- That BE does not let true opinion as a third option besides knowledge and ignorance seems to be related to BO’s rejecting a third option besides being and not being, which is itself the basis of the impossibility of false belief. Socrates’ elaborate discussion of the problem of false belief in Theatetus that leads to a more decisive discussion and finally to some solutions in Sophist can make our consideration of BO for the first group of dialogues authentive. -/- 4. &5. Split Knowledge and Split Being The fourth principle I shall call the principle of 'Split Knowledge' (SK): -/- SK Knowledge of X is separated from any other knowledge (of anything else) as if the whole knowledge is split to various parts. -/- This Principle is hinted and criticized as Socrates’ way of treating with knowledge in Hippias Major: -/- But Socrates, you do not contemplate the entireties of things, nor do people you have used to talk with (τὰ μὲν ὅλα τῶν πραγμάτων οὐ σκοπεῖς, οὐδ᾽ ἐκεῖνοι οἷς σὺ εἴωθας διαλέγεσθαι). (301b2-4) -/- Contrary to Rankin who regards the passage as 'antilogical, almost eristic in tone rather than presenting a serious philosophy of being' (1983, 54), I think it can be taken as serious. Hippias criticizes Sorcates that he does not contemplate (σκοπεῖς) the entireties of things (ὅλα τῶν πραγμάτων), a critique which Socrates is not its only subject but all those whom Socrates accustomed to talk with (ἐκεῖνοι οἷς σὺ εἴωθας διαλέγεσθαι). This last phrase, I think, extends this critic beyond this dialogue to other Socratic dialogues. Hippias’ use of the perfect tense of the verb ἔθω (to be accustomed) is a good evidence of this extension. We can get, thus, these ἐκεῖνοι as Socrates’ interlocutors in his other dialogues that hints that this criticism has the epistemological groundings of the previous dialogues as its subject. What ἐκεῖνοι οἷς σὺ εἴωθας διαλέγεσθαι points to is that Hippias does not have in mind Socrates’ way of treating things only in this dialogue, but he is also criticizing Socrates’ way throughout his dialogues. At 301b4-5, Socrates and his interlocutors’ way of beholding things is described as such: -/- You people knock (κρούετε) at the fine and each of the beings (ἕκαστον τῶν ὄντων) by taking each being cut up in pieces (κατατέμνοντες) in words (ἐν τοῖς λόγοις). This leads us to our next principle that is parallel to, and the ontological side of, SK, the principle of 'Split Being'(SB): -/- SB Everything (being) is separated from any other thing as if the whole being is split to many beings. -/- Socrates and his interlocutors and thus, as we saw, the Socratic dialogues are accused to regard everything as it is separated from all other things. This separation is en tois logois that, I think, can reasonably be taken as saying that Socratic dialogues (it refers of course to the dialogues before Hippias Major) cut up all things which have the same name/definition from all other things and try to understand them separately, without considering other things that are not in their logos. They, for example in Hippias Major, are cutting up to kalon and try to understand what it and all others inside this logos are by separating it from all other things. This is directed straightly against Socratic question and the way Socratic dialogues follow to find its answer, every time separating one logos. As Meyer (1995, 85) points out, every question 'presupposes that the X in question in a logos is something' and 'every answer to every question aims at unity' (84). The critique of Hippias Major is, therefore, at the same time a critique of SK and SB. It is also a critique of KWX because it is only based on KWX that Socratic dialogues could search for the answer of 'what is X' question supposing that knowing what X is is enough for the knowledge of X. SK and KWX are absolutely interdependent. What Socrates and all his previous interlocutors have neglected in Socratic dialogues, Hippias says, was 'continuous bodies of being' (διανεκῆ σώματα τῆς οὐσίας) (301b6). Either this theory actually belongs to the historical Hippias as it is being said or not, it is strictly criticizing SB. We have the same phrase with changing sūma to logos some lines later at 301e3-4: διανεκεῖ λόγῳ τῆς οὐσίας. Although this theory that can be observed as both an ontological and an epistemological theory is rejected by Socrates (301cff.), it is still against first Socrates’ onto-epistemological principles and might let us look at what is rejected as Socratic prineple. -/- 6. Knowledge is of Being The sixth principle that I think is presupposed by the first Socrates, is the 'Knowledge of Being' Principle (KB): -/- KB Knowledge is of Being. -/- This principle is obviously the source of the problem of false knowledge, a very important problem throughout Plato’s philosophy. We face this problem maybe for the first time in Euthydemus. In less than 20 Stephanus’ pages, 276-295, we are encountered with different interwoven problems about knowledge , all grounded in the problem of false opinion. Having challenged the obvious possibility of telling lies at 283e, at 284 Euthydemus discusses it saying that the man who speaks is speaking about 'one of those things that are (ἓν μὴν κἀκεῖνό γ᾽ ἐστὶν τῶν ὄντων)' (284a3) and thus speaks what is (λέγων τὸ ὄν) (a5). He must necessarily be saying truth when he is speaking what is because he who speaks what is (τὸ ὄν) and the things that are (τὰ ὄντα) speaks truth (τἀληθῆ λέγει) (a5-6). This is based on Parmenidean principle of the impossibility of being of not being which Euthydemus restates (284b3-4) and we mentioned discussing BO principle above. The things that are not are nowhere (οὐδαμοῦ) and there is no possibility for anyone to do (πράξειεν) anything with them because they must be made as being before anything else can be done, which is impossible (b5-7). The words, then, are of things that exist (εἰσὶν ἑκάστῳ τῶν ὄντων λόγοι) (285e9) and as they are (ὡς ἔστιν) (e10). The result is that no one can speak of things as they are not. It is this impossibility of false speach that is extended to thinking (δοξάζειν) at 286d1 and leads to the impossibility of false opinion (ψευδής … δόξα) (286d4). The general conclusion is asserted at 287a extending this impossibility to actions and making any kind of mistake. Not only knowledge is of being but speech, thought and action are of being simply because of the fact that nothing can be of not being. -/- B. First Socrates’ Principles in the Middle Period Dialogues Out of what were presupposed or criticized mostly in five dialogues, Euthyphro, Euthydemus, Hippias Major, Laches and Charmides, we tried to draw the first Socrates’ principles. Our inquiry here is directed to find out the fate of these principles in the three dialogues of the middle period, Meno, Phaedo and Republic. To do this, first we ought to check the situation of Socratic circle in these dialogues. The Socratic circle that was predominant in the early dialogues, does not look like a circle here anymore though they certainly have some features in common. Meno, Phaedo and Republic II-X are not committed to the principles of the circle and the whole circle in disrupted in them. The difference of the two Socrateses towards acquiring knowledge is obvious. The Socrates of Meno, Phaedo and Republic is evidently more self-confident that he can get to some truths during his arguments as he does. They are in their first appearance, as almost all other dialogues, committed to Socrates’ disavowal. All of them try to keep the shape of the Socratikoi Logoi genre, which is committed to the historical Socrates’ way of discussion; a dramatic personage who is to challenge his interlocutors, ask them and refuse the answers. Nevertheless, the fact is that what we have in common between two groups of dialogues is mostly a dramatic structure. Whereas the first group’s arguments are based on Socrates’ disavowal and lead to no positive results, the second group is decisively going to achieve some positive results. The aim of the first Socrates was to show others that they are ignorant of what they thought they knew. The new Socrates of Meno, on the opposite, makes so much efforts to show that the slave boy has within himself true opinions (ἀληθεῖς δόξαι) about the things that he does not know (οἶδε) (85c6-7). Despite his lack of knowledge, he has true opinions nevertheless. The way from these true opinions to knowledge, as Socrates states, is not so long. These true opinions are now like a dream but 'can become knowledge of the same things not less accurate than anyone’s' (οὐδενὸς ἧττον ἀκριβῶς ἐπιστήσεται περὶ τούτων) (c11-d1), if they be repeated by asking the same questions. The most outstanding text regarding Socrates’ disavowal is Meno 98b where he explicitly claims knowledge: -/- And indeed I also speak as (ὡς) one who does not know (εἰδὼς) but is guessing (εἰκάζων). However, [about the fact] that true opinion and knowledge are different, I do not altogether expect (δοκῶ) myself to be guessing (εἰκάζειν), but if I say about anything that I know (εἰδέναι) -which about few things I say- this is one of the things that I know (οἶδα). (98b1-5) This passage is very significant about Plato’s disavowal of knowledge. There can hardly be found, I think, anywhere else in Plato’s corpus where Socrates speaks about his knowledge of something as such. He says first that he speaks as someone who does not know. This ὡς οὐκ εἰδὼς λέγω comparing with what he used to say in the first group, οὐκ οἶδα, has this added ὡς. Socrates does not claim strongly anymore that he does not know anything but speaks only as someone who does not know. He needs this ὡς not only because he is going to accept that he does know some, though few, things immediately after this sentence, but also because he needs his previous disavowal to be loosened from Meno on. He does not merely say here that he knows something. It is then different from the examples mentioned before which could be taken as idiomatic or at least not emphatic. Socrates’ remarkable emphasis on distinguishing εἰδέναι from εἰκάζειν departs it from all other passages where he says only he knows something. Moreover, he claims definitely that he has knowledge about few (ὀλίγα) things. From the early to the middle dialogues, Socrates’ attitude to knowledge has totally renewed its face. He brings forth a new concept, true opinion, and he does not speak of knowledge as he used to before; the rough, perfect and unachievable knowledge of the first group has turned to something more smooth, realistic and achievable. Comparing with the early dialogues that did not set out from the first to reach positive results, the middle ones are extraordinarily and surprisingly positive and hence destroy the basis of the Socratic circle. The questions and answers are purposely directed to some specific new theories; most of them are not directly related to the topics or the main questions of the dialogues. They are suggested when Socrates draws the attention of the interlocutor away from the main question because of the necessity of another discussion. Even if the main question remains unanswered, we have still many positive theories, prominently of metaphysical type. These theories are so abundant and dominant in these dialogues, especially Phaedo and Republic, that one might think that they may appear to be arbitrarily sandwiched in there. This helps dialogues to keep their original Socratic structure while they are suggesting new theories. Hence, the Socratic question of 'what is X?', though is still used to launch the discussion, is loosened and is forgotten for most part of the dialogues. Meno that has first a differently formulated question, 'can virtue be taught?', leads finally to the Socratic question of 'What is virtue?'. Phaedo is dedicated to the demonstration of the immortality of soul and the life after death without having a central Socratic question. The case of Republic is more complicated. The first book, on the one hand, has all the criteria of a Socratic circle: its 'what is justice?' question, Socrates’ strong disavowal (e.g. 337d-e), his rejection of all answers and coming back to the first point without finding out any answer. This Book, considered alone, is a perfect Socratic dialogue, as many scholars regard it as early and separated from other books. The books II-X are, on the other hand, far from implementing a Socratic circle. They have still the 'what is justice?' question as their incentive leading question, but they are, in most of the positive doctrines and methods that encompass the main parts, ignoring the question. Even these books that, I believe, are the farthest discussions from the Socratic circle are so cautious not to break the Socratic structure of the dialogue as long as it is possible. What is changed is not the structure of the dialogue but the ontological and epistemological grounds based on which new theories are suggested. -/- 1. Knowledge of the Good We can clearly see in the second group of dialogues that the KWX principle loses the place it had before in our first group. It is not, of course, rejected, but still we cannot say that it has the same situation. KWX that was based on Socratic question, as we discussed before, was the leading principle of the first Socrates’ epistemology and of the highest position. Other epistemological principles, SK directly and BE indirectly, were relying on Socratic question and therefore on KWX. Such a position does not belong to KWX from Meno on. What makes it different in the second Socrates is another principle that is needed it not only as its complementary principle but also as what is more fundamental. Plato, then, does not reject KWX in this period, but, it seems, he transcends to another more basic principle; a principle we shall call the principle of 'Knowledge of the Good' (KG): -/- KG Knowledge of X requires knowledge of the Good. -/- Whereas all the dialogues of our first group are free from any discuscon about KG, it bears a very important role in the second group so as becomes the superior principle of knowledge in Republic. Trying to solve the problem of teachability of virtue, Socrates says that it can be teachable only if it is a kind of knowledge because nothing can be taught to human beings but knowledge (ἐπιστήμην) (Meno 87c2). The dilemma will be, then, whether virtue is knowledge or not (c11-12) and since virtue is good, we can change the question to: whether is there anything good separate from knowledge (εἰ μέν τί ἐστιν ἀγαθὸν καὶ ἄλλο χωριζόμενον ἐπιστήμης) (d4-5). Therefore, the conclusion will be that if there is nothing good which knowledge does not encompass, virtue can be nothing but knowledge (d6-8). What let us discuss KG as an epistemological principle for the second Secrates is the relation he tries to establish between knowledge and the Good which, though is alongside with the mentioned thesis and the idea of virtue as knowledge, goes much deeper inside epistemology asking to regard the Good as the basis of knowledge. The effort of Phaedo cannot succeed in establishing the Good as the criterion of explanation and knowledge since, I think, it needs a far more complicated ontology of Republic where Socrates can finally announce KG. What is said in Republic is totally compatible with Phaedo 99d–e and the metaphor of watching an eclipse of the sun. In spite of the fact that we do not have adequate knowledge of the Idea of the Good, it is necessary for every kind of knowledge: 'If we do not know it, even if we know all other things, it is of no benefit to us without it' (505a6-7). The problem of our not having sufficient knowledge of the Idea of Good is tried to be solved by the same method of Phaedo 99d-e, that is to say, by looking at what is like instead of looking at thing itself (506d8-e4). It is this solution that leads to the comparison of the Good with sun in the allegory of Sun (508b12-13). What the Good is in the intelligible realm corresponds to what the sun is in the visible realm; as sun is not sight, but is its cause and is seen by it (b9-10), the Good is so regarding knowledge. It has, then, the same role for knowledge that the sun has for sight. Socrates draws our attention to the function of sun in our seeing. The eyes can see everything only in the light of the day being unable to see the same things in the gloom of night (508c4-6). Without the sun, our eyes are dimmed and blind as if they do not have clear vision any longer (c6-7). That the Good must have the same role about knowledge based on the analogy means that it must be considered as a required condition of any kind of knowledge: -/- The soul, then, thinks (νόει) in the same way: whenever it focuses on what is shined upon by truth and being, understands (ἐνόησέν), knows (ἔγνω) and apparently possesses understanding (νοῦν ἔχειν). (508d4-6) -/- Socrates does not use agathon in this paragraph and substitutes it with both aletheia and to on. He links them with the Idea of the Good when he is to assert the conclusion of the analogy: -/- That which gives truth to the objects of knowledge and the power of knowing to the knower, you must say, is the Idea of the Good: being the cause of knowledge and truth (αἰτίαν δ᾽ ἐπιστήμης οὖσαν καὶ ἀληθείας) so far as it is known (ὡς γιγνωσκομένης μὲν διανοοῦ). (508e1-4) Knowledge and truth are called goodlike (ἀγαθοειδῆ) since they are not the same as the Good but more honoured (508e6-509a5). KG, which had been implicitly contemplated and searched in Phaedo, is now explicitly being asserted in Republic. As what was quoted clearly proves, this principle is the very one which we can observe as the most fundamental principle of the second Socrates in Republic, corresponding to the role KWX had in the first Socrates. The Form of the Good in Republic, of which Santas speaks as 'the centerpiece of the canonical Platonism of the middle dialogues, the centerpiece of Plato’s metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and …' (1983, 256) much more can be said. Plato’s Cave allegory in Book VIII dedicates a similar role to the Idea of the Good. The Idea of the Good is there as the last thing to be seen in the knowable realm, something so important that its seeing equals to understanding the fact that it is the cause of all that is correct and beautiful (517b). Producing both light and its source in visible realm, it controls and provides truth and understanding in the intelligible realm (517c). -/- 2. Tripartite Epistemology BE is thoroughy rejected in the second Socrates and substituted by its opposite, the principle of 'Tripartite Epistemolgy' (TE): -/- TE Opinion is an epistemological status between knowledge and ignorance. BE of the first Socrates was denying any third way besides knowledge and ignorance which was the foundation of Socratic circle without which Socrates could not reject his interlocutors’ possessing any kind of knowledge. We cannot say, however, that the first Socrates had a third epistemological status in mind but rejected it. Such a status was unacceptable for him so that one can say that he would reject any kind of such status if suggested. There were only two possibilities about knowledge: either one knows something or he does not know it. TE, thus, was not the first Socrates’ discovery and, I think it is not the second Socrates’discovery. All we can see in our second group of dialouges is that he uses this principle as an already demonstrated one. Having examined the slave boy in Meno for the prupose of showing the working of recollection, it truns out that he has some opinions in him while he still does not know. Without trying to prove it, Socrates takes this as the distinction between knowledge and opinion: -/- So, he who does not know (οὐκ εἰδότι) about what he does not know (περὶ ὧν ἂν μὴ εἰδῇ) has within himself true opinions (ἀληθεῖς δόξαι) about the same things he did not know (περὶ τούτων ὧν οὐκ οἶδε) (85c6-7). -/- The same distinction is set between ὀρθὴν δόξαν and ἐπιστήμην at 97b5-6 ff. (also cf. 97b1-2: ὀρθῶς μὲν δοξάζων … ἐπιστάμενος). He connects then their difference to the myth of Daedalus, the statue that would run away and escape. So are true opinions, not willing to remain long in mind and thus not worthy until one ties them down by αἰτίας λογισμῷ (98a3-4). Socrates says that this tying down is anamnesis. We face, in Phaedo, the same relation is settled between knowledge as the process of being tied down and getting the capability to give an account, on the one hand, and anamnesis, on the other hand. When a man knows, he must be able to give an account of what he knows (Phaedo 76b5-6) and since not all people are able to give such an account, those who recollect, recollect what once they learned (76c4). Although the distinction between knowledge and opinion is not explicitly used in Phaedo, referring to the parallel link between knowledge plus account and anamnesis in Phaedo and Meno, one can say that those who cannot recollect are not able to give account and, thus, are in a state of opinion. What is said at Phaedo 84a, though not yet a definite distinction between knowledge and opinion, makes a distinction between their objects so as we can agree that it is presupposed. The soul of the philosopher, Socrates says, follows reason, stays with it forever and contemplates the divine, which is not the object of opinoin (ἀδόξαστον) (84a8, cf. Meno 98b2-5). The distinction of knowledge and belief in Republic has a significant difference with what we discussed in Meno and Phaedo since the distinction of Meno was based on anamnesis and thus more an epistemological distinction. Even in Phaedo that we do not have any elaborate discussion about the distinction, the only hint to the matter at 76 is bound to the theory of anamnesis. In addition to the relation of the distinction with this theory, there is another evidence that does not permit us to consider the distinction as an ontological distinction. Let’s see Meno 85c6-7: -/- So, he who does not know about what he does not know has within himself true opinions about the same things he did not know (τῷ οὐκ εἰδότι ἄρα περὶ ὧν ἂν μὴ εἰδῇ ἔνεισιν ἀληθεῖς δόξαι περὶ τούτων ὧν οὐκ οἶδε). (85c6-7) -/- This last sentence persists that the objects of knowledge and true opinion are the same. What Socrates is to say here is that whereas he does not know X he has true opinion about the same X. I think Socrates’ sentence that the slave boy οὐκ εἰδότι ἄρα περὶ ὧν ἂν μὴ εἰδῇ and his restatement of it by saying περὶ τούτων ὧν οὐκ οἶδε is because he wants to emphasize that the slave boy who does not know, has true opinion about the same thing. Socrates could say this just with using τούτων and there would be no necessity to bring περὶ ὧν ἂν μὴ εἰδῇ for οὐκ εἰδότι if he did not want to emphasize. -/- 3. Tripartite Ontology The distinction between knowledge and true opinion in Republic, on other side, has nothing to do with recollection, but is based on an ontological principle, 'Tripartite Ontology' (TO): -/- TO There are things that both are and are not. -/- This principle I confine, among our three dialogues of the second group, to Republic not extended to Meno and Phaedo, is obviously the opposite of BO. Speaking about the lovers of sights and sounds in the fifth book, Socrates distinguishes them from philosophers because their thought is unable to understand the nature of beautiful itself besides beautiful things (476a6-8) and hence they can only have opinions. The philosopher who, on the contrary, believes in beautiful itself and can distinguish it from beautiful things (476c9-d3), has knowledge because he knows, contrasting others who have opinion because they only opine (d5-6). Since those whose knowledge were degraded as opinion will complain about Socrates’ such calling their thought, he provides them the following argument (476e7-477b1): -/- - Does the person who knows, knows (γιγνώσκει) something (τὶ) or nothing (οὐδέν)? - He knows something (τί). - Something that is (ὂν) or is not (οὐκ ὄν)? - Something that is (ὂν) for how could something that is not be known (πῶς γὰρ ἂν μὴ ὄν γέ τι γνωσθείη)? - Then we have an adequate grasp of this: No matter how many ways we examine it, what completely is (παντελῶς ὂν) is completely knowable (παντελῶς γνωστόν) and what is in no way (μὴ ὂν δὲ μηδαμῇ) is in every way unknowable (πάντῃ ἄγνωστον). - A most adequate one. - Good. Now, if anything is such as to be and also not to be (ὡς εἶναί τε καὶ μὴ εἶναι), won’t it be intermediate (μεταξὺ) between what purely is (εἰλικρινῶς ὄντος) and what in no way is (μηδαμῇ ὄντος)? - Yes, it’s intermediate. - Then as knowledge (γνῶσις) is set over what is (τῷ ὄντι), while ignorance (ἀγνωσία) is of necessity set over what is not (μὴ ὄντι) mustn’t we find an intermediate between ignorance (ἀγνοίας) and knowledge (ἐπιστήμης) to be set over the intermediate, if there is such a thing? -/- From the third status of being we must reach to the third status of knowledge. The simple reading of this text can be an existential reading, taking the "is" of the mentioned sentences as existence. The problem is that when it is said that there is something that both is and is not reading "is" existentially, it sounds too bizarre to be acceptable. It cannot easily be understandable to have something as both existent and non-existent at the same time. This problem arose so many debates and led many scholars to reject the existential reading of "is" and suggest some other readings like predicative or veridical readings. I think though Plato’s complicated ontology of Republic cannot be correctly understood by a simple existential reading, this "is" cannot be free from existential sense of being and, thus, cannot be reduced to just a predicative or veridical sense of being. -/- 4. Bound Knowledges In addition to KG, the Good is also the basis of another principle in the second Socrates, namely the principle of 'Bound Knowledge' (BK): -/- BK Knowledge of everything is bound to the knowledge of the Good. -/- We distinguished BK from KG because we want to insist, in BK, on what had not been insisted upon in KG, that is, the binding role that the Good plays in the second Socrates, contrasting the absence of such a role in the first Socrates. Socrates remembers, in Phaedo, his wonderful keen on natural philosophers' wisdom when he was young. The origin of this enthusiasm was Socrates’ hope to know the cause of everything as they used to claim. When he was searching the matters of his interest on their basis, Socrates says, he became convinced he can get no acceptable answer from them and found himself blind even to the things he thought he knew before. One day he hears Anaxagoras’ theory that 'it is Mind that arranges and is the cause of everything (ὡς ἄρα νοῦς ἐστιν ὁ διακοσμῶν τε καὶ πάντων αἴτιος)' (Phd. 97c1-2 cf. DK, Fr.15.8-9, 11-12, 12-14) and thinks that he can finally find what he has always expected, i.e. something which can explain all things. What I intend to show here is that what makes Socrates hopeful is that Anaxagoras’ theory tries 1) to explain all things by one thing and 2) this explanation is understood by Socrates as if it is based on the concept of the Good. That Socrates was searching for one explanation for all things can be proved even from what he has been expecting from natural philosophers. The case is, nonetheless, more clearly asserted when he speaks about Anaxagoras’ theory. In addition to διακοσμῶν τε καὶ πάντων αἴτιος of 97c2 mentioned above, we have τὸ τὸν νοῦν εἶναι πάντων αἴτιον (c3-4) and τόν γε νοῦν κοσμοῦντα πάντα κοσμεῖν (c4-5) all emphasizing on the cause of all things (πάντα) which can clearly prove that one of the reasons which caused Socrates to embrace it delightfully was its claim to provide the cause of all things by one thing. Another reason was that Anaxagoras’ Mind, at least in Socrates’ view, was attempting to explain everything by the concept of the Good. This connection between Mind and Good belongs more to the essential relation they have in Socrates’ thinking than Anaxagoras’ theory because there are almost nothing about such a relation in Anaxagoras. The reason for Socrates’ reading can be that Mind is substantially compatible with Socrates’ idea of the relation between good and knowledge. Both the thesis 'no one does wrong willingly' and the theory of virtue as knowledge we pointed to above are evidences of this essential relation. Nobody who knows that something is bad can choose or do it as bad. The reason, when it is reason, that means when it is as it should be, when it is wise or when it knows, works only based on good-choosing. In this context, when Socrates hears that Mind is considered as the cause of everything, it sounds to him like this: good should be regarded as the basis of the explanation of all things. We see him, thus, passing from the former to the latter without any proof. This is done in the second sentence after introducing Mind: -/- I thought that if this were so, the arranging Mind would arrange all things and put each thing in the way that was Best (ὅπῃ ἂν βέλτιστα ἔχῃ). If one then wished to find the cause of each thing by which it either perishes or exists, one needs to find what is the best way (βέλτιστον αὐτῷ ἐστιν) for it to be, or to be acted upon, or to act. On these premises then it befitted a man to investigate only, about this and other things, what is the most excellent (ἄριστον) and best (βέλτιστον). The same man must inevitably also know what is worse (χεῖρον), for that is part of the same knowledge. (97c4-d5) This passage is a good evidence of Socrates’ leap from Anaxagoras’ Mind to his own concept of the Good that can explain why Socrates found Anaxagoras theory after his own heart (97d7). Mind is welcomed because of its capability for explanation on the basis of good to 'explain why it is so of necessity, saying which is better (ἄμεινον), and that it was better (ἄμεινον) to be so' (97e1-3). What Socrates thought he had found in Anaxagoras can indicate what he had been expecting from natural scientists before. Socrates could not be satisfied with their explanations because they were unable to explain how it is the best for everything to be as it is. It can probably be said, then, that it was the lack of the unifying Good in their explanation that had disappointed him. We must insist that we are discussing what Socrates thought that Anaxagoras’ theory of Mind should have been, not about Anaxagoras’ actual way of using Mind. Phaedo 97c-98b, is not about what Socrates found in Anaxagoras but what he thought he could find in it. On the contrary, it should also be noted that it was not this that was dashed at 98b, but Anaxagoras’ actual way of using Mind. It was Anaxagoras’ fault not to find out how to use such an excellent thesis (98b8-c2, cf. 98e-99b). Socrates gives an example to show how not believing in 'good' as the basis of explanation makes people be wanderers between different unreal explanations of a thing. His words δέον συνδεῖν (binding that binds together) as a description for the Good we chose as the name of BK principle: They do not believe that the truly good and binding binds and holds them together (ὡς ἀληθῶς τὸ ἀγαθὸν καὶ δέον συνδεῖν καὶ συνέχειν οὐδὲν οἴονται). (99c5-6) -/- Having in mind Plato’s well-known analogy of the sun and the Good at Republic 508-509, we can dare to say that his warning of the danger of seeing the truth directly like one watching an eclipse of the sun in Phaedo (99d-e) is more about the difficulty of so-called good-based explanation than its insufficiency, a difficulty which is precisely confirmed in Republic (504e-505a, 506d-e). Moreover, BK is asserted in a more explicit way in the Republic, where the Good is considered not only as a condition for the knowledge of X, as was noted above discussing KG, but also as what binds all the objects of knowledge and also the soul in its knowing them. At Republic VI, 508e1-3, when Socrates says that the Form of the Good 'gives truth to the things known and the power to know to the knower (τοῦτο τοίνυν τὸ τὴν ἀλήθειαν παρέχον τοῖς γιγνωσκομένοις καὶ τῷ γιγνώσκοντι τὴν δύναμιν ἀποδιδὸν)', he wants to set the Good at the highest point of his epistemological structure by which all the elements of this structure are bound. This binding aspect of the Good is by no means a simple binding of all knowledges or all the objects of knowledge, but the most complicated kind of binding as it is expected from the author of the Republic. The kind of unity the Good gives to the different knowledges of different things is comparable with the unity which each Form gives to its participants in Republic: as all the participants of a Form are united by referring to the ideas, all different kinds of knowledge are united by referring to the Good. If we observe Aristotle's assertion that for Plato and the believers of Forms, the causative relation of the One with the Forms is the same as that of the Forms with particulars (e.g. Metaphysics 988a10-11, 988b4), that is to say the One is the essence (e.g., ibid, 988a10-11: τοῦ τί ἐστὶν, 988b4-6: τὸ τί ἢν εἶναί) of the Forms besides his statement that for them One is the Good (e.g., ibid, 988b11-13) the relation between the Good and unity may become more understandable. Since the quiddity of the Good (τί ποτ᾽ ἐστὶ τἀγαθὸν) is more than discussion (506d8-e2), we cannot await Socrates to tell us how this binding role is played. All we can expect is to hear from him an analogy by which this unifying role is envisaged, the sun. The kind of unity that the Good gives to the knowledge and its objects in the intelligible realm is comparable to the unity that the sun gives to the sight and its objects in the visible realm (508b-c). The allegory of Line (Republic VI, 509d-511), like that of the Sun, tries to bind all various kinds of knowledges. The hierarchical model of the Line which encompasses all kinds of knowledge from imagination to understanding can clearly be considered as Plato’s effort to bind all kinds of knowledges by a certain unhypothetical principle. The method of hypothesis starts, in the first subsection of the intelligible realm, with a hypothesis that is not directed firstly to a principle but a conclusion (510b4-6). It proceeds, in the other subsection, to a 'principle which is not a hypothesis' (b7) and is called the 'unhypothetical principle of all things' (ἀνυποθέτου ἐπὶ τὴν τοῦ παντὸς ἀρχὴν) (511b6-7). This παντὸς must refer not only to the objects of the intelligible realm but to the sensible objects as well. Plato does posit, therefore, an epistemological principle for all things, a principle that all things are, epistemologically, bound and, thus, unified by. -/- 5. Bound Beings The ontological aspect of BK we shall call the principle of 'Bound Beings' (BB): -/- BB Being of all things are bound by the Good. -/- We saw in our principle of Split Being (SB) how the first Socrates was criticized because of his approach to split being and separate each thing from other things. The principle of Bound Beings intends to make the things more related, a duty which is done again by the Good. In the allegory of Sun, there are two paragraphs that evidently and deliberately extend the binding role of the Good to the ontological scene: -/- You will say that the sun not only makes the visible things have the ability of being seen but also coming to be, growth and nourishment. (509b2-4) -/- This clearly intends to remind the ontological role the sun plays in bringing to being all the sensible things in order to display how its counterpart has the same role in the intelligible realm (b6-10): -/- Not only the objects of knowledge (γιγνωσκομένοις) owe their being known (γιγνώσκεσθαι) to the Good, but also their existence (τὸ εἶναί) and their being (οὐσίαν) are due to it, though the Good is not being but superior to it in rank and power. That the Good is here represented as responsible for being of things in addition to their being known means, in my opinion, that Plato wants to posit BB in addition to BK. The allegory of Cave at the very beginning of the seventh Book (514aff.) can be taken as another evidence. The role of the Good, one might say, is confined to the intelligible realm because it is asserted that the role the Good plays in this realm is corresponding to that of the sun in the visible realm. The fact that Plato wants to observe the Good also as the ontological cause of the sensible things is obvious from his saying, in the allegory of Cave, that the Form of the Good 'produces light and its source (τὸν τούτου κύριον) [i.e. the sun] in the visible realm' (517c3). We can conclude, then, that the ontological function of the Good is not confined to the intelligible realm in which it is the lord and provides truth and understanding (c3-4) because it is also responsible to produce τὸν κύριον of light. 6. Proportionality of Being and Knowledge Insofaras BE and BO principles of the first Socrates gave way to TE and TO principles of the second Socrates, we cannot expect him to preserve KB in the same way as it was in the first Socrates. The new tripartite ontology and epistemology necessitates some modifications in KB which results in the principle of 'Proportionality of Being and Knowledge' (PBK): -/- PBK To every class of being there is a proportionate category of knowledge. -/- This principle, of course, does not entail the refutation of KB and thus is not kind of rejecting PBK but only a more complicated version of it. Based on PBK, we can still agree that knowledge is of being (KB) but the issue is that since none of the concepts of knowledge and being in the second Socrates are as simple as they were for the first Socrates, we need a more complicated principle for their relation here. Although from Meno 97a where the distinction of knowledge and true opinion is drawn out in the second group of the dialogues, we can expect a new relation, it is articulated in its most complete way in Republic and specifically in the allegory of Line. All the beings are divided there hierarchically to four classes, to each of them belongs a class of knowledge: imagination to images, belief to the sensible things (more correctly: the things of which they[in previous class] were images (ᾧ τοῦτο ἔοικεν)), thought to mathematical objects (?) and understanding to the Forms and the first principle. The degree of clarity that each of the classes of knowledge shares in (σαφηνείας ἡγησάμενος μετέχειν) is proportionate to the degree that its object shares in truth (ἀληθείας μετέχει). (511e2-4) -/- Conclusion From the six onto-epistemilogical principles of the first Socrates, four principles turn to their opposite in the middle period dialogues. While bipolar epistemology and ontology of the early dialogues give place to tripartite epistemology in the middle period dialogues and tripartite ontology in Republic, the split knowledge and being of the first Socrates are inclined to be substituted by bound knowledges and bound beings in the second Socrates and specifically in Republic. Not all our system of principles in this article is necessarily determinative. Either they are rightly formulated or not, our result would not be vulnerable if we accept that 1) making the distinction of knowledge and belief, 2) accepting the being of not being and 3) trying to bind both being and knowledge by the concept of the Good happens only in middle period dialogues, having been absent in the early ones. These are the favourite results all those somehow arbitrary and even oversimplified principles were to illustrate; that there is kind of a development in the epistemological as well as the ontological grounds of Plato’s philosophy. -/- Notes . (shrink)

Objective: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia in adults. Anticoagulation significantly reduces stroke and related mortality in AF patients. This study conducted a bibliometric analysis of the top 50 most-cited articles in the literature on dabigatran, the first new-generation oral anticoagulant. -/- Methods: We searched the Web of Science for articles with dabigatran in the title. The top 50 most cited articles (T50) were selected. Characteristics of the articles (such as author, source, institution, country, scientific category, number (...) of citations, citation density, and citations per article) were analyzed. -/- Results: T50 had a total of 33,301 citations. The average number of citations per article was 666. The United States of America (USA) was the most prolific country in T50, with 36 papers and 26,043 citations. Wallentin Lars from Uppsala University was the most prolific author, with 14 articles and 13,532 citations. Circulation was the most prolific journal, with 11 articles. -/- Conclusions: We analyzed the classic publications on dabigatran, the first new-generation oral anticoagulant. The most prolific country was the USA, author was Wallentin, and journal was Circulation. Researchers and clinicians can easily access influential publications by reviewing our study. (shrink)

What is to be learned from the chaotic downfall of the Weimar Republic and the erosion of European liberal statehood in the interwar period vis-a-vis the ongoing European crisis? This book analyses and explains the recurrent emergence of crises in European societies. It asks how previous crises can inform our understanding of the present crisis. The particular perspective advanced is that these crises not only are economic and social crises, but must also be understood as crises of public power, order (...) and authority. In other words, it argues that substantial challenges to the functional and normative setup of democracy and the rule of law were central to the emergence and the unfolding of these crises. The book draws on and adds to the rich ’crises literature’ developed within the critical theory tradition to outline a conceptual framework for understanding what societal crises are. The central idea is that societal crises represent a discrepancy between the unfolding of social processes and the institutional frameworks that have been established to normatively stabilize such processes. The crises at issue emerged in periods characterized by strong social, economic and technological transformations as well as situations of political upheaval. As such, the crises represented moments where the existing functional and normative grid of society, as embodied in notions of public order and authority, were severely challenged and in many instances undermined. Seen in this perspective, the book reconstructs how crises unfolded, how they were experienced, and what kind of responses the specific crises in question provoked. -/- Table of Contents -/- Introduction: European Crises of Public Power: From Weimar until Today, Poul F. Kjaer & Niklas Olsen / Part I: Semantics, Notions and Narratives of Societal Crisis / 1. What Time Frame Makes Sense for Thinking About Crises?, David Runciman / 2. The Stakes of Crises, Janet Roitman / Part II: Weimar and the Interwar Period: Ideologies of Anti-Modernism and Liberalism / 3. The Crisis of Modernity – Modernity as Crisis: Towards a Typology of Crisis Discourses in Interwar East Central Europe and Beyond, Balázs Trencsényi / 4. European Legitimacy Crisis – Weimar and Today: Rational and Theocratic Authority in the Schmitt-Strauss Exchange, John P. McCormick / 5. Crisis and the Consumer: Reconstructions of Liberalism in Twentieth Century Political Thought , Niklas Olsen / Part III: The Causes of Crises: From Corporatism to Governance / 6. The Constitutionalization of Labour Law and the Crisis of National Democracy , Chris Thornhill / 7. The Crisis in Labour Law: From Weimar to Austerity Ruth Dukes / 8. From the Crisis of Corporatism to the Crisis of Governance, Poul F. Kjaer / Part IV: The Euro and the Crisis of Law and Democracy / 9. What is left of the European Economic Constitution II? From Pyrrhic Victory to Cannae Defeat Christian Joerges / 10. Reflections on Europe’s “Rule of Law Crisis”, Jan-Werner Müller. 11. Democracy under Siege: The Decay of Constitutionalisation and the Crisis of Public Law and Public Opinion, Hauke Brunkhorst/ Part V: The Consequences of Crises and the Future of Europe / 12. Crises and Extra-Legality: From Above and From Below, William E. Scheuermann / 13. “We could all go Down the Road of Lebanon” – Crisis Thinking on the Anti-Muslim Far Right, Mikkel Thorup / 14. Conclusions and Perspectives: The Re-Constitution of Europe, Poul F. Kjaer & Niklas Olsen Index . (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Philosophy 42.2 (2004) 219-220 [Access article in PDF] Jack Zupko. John Buridan: Portrait of a Fourteenth-Century Arts Master. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2003. Pp. xix + 446. Cloth, $70.00. Paper, $40.00. What does the name "John Buridan" call to mind? For many, including medievalists, not much at all—at best, perhaps, a set of apparently unrelated ideas: nominalism; an impetus theory of (...) projectile motion; and a peculiar account of the will (although "Buridan's ass," the indecisive donkey caught between two equally appetizing bales of hay, is not found in Buridan's writing). In correcting this ignorance—an injustice to arguably the most famous and influential philosopher of the early-to-mid-fourteenth century—the temptation might have been to articulate Buridan's "positions" on "the big questions," allowing readers to fit Buridan into received categories. Thankfully, the present work, the first book-length study of Buridan in any language, resists this temptation. The John Buridan that emerges from Jack Zupko's skillful "exercise in philosophical portraiture" doesn't serve to simply fill gaps in our awareness of the historical record, but to enlighten and challenge our understanding of the practice of philosophy and the study of its history.Zupko emphasizes throughout that Buridan was a teacher, a master of arts in Paris. Buridan's pedagogical concerns help make sense of his central work in logic. As the basis for his arts lectures, Buridan chose Peter of Spain's Summulae Logicales, but in commenting on Peter, Buridan moves beyond creative exegisis to comprehensive renovation. Buridan (c. 1300-c. 1361) naturally wanted to accommodate terminist or via moderna supposition theory; but more importantly, he wanted a logic text that would set out a general plan of philosophical inquiry, "a compendium of methods, a 'how-to' book for the philosopher" (135). Buridan thus designed his own Summulae de Dialectica as a new authoritative logic text, and Zupko persuasively argues that its "nominalism" should be understood as less a set of doctrines in theoretical logic, than a program of logical practice, an education in logic as the ars artium, the universal intellectual tool.Zupko's portrait of "Buridan's vision of the philosophical enterprise" is thus appropriately divided into two parts. The first summarizes Buridan's method as described in the individual treatises of his Summulae. The second displays the method in practice, rehearsing and evaluating some of Buridan's arguments on various subjects. Many scholars will gravitate first to the latter part, where Zupko offers important interpretations and clarifications of Buridan's views. In these chapters, Zupko helps us to appreciate, among other things: how the problem of universals served to help Buridan define the scope of philosophy (ch. 10); the philosophical modesty of Buridan's account of the intellectual soul's presence in the body (ch. 11); the relationship between Buridan's epistemology and the skepticism of his Parisian contemporary Nicholas of Autrecourt (ch. 12); the sense in which Buridan is an "empiricist," viz an epistemic naturalist and reliabilist (ch. 13); how Buridan regarded moral psychology as applied physics, treating virtue as a kind of impetus (ch. 14); how Buridan's account of freedom can be regarded as a "perfection" of Thomistic intellectualism (ch. 15).Throughout these discussions, Zupko always keeps in sight his larger purpose of illustrating Buridan's conception of philosophical inquiry. Zupko makes much of the fact that [End Page 219] Buridan never wrote as a theologian, remaining his entire career in the arts faculty, where he wanted logic to organize secular inquiry. As Zupko notes, in this way Buridan's scholastic project seems to prefigure the "modern." But Buridan seems modern in another way as well. As Zupko points out in his "Introduction," though a cleric, Buridan never joined a religious order, so that his ideas developed independently of the Franciscan and Dominican traditions. He was, then, a teacher without a tradition—at least without deliberate allegiance to tradition, although he was in many ways the product of traditional scholastic intellectual discipline.Perhaps this... (shrink)

We have a basic definition of genus in Topics (I, 5, 102a31-35): ‘A genus is what is predicated in what a thing is of a number of things exhibiting differences in kind. We should treat as predicate in what a thing is all such things as it would be appropriate to mention in reply to the question “what is the object in question?”; as, for example, in the case of man, if asked that question, it is appropriate to say “He (...) is an animal.”’ He indicates that ‘of the common predicates that which is most definitely predicated in what the thing is, is likely to be the genus.’ (To. , I, 18, ^108b22) From this definition, what is demonstrative in the definition of genus, Aristotle asserts, is ‘what is common to all the cases.’ (To., I, 18, ^108b22) This common thing is ‘one identical thing which is predicated of both and is differentiated in no merely accidental way.’ (Met., I, 1057b37) This means that the things in which the genus is common must be essentially different. In fact, this very common genus must be essentially different in the things it is their genus. Therefore, things that are identical in a genus are at the same time different in that very genus. This means that though the genus is the same in them, it is indeed different in them and they are not the same as each other in that very same genus but specifically different from each other: ‘For not only must the common nature attach to the different things, e.g. not only must both be animals, but this very animal must also be different for each (e.g. in the one case horse, in the other man), and therefore this common nature is specifically different for the two things (διὰ τοῦτο τὸ κοινὸν ἓτερον ἀλλήλων ἐστι τῷ εἴδει). One then will be in virtue of its own nature one sort of animal, and the other another, e.g. one a horse and the other a man. This difference then must be an otherness of the genus. For I give the name of ‘difference in the genus’ to an otherness which makes the genus itself other.’ A. Characteristics of genera The following are the characteristics of genera: 1. Those to which the same figure of predication applies are one in genus. (Met. , Δ, 1016b32-35) 2. Things that are one in genus are all one by analogy while things that are one by analogy are not all one in genus. (Met, Δ, 1016b35-1017a3) 3. A genus includes contraries. (Met., Δ, 1018a25-31) 4. All the intermediates are in the same genus as one another and as the things they stand between. (Met., I, 1057a18-30; 1057b31-34) 5. Not every predicate is a genus of what it is predicated on; for this would equate a genus with one of its own species. (PsA., A, 22, 83b7-10) 6. The opposite of the genus should always be the genus of the opposite. (To., Δ, 4, ^125a27-29) 7. A genus divides the object from other things. (To., Z, 3, 140a^24) 8. None of unity and being is a genus. (Met., B, 998b22-27; Met., K, 1059b31-34; PsA., B, 7, 92b12-14) 9. There is no necessity or even no possibility that things that are the same specifically or generically should be numerically the same. (To., H, I, 152b30-) 10. To be called one due to having one genus is in a way similar to be one due to having the same matter. (Met., Δ, 1016a24-28) 11. The substance of a thing involves its genus, and thereby all the higher genera are predicated of the lower. (To., Z, 5, 143a^20- ) 12. Being falls immediately into genera. (Met., Γ, 1004a4-6) 13. They do not exist apart from the individuals. (Met., B, 999a29-32; Met., I, 1053b21-22) 14. A genus is not a simple qualification but marks off the qualification of substance. (Cat., 5, 3b18-21) 15. Genera are criteria of difference when ‘the things have not their matter in common and are not generated out of each other.’ (Met., I, 1054b27-31) 16. The genus of a thing is its matter (ὓλη). (Met., I, 1058a23-25) 17. A genus is applicable to a wider range than its species. (Cat., 5, 3b21-23) 18. A genus is prior to its species in existence: while a genus reciprocates on the existence of its species, they do not reciprocate on the existence of their genus. (Cat., 13, 15a3- ) Aristotle’s example is this: if there is a fish there is an animal, but if there is an animal, there is not necessarily a fish. 19. The genus of a thing expresses ‘what it is’ and its essence. (To., I, 5, 102a31- ; To., Z, 5, 143a^20- ) 20. A genus is most familiar than its differentia and may be them all. (To., Z, 9, 149a16) 21. The genus is more substantial than its species. (Met., H, 1042a13-16) 22. One, being and substance cannot be classes. (Met., I, 1053b21-24; cf. 1054a8-11) 23. Aristotle draws a distinction between a simple and a composite concept in their falling within a genus. While a simple one can, a composite one cannot. He discusses this between ‘justice’ and ‘just man’: ‘the former falls within the genus, whereas the other does not … for nothing which does not happen to belong to the genus is essentially the genus; e.g. a white man is not essentially a color.’ (To., Γ, 1, ^116a24) 1) Genus and universal ‘Genera are universals’ (Met., Λ, 1069a26-27; Δ, 1014b9-10) and more universal than differentia and species (Met., Δ, 1014b9-12), but it is evident that not all universals are genera. (Met., A, 992b10-13) 2) Co-ordinate species The species resulting from the same division are co-ordinate species. They are the results of the same division in the same genus. Thus, none of them is prior or posterior to others but they are simultaneous by nature. (Cat., 13, 14b33-15a3) 3) Priority of genus to species Aristotle defines prior (λοιπόν) based on reciprocation as to implication of existence: ‘Τhat from which the implication of existence does not hold reciprocally is thought to be prior.’ (Cat., 12, 14a32-34) His examples are genera and species: ‘genera are always prior to species since they do not reciprocate as to implication of existence.’ (Cat., 13, 15a4-6) Τhus, if there is a fish, there is an animal, but if there is an animal, there is not necessarily a fish. 4) Generic versus non-generic attributes As the above discussions illustrates, not all attributes can be genera of their subjects. Thus, we ought to distinguish between generic and non-generic attributes of each subject. K. J. Spalding distinguishes between substantive and classificatory attributes, a distinction that, he believes, is absent from the Aristotelian logic. Classificatory attributes are those that originate and exist in class alone, and are generic like ‘human’ and ‘animal.’ These attributes do not belong to the individual as individual. For example, animal belongs to the Socrates not as Socrates but as man. Substantive attributes, on the other hand, are those that belong to Socrates as Socrates and not as a class. Attributes like sense attributes that originate independently of generic structure and ‘do not involve a necessary relation to or dependence on a class’ are substantive attributes. (shrink)

Sumário. Apresentação. PARTE I. 1. O legado filosófico de P. F. Strawson, Itamar Luís Gelain e Jaimir Conte; 2 . Strawson e o caso dos metafísicos descritivos, Itamar Luís Gelain; 3. Metafísica e linguagem comum: sobre uma conturbada herança wittgensteiniana de Strawson, Jônadas Techio; 4. Strawson e Descartes, Albertinho Luiz Gallina; 5. Strawson: sobre Kant e Berkeley, Robert Calabria; 6. O empirismo pós-kantiano de Strawson, Wenceslao J. González; 7. Reabilitando Strawson, Marco Antonio Franciotti; 8. Strawson e o ceticismo em Individuals, (...) Plínio Junqueira Smith; 9. Strawson e a causação visível, João Paulo Monteiro; 10. A verdade dos fatos, Susana Badiola; 11. Estabelecer limites: implicações epistemológicas da lógica, Roberta Corvi; 12. Referência e termos singulares, Carlos E. Caorsi; 13. Strawson: da experiência possível para a ação possível, Márlon Henrique Teixeira; 14. Atitudes reativas e responsabilidade moral, Cristina de Moraes Nunes; 15. Strawson e Hume: uma comparação a propósito de “Moralidade social e ideal individual”, Amán Rosales Rodríguez; PARTE II. 16. Liberdade e ressentimento, P. F. Strawson. Tradução: Jaimir Conte; 17. Moralidade social e ideal individual, P. F. Strawson, Tradução: Jaimir Conte. Seleção bibliográfica. (shrink)

Atas do III Colóquio Internacional de Metafísica. [ISBN 978-85-7273-730-2]. Sumário: 1. Prazer, desejo e amor-paixão no texto de Lucrécio, por Antonio Júlio Garcia Freire; 2. Anaximandro: física, metafísica e direito, por Celso Martins Azar Filho; 3. Carta a Guimarães Rosa, por Cícero Cunha Bezerra; 4. Ante ens, non ens: La primacía de La negación em El neoplatonismo medievel, por Claudia D’Amico; 5. Metafísica e neoplatonismo, por David G. Santos; 6. Movimento e tempo no pensamento de Epicuro, por Everton da Silva (...) Rocha; 7. Críticas e elogios de Nietzche a Sócrates, por Fernanda Bulhões; 8. Sobre a Metafísica ou a respeito do jejum, por Gilvan Fogel; 9. A origem estética da ontologia hermenêutica de Luigi Pareyson, por Íris Fátima da Silva; 10. A Natureza da filosofia de Hume, por Jaimir Conte; 11. Logique ET métaphysique, por Jean-Baptiste Jainet; 12. Blaise Pascal: da recusa da metafísica da raison à metafísica do « estudo do homem », por João Emiliano Fotaleza de Aquino; 13. O niilismo no prólogo de Assim Falou Zaratustra. Por José Elielton de Sousa; 14. Presencia;Ausência: de Plotino a Procolo, por José Maria Zamora; 15. A natureza do Eros platônico, por Jovelina Maria Ramos de Souza; 16. Breve comentário acerca da origem da Gelassenheit de Heidegger a partir da mística de mestre Eckkart, por Luiz Fernando Fontes-Teixeira; 17. Humanismo e domesticação em Regras para o parque humano, por Luiz Roberto Alves dos Santos; 18. Contra a teoria de dois mundos na filosofia de Platão (República V 476e-478e), por Marcelo Pimenta Marques; 19. Sensações, impressões, projeções: as afecções do pensamento, por Markus Figueira da Silva; 20. Contribuições à história de uma metáfora: Heidegger e Nicolau de Cusa, por Oscar Federico Bauchwitz; 21. Uma impossibilidade ontológica em Schopenhauer, por Paulo César Oliveira Vasconcelos; 22. Ser e fenômeno: a Fenomenologia como teoria estética da ciência, por Pedro Paulo Coroa; 23. Para que serve a Metafísica de Aristóteles? O exemplo do movimento animal, por Pierre-marie Morel; 24. Contribuições para uma ontologia digital, por Rafael Capurro; 25. O que é o fim da metafísica, por Rodrigo Ribeiro Alves Neto; 26. A Physis na conformação do logos: linguagem e pensamento no corpus epicúreo, por Rodrigo Vidal do Nascimento; 27. O acontecimento de mundo na era da informação, por Soraya Guimarães da Silva; 28. Apofaticismo e abstração em Mark Rothko, por Vanessa Alves de Lacerda Santos. -/- . (shrink)

Sumário: 1. O conceito de revolução, Amélia de Jesus Oliveira; 2. Mudanças de concepção de mundo, Artur Bezzi Günther; 3. Habilidade e causalidade: uma proposta confiabilista para casos típicos de conhecimento, Breno Ricardo Guimarães Santos; 4. El realismo interno de Putnam y sus implicaciones en la filosofía de la ciencia y para el realismo científico, Marcos Antonio da Silva; 5.O papel da observação na atividade científica segundo Peirce, Max Rogério Vicentini; 6.Fact and Value entanglement: a collapse of objective reality?, Oswaldo (...) Melo Souza Filho; 7.Realismo interno e o paradoxo de Putnam, Renato Mendes Rocha; 8.Uma informação, dois formatos, dois destinos, Cícero Antônio Cavalcante Barroso; 9.O Mentiroso e as intuições acerca da noção de verdade na perspectiva de Saul Kripke, Ederson Safra Melo; 10.A conceptual difficulty with some definitions of behavior, Filipe Lazzeri; 11.A faceta epistêmica do problema da referência, Saulo Moraes de Assis; 12.Princípios metafísicos do método newtoniano, Bruno Camilo de Oliveira; 13.A resposta aristotélica para a aporia do regresso ao infinito nas demonstrações, Daniel Lourenço; 14.O uso da doutrina da ponderação aplicado ao principialismo, Cinthia Berwanger Pereira; 15.A fenomenologia da vida interior em Hannah Arendt, Elizabete Olinda Guerra; 16.Por que achar que o direito é formado por ordens é um fracasso?, ria Alice da Silva; 17 Por que ainda há poucas mulheres na filosofia? Uma versão modificada do modelo das “vozes diferentes”, Tânia A. Kuhnen; 18.Algumas considerações sobre Substância, Forma e Matéria na Metafísica de Aristóteles, Gabriel Geller Xavier. (shrink)

The study examined constraints to accessing micro credit loan scheme of Bank of Agriculture BOA among farmers in Enugu State, Nigeria Implications for extension service delivery. Purposive and simple random sampling techniques were used in selecting one hundred 100 respondents for the study. Data were collected using structured interview schedule questionnaire and analyzed using frequency, percentage, mean scores and standard deviation. The study revealed that micro credit loan scheme 88.6 were the most patronized among the rural farmers. Others such as (...) ECOWAS, IFAD project and ATHP programme were not patronized at all, probably because the type of projects sponsored by these credit loan scheme are not important to the respondents. The respondents farmers were highly constrained by late release of funds M= 1.27 , grace period too short M= 1. 17 , excessive bureaucracy M= 1. 14 , too short payback period M= 1. 13 , services not regular M= 1. 13 , among others. The Bank of Agriculture staff also noted that they were constrained by late release of approved funds by head quarters of the Bank of Agriculture M= 1.43 , loan diversion M= 1.27 , poor funding of field officers M= 1.20 , lack of awareness by borrowers M= 1.10 and insufficient staff M= 0.93 . The study recommends that adequate awareness campaign on the availability of micro credit loan scheme by Bank of Agriculture should be created in order for the beneficiaries to be knowledgeable about it. It highlights the need for approval of more funds under the scheme and timely release of funds when needed especially during planting season in order to enable the farmers to make judicious use of it for optimum productivity. Mbah Evangeline N | Jiriko, R | Agada, M.O. "Constraints to Accessing Micro-Credit and Loan Scheme of Bank of Agriculture among Farmers in Enugu State, Nigeria: Implications for Extension Service Delivery" Published in International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (ijtsrd), ISSN: 2456-6470, Volume-1 | Issue-4 , June 2017 . (shrink)

The mythical bronze creature Talos (Greek: Τάλως) was worshiped initially as the god of light or the sun in the Hellenic Island of Crete. He is supposed to have lived in the peak Kouloukona of the Tallaia Mountains in the Gerontospelio cave. His relation towards bronze and fire and his continuous voyage circling the island of Crete most probably introduces the concept of the change of the four seasons. The sun was considered in the area of the South-East Mediterranean nations (...) as just judge, a guardian who monitors and judges from above all the actions of the commoners, a controller for the faithful application of laws in Crete [1]. Hesychios in his Lexicon notes that talos means sun and that the name Tallaios was initially attributed to Zeus [2]. The birth of the Olympian gods forged a new Pantheon and nomenclature forcing some of the old gods to fell into lower deities. This happened to Talos who soon became a mythical hero [1]. According to Apollodorus, the bronze creature was forged by the magnificent constructor Hephaestus as a gift to the mythical King Minoa to help him guard the island [3]. Although the verb “peritrohazo” (Greek: περιτροχαζω) was used, meaning a movement in a steady orbit (track), some depictions image him as a winged being. To protect the island, he was throwing rocks into unknown ships or in the case of a foreign landing he was burning with fire or with his flamed bronze body the intruders. He was holding copper plates with the laws of the island and his circle allowed him to pass all island sores three times daily [1,4-6]. Plato, speaks of him as a real person, suggesting he was the brother of King Rhadamanthys, thus a son of Zeus [5]. Talos may be considered as the token of the Cretan power, a symbol of technological development in the field of metalworking in prehistoric and Minoan times. An animated, programmed gigantic android to enforce its will. A primitive robot for basic actions having a power source, fire and ichor (Greek: ιχώρ) the sacred fluid in the vessels of the gods. The first manufactured being with his individual intelligence, a primary concept of artificial intelligence (AI) [7]. -/- Homer was the first to introduce the term automata (Greek: αυτόματα), to describe ingenious machines built by the supreme blacksmith god of invention and technology, God of metal and fire, Hephaestus, manufactured devices “acting of one’s own will” as the Hellenic word indicates [8]. Eons later, the humanoid automaton the “Automa cavaliere” (English: Automaton knight) appeared in the court of the nobleman and Duke of Milan Ludovico Maria Sforza. It was the year 1495, when Leonardo da Vinci presented his robotic knight, an innovative construction operated by a series of pulleys and cables, presenting though no individual mind. Although it was manufactured by a highly intelligent polymath, it could only be operated through an outer intelligence [9]. Advancements made during the Fourth Industrial Revolution allowed modern technology to manufacture intelligent machines to aid the field of invasive surgery. One of those most sophisticated devises is the da Vince Surgical Tower. -/- Launched in the setting of the 21st century, the DaVinci System is one of the most commonly employed tools/systems, which has prevailed in the field of robotic-assisted surgery [10]. One could claim that it practically reshaped the concept of surgery, providing doctors with immense capabilities, aiming towards the optimal post-operative outcome. Through visual augmentation, high resolution 3D video, enhanced precision and reduced complication rates [11] the DaVinci Si and the latest DaVinci Xi system have been implemented in a variety of surgeries, including but not limited to general, urologic, gynecologic, thoracic and even cardiac procedures; valve and coronary artery bypass graft operations [12,13]. Da Vinci is cleared globally for cardiosurgery and came in vogue to fulfill the dream of cardiac surgeons to operate in closet chest. It offers in patients the same benefits as those that open chest incision surgery procedures do [14]. -/- The more recent DaVinci Xi model was introduced to counteract commonly known drawbacks of the Si system, such as the inability to simultaneously manipulate the different abdominal quadrants [10]. It consists of four boom mounted robotic arms along with a mobile platform and a master console. The latter with the adaptable intraocular distance, the cushioned headrest, the modifiable arm bars and the flexible finger loops, is meticulously designed to meet the surgeon´s “demands” [12]. Every robotic arm has three degrees of freedom, which combined with the EndoWrist technology to imitate the delicate motion of the surgeon´s hand, acquires an extra seven degrees of freedom. Evidently, the combination of the user-friendly interface, the high-quality 3D intraoperative images, the multiple joints and sensors, as well as the surgeon himself, who can learn to handle the DaVinci Xi Surgical System in a relatively short period of time, has established the model in the surgical armamentarium, paving the way towards a continuously progressive future of minimally invasive and robotic surgery (Figure 1) [12]. -/- History testifies that the nomination of the AI surgical tower as da Vinci was wrongfully given to commemorate a majestic historical figure. It is clear that the mythical creature Talos which was fabricated by the ingenious god Hephaestus was the first true automaton in the line of AI origins. (shrink)

Mental causation, idea that it is us – via our minds – who cause bodily actions is as commonsensical as it is indispensable for our understanding of ourselves as rational agents. Somewhat less uncontroversial, but nonetheless widespread (at least among ordinary people) is the idea that the mind is non-physical, following the intuition that what is physical can neither act nor think nor judge morally. Taken together, and cast into a metaphysical thesis, the two intuitions yield interactive dualism: the view (...) that human persons and their minds are non-physical but can nonetheless interact with their bodies, most notably through their brains. This thesis has two main objectives: first, to defend interactive dualism against objections, and second, to show how it can blend in with a physical world in which laws of nature hold. The first part (chapter 1) consists in a brief motivation of interactive dualism as opposed to non-interactive dualism. I argue that non-interactive, epiphenomenalist dualism sacrifices so many crucial aspects of our human existence that interactive dualism is highly to be preferred to it, barring even stronger counterarguments against the latter. It is those putative counterarguments I address in parts II and III. Part II takes on the philosophical objections from the causal closure of the physical and from causal heterogeneity. The former takes the success of physics and physiology as basis for the doctrine of the causal closure of the physical (CCP). I argue against this that there is not only no convincing argument for CCP, but also that any science-based belief in CCP cannot be epistemically justified. As regards the causal heterogeneity objection, it is ‘weighed and found wanting’, because it relies on unwarranted assumptions about causation. In part III, I examine the objection from energy conservation. It roughly says that if interactive dualism were true, then energy would not be conserved, which physics taught us cannot be the case. My reply is that the underlying conception of energy (and momentum) conservation is wrong-headed and not the one that actual physicists use. Instead of being categorical and global, conservation laws are conditional and local, thereby making natural room for mental interaction. Some dualists, however, have sought to make interactive dualism conservation-friendly, notably by invoking quantum physics; I show that these attempts are unnecessary and create more problems than they solve. Finally, in chapter 9, I turn the tables on non-interactionists by investigating current neurophysiological literature on volitional actions, which, though not addressing the question directly, still encourages the interactive dualist picture more than a non-interactionist one. Part IV is about the interplay between interactive dualism and the laws of nature. The ultimate goal is, if possible, to come up with a theory of the laws of nature that explains the lawlike behavior of nature and at the same time makes room for interaction. I begin by pointing out that the laws of nature are or at least should be what physicalists worry about (chapter 10). I then proceed with a historical survey on the development of the notion of laws of nature (chapter 11) that sheds light on its theistic origin. This is followed by an inquiry into the question how a law of nature could possibly be broken (chapter 12) and a survey of the extant metaphysical theories of the laws of nature with special regard to their receptivity to interaction (chapter 13). Finally, in chapter 14 I develop a theory of the laws of nature both faithful to their divine origin and the possibility of mental interaction: dispositionalist divine decretalism, a synthesis of dispositionalism and Jeffrey Koperski’s divine decretalism. (shrink)

1. Hume e a Magna Carta: em torno do círculo da justiça, Maria Isabel Limongi; 2. Hume e o problema da justificação da resistência ao governo, Stephanie Hamdan Zahreddine; 3 O surgimento dos costumes da sociedade comercial e as paixões do trabalho, Pedro Vianna da Costa e Faria; 4. O sentido da crença: suas funções epistêmicas e implicações para a teoria política de Hume, Lilian Piraine Laranja; 5. O Status do Fideísmo na Crítica de Hume à Religião Natural, Marília Côrtes (...) de Ferraz; 6. Da imaterialidade da alma: a desconstrução mais incisiva de Hume de um pressuposto metafísico, Marcos César Seneda; 7. A “irresistibilidade” e a “inevitabilidade” das crenças naturais e o caráter normativo da epistemologia de Hume, Claudiney José de Sousa; 8. Filosofia e vida comum na epistemologia de Hume, Marcos Fonseca Ribeiro Balieiro; 9. Hume e o relativismo moral, Flávio Zimmermann; 10. Hume e a vivacidade das crenças morais, André Luiz Olivier da Silva; 11. Virtudes sociais e refinamento na filosofia moral de David Hume, Andreh Sabino Ribeiro; 12. O movimento razão-crença na interpretação da teoria da motivação de Hume, Franco Nero Antunes Soares; 13. Sentimentos e Normatividade em David Hume segundo Annette Baier, Giovani Lunardi; 14. Simpatia e aprovação moral da justiça na filosofia de David Hume, Denize Carolina da Cunha & Nivaldo Machado; 15. Do eu como feixe de percepções ao eu das paixões: Hume e a identidade pessoal no Tratado, Susie Kovalczyk dos Santos; 16. Imaginação em Hobbes e Hume: cadeias mentais reguladas e princípios de associação, Andrea Cachel; 17. Hume e o princípio fundamental da filosofia moderna, Rafael Bittencourt Santos; 18. A conexão necessária entre Hume e Malebranche, Bruna Frascolla; 19. Realismo ontológico e antirrealismo epistemológico na problemática sobre o mundo externo em Hume, Leandro Hollanda; 20. Uma possível inversão kantiana da tese humeana da inércia da razão, Carlos Eduardo Moreno Pires; Nota sobre João Paulo Monteiro, Rolf Nelson Kuntz. (shrink)

Aristotle classifies opposition (ἀντικεῖσθαι) into four groups: relatives (τὰ πρός τι), contraries (τὰ ἐναντία), privation and possession (στρέσις καὶ ἓξις) and affirmation and negation (κατάφασις καὶ ἀπόφασις). (Cat. , 10, 11b15-23) His example of relatives are the double and the half. Aristotle’s description of relatives as a kind of opposition is as such: ‘Things opposed as relatives are called just what they are, of their opposites (αὐτὰ ἃπερ ἐστι τῶν ἀντικειμένων λέγεται) or in some other way in relation to them. (...) For example, the double is called just what it is double of the other (οἷον τὸ διπλάσιον, αὐτὸ ὃπερ ἐστίν, ἑτέρου διπλάσιον λέγεται). Again, knowledge and the knowable are opposed as relatives, and knowledge is called just what it is, of the knowable, and the knowable too is called just what it is, in relation to its opposite, knowledge; for the knowable is called knowable by something-by knowledge.’ (Cat., 10, 11b24-30) 2) Senses of relatives In Met., Δ, 1020b26-32 Aristotle distinguishes three senses of relatives: i) That which contains something else many times to that which is contained many times in something else, and that which exceeds to that which is exceeded. E.g. double to half ii) The active to the passive; e.g. that which can heat to that which can be heated iii) The measurable to the measure, e.g. the knowable to knowledge and the perceptible to perception. 3) Relatives and contraries Aristotle’s discussion of relatives is unbelievably ambiguous. While he enumerates relatives besides contraries, privation-possession and affirmation-negation as four types of opposition (Cat., 10, 11b15-23), not only does not he restrict relatives to oppositions but he also does not totally differentiate it from contraries. Aristotle distinguishes between two senses of relatives one of which is contraries: ‘We have distinguished elsewhere the two senses in which relatives are so called-some as contraries (ὡς ἐναντία), others as knowledge to things known, a term being called relative because what is said one to the other is said by the other to itself (τῷ λέγεσθαί τι ἄλλο πρὸς αὐτό). (Met., I, 1056b34-1057a1) It seems that this differentiation is the same as, and maybe the one he himself refers to, the differentiation between the second and the third senses of relatives in Met., Δ, 1021a27-32: ‘Relative terms which imply number or capacity, therefore, are all relative because their very essence includes in its nature a reference to something else, not because something else is related to it (πρός τι πὰντα ἐστὶ πρός τι τῷ ὃπερ ἐστὶν ἄλλου λέγεσθαι αὐτὸ ὃ ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ μὴ τῷ ἄλλο πρὸς ἐκεινο); but that which is measurable or knowable or thinkable is called relative because something else is related to it. For the thinkable implies that there is thought of it, but the thought is not relative to that of which it is the thought; for we should then have said the same thing twice.’ Although Aristotle confirms contrariety in relatives (e.g. virtue to vice and knowledge to ignorance), he denies that there is a contrary ‘to every relative’ as there can be no contrary to what is double or treble. (Cat., 7, 6b15-19) The fact that Aristotle dedicates one sense of relatives to contraries means that the fourfold division of oppositions is not such a strict division without any kind of community between them. In his example of the first sense, however, Aristotle says: ‘One and number are in a sense opposed, not as contrary, but as we have said some relative terms are opposed; for inasmuch as one is measure and the other measurable, they are opposed.’ (Met., I, 1057a4-6) Now, the question is: Is Aristotle’s first sense of relative a contrary or not? Aristotle tells us that the opposition in this sense of relatives is the opposition of measure and measurable. The second sense has two differences with the first one: i) it is not a contrary and ii) what is said by one of the relatives to the other is also said by the latter to the former. To differentiate it from the first sense, when the one is the measure of the other, the latter will be the measure of the former as well: ‘But though knowledge is similarly spoken of as related to the knowable, the relation does not work out similarly for while knowledge might be thought to be the measure, and the knowable the thing measured, the fact is that all knowledge is knowable, but not all that is knowable is knowledge, because in a sense knowledge is measured by the knowable.’ (Met., I, 1057a7-12) Aristotle’s assertion at Met., I, 1057a36-37 that ‘of relative terms, those which are not contrary have no intermediate’ ensures us that we must take the first sense as contraries. Here he mentions a criterion of differentiation between two senses: while the first sense accepts intermediates (as, for example, great and small do), the second one does not. (Met., I, 1057a37-b1) It seems, however, that it is only the second sense that is the essential sense of relatives because the first sense, Aristotle says, is an accidental sense: ‘The one is opposed then to the many in numbers as measure to things measureable; and these are opposed as relatives which are not from their very nature relatives.’ (Met., I, 1056b32-34) 4) Definition of relative Aristotle’s first definition of the category of relative (πρός τι) is as such: ‘We call relative all such things as are said to be just what they are, of or than other things, or in some other way in relation to something else (Πρός τι δὲ τὰ τοιαῦτα λέγεται, ὃσα αὐτὰ ἃπερ ἐστὶν ἓτερων εἶναι λέγεται, ἢ ὁπωσοῦν ἄλλως πρὸς ἓτερον). (Cat., 7, 6a36-37; repeated almost without any change in: Cat., 7, 6b6-8) Aristotle’s examples are larger (because it is what it is than something else (τοῦθ᾿ ὃπερ ἐστὶν ἑτέρου λέγεται) that means it is called larger than something) and double. (Cat., 7, 6a37-b1) Aristotle’s aporia regarding relative is about their relation with substances: whether no substance is spoken of as a relative, or whether this is possible with regard to some secondary substances. (Cat., 7, 8a13-15) In the case of primary substances, it seems that he is confident, at least at first, that neither themselves nor their parts are spoken of in relation to anything: neither an individual man is called someone’s individual man nor an individual hand is called someone’s individual hand (but someone’s hand). (Cat., 7, 8a15-21) Although it is obvious that most of secondary substances are not spoken of as relatives (a man is not called someone’s man) (Cat., 7, 8a21-25), there are some with them there is room for dispute: a head is someone’s head and a hand is called someone’s hand, which seem to be relatives. (Cat., 7, 8a25-28) Aristotle thinks this must be due to the previous definition’s being problematic: with that definition ‘it is either exceedingly difficult or impossible to reach the solution that no substance is spoken of as a relative.’ (Cat., 7, 8a28-32) Thus, Aristotle changes his previous definition to a new one: ‘Those things are relatives for which being is the same as being somehow related to something’ (ἔστι τὰ πρός τι οἷς τὸ εἶναι ταὐτόν ἐστι τῷ πρός τί). (Cat., 7, 8a32-34) Although the first definition does indeed apply to all relations, its problem is that it does not take ‘their own being relative’ (τῷ πρός τι αὐτοῖς εἶναι) the same as ‘their being what they are of other things’ (ἃπερ ἐστὶν ἑτέρων λέγεσθαι). (Cat., 7, 8a34-37) Although this change of definition is to exclude all substances from being relative, what Aristotle says in Topics (To., Z, 8, 146a39- ), seems to ignore this: ‘For of everything relative the substance is relative to something else, seeing that the being of every relative term is identical with being in a certain relation to something.’ 5) Necessary knowledge of the related Knowledge of that in relation to which a relative is spoken of is necessary when one knows the relative: it is impossible to know a relative and at the same time not to know that in relation to which it is spoken of. (Cat., 7, 8a37-b3) To prove this, Aristotle adheres to the definition of relatives: ‘If someone knows of a certain ‘this’ that it is a relative, and being for relatives is the same as being somehow related to something, he knows that also to which this is somehow related.’ (Cat., 7, 8a37-b3; cf. 7, 8b3-15 for Aristotle’s examples) This necessary knowledge of the related, if we call it so, dedicates Aristotle an epistemological reason, besides the ontological one mentioned in his definition, for the exclusion of substances. As we noted in our discussion of Aristotle’s definition of relatives, he changed his first definition to exclude all substances from being relatives. Therefore, it is evident that for him relatives must not include substances, either primary or secondary. Aristotle does have no problem with primary substances simply because it is evident for him that they cannot be relatives. The same can be said about most of the secondary substances as well. The problem for which he changed the definition of substances was about some secondary substances like ‘head’ or ‘hand’: the fact that it is possible to know a hand or head without necessarily knowing definitely that in relation to which it is spoken of proves that they are not relatives. (Cat., 7, 8b15-21) 6) Reciprocation Aristotle regards reciprocation (ἀντιστρέφειν) necessary in all relations: ‘All relatives are spoken of in relation to correlatives that reciprocate.’ (Cat., 7, 6b28-29; cf. Cat., 10, 12b21-24) The sense of reciprocation is clear by his own examples: ‘The slave is called slave of a master and the master is called master of a slave; the double double of a half, and the half half of a double.’ (Cat., 7, 6b29-31) Reciprocation of relatives is so necessary that if there seems that we do not have reciprocation, it must necessarily be due to a mistake and that in relation to which something is spoken of must have not been given properly. (Cat., 7, 6b36-7a1) Aristotle’s example is this: If a wing is given as of a bird, ‘bird of a wing’ does not reciprocate because it has not been given properly: a wing is of a winged and not of a bird; a wing is wing of a winged and a winged is winged with a wing. (Cat., 7, 7a1-5) Even if we do not have a proper name to have a proper reciprocation, Aristotle points, we must invent names. (Cat., 7, 7a5-15 and 7b10-14) Thus, having proper names is the condition of necessary reciprocation: ‘All relatives are spoken of in relation to correlatives that reciprocate, provided they are properly given.’ (Cat., 7, 7a22-23) This condition is also said in another way: there is no reciprocation if a relation is given as related to some chance thing or to something that is accidentally the related thing like when, for example, a slave is given as of a man or a biped instead of being given as of a master. (Cat., 7, 7a25-31) 7) Simultaneity of relatives Aristotle believes that in most cases relatives are simultaneous: double and half or master and slave must exist at the same time: when there is a half, there is a double and when there is a slave, there is a master. (Cat., 7, 7b10-14) However, this receives some exceptions like knowable, which is prior and can, thus, exist before and without knowledge. (Cat., 7, 7b22-27) What approves this non-simultaneousness for Aristotle is that the destruction of knowledge does not carry the knowable to destruction. (Cat., 7, 7b27-31) The same is said about perception and perceptible. (Cat., 7, 7b35-8a9) Aristotle attaches simultaneity to reciprocation. This reciprocation, however, is not a simple reciprocation but ‘reciprocation as to implication of existence’ (ἀντιστρέφει μὲν κατὰ τὴν τοῦ εἶναι) with the condition that neither be in any way the cause of the other’s existence. (Cat., 13, 14b27-29; the same is said also at: Cat., 13, 15a4-11) Aristotle’s examples are the double and the half because when there is a double there is a half and when there is a half there is a double but neither is the cause of the other’s existence. (Cat., 13, 14b29-32) (We have ‘reciprocation as to implication of existence’ also in relation between genus and species but it seems that this has a totally different sense there. 8) Having no independent reality That a relative cannot be a substance, either a primary or a secondary substance, is discussed in our review of both the definition of relatives and their reciprocation. The differentiation of relatives and substances are so deep for Aristotle that after questioning the possibility of any common element or principle for substances and relatives (Met., Λ, 1070a33-36), he asserts that no substance, on the one hand, is the element of relatives and none of the relatives, on the other hand, is the element of substances. (Met., Λ, 1070b3-4) Aristotle does not, however, suffice to this. For him, relatives have the least substantiality, which is, for him, almost the same as reality: ‘The relative is least of all categories a real thing (φύσις τις) or substance, and less than quality and quantity; and the relative is an affection of quantity.’ (Met., M, 1088a22-25) Aristotle believes that an evidence of this least reality (ὄν) and substantiality is that relatives have no proper generation, destruction or movement while each of substance, quality and quantity have them. (Met., M, 1088a29-35) Moreover, neither motion (Phy., E, 1) nor any kind of change is applicable to relatives so that relatives are neither themselves alterations nor the subject of alterations (Phy., Z, 3) and the process of losing and acquiring states cannot be considered as alterations because these are the result of the alterations of non-relative things of which they are states. (Phy., Z, 3) Relative is not even matter but is something different. (Met., M, 1088a24-25) The reason is that the matter is potentially of a nature but relative is neither potentially nor actually of a nature. (Met., M, 1088b1-2) To understand the status of relatives in Aristotle’s world, we have to make a tripartite classification; a classification that though Aristotle himself did not make, his assertions approve it. Based on this division, there are three kinds of being in the world: i) Independent beings: This class includes only substances. ii) Dependent beings: This class includes qualities and quantities. Although they are real, they are ‘in’ substances and cannot exist without them. iii) Super dependent beings: This class includes at least relatives. The fact that relatives must be considered in a third class different from substances, on the one hand, and qualities and quantities, on the other hand, is obvious not only from the previously mentioned texts (Met., M, 1088a22-25, 29-35 and b1-2) in which relatives’ reality is considered less than all substances, qualities and quantities and different from matters but from this text: ‘For there is nothing either great or small, many or few, or, in general, relative which is not something (τι ὄν) different (ἓτερον) [that is also] many or few or great or small’. (Met, N, 1088a27-30) Therefore, super dependent beings are those beings that must necessarily be also something else, i.e. an independent or dependent being. Ackrill (1963, 99) points that some of the words used by Aristotle to exemplify relational entities, e.g. slave, are endowed with a complete sense and do not need to be supplemented by a correlate. (Thus, the linguist criterion of incompleteness would be deficient. Some other instances of relative entities like ‘state,’ ‘knowledge’ and perception are not necessarily followed by the genitive case. 9) Extent of relatives What is the extent of relatives? What are or are not included in relatives either among categories or among other concepts? Which concepts or things Aristotle regard as relative? i) Aristotle includes state (ἓξις) and position (θέσις) among relatives. (Cat., 7, 6b2-6; Cat., 7, 6b11-14; Cat., 8, 11a20-24) ii) Although relative is not matter but is something different (Met., M, 1088a24-25), matter is ‘non-being’ only in virtue of an attribute (Phy., A, 9) and is, thus, a relative term. (Phy., B, 2, 194b9) 10) Property and relativity Aristotle draws a contrast between two types of giving a property, absolute and relative: ‘A property is given either in its own right and for always or relative to something else and for a time.’ (To., E, 1, ^128b15-18) Being a civilized man, for example, is an absolute property for man while to command is a relative property for the soul. The absolute property, however, is considered not only potential to be discussed or observed in relation to many things or periods of time, it in fact ‘belongs to its subject relatively to every single thing that there is, so that if the subject is not distinguished relatively to everything else, the property will not have been given correctly.’ (To., E, 1, 129a18-20) Therefore, an absolute property is a property that ‘is ascribed to a thing in comparison with everything else and distinguishes it from everything else.’ (To., E, 1, 128b33- ) An absolute property is, then, absolutely relative and not conditionally relative, i.e. relative to a specific thing. This is what differentiates it from a relative property, which is relative to a certain thing: ‘A property relative to something else is one which separates its subject off not from everything else but from a particular definite thing.’ (To., E, 1, 128b33- ) One important difference between absolute and relative properties is that while an accident can be a relative property, it can never be an absolute property. (To., I, 5, ^102b20-36) For example, sitting, which is an accident, is also a property relatively to those who are not sitting. (To., I, 5, ^102b20-36) 11) Platonic theories as relatives At least three of Platonic theories Aristotle attaches to relatives: i) Forms ‘It seems that a Form is always spoken of in relation to a Form-this desire itself is for the pleasure itself, and wishing itself is for the good itself.’ (To., Z, 8, 147a^10) Moreover, the theory of Forms takes the relative prior to the absolute as, for example, it takes not the dyad but the number as first. (Met., A, 990b15-17) Aristotle believes that this is against not only the necessities of the case but only the Platonists’ opinion because Forms must be substances only, if they can be shared. (Met., A, 990b27-29) There are, however, things like ‘equal’ which are only relative: they are only in relation to something else. Now the theory that ideas are supposed to be substances only should entail the substantiality of merely relatives. The reason being that Forms are not shared incidentally but each thing shares in that which is not predicated of a subject. (Met., A, 990b29-31) ii) Unequal The Platonic theory of great and small or unequal, which we know more from Aristotle and has, in Platonic philosophy, a role like that of matter in Aristotelian philosophy, is also called relative by Aristole. (Met., M, 1089b4-15) iii) Potentiality Aristotle says that Platonists take what potentially is a ‘this’ and a substance but not actually so a relative because it is ‘neither potentially the one or being, nor the contradictory of the one nor of being, but one among beings.’ (Met., N, 1089b15-20) 12) All things as relative Aristotle attaches the theory that ‘everything is true’ to relativity and thinks the consequence of believing in this theory is that everything is true: ‘He who says all things that appear are true, makes all things relative.’ (Met., Γ, 1011a17-20) 13) Genera and species of relatives There are some genera, Aristotle hints, that are relative but their species are not relative. In such cases, the genera are spoken of in relation to something, but none of the particular cases are so spoken. (Cat., 8, 11a20-36) Aristole’s examples are knowledge and grammar of which the former is a relative but the latter is a quality. The consequence of this is that there is nothing absurd for a thing to be in both genera of relative and quality. (Cat., 8, 11a37- ) However, when the species is a relative, the genera will be a relative too. (To., Δ, 4, 124b15- ) Moreover, Aristotle asserts that ‘the differentiae of relative terms are themselves relative.’ (To., Z, 6, 145a14-16) Things that are called relative are called so, Aristotle says, ‘because the classes that include them are of this sort, e.g. medicine is thought to be relative bcs its genus, knowledge, is thought to be relative,’ (Met., Δ, 1021b4-6) 14) Relatives as indefinite? Fabio Morales takes 1088a29-b1 as a textual evidence supporting the assumption that Aristotle regarded relational terms as indefinite. (shrink)

A. Accident 1. We call an accident (συμβεβηκὸς) that which attaches to something and can be truly asserted, but neither of necessity nor usually.’ (Met. , Δ, 1025a14-16) 2. Whenever an accident attaches to a subject, it attaches to it not because it is that subject (μὴ διότι τοδὶ ἧν). (Met., Δ, 1025a21-24) 3. ‘There is no definite cause for an accident, but a chance cause, i.e. an indefinite one.’ (Met., Δ, 1025a24-25) 4. ‘The accident has happened or exists, -not (...) in virtue of itself, however, but of something else. (Met., Δ, 1025a28-29) 5. ‘What attaches to each thing in virtue of itself but is not in its substance is an accident.’ (Met., Δ, 1025a30-32) 6. ‘An accident is something which, though it is … neither a definition nor a property nor a genus, yet belongs to the thing.’ (To., I, 5, 102b4-) 7. An accident is ‘something which may either belong or not belong to any one and the self-same thing, as (e.g.) being seated may belong or not belong to some self-same thing.’ (To., I, 5, 102b4-) 8. ‘There is nothing to prevent an accident from becoming a temporary or relative property … [and] there is nothing to prevent an accident from becoming both a relative and a temporary property; but a property absolutely it will never be.’ Aristotle’s example is ‘being seated.’ That it is a temporary property is evident. It is also a relative property to those who are not seating when he is the only person sitting. Therefore, it is a temporary and also a relative property. 9. ‘In the case of accidents and in no other it is possible for something to be true in a certain respect and not universally’ and ‘there is nothing to prevent an attribute belonging in part’ so that it is open to dispute accidents e.g. being white or just about a man because he might be white or just in part only. Thus, ‘conversion is not a necessary process in the case of accidents.’ (To., B, 1, 109a9-) B. Essential versus accidental Aristotle distinguishes between two senses of being (τὸ ὄν): accidental sense (κατὰ συμβεβηκός) and essential sense (καθ᾿ αὑτό). The accidental sense happens when something is said to be another thing while there is in fact a third thing which is both of them. Thus, being the first thing is not by itself the second thing. a) Aristotle speaks of three ways in which one thing is said in an accidental sense to be another. (Met., Δ, 1017a8-22) i) When both the subject and the predicate are accidents of a third thing and it is in fact the third thing which ‘is’ by its own. Thus, when it is said e.g. that ‘The just is musical’ it is said accidentally because it is in fact a third thing, Socrates for example, which is just and musical. (Met., Δ, 1017a13-19) ii) When that to which the attribute belongs is. The example of this must be ‘the man is musical’ because it is in fact the man which is. iii) When the subject which has as an attribute that of which it is itself predicated, itself is. The example of this must be Aristotle’s third example: ‘The musical is man.’ b) Aristotle rejects the essential sense to categories: ‘Those things are said in their own right to be that are indicated by the figures of predication; for the senses of ‘being’ are just as many as these figures.’ (Met., Δ, 1017a22-24) Aristotle does not give us any example of the essential sense. Daniel W. Graham suggests that while essential predication is of the logical form of ‘S is P,’ the logical form of the accidental predication is ‘S has P.’ Although he concedes that the is/has contrast is not Aristotle’s, for which he thinks Aristotle prefers ‘said of’/’in’ terminology, he points to the discussion of ‘have’ in Cat. 15 as an evidence of its potential value for an analysis of predication. Kirwan analyses the distinction of essential and accidental predicate as such: while essential predicates ‘are identical with the subjects of which they are predicated; other predications are true in virtue of the fact that two distinct items, e.g. a substance and a quality, ‘coincide.’ Herman Weidemann believes ‘what divides a predicative statement which predicates essentially from a predicative statement which predicates accidentally is the fact that the former does- whereas the latter does not- answer the question what its subject cannot fail to be without ceasing to exist, as the somewhat its subject goes on existing, no matter what happens to be true of it during its existence, or, what kind of things its subject must be in order to be identifiable as one and the same object as long as it exists.’ C. Essential 1. Either the formula or the name of the subject of an essential attribute is involved in it. For example, animal is involved in female but not in white. (Met., Z, 1030b23-26) 2. Essential attributes, combined together, form a unity. Thus, e.g. animal and biped form a unity because they are both essential of man. (OI., II, 11, 21a14-16) 3. Aristotle distinguishes between two kinds of essential attributes (PsA., A, 4, 73a34-b3; 22, 84a12-17): a) Those attributes that belong to their subject as elements in its essential nature as e.g. line belongs to triangle or point to line. Here the very being of triangle is composed of line or that of line is composed of points: line is contained in the formula of triangle and point in that of line. b) Those attributes whose subjects are contained in their own defining formula as e.g. straight is an essential attribute of line because line is part of the defining formula of straight or odd belongs to number because number is part of the defining formula of odd. Every attribute that is related in neither of these two ways to its subject, it is not an essential but an accidental attribute. (PsA., A, 4, 73b3-5) 4. That attribute which is not predicated of a subject other than itself is an essential attribute. A substance cannot be predicated of anything but itself and is, thus, essential. (PsA., A, 4, 73b5-10) 5. A thing consequently co-stated with anything is essential. For example, if a beast dies when its throat is being cut, its death is also essentially connected with the cutting because the cutting was the cause of death, not death a coincidence of cutting. (PsA., A, 4, 73b10-15) 6. Essential attributes in both of this sense, either in the sense that their subjects are contained in them or in the sense that they are contained in their subjects, are necessary as well as consequently co-stated with their subjects. The reason is that it is impossible for them to inhere in their subjects either simply or in the qualified sense (that one or other of a pair of opposites must inhere in the subject as e.g. one of straight or curve must be necessarily predicable of a line or one of odd or even of number). (PsA., A, 4, 73b16-21; 6, 74b5-12; B, 96b1-5) 7. Only those attributes that are within a genus are essential and possessed by their respective subjects as such and, thus, are necessary. Thereupon, both the conclusion and the premises of demonstrations which produce scientific knowledge are essential. (PsA., A, 6, 75a28-31) Therefore, ‘the extreme and the middle terms must be drawn from the same genus; otherwise, as predicated, they will not be essential and will thus be accidents.’ (PsA., A, 6, 75b10-12) Also, the theorems of a science can be demonstrated by means of another science only when they are related as subordinate to superior. (PsA., A, 6, 75b13-) 8. Our knowledge of the connexion of an attribute with a subject is essential only when ‘we know that connexion through the middle term in virtue of which it inheres (καθ᾿ὃ ὑπἀρχει), and as an inference from basic premises essential and ‘appropriate’ to the subject.’ The essential belonging of the middle to the minor has a necessary connexion with its belonging to the same genus of the major and minor: ‘If that middle term also belongs essentially to the minor, the middle must belong to the same genus as the major and minor terms (ἀνάγκη τὸ μέσον ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ συγγενείᾳ εἶναι). (PsA., A, 9, 76a4-9) 9. In an essential predication, the predicate is signified of a subject identical with itself or with a species of itself. Since only predicates which signify substance signify that the subject is identical with the predicate or with a species of the predicate, predicates signifying substance are essentially predicated and any other predicate is accidental or coincidental. Thus, while animal is essentially predicated of man because man is identical with a species of animal, white is accidentally predicated of man because man is neither identical with white nor a species of it. (PsA., A, 22, 83a24-32) Weidemann discusses the confusion between essential predications and statements of identity. He warns that the expression ‘(to be) just what a man is’ (analogous to the Greek phrase ‘(εἶναι) ὃπερ ἀνθρώπον) ought not to be confused with the expression ‘just what it is for a man to be,’ which renders the phrase τὸ ὃπερ ἀνθρώπῳ εἶναι’ (1007a22, 23, 27-28); a confusion Kirwan discusses. 10. ‘Demonstration proves the inherence of essential attributes in things.’ (PsA., A, 22, 84a11-12) 11. ‘Nothing which does not happen to belong to the genus is essentially the genus; e.g. a white man is not essentially a color.’ Thus, while justice falls within the genus, a just man does not. (To., Γ, 1, ^116a24-) 12. There is no syllogism of essence (ti esti). Nevertheless, we come to know ti esti through a demonstration. (93b15-20; cf. 93b25-28) D. Accidental 1. An accidental attribute cannot be predicated of a subject universally. Thus, we cannot say ‘Every man is musical.’ The reason is that ‘universal attributes belong to things in virtue of their nature.’ Therefore, accidental predicates are predicated only of the individuals. (Met., Δ, 1017b33-1018a2) 2. An accidental is a mere name. (Met., E, 1026b13-) 3. An accidental is obviously akin to non-being. (Met., E, 1026b21) 4. ‘That which is neither always nor for the most part we call accidental.’ (Met., E, 1026b27-33) 5. The matter (ὕλη) is the cause of the accidental because it is matter which is capable of being otherwise than as it for the most part is. (Met., E, 1027a13-16) In fact, there is cause or principle of the incidental of the same kind as there are of the essential because if there were, everything would be of necessity. (Met., K, 1065a6-8) The causes of accidental are unordered and indefinite. (Met., K, 1065a25-26) 6. Since all science is either of that which is always or of that which is for the most part, there is no science of the accidental. (Met., E, 1027a19-24; K, 1064b30-1065a6) Therefore, since an accident may also not inhere and, thus, it is impossible to prove its inherence as a necessary conclusion, there is no demonstrative knowledge of accidents. (PsA., A, 6, 75a18-23) 7. The accidental is not necessary but indeterminate. (Met., K, 1065a24-26) 8. The co-positing of a subject and a predicate which are accidental either to the same subject or to one another, whiteness and being musical for instance, does not form a unity. (OI, II, 11, 21a7-14) 9. Negative predicates, i.e. predicates including a ‘not,’ are accidental predicates. Thus, if good be an essential predicate of a subject, ‘not bad’ cannot be essential but is accidental. (OI., II, 14, 23b15-20) 10. Every attribute which does not belong to its subject in either of two senses of essential attribute (cf. PsA., A, 4, 73a34-b3), namely, belonging to their subjects as an element of its formula or their subjects belonging to them as an element of them, is an accidental attribute. (PsA., A, 4, 73b3-5) 11. Those attributes that are predicated of a subject other than themselves are accidental attributes. Thus, everything except substance is an accidental in this sense. (PsA., A, 4, 73b5-10) 12. A thing not consequentially connected with anything is accidental. For example, in ‘while he was walking it lightened,’ the lightening was not due to his walking but was a coincidence. (PsA., A, 4, 73b10-15) 13. Those attributes that are not within a genus are accidental attributes. (PsA., A, 6, 75a28-31) Therefore, the extreme and middle terms that are not drawn from the same genus are accidents. (PsA., A, 6, 75b10-12) Moreover, to apply an attribute to subjects in different genera afford knowledge of the attribute, only as inhering accidentally, not as belonging to its subject as such.’ (PsA., A, 9, 75b38-76a3) . (shrink)

There are four ways in which things are said to oppose (ἀντικεῖσθαι) each other: as relatives (τὰ πρός τι), as contraries (τὰ ἐναντία), as privation and possession (στρέσις καὶ ἓξις) and as affirmation and negation (κατάφασις καὶ ἀπόφασις). (Cat. , 10, 11b15-23) Aristotle’s examples are: double and half for relatives, good and bad for contraries, blindness and sight for privation and possession and ‘He is sitting’ and ‘he is not sitting’ for affirmation and negation. We discussed relatives separately thus we (...) ignore it here. A. Contraries Contraries (ἐναντία) have the following features: 1) They are not said of each other (οὐδαμῶς πρὸς ἄλληλα λέγεται) as relatives are said of each other. (Cat., 10, 11b15-23) 2) Contraries are of two kinds: a) Non-intermediables: Those that it is necessary for one or the other of them to belong to the things they naturally occur in or predicated of and accept no intermediate between themselves. Since it is necessary for one of e.g. health and sickness to occur in an animal’s body or odd and even to belong to a number, there is no intermediate between health and sickness or odd and even. (Cat., 10, 11b38-12a9; 12b28-34) b) Intermediables: Those that it is not necessary for one of them to belong to the things they naturally occur in or predicated of and accept intermediates between themselves. It is not necessary for one of e.g. black and white to belong to a body and there may be some intermediates between them. (Cat., 10, 12a9-25; 12b34-40) 3) Contraries can change to one another when the thing capable of receiving them is there. (Cat., 13a18-21) The only exception is when one of the contraries belongs to something by nature. In such cases, change is not possible as the hotness of fire cannot change to coldness while fire is still there. 4) Contraries belong to the same thing, either the same in species or in genus as e.g. sickness and health in an animal’s body or whiteness and blackness in body simply. (Cat., 10, 14a15- ) In Metaphysics (I, 1058a8-10) Aristotle asserts that contraries are in the same genus. 5) There are three possibilities about the genera of contraries: they either are in the same genus, e.g. black and white, or in the contrary genera, e.g. justice and injustice, or are themselves genera, e.g. good and bad. (Cat., 11, 14a19-25) 6) Doing and being affected admit of contrariety, e.g. heating is contrary to cooling. (Cat., 9, 11b1-4) 7) Substances only are able to receive contraries. (Cat., 5, 4a10-17) 8) There is nothing contrary to a substance, whether primary or secondary. (Cat., 5, 3b24-27) Thus, neither man nor an individual man has a contrary. 9) There is no contrary to a quantity: e.g. four-foot ot ten has no contrary. (Cat., 5, 3b27-32) 10) Otherness in species means to be contraries. (Met., I, 1058a17-20) 11) Contrariety is complete difference. Two things that have the same genus but are different in species are other than one another in the highest degree and their difference is complete, i.e. they cannot be present along with one another. (Met., I, 1058a10-16) 12) One of the contraries is a privation, which is a denial of a predicate to a determinate genus. (Met., Γ, 1011b18-20) 13) ‘Neither true judgments nor true propositions can be contrary the one to the other.’ (OI., II, 14, 24b6-7) B. Privation and possession Privation and possession are said in connection with the same thing in which the possession naturally occurs. Only that thing which is capable of receiving a possession and only when it is entirely absent from that which naturally has it and only at the time when it is natural for it to have it, is called to be deprived of it. (Cat., 10, 12a26-30) A thing is not called e.g. blind if it has never had or was not supposed to have sight. That privation and possession are not relatives is obvious from the fact that none is called just what it is, of its opposite. (Cat., 10, 12b16-21) Moreover, while relatives reciprocate, they do not. (Cat., 10, 12b21-25) That they are not contraries is explained by the classification of contraries to intermediable and non-intermediable contraries. The latter are different from privation and possession because it is necessary for one of such contraries to be predicated of absolutely everything while it is not the case about privation and possession because they are necessary only in things naturally capable of their predication. Intermediable contraries are different from privation and possession because while the former are not necessary the latter are necessary in their subject matters. (Cat., 13a3-17) Unlike contraries for each of which it is possible to change to the other, change in privation and possession is allowed only from possession to privation and not vice versa: neither a blind man gets sight nor a bald man regain his hair. (Cat., 13a18-36) C. Affirmation and negation Aristotle regards the reception of truth and falsity as the main difference affirmation and negation opposition has in respect of other three kinds of opposition: it is only affirmation and negation that it is always necessary for one of them to be true and the other to be false (Cat., 13a37-b26), no matter the subject of affirmation or negation exists or not. (Cat., 10, 13b27-35) ‘It is impossible that contradictory propositions should both be true of the same subject.’ (OI., II, 12, 21b17-18) It is evident both about relatives and those contraries that include no co-positing, e.g. health and sickness. The only cases that resemble affirmation and negation are those contraries that are said with co-positing, e.g. ‘Socrates is well’ and ‘Socrates is sick.’ Yet, Aristotle points, not even with these is it necessary always for one to be true and the other false because if Socrates does not exist, neither will be true. (Cat., 10, 13b12-19) This is true also about privation and possession: neither ‘Socrates has sight’ nor ‘Socrates is blind’ are true if he does not exist. Moreover, it is not necessary for one or the other of them to be true or false even if he exists because until the time when it is natural for Socrates to have sight, both are false. (Cat., 10, 13b20-26) . (shrink)

Aristotle differentiates between otherness (ἑτερότης) and difference (διαφορὰ). Otherness has no definite respect: one thing is other than another thing only because they are not the same. Every two things which are not the same are other than each other. Therefore, two things other than each other do not need something in which they are other than each other. Difference, on the other hand, has a definite respect and one thing is different from another thing in some respect. Thus, there (...) must be something identical whereby two different things differ. (Met. , I, 1054b23-27) Therefore, there is no difference between anything and the things outside its genus. (Met., I, 1055a26-27) 1) Difference Aristotle takes two things as identical things in which difference occurs: genus and species. All things that differ differ either in genus or in species. (Met., I, 1054b27-28) a) Difference in genus Two things are different in genus if they ‘have not their matter in common and are not generated out of each other,’ which means that they belong to different figures of predication. (Met., I, 1054b28-29) They have no way to one another and are too far distinct and are not comparable. (Met., I, 1055a6-8) b) Difference in species Two things are different in species if they have the same genus (Met., I, 1054b29-30) but are not subordinate one to the other. (Met., Δ, 1018a38-b7) 2) Contrariety Aristotle mentions five senses. In the first sense he calls contraries ‘those attributes that differ in genus, which cannot belong at the same time to the same subject.’ (Met., Δ, 1018a25-27) Three senses emphasize on having the most difference either in the same genus, the same receptive material or the same category, all similar to genus. The fifth sense also insists on having the greatest difference but mentions species besides genus as where difference occurs. (Met., Δ, 1018a27-31) It seems that Aristotle is more inclined to the second sense as his definition in Metaphysics, I, 1055a27-29 might concede: ‘The things in the same genus which differ most are contraries; for the complete difference is the greatest difference among these,’ though he agrees with the third sense too and regards those that differ most in the same receptive material also as contraries. (Met., I, 1055a29-30) In fact, Aristotle speaks of all kinds of contraries within, without or in genera: ‘All contraries must either be in the same genus or in contrary genera or be themselves genera.’ Their corresponding examples are white and black (in the same genus), justice and injustice (in contrary genera) and good and bad (themselves genera). (Cat., 11, 14a19-25) To speak generally, as one of the four kinds of opposition, contraries are those that cannot belong at the same time to the same thing. (Met., Γ, 1011b15-18) Thus, contrariety (ἐναντιότης) is complete difference (Met., I, 1055a16-17) and contraries are the extremes of things that differ in species for which generation takes place and have the greatest distance. (Met., I, 1055a8-10; Δ, 1018a38-b7) Since contraries have the extreme difference, there cannot be more than one contrary and extreme for each thing. (Met., I, 1055a19-21) Thus, the things in the same genus which differ most are contraries. (Met., I, 1055a27-28) Aristotle says that the meaning of calling two things ‘other in species’ is that they are contrary and this being other in species he posits versus being the same in species. (Met., I, 1058a17-28) Aristotle even calls ‘the difference between things which differ in species’ a difference that belongs only to things in the same species. (Met., I, 1058a26-28) The reason is that ‘all things are divided by opposites and … contraries are in the same genus … and every difference in species is a difference from something in something … Hence also all contraries which are different in species … are … other than one another in the highest degree- for the difference is complete-, and cannot be present along with one another.’ The conclusion is that ‘The difference, then, is a contrariety.’ (Met, I, 1058a8-16) There are some characteristics for contraries in Aristotle’s philosophy: a) One thing cannot have more than one contrary for there can be neither anything more extreme than the extreme, nor more than two extremes for the one interval. (Met., I, 1055a19-21) b) The primary contrariety is the contrariety between state and complete privation. (Met., I, 1055a33-37) Aristotle regards privation both as a kind of contradiction (Met., I, 1055b3-11) and as that of which contrariety is a kind: all contrariety is a privation but not all privation is contrariety. (Met., I, 1055b11-17) In fact, every contrariety involves a privation as one of its items (Met, I, 1055b17-19 and b25-29): ‘of the contraries, no less than of the contradictories, one is a privation- and a privation of substance; and privation is the denial of a predicate to a determinate genus.’ (Met., Γ, 1011b18-20) Nonetheless, the relation between contrary, privation and contradictory seems to be even more complex:’For within a single identical genus the contrary of a given attribute is either its privative or its contradictory; e.g. within number what is not odd is even, inasmuch as within this sphere even is a necessary consequent of not-odd.’ (PsA., A, 4, 73b21-24) c) A contrary cannot be an intermediate because otherwise it would not be a perfect contrary, which must be based on definition. (Met., I, 1056a12-14) d) Contraries always accept intermediates between themselves. (Met., I, 1056a14-15 e) ‘Contraries do not involve one another in their composition, and are therefore first principles.’ (Met., I, 1057b22-23) f) ‘All the inferior classes, both the contraries and their intermediates, will be compounded out of the primary contraries.’ (Met., I, 1057b31-34) g) None of the intermediables can be predicated of either of the contraries. (Met., K, 1063b19-22) h) Contrary propositions (as defined in OI, I, 7, 17b3-6) can never both be true because they state contrary conditions which cannot subsist at one and the same time in the same subject. (OI, II, 14, 24b7-) 3) Otherness in kind Aristotle also speaks of things other in kind (ἓτερα τῷ γένει) by which he means an otherness between things ‘whose ultimate substratum is other and one cannot be analysed to the other nor both into the same thing. His example of this otherness in kind is the otherness of form and matter. (Met., Δ, 1024b9-12) 4) Network of difference and wholism Aristotle speaks of a theory based on which the knowledge of each thing depends on the knowledge of its differentiae distinguishing it from every single other thing. Therefore, to know and define one thing we need to know the whole existence. (PsA., B, 13, 97a6-11) Aristotle rejects this theory based on the fact that ‘not every differentia precludes identity’ and, thus, many differentiae inhere in things specifically identical, though not in the substance of these nor essentially.’ (PsA., B, 13, 97a11-14) 5) Knowledge and difference There must be some kind of relation between knowledge and difference in Aristotle’s saying that sight, more than other senses, makes us know and bring in light many differences between things. (Met., A, 980a24-27) . (shrink)