This essay explicates the primary interpretative import of B1: 31-32 in Parmenides poem (On Nature)—lines which have radical implications for the overall argument, and which the traditional arrangement forces into an irreconcilable dilemma. I argue that the “negative” reading of lines 31-32 is preferable, even on the traditional arrangement. This negative reading denies that a third thing is to be taught to the reader by the goddess—a positive account of how the apparent world is to be “acceptably” understood. I then (...) suggest that a rearrangement of the fragments would make more sense overall, while further supporting the “negative” reading as more natural and coherent. In particular, the rearrangement dispels the objection that, “if mortal opinions were not true, why would Parmenides include such a lengthy false account of the apparent world--an account which explicitly denies the conclusions of the earlier section, Truth?”. (shrink)

In this paper, I offer a new solution to the old problem of how best to understand the meaning of the word ‘logos’ in the extant writings of Heraclitus, especially in fragments DK B1, B2 and B50. On the view I defend, Heraclitus was neither using the word in a perfectly ordinary way in these fragments, as some have maintained, nor denoting by it some kind of general principle or law governing change in the cosmos, as many have claimed. Rather, (...) I argue, Heraclitus deliberately traded on the ordinary use of the word in his time (to refer to a written or spoken presentation of things as ‘thus and so’) to denote the world’s constant presentation of itself as ‘thus and so’ to all of us in our experience – a kind of cosmic self-revelation. I show how this captures the sense in which ‘the logos’ is said to be ‘common’ (xunos) and to be the kind of thing most people fail to comprehend even before hearing Heraclitus’ own account, all without detaching Heraclitus’ use of the word from its ordinary contemporary meaning. This interpretation suggests Heraclitus was a thinker more centrally concerned with human (mis)understanding than with speculative cosmology. (shrink)

This paper presents a new system of conditional logic B2, which is strictly intermediate in strength between the existing systems B1 and B3 from John Burgess (1981) and David Lewis (1973a). After presenting and motivating the new system, we will show that it is characterized by a natural class of frames. These frames correspond to the idea that conditionals are about which worlds are nearly closest, rather than which worlds are closest. Along the way, we will also give new characterization (...) results for B1 and B3, along with two other new systems B1.1 and B1.2. (shrink)

Aἰών. Eternity in the Theology of Heraclitus of Ephesus -/- This article presents an attempt to establish the Heraclitean meaning of the word αἰών in the fragment B52 (Diels-Kranz). In the author’s view the very starting-point and only sound basis for that kind of endeavor should be meticulous, unbiased analysis of relevant aphorisms of the Ephesian sage and corresponding testimonies. Synoptic scrutiny of them substantiates the understandable conclusion that proud Heraclitus had an unambiguous and independent opinion about eternity. His God (...) – identified with the one and common world – is eternal not only in his „material” aspect as πῦρ ἀείζωον (‘an ever-living fire’, B30), but also in „rational” one as Λόγος ἐὼν ἀεί (‘Logos existing always’, B1). Consequently, one of his various names is Aἰών (‘He Who Always Is’). (shrink)

In this paper, I explore two possible readings of Republic IV, 439c2-d8, and of Plato’s claim that the just soul is governed by its rational element. My aim is to argue against a “desiderative” interpretation of the passage, according to which the motivational strength of rational desires depends on a set of desires given in advance and produced independently of reason. As an alternative, I advance a “cognitivist” reading according to which the rational desires of the just soul have as (...) its ultimate source a knowledge about the nature of goodness and happiness, with its own motivational force. Finally, I argue for a reinterpretation of 439a4-b1, a passage that, at first sight, seems to contradict my analysis of 439c2-d8. (shrink)

There is currently disagreement about whether the phenomenon of first-person, or de se, thought motivates a move towards special kinds of contents. Some take the conclusion that traditional propositions are unable to serve as the content of de se belief to be old news, successfully argued for in a number of influential works several decades ago.1 Recently, some philosophers have challenged the view that there exist uniquely de se contents, claiming that most of the philosophical community has been under the (...) grip of an attractive but unmotivated myth.2 At the very least, this latter group has brought into question the arguments in favor of positing special kinds of content for de se belief; I think they have successfully shown that these arguments are not as conclusive, or fully articulated, as many have taken them to be. In this paper I will address these challenges directly and I will present and defend an argument for the conclusion that the phenomenon of de se thought does indeed motivate the move to a special kind of content, content that is uniquely de se. First, I characterize a notion of de se belief that is neutral with respect to friends and foes of uniquely de se content. I then argue for a determination thesis relating de se belief to belief content: that there is no difference in de se belief without a difference in belief content. I argue that various proposals for rejecting this determination thesis are unsuccessful. In the last part of the paper, I employ this determination thesis to argue for the existence of a type of belief content that is uniquely de se. (shrink)

GAMETOGÊNESE -/- Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro da Silva Instituto Agronômico de Pernambuco Departamento de Zootecnia – UFRPE Embrapa Semiárido -/- • _____OBJETIVO -/- Os estudantes bem informados, estão a buscando conhecimento a todo momento. O estudante de Veterinária e Zootecnia, sabe que a Reprodução é uma área de primordial importância para sua carreira. Logo, o conhecimento da mesma torna-se indispensável. No primeiro trabalho da série fisiologia reprodutiva dos animais domésticos, foi abordado de forma clara, didática e objetiva os mecanismos de diferenciação (...) sexual dos embriões em desenvolvimento, quais os genes envolvidos nesse processo e tudo mais. Nesse segundo trabalho, a abordagem será teórica, mas também clara, sobre a formação primordial dos gametas femininos e masculinos, através da ovogênese nas fêmeas e a espermatogênese nos machos. Esse trabalho visa levar a importância do processo de formação dos gametas e a produção hormonal das gônadas, bem como o entendimento sobre as interações com o eixo hipotálamo-hipofisário. -/- •____INTRODUÇÃO -/- A reprodução sexual é um processo mediante a qual dois organismos da mesma espécie unem seu material genético para dar lugar a um organismo fixo com combinação única de genes; para isso, cada organismo produz células que contém a metade do material genético característico da espécie. Essas células haploides (1n) são denominadas gametas; ao combinar-se um gameta masculino com um feminino produz-se uma célula diploide (2n) (zigoto ou ovo) a partir da qual se forma o embrião. A grande maioria das espécies com reprodução sexual são anisogâmicas, o que significa que produzem dois tipos de gametas diferentes: os gametas masculinos são microscópios, móveis e produzem-se em grande quantidade, enquanto que os femininos são grandes, imóveis e produzem-se em menor quantidade. O tipo de gameta que um indivíduo produz é o que define seu sexo; sobre os animais o macho é o indivíduo que produz grandes quantidades de espermatozoides e a fêmea produz uma menor quantidade de óvulos, enquanto que nas plantas as gônadas masculinas são as produtoras pólen e as femininas produzem oosferas. Os gametas são diferentes do resto das células do organismo, as quais se chamam células somáticas; essas últimas são diploides porque contém dois pares de cromossomos, um par herdado do pai do indivíduo e o outro da mãe. As células somáticas, ademais, se dividem por mitose, ao qual os cromossomos se duplicam antes de cada divisão celular e cada uma das células filhas recebe um complemento diploide idêntico dos cromossomos, logo todas as células somáticas de um indivíduo possuem o mesmo material genético, embora cada tipo celular expresse diferentes combinações de genes. Em contraponto, os gametas são células haploides porque possuem somente um par de cromossomos e a metade do material genético característico da espécie. Cada um dos cromossomos em um gameta é resultado da recombinação dos genes contidos nos cromossomos paterno e materno do indivíduo que originam o gameta, e cada um destes possuem uma combinação única de genes. Os gametas se formam a partir das células germinais, que são células que em sua origem são diploides e elas de “comprometem” a manter-se como uma linha celular especial que em determinado momento sofrerá o processo de meiose para dar origem aos gametas haploides, sejam óvulos ou espermatozoides segundo o sexo do animal. Como descrito no trabalho sobre a diferenciação sexual, as células germinativas primordiais originam-se no epiblasto do embrião, e migram desde o saco vitelino até colonizar as cristas gonodais, onde, por sua vez, proliferam-se e se organizam junto com as células somáticas da gônada primitiva para formar o testículo ou o ovário. As células germinais masculinas e femininas tem a mesma origem embrionária. As gônadas indiferenciadas em um embrião possuem três tipos celulares: as células que dão origem aos gametas (ovogonia ou espermatogonia), as precursoras de células que nutrem os gametas em desenvolvimento (células da granulosa no ovário; células de Sertoli no testículo) e as precursoras de células que secretam hormônios sexuais (células da teca no ovário; células de Leydig no testículo). As células germinais são as únicas estruturas do organismo que têm a capacidade de dividir-se por meiose sofrendo uma redução no número de seus cromossomos, sendo responsável pela transmissão da carga genética aos descendentes. Em contraste, as células somáticas somente se dividem por mitose. A formação dos gametas compreende fases sequenciais de mitose, meiose e pós-meiose. Esses processos são altamente organizados e necessitam de um preciso e bem coordenado programa de expressão genética. Uma das características importantes da gametogênese é a redução cromossômica, que através da meiose, reduz pela metade o número de cromossomos e produz células distintas entre si, devido a trocas de material genético entre os pares de cromossomos provenientes do pai e da mãe, o que ocorre no processo de “crossing over” durante a primeira fase da meiose. A gametogênese é o processo mediante o qual as células germinais de cada sexo se multiplicam, dividem e diferenciam até formar os gametas. No caso da formação dos gametas masculinos o processo recebe o nome específico de espermatogênese, e para os gametas femininos é denominado como ovogênese. Embora os dois processos alcancem o objetivo comum de produção das células haploides, por onde compartilham algumas características, existem diferenças marcadas entre eles devido a necessidade de produzir um número muito distinto de gametas, de tamanho diferente, e com características de motilidade também distintas. -/- •___ESPERMATOGÊNESE -/- A espermatogênese é o processo mediante o qual se produz os gametas masculinos denominados espermatozoides. Durante a vida fetal as células germinais e as células somáticas do testículo em formação organizam-se em túbulos seminíferos que se derivam dos cordões sexuais primários e conformam a maior parte da medula do testículo. Na etapa fetal cada tubo seminífero é delimitado por uma membrana basal, recoberta na parte interior pelas células precursoras das células de Sertoli (um tipo de células somáticas). No exterior do túbulo localizam-se as células precursoras das células de Leydig ou intersticiais (figura 1), que também são células somáticas. Entre a membrana basal e as células de Sertoli encontram-se algumas células germinais denominadas espermatogonias de reserva A0 (denominadas gonócitos) que serão o único tipo de células germinais presentes no testículo enquanto o animal não alcançar a puberdade. As células de Sertoli estabelecem na região basal uniões oclusoras entre si, formando parte da barreira hemato-testicular. As espermatogonias A0 localizam-se por dentro da membrana basal do túbulo seminífero, embora fora da barreira hemato-testicular. Figura 1: fase neonatal. Nota-se a grande infiltração de tecido intersticial em quase 50% da seção originando que os túbulos sejam pequenos e redondos em sua maioria. O citoplasma e núcleo das células pré-Leydig são notadas claramente por essa ser uma espécie suína onde o tecido intersticial está claramente diferenciado. Hematoxilina-eosina (X 220.5). Fonte: Embrapa. -/- O número de células de Sertoli no testículo depende da influência do hormônio folículo estimulante (FSH) presente durante a vida fetal e as primeiras etapas de vida pós-natal. A população de células de Sertoli ao chegar a puberdade se manterá fixa durante o resto da vida do animal; existe uma relação positiva entre o tamanho e a população de células de Sertoli e a capacidade de produção de espermatozoides do testículo. As células de Sertoli são as únicas células somáticas que estão no epitélio seminífero, e sua função é a nutrição, sustentação e controle endócrino das células germinais. As células de Sertoli participam ativamente no processo de liberação dos espermatozoides para a luz do túbulo. Nesse momento, as células de Sertoli realizam a fagocitose de parte do citoplasma do espermatozoide dos chamados corpos residuais. As células de Sertoli também fagocitam as células germinais que se degeneram no curso normal da espermatogênese. Essas células ainda sintetizam grande quantidade de proteínas, como por exemplo as proteínas ABP (androgen hinding protein), que transportam andrógenos para todo o aparelho reprodutivo, transferrinas, que transportam ferro para a respiração celular das células germinais e também às inibinas, que regulam a liberação de FSH pela hipófise, através de um sistema de retroalimentação (feedback) negativa (figura 2). Figura 2: epitélio seminífero, células de Sertoli (flecha) (400 X). Fonte: Embrapa. -/- Antes da puberdade dos túbulos seminíferos observam-se ao corte como estruturas de diâmetro pequeno, sem luz, e conformados unicamente pelas células de Sertoli e espermatogonias de reserva e rodeados por abundante tecido intersticial, ao que estão presentes as células precursoras das células de Leydig. Ainda antes da puberdade, a diferenciação celular manifesta-se primeiro pela presença de espermatócitos primários, os quais se degeneram em geral na fase de paquíteno, por falta de estimulação hormonal. A partir de que o animal chega a puberdade inicia-se o processo de espermatogênese, que se manterá durante toda a vida do animal, exceto em espécies de animais silvestres muito estacionais, ao qual pode se suspender durante a época não reprodutiva para voltar e ser retomada na época ou estação reprodutiva. Depois da puberdade, os túbulos seminíferos possuem um diâmetro muito maior; em seu interior observa-se um grande número de células germinais de todos os tipos, diferentes estádios de divisão, e em seu lúmen contém líquido e espermatozoides. Ainda sobre o alcancei da puberdade, as espermatogonias começam a dividir-se aceleradamente por mitose, enquanto que no espaço intersticial as células mesenquimais também começam a se diferenciar e a dar origem as células de Leydig (figura 3). A partir dessa etapa as células de Leydig (totalmente diferenciadas) são também evidentes no exterior do túbulo, junto com as células mioides ou peritubulares que o rodeiam o que ao contrair-se são responsáveis por controlar o avanço dos fluidos e as células presentes no lúmen do túbulo. As células mioides estão situadas ao redor do túbulo, e é creditado a elas a promoção da contração e da integridade estrutural do túbulo. Esse tipo celular apenas se diferencia na puberdade pela ação dos andrógenos (figura 4). As interações entre as células de Sertoli e as mioides parecem ter um papel importante na manutenção das funções do testículo. Durante o processo de espermatogênese, as espermatogonias de reserva dividem-se periodicamente e enquanto algumas células fixas permanecem como espermatogonias de reserva, outras proliferam e sofrem uma seção de divisões mitóticas durante as quais se vão diferenciando até formarem espermatócitos primários (espermatocitogênese ou fase de mitose), logo sofrem divisões especiais mediante as quais reduzem seu número de cromossomos (fase de meiose), e ao final trocam de forma para converter-se em espermatozoides (espermatocitogênese) (figura 5). Cada uma dessas etapas da espermato- gênese será descrito detalhadamente adiante, antes é necessário a explicação de algumas características das células de Sertoli e de Leydig que ajudarão a entender seu papel durante a espermatogênese. Figura 3: células de Leydig no espaço intersticial do testículo bovino adulto PAS (400 X). Fonte: Embrapa. -/- Figura 4: o estabelecimento da puberdade pela presença de espermatozoides no túbulo. Hematoxilina-eosina (400 X). Fonte: Embrapa. Figura 5: fases mitóticas das espermatogonias (A0 e B) para formação de um espermatócito primário e as duas fases de meiose que se sucedem antes da espermatogênese. Fonte: ZARCO, 2018. -/- Ao início da espermatocitogênese as uniões oclusoras entre as células de Sertoli se abrem por etapas (como as comportas de um submarino) para permitir a passagem das espermatogonias em direção ao centro do túbulo seminífero sem que se estabeleça uma continuidade entre o exterior e o interior da barreira hemato-testicular. Uma vez ultrapassada essa barreira, as sucessivas gerações de espermatogonias, espermatócitos, espermátides e espermatozoides irão se localizar em direção ao interior do túbulo seminífero, em estreita associação com as células de Sertoli. Em consequência, as células de Sertoli dividem o túbulo seminífero em dois compartimentos; o compartimento basal (debaixo das uniões oclusoras das células de Sertoli), ao qual residem as espermatogonias de reserva, e o compartimento adluminal (em direção ao centro do túbulo), cujos espaços entre as células de Sertoli desenvolvem o resto do processo de espermatogênese (meiose e espermatocitogênese). Esse feito é importante porque durante a vida fetal as únicas células germinais existentes eram as espermatogonias de reserva, pelo que os antígenos expressados por gerações mais avançadas (espermatogonias intermediárias, secundárias, espermátides e espermatozoides) não são reconhecidos como próprios do corpo pelo sistema imunológico. Logo, o anterior implica que deve existir uma barreira entre eles e o sangue para evitar um ataque imunológico. Em todas as etapas da espermatogênese, as células de Sertoli atuam como células de suporte para as células germinais, que sempre permanecem recoberta pela membrana das células de Sertoli. Também atuam como células nutricionais já que proporcionam o meio em que as células germinais se desenvolvem e maturam, assim como as substâncias que regulam e sincronizam as sucessivas divisões e transformações das células germinais. As células de Sertoli produzem hormônios, como estrógenos e inibina que atuam sobre a hipófise para regular a secreção das gonadotropinas que controlam a espermatogênese. As células de Leydig que residem no exterior do túbulo seminífero também são importantes para a espermatogênese: produzem a testosterona que estimula e mantém a espermatogênese, bem como serve como substrato sobre o qual atua como aromatizador das células de Sertoli para transformá-las em estrógenos. Como supracitado, para seu estudo podemos dividir a espermatogênese em três fase: espermatocitogênese, meiose e espermiogênese (figura 6). Agora, serão descritas cada uma dessas etapas. Em algumas espécies, incluindo no homem, os macrófagos representam o segundo tipo celular intersticial mais numeroso no testículo, depois das células de Leydig. Os macrófagos e vários subtipos de linfócitos são identificados nós testículos de ovinos e ratos. Eles estão intimamente associados com as células de Leydig e atuam juntamente na regulação da esteroidogênese. Figura 6: fluxograma da espermatogênese. -/- Espermatocitogênese -/- A espermatocitogênese, também chamada de etapa proliferativa ou de mitose, consiste numa série de divisões mitóticas sofridas pelas células descendentes de uma espermatogonia de reserva. Uma vez que a célula se divide, abandona o estado de reserva e começa um processo de diferenciação. As espermatogonias de reserva (denominadas espermatogonias A0 na rata ou As nos humanos) são células que existem desde a vida fetal e que permanecem mitoticamente inativas durante a infância. Uma vez que alcançam a puberdade começam a dividir-se em intervalos regulares, e as células filhas podem permanecer como espermatogonias de reserva ou abandonar a reserva e ingressar na dita espermatocitogênese. Uma vez abandonada a reserva, as células filhas que vão se formando em cada divisão permanecem unidas por pontes citoplasmáticas, constituindo um clone que se divide sincronicamente. As células que se formam depois de cada divisão continuam sendo espermatogonias, porém cada geração é ligeiramente diferente da anterior. Na rata, por exemplo, as espermatogonias tipo A0 ao dividir-se originam espermatogonias do tipo A1, que em sucessivas divisões formam espermatogonias dos tipos A2, A3 e A4, as quais, por sua vez, sofrem outra mitose para formar espermatogonias intermediárias e uma mais para formar espermatogonias do tipo B. Essas últimas se diferenciam (sem se dividir) em espermatócitos primários, processo em que termina a fase de espermatocitogênese, que literalmente significa processo de geração de espermatócitos. As espermatogonias tipo A0 são a fonte para a contínua produção de gametas. A metade delas se dividem e formam células iguais (as chamadas células tronco) e a outra metade forma as espermatogonias A1, que sofre novas divisões mitóticas e formam os tipos 2, 3 e 4. O tipo A4 sofre mitose para formar a intermediária (A In), que por mitose, forma a tipo B (figura 6). Esses tipos de espermatogonias podem ser identificadas em evoluções histológicas de acordo com sua organização topográfica na membrana basal dos túbulos seminíferos ou mediante seu conteúdo de heterocromatina. Outra maneira de diferenciação se baseia em marcadores moleculares específicos que distinguem as espermatogonias tronco (A0) das demais, com os fins de isolamento, desenvolvimento in vitro e transplante. As tipo B passam por mitose para formarem os espermatócitos primários; estes iniciam a primeira etapa da meiose formando os espermatócitos secundários; na segunda etapa da divisão meiótica, cada espermatócito secundário se divide e formam as chamadas espermátides. Quando o testículo alcança seu desenvolvimento total, a meiose completa-se e as espermátides originadas se convertem em espermatozoides. Um dos maiores sinais característicos desse fenômeno é o alargamento das espermátides e sua migração em direção ao lúmen do túbulo seminífero (figuras 4, 7 e 8). Figura 7: espermatogonias marcadas por imuno-histoquímica, anticorpo monoclonal TGFa (400 x). Figura 8: fases de divisões meióticas (M), espermatócitos em paquíteno (PA) e espermatócitos secundários (ES). -/- Figura 9: estádio posterior a liberação dos espermatozoides na luz do túbulo. Hematoxilina-eosina (400 x). Mediante as seis divisões mitóticas que ocorrem durante a espermatocitogênese se forma potencialmente um clone de 64 espermatócitos primários a partir de cada espermatogonia A que ingressa sobre o processo. Não obstante, algumas células sofrem apoptose em cada uma das etapas do processo, ao qual o número real formado é menor. Em outras espécies produzem-se um transcurso similar de divisões mitóticas sucessivas durante a espermatocitogênese, embora a nomenclatura utilizada possa ser distinta, por exemplo nos bovinos as duas últimas divisões mitóticas dão origem as espermatogonias de tipo B1 e B2. -/- Meiose -/- Uma vez que as espermatogonias B se diferenciam em espermatócitos primários, esses iniciam a etapa de meiose, com uma nova divisão; desta vez a divisão é do tipo meiótica. Ao completar-se a primeira divisão meiótica (meiose I) se obtém os espermató-citos secundários, que ao sofrer a segunda divisão meiótica (meiose II) dão origem as espermátides. Vale salientar que a meiose é o processo mediante o qual reduz-se a metade do número de cromossomos, pelo que as espermátides que se obtém são células haploides (1n). Os espermatócitos secundários que se formam depois da primeira divisão meiótica contém a metade do número normal de cromossomos, porém a mesma quantidade de DNA já que cada cromossomo é duplo. As espermátides formadas na conclusão da segunda divisão meiótica (figura 7), por sua vez, contém a metade dos cromossomos, e esse já não são duplos, já que se trata de células 1n. Também deve-se enfatizar que durante a meiose é relevante o entrecruzamento dos cromossomos homólogos, pelo que cada espermátide possui uma combinação única e diferente de genes paternos e maternos. Outro ponto que deve ser levado em consideração é que cada espermátide somente possui um cromossomo sexual; a metade das espermátides contém o cromossomo X herdado da mãe do macho que está levando a cabo a espermatogênese e a outra metade contém o cromossomo Y herdado de seu pai. Para cada espermatócito primário que entra no processo de meiose obtém-se cerca de quatro espermátides, pelo qual ao ser completada a meiose potencialmente se poderiam formar até 256 espermátides por cada espermatogonia que abandona a reserva e ingressa na espermatocitogênese. -/- Espermiogênese -/- Durante a espermiogênese, também chamada de fase de diferenciação, as esper-mátides sofrem, sem se dividir, uma metamorfose que as transforma em espermatozoides, os quais finalmente são liberados das células de Sertoli em direção ao lúmen do túbulo seminífero. A espermiogênese é um processo complicado e longo já que a espermátide deve sofrer complexas trocas nucleares, citoplasmáticas e morfológicas que resultam na forma-ção dos espermatozoides. Algumas dessas mudanças incluem a condensação do material nuclear para formação de um núcleo plano e denso, a eliminação do citoplasma para a constituição de uma célula pequena, a formação de uma estrutura especializada denomi-nada acrossomo ou tampa cefálica, e a formação do pescoço e da cauda (flagelo) do esper-matozoide, do que depende a sua motilidade. Durante a maior parte da espermiogênese, as espermátides se mantém com uma estreita associação com as células de Sertoli; logo, chega-se a observar, então, flagelos que se projetam em direção a luz do túbulo que pare-cem sair das células de Sertoli, sendo na realidade os flagelos dos espermatozoides que ainda não tinham sido liberados pelo lúmen. Ao liberar os espermatozoides em direção a luz do túbulo, as células de Sertoli realizam a fagocitose de parte do citoplasma dos espermatozoides (corpos residuais). Também fagocitam os restos de todas as células germinais que sofrem apoptose ou degeneram-se durante a espermatogênese. Credita-se que ao realizar essas funções as células de Sertoli podem fazer uma monitoração eficiente da espermatogênese, o que lhes permitiria emitir sinais para colaborar na regulação desse processo em nível gonodal e a nível sistêmico através da secreção de hormônios como a inibina e o estradiol. Além da inibina e activina, as células de Sertoli sintetizam outras proteínas, como a ABP (proteína ligadora de andrógenos) que serve como uma molécula de transporte de andrógenos dentro dos túbulos seminíferos, ductos deferentes e epidídimo, ou a transfer-rina, que transporta o ferro necessário para a respiração celular. -/- Resultados da espermatogênese -/- O resultado da espermatogênese não significa apenas uma simples multiplicação das células germinais (até 256 espermatozoides a partir de cada espermatogonia A1), senão que através dela são produzidos gametas haploides pequenos, móveis e com grande diversidade genética entre eles, ao mesmo tempo que se mantêm uma reversa de células mãe (espermatogonias A0) a partir das quais se poderiam originar novos ciclos de esper-matogênese durante o resto da vida do animal. -/- Controle hormonal da espermatogênese -/- Como mencionado, o FSH reproduz um importante papel para o estabelecimento das células de Sertoli durante a vida fetal e início da vida pós-natal. O começo da esper-matogênese também é estimulado pelo FSH, que atua sobre as células de Sertoli para estimular sua função e a ativação de sinais dessas células em direção as células germinais, incluindo-as a abandonar a reserva e ingressar na espermatogênese. O FSH, assim mesmo, estimula a mitose durante o resto da espermatogênese e aumenta a eficiência do processo, já que reduz a apoptose e a degeneração de espermatogonias intermediárias e do tipo B. O FSH também estimula as células de Sertoli para produzirem inibina e ABP. Uma vez iniciada a espermatogênese somente requerem níveis baixos de FSH para se mantê-la. As células de Sertoli também devem ser estimuladas pela testosterona para funcio-nar de maneira adequada; se requer também do LH hipofisário: hormônio que estimula as células de Leydig para produzir testosterona. Por sua vez, a secreção de LH e FSH é regulada pelo GnRH hipotalâmico: esse neurohormônio também faz parte do mecanismo de regulação da espermatogênese. A espermatogênese também é modulada em nível local mediante a produção de determinados fatores e interações entre as células. Dentro dos fatores locais podemos mencionar o fator de crescimento parecido com a insulina 1 (IGF-1), o fator de crescimen-to transformante beta (TGF- β), activina, ocitocina e diversas citocinas. Entre as intera-ções celulares existem tanto uniões de comunicação entre as células de Sertoli e as células germinais, como pontes citoplasmáticas entre todas as células germinais que formam o clone de células descendentes de uma espermatogonia A1. Uma vez que as células de Sertoli iniciam sua função na puberdade é possível manter experimentalmente a espermatogênese somente com testosterona, sem ser requeri-dos nenhum outro hormônio. A quantidade de espermatozoides produzidos, no entanto, é maior quando há presença do FSH. Abaixo do estímulo do FSH as células de Sertoli produzem estradiol e inibina, hormônios que geram uma retroalimentação sobre o eixo hipotálamo-hipofisário para a regulação da secreção de gonadotropinas. Em particular, a inibina reduz a secreção de FSH, pelo qual é factível que sirva como um sinal que evite uma excessiva estimulação as células de Sertoli. -/- Ciclo do epitélio seminífero -/- Em cada espécie as espermatogonias de reserva iniciam um novo processo de divi-sões celulares em intervalos fixos: a casa 14 dias no touro; 12 dias no garanhão e a cada 9 dias no cachaço (reprodutor suíno). A nova geração de células que começam a proliferar sobre a base do tubo deslocam-se em direção ao centro do túbulo a geração anterior, que por sua vez deslocam-se as gerações anteriores. Devido as mudanças que vão sofrendo cada geração celular se ajustam a tempos característicos de cada etapa, já que rodas as células em uma determinada seção do túbulo estão sincronizadas entre si pelas células de Sertoli; em cada espécie somente é possível encontrar um certo número de combinações celulares: 14 diferentes combinações no caso da rata, 8 no touro e 6 no ser humano. A sucessão de possíveis combinações até regressar a primeira combinação se conhece como o ciclo do epitélio seminífero. Na maioria das espécies os espermatozoides que são libera-dos em direção a luz do túbulo provém das células que entraram no processo de esperma-togênese quatro gerações antes que a geração que está ingressando nesse momento, pelo que a espermatogênese no touro dura ao redor de 60 dias e um pouco menos em outras espécies domésticas. Significa que os efeitos negativos das alterações na espermatogêne-se podem estar presentes até dois meses depois de que se produziram essas alterações. Como supracitado, geralmente se observa a mesma combinação celular em toda a área de uma determinada secção transversal do túbulo seminífero. No entanto, se fizermos uma série de secções, observa-se que ao longo do túbulo há uma sucessão ordenada de combinações (a primeira em uma determinada secção; a segunda combinação na seguinte secção, e assim sucessivamente em secções subsequentes até regressar a primeira combi-nação. Teremos, então, que ao início da divisão das espermatogonias A1 se produz de forma sincronizada em uma secção do túbulo, e vai-se transmitindo como uma onda peristáltica as secções adjacentes. Esse processo é denominado como onda do epitélio seminífero e graças à esse túbulo seminífero sempre tem secções em todas as etapas da espermatogênese, com o que se alcança uma produção constante de espermatozoides. -/- Alterações da espermatogênese -/- Nas espécies estacionais a espermatogênese, como já mencionado, pode reduzir-se ou inclusive suspender sua atividade fisiológica durante a época não reprodutiva dessas espécimes, porém esse processo fisiológico não pode ser considerado como uma altera-ção. No entanto, a espermatogênese só pode ser alterada pelas enfermidades ou por fatores externos. A principal causa de alterações na espermatogênese é o aumento da temperatura testicular. Por isso, os testículos são localizados na saco escrotal e são “caídos” para fora do corpo como pode-se observar nos bovinos, caprinos, ovinos, caninos e no próprio homem. A temperatura testicular deve estar cerca de 2 a 6 °C abaixo da temperatura corporal normal. As células germinais masculinas são sensíveis ao calor, pelo qual na maioria dos mamíferos os testículos se encontram fora da cavidade abdominal e existe um sofisticado sistema de termorregulação para mantê-los a uma temperatura menor que a corporal. Se a temperatura corporal for elevada ou se os testículos permanecerem na cavidade abdominal, ou ainda se os sistemas termorreguladores do testículo sejam afetados por fatores inflamatórios como edema ou falta de mobilidade testicular dentro do escroto, a temperatura do tecido testicular aumentará e a espermatogênese sofrerá alterações proporcionais ao excesso de temperatura e a duração da elevação. A espermatogênese também pode ser afetada pela exposição a hormônios ou a outras substâncias. É possível que a causa mais comum (sobretudo no homem) seja o uso de esteroides anabólicos, que elevam a concentração de andrógenos na circulação, provo-cando um feedback negativo sobre a secreção de gonadotropinas. Ao deixar de estimular-se o testículo pelas gonadotropinas, este deixará de produzir testosterona, e as concentra-ções de andrógeno exógeno nunca alcançará as altíssimas concentrações de testosterona que normalmente estão presentes a nível do tecido testicular por ser o local onde se produz o hormônio. Também se supõe que diversas substâncias com propriedades estrogênicas derivadas de processos industriais (indústria dos plásticos, hidrocarbonetos etc.) e presentes no ambiente (fatores xenobióticos) podem ser responsáveis pelas alterações na espermatogênese em diversas espécies, entre as quais se inclui o ser humano. -/- • OVOGÊNESE E FOLICULOGÊNESE -/- A ovogênese é o processo seguido pelas células germinais da fêmea para a forma-ção dos óvulos, que são células haploides. Durante a vida fetal as células germinais proliferam-se no ovário por mitose, formando um grande número de ovogonias, algumas das quais se diferenciam em ovócitos primários que iniciam sua primeira divisão meiótica para deter-se na prófase da divisão. Somente alguns desses ovócitos primários retornarão e concluirão a primeira divisão meiótica em algum momento da vida adulta do animal, dando origem a um ovócito secundário e a um corpo polar. O ovócito secundário inicia a sua segunda divisão meiótica, a qual volta a ficar suspensa até receber um estímulo apropriado, já que somente os ovócitos secundários que são ovulados e penetrados por um espermatozoide retornam e concluem a segunda divisão meiótica, dando origem a um óvulo (figura 10). O processo de ovogênese é realizado dentro dos folículos ovarianos, que também tem que sofrer um longo transcurso de desenvolvimento e diferenciação denominado foliculogênese pelo que a ovogênese como tal realiza-se dentro do marco desse último processo. Por essa razão, na seguinte seção descreverei tanto a ovogênese como a folicu-logênese, e a relação que existe entre ambos. Figura 10: representação da ovogênese. Na etapa de proliferação, as células germinais se diferen-ciam por mitose. A meiose I se caracteriza por uma prófase prolongada, ocorrendo a duplicação do DNA. Nas duas divisões, que ocorrem antes da ovulação e depois da fertilização, a quantidade de DNA é reduzida a 1n, com o fim de que a fusão dos pronúcles (singamia) pós-fertilização, seja gerado um zigoto com um número de cromossomos de 2n (diploide). -/- Geração de ovócitos primários e folículos primordiais Tanto a ovogênese como a foliculogênese iniciam-se durante a vida fetal, quando as células germinais primordiais provenientes do saco vitelino colonizam a gônada primitiva e, junto com as células somáticas z organizam-se para a formação dos cordões sexuais secundários, que se desenvolvem principalmente no córtex do ovário. Nesse período, as células germinais que colonizaram o ovário sofrem até 30 divisões mitóticas, proliferando-se até formar milhares ou milhões de ovogonias, que inicialmente formam “ninhos” constituídos cada um deles por um clone de várias ovogonias que descendem da mesma célula precursora e que se mantêm unidas por pontes citoplasmáticas, sincronizan-do suas divisões mitóticas. Nessa etapa alcança-se a máxima população de células germinais no ovário, que antes de nascer se reduzirá drasticamente por apoptose. No ovário do feto humano chegam a haver até sete milhões de células germinais que ao nascimento se reduzem a dois milhões. Os ovários fetais do bovino, de maneira análoga, chegam a ter até 2.100.000 células germinais, que ao nascimento reduzem para 130.000 aproximadamente. A redução no número de ovogonias produz-se ao mesmo tempo que essas células, que vêm dividindo-se por mitose e estão agrupadas em ninhos, iniciam sua primeira divisão meiótica para se transformarem em ovócitos primários: células germinais que se encontram em uma etapa de suspensão (diplóteno) da prófase da primeira divisão meiótica. Nesse período produz-se uma grande proporção de células germinais; as células somáticas dos cordões sexuais, por sua vez, emitem projeções citoplasmáticas que separam a isolam os ovócitos primários sobreviventes, ficando cada um deles rodeados por uma capa de células aplanadas da (pré) granulosa. Ao mesmo tempo em que se forma uma membrana basal entre as células da granulosa e o tecido intersticial do ovário. Ao ovócito primário rodeado de uma capa de células da (pré) granulosa aplanadas e delimita-das por uma membrana basal denomina-se de folículo primordial (figura 11). Nas vacas os folículos primordiais bem formados já estão presentes nos ovários a partir do dia 90 da gestação. A maioria dos folículos primordiais com os que nasce uma fêmea se manterão inativos durante um longo tempo; muitos deles durante toda a vida do animal. Nos folículos primordiais inativos tanto os ovócitos primários como as células da granulosa conservam sua forma original e mantém um metabolismo reduzido estritamente ao mínimo necessário para manter-se viáveis. Por essa razão, ao realizar um corte histológico de qualquer ovário as estruturas mais numerosas que se observam serão os folículos primordiais. No entanto, cada dia da vida de um animal, inclusive desde a vida fetal, um certo número de folículos primordiais reiniciam seu desenvolvimento, e a partir desse momento um folículo exclusivamente pode ter dois destinos: o primeiro, prosseguir seu desenvolvi-mento até chegar a ovular, e o segundo (que é muito mais frequente) encontrar em algum momento condições inadequadas que fazem fronteira com ele para parar seu desenvolvi-mento, levando-o a sofrer atresia e degenerar até desaparecer do ovário. Figura 11: sequência da foliculogênese apresentando as diferentes estruturas que podemos encontrar em cada fase. Fonte: ZARCO, 2018. Culminação da ovogênese A ovogênese somente se completará quando um ovócito primário reinicia a meio-se; completa sua primeira divisão meiótica para formar um ovócito secundário e um primeiro corpo polar e, quando, finalmente sofrer uma segunda divisão meiótica para formar um óvulo e um segundo corpo polar. Os óvulos são as células 1n que constituem os gametas femininos, pouco numerosos, grandes e imóveis. A grande maioria dos ovóci-tos primários, como veremos mais adiante, nunca retomam a meiose e, em consequência, não chegam a formar ovócitos secundários, e muitos dos ovócitos secundários tampouco sofrem uma segunda divisão meiótica, pelo que não chegam a formar os óvulos. Ao longo da vida de uma fêmea, na maioria das espécies, menos de 0,1% dos ovócitos primários (um a cada mil) chega a terminar a ovogênese, dando origem a um óvulo. O supracitado deve-se a que a ovogênese somente pode retomar-se e ser completa-da em ovócitos primários que se encontram dentro dos folículos primordiais que (uma vez ativados) vão alcançando diversas etapas de seu desenvolvimento em momentos precisos aos que encontram as condições ideais de oxigenação, nutrição, vascularização e exposição a fatores parácrinos e a exposição a concentrações de hormônios que se requerem para que o folículo continue em cada etapa de seu desenvolvimento com o processo de foliculogênese até chegar a ovular. Qualquer folículo que não esteja nessas condições ao longo do desenvolvimento sofrerá degeneração e atresia, pelo que o ovócito primário em seu interior nunca chegará ao ponto em que pode retomar a primeira divisão meiótica. No que resta da presente seção revisaremos o processo de foliculogênese em cujo marco se desenvolve a ovogênese; havemos que tomar de conta que essa última se limita ao que ocorre nas células germinais (ovogonia, ovócito primário, secundário e óvulo), pelo qual depende intimamente do desenvolvimento do folículo de que essas células formam parte. Em um princípio a ativação do folículo primordial e o desenvolvimento folicular são independentes das gonadotropinas: não se conhecem os mecanismos precisos median-te os quais um folículo primordial se ativa e reinicia seu desenvolvimento, nem como se decide quais folículos, dentre as dezenas de milhares de ou centenas de milhares presentes em um ovário se reativarão em um dia em particular. A reativação trata-se de uma liberação de influência de fatores inibidores, já que os folículos primordiais se reativam espontaneamente quando cultivados in vitro, isolados do resto do tecido ovariano. Uma vez que um folículo primordial se ativa, inicia-se um longo processo de desenvolvimento que somente depois de vários meses (ao redor de cinco meses no caso dos bovinos) o levará a um estádio em que seu desenvolvimento posterior requer a presença das gonado-tropinas; daí que se diz que as primeiras etapas do desenvolvimento são independentes das gonadotropinas. Durante a fase independente de gonadotropinas, um folículo primordial que tenha sido ativado e tenha começado a crescer; passará primeiro para a etapa de folículo primá-rio, caracterizada por conter um ovócito primário que está rodeado, por sua vez, por uma capa de células da granulosa, que não são planas, e sim cúbicas. Depois, se o folículo continuar crescendo se transformará em um folículo secundário, ao qual as células da granulosa começam a proliferar (aumentando em número) e se organizam em duas ou mais capas que rodeiam o ovócito primário. Entre o ovócito e as células da granulosa que o rodeiam se forma nesta uma zona pelúcida; ainda assim o ovócito mantém contato direto com essas células, mediante o estabelecimento de pontes citoplasmáticas que atravessam a zona pelúcida. Através dessas pontes citoplasmáticas as células da granulosa podem passar nutrientes e informação ao ovócito primário. O volume e o diâmetro do ovócito primário aumentam ao mesmo tempo que as células da granulosa proliferam-se, para incrementar as capas ao redor do ovócito. De maneira gradual o citoplasma do ovócito primário aumenta até 50 vezes seu volume e a proliferação das células continua. Esses folículos que possuem cada vez mais células e portanto mais capas de células da granulosa se denominam folículos secundários. Para evitar confusões, há a necessidade de nomen-clatura ao qual o folículo vá mudando de nome de primordial a primário e logo, de secun-dário, a terciário, por sua vez, o ovócito que encontra-se em seu interior, a todo momento, segue sendo um ovócito primário. Durante a etapa dependente de gonadotropinas, os folículos secundários começam a formar um espaço cheio de líquido, o antro folicular, desse modo se convertem em folí-culos terciários. Com a utilização de outra nomenclatura, a formação do antro marca a transição entre folículos pré-antrais (sem antro) e folículos antrais (com antro). Em algum momento dessa transição entre folículo secundário e terciário, também aparece a depen-dência de folículos em direção as gonadotropinas, pelo qual somente podem seguir crescendo na presença do hormônio luteinizante (LH) e do hormônio folículo estimulante (FSH). Nos bovinos e em outras espécies (para seu estudo), os folículos antrais são dividi-dos em pequenos, médios e grandes. Embora todos eles possuam um antro folicular, dependendo do seu grau de desenvolvimento requerem diferentes concentrações de gona-dotropinas para continuar o crescimento. Os folículos antrais mais pequenos somente re-querem concentrações baixas de LH e FSH, pelo qual podem continuar crescendo em qualquer momento do ciclo estral inclusive em animais que não estão ciclando (fêmeas em anestro pré-puberal, gestacional, lactacional, estacional). Nas etapas posteriores os folículos antrais requerem primeiro concentrações elevadas de FSH, e nas etapas finais somente podem continuar crescendo na presença de pulsos frequentes de LH, pelo qual somente os folículos que encontram-se sob concentrações apropriadas desses hormônios podem seguir crescendo. Por essa razão, nos animais que se encontram em anestro de qualquer tipo somente é possível encontrar folículos antrais pequenos ou médios, segundo a espécie, e nos animais que se encontram ciclando (estro) o maior tamanho folicular encontrado em um determinado dia do ciclo dependerá das concentrações de FSH e LH presentes nesse momento e nos dias anteriores. Um folículo que chega ao estado máximo de desenvolvimento, conhecido como folículo pré-ovulatório, ao final, somente chegará a ovular se for exposto a um pico pré-ovulatório de LH. Como supracitado, cada dia na vida de uma fêmea inicia seu desenvolvimento um certo número de folículos; a grande maioria sofrem atresia, mas depois da puberdade em cada dia do ciclo estral um ou vários folículos vão encontrando ao longo do seu desenvol-vimento concentrações hormonais que lhes permite chegar na etapa de folículo pré-ovula-tório. Somente nestes folículos, e como consequência de um pico pré-ovulatório de LH, se reinicia e completa-se a primeira divisão meiótica do ovócito primário, produzindo duas células distintas. Uma delas é o ovócito secundário, que retém praticamente todo o citoplasma. Contém, assim mesmo, em seu núcleo um par de cromossomos duplos, a outra é o primeiro corpo polar, que é exclusivamente um núcleo com uma quantidade mínima de citoplasma. Na maioria das espécies ovula-se um ovócito secundário que se encontra, então, suspendido na segunda divisão meiótica. Esta segunda divisão meiótica somente reinicia-rá e completarar-se uma vez que o espermatozoide começa a penetrar sob o ovócito secundário. Ao concluir-se a divisão se forma o segundo corpo polar e completa-se a ovogênese com o qual se obtém o óvulo, célula 1n que constitui o gameta feminino. No entanto, o óvulo existe pouco tempo como tal, já que em poucos minutos/horas (depen-dendo da espécie) se produzirá a fusão do núcleo do mesmo (pró-núcleo feminino) com o do espermatozoide (pró-núcleo masculino), com o qual se completa a fertilização e se forma um novo indivíduo (o ovo ou zigoto). -/- Ondas foliculares -/- Como mencionado supra, todos os dias um determinado número de folículos pri-mordiais se ativam e começam a crescer, os quais crescem em um ritmo característico em cada espécie. Isso provoca que em qualquer momento existam nos ovários folículos pri-mordiais (que começam a crescer em alguns dias ou semanas), assim como folículos secundários em diversas etapas do desenvolvimento, os quais iniciaram seu desenvolvi-mento em semanas ou inclusive meses (segundo o grau de desenvolvimento atual). Também em qualquer momento poderá haver folículos antrais nas etapas iniciais de seu desenvolvimento (com antros que já se podem detectar em cortes histológicos mas não são visíveis macroscopicamente). Todos esses folículos chegaram até seu estado de de-senvolvimento atual (primário, secundário ou antral pequeno), independente da etapa do ciclo estral em que sejam observados ou encontrados. Nos bovinos, os folículos que chegam ao início da etapa antral iniciaram seu desenvolvimento cinco meses antes, e todavia requerem ao redor de 42 dias para chegar ao estado pré-ovulatório. Para continuar seu desenvolvimento, os folículos antrais pequenos devem encon-trar concentrações altas de FSH, que os estimulam para prosseguir o crescimento. Cada vez que se produz uma elevação nas concentrações de FSH, esse hormônio estimula o desenvolvimento de um grupo de folículos antrais pequenos, que começaram a crescer muito tempo antes e que o dia da elevação de FSH tenha alcançado o grau de desenvolvi-mento preciso para responder com eficiência a este hormônio, o qual atuará através de seus receptores nas células da granulosa para estimular a produção de estradiol, a secreção de inibina, a produção de líquido folicular e a proliferação das células da granulosa. Um grupo de folículos antrais pequenos é assim recrutado pelo FSH para acelerar seu cresci-mento e aumentar sua produção de estradiol e inibina (figura 12). Mediante um seguimento ultrassonográfico dos ovários é possível identificar pou-cos dias depois um certo número de folículos, que por haver sido recrutados começam um período de crescimento acelerado. Durante alguns dias vários folículos crescem juntos, porém depois um deles é selecionado para continuar crescendo, enquanto que o restante do grupo deixam de fazê-lo e terminam sofrendo atresia. Através da ultrassom é possível identificar o folículo selecionado, agora chamado folículo domi-nante, já que sua trajetória de crescimento sofre um desvio com respeito a seguida pelo restante do grupo. Os folículos que não foram selecionados deixam de crescer e sofrem atresia já que deixam de possuir o suporte gonadotrópico de FSH, uma vez que as concentrações desse hormônio são suprimidos pela inibina e o estradiol produzidos pelo conjunto de folículos que conformam a onda folicular (figura 12), porém o folículo mais desenvolvido do grupo se converterá em dominante. A inibina atua diretamente a nível hipofisário para reduzir a secreção de FSH. Figura 12: onda folicular e relação dos níveis de FSH, estradiol e LH. Fonte: ZARCO, 2018. -/- Figura 13: Recrutamento, seleção e dominação folicular na espécie ovina e influência do FSH e LH nas fases. Fonte: SILVA, E. I. C. da, 2019. -/- A razão pela qual o folículo dominante é capaz de continuar seu desenvolvimento apesar da baixa nas concentrações de FSH é que o folículo é o único que alcançou o grau de progresso necessário para que apareçam os receptores para LH em suas células da granulosa. Esse processo permite ao folículo dominante ser estimulado pela LH, e que requeira baixas concentrações de FSH para manter seu desenvolvimento. A secreção de LH em forma de pulsos de baixa frequência (um pulso a cada quatro a seis horas), característica da fase lútea do ciclo estral; é suficiente para permitir que um folículo dominante continue crescendo por mais dias depois da sua seleção e que mais tarde mantenha-se viável durante alguns dias embora não aumentem de tamanho. Contu-do, se durante o período viável desse folículo não seja finalizada a fase lútea e não diminuam as concentrações de progesterona, o folículo terminará sofrendo atresia devido a exigência de um padrão de secreção acelerada de LH (aproximadamente um pulso por hora) durante o desenvolvimento pré-ovulatório, que somente pode ser produzido com a ausência da progesterona. Uma vez que um folículo dominante sofre atresia deixa de produzir inibina, pelo qual as concentrações de FSH podem elevar-se novamente para iniciar o recrutamento de outro grupo de folículos a partir da qual se origina uma nova onda folicular. Durante o ciclo estral de uma vaca podem gerar-se dois ou três ondas foliculares; somente em raros casos quatro. A etapa de dominância folicular da primeira onda na grande maioria dos casos não coincide com a regressão do corpo lúteo, pelo qual o primei-ro folículo dominante quase invariavelmente termina em atresia. Em algumas vacas o fo-lículo dominante da segunda onda ainda está viável quando se produz a regressão do corpo lúteo e acelera-se a secreção de LH, pelo qual esse segundo folículo dominante se converte em folículo pré-ovulatório e, ao final ovula. Em outros animais o segundo folícu-lo dominante também perde a sua viabilidade antes da regressão do corpo lúteo, por onde nesses animais se inicia uma terceira onda folicular, da qual surge o folículo que finalmen-te ovulará depois de produzir-se a regressão do corpo lúteo. Sem importar a onda em que se origine, uma vez que um folículo dominante é ex-posto a alta frequência de secreção de LH que se produz depois da regressão do corpo lúteo, aumenta ainda mais sua secreção de estradiol até que as altas concentrações desse hormônio comecem a exercer um feedback positivo para a secreção do LH. Isso provoca-rá a aceleração da frequência de secreção do LH até que os pulsos são tão frequentes que começam a ficar por cima e produzir-se o pico pré-ovulatório de LH, que é responsável pela realização da ovulação e a maturação final do ovócito. -/- •___DIFERENÇAS ENTRE ESPERMATOGÊNESE E OVOGÊNESE -/- Enquanto que na fêmea a ovogênese inicia-se durante a vida fetal, no macho a es-permatogênese começa na puberdade. Na fêmea, a partir de um ovócito primário se origi-na um óvulo; no macho, de um espermatócito primário se produzem, teoricamente, quatro espermatozoides. Outra característica interessante é que enquanto a fêmea já conta desde o nasci-mento com todos os ovócitos que necessitará na vida adulta, o macho necessitará chegar a puberdade para iniciar o desenvolvimento das células sexuais, já que ao nascer somente possui gonócitos precursores das células germinais, células de Sertoli e intersticiais. Na vida adulta de uma fêmea, o número de células germinais desaparece paulati-namente. Uma vez iniciada a espermatogênese no macho, a cada ciclo do epitélio seminí-fero as células germinais são renovadas mantendo a provisão para toda a vida reprodutiva. Na fêmea, a meiose sofre duas interrupções em seu transcurso, e no macho é ininterrupta. Figura 14: representação em diagramação comparativa do desenvolvimento da gametogênese. -/- Principais pontos abordados sobre as diferenças entre a gametogênese masculina e feminina: ❙ Na ovogênese a meiose contêm-se em duas ocasiões esperando acontecimentos externos para prosseguir. Já na espermatogênese não existe a suspensão da meiose. ❙ A espermatogênese é um processo contínuo, enquanto que a ovogênese pode completar exclusivamente um óvulo em cada ciclo estral; já que só pode ser completada por mais de um nas espécies que ovulam vários ovócitos no caso das porcas, cadelas, gatas etc. ❙ Na espermatogênese existem células de reserva que permitem a continuação du-rante toda a vida, enquanto que na ovogênese o número de ovócitos primários é limitado. A fêmea somente conta com os que nasceu, e eles não se dividem. ❙ Na espermatogênese obtém-se até 256 espermatozoides para cada espermatogo-nia que inicia o processo, enquanto que na ovogênese somente se obtém um óvulo a partir de cada ovócito primário. ❙ Durante a espermatogênese se produz uma metamorfose que transforma as es-permátides em espermatozoides. Na ovogênese não ocorre um processo análogo. ❙ Na espermatogênese, durante a meiose produzem-se quatro espermátides a partir de cada espermatócito primário. Na ovogênese se produz somente um óvulo a partir de cada ovócito primário; produz, ademais, dois corpos polares. ❙ Todos os óvulos que se produzem durante a ovogênese contém um cromossomo X, enquanto que a metade dos espermatozoides possuem um cromossomo Y e a outra metade um cromossomo X. ❙ Na espermatogênese produzem-se centenas ou dezenas de milhões de esperma-tozoides por dia, enquanto que na ovogênese se produz um ou alguns óvulos a cada ciclo estral. ❙ A espermatogênese produz gametas macroscópicos e com motilidade própria, enquanto que a ovogênese produz gametas grandes e imóveis. -/- REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS -/- ABDEL-RAOUF, Mohammed et al. The postnatal development of the reproductive organs in bullswith special reference to puberty.(Including growth of the hypophysis and the adrenals). Acta endocrinologica, n. Suppl No. 49, 1960. ADONA, Paulo Roberto et al. Ovogênese e foliculogênese em mamíferos. Journal of Health Sciences, v. 15, n. 3, 2013. AERTS, J. M. J.; BOLS, P. E. J. Ovarian follicular dynamics: a review with emphasis on the bovine species. Part I: Folliculogenesis and pre‐antral follicle development. Reproduction in domestic animals, v. 45, n. 1, p. 171-179, 2010. AERTS, J. M. J.; BOLS, P. E. J. Ovarian follicular dynamics. A review with emphasis on the bovine species. Part II: Antral development, exogenous influence and future prospects. Reproduction in domestic animals, v. 45, n. 1, p. 180-187, 2010. ALBERTINI, David F.; CARABATSOS, Mary Jo. Comparative aspects of meiotic cell cycle control in mammals. Journal of molecular medicine, v. 76, n. 12, p. 795-799, 1998. AUSTIN, Colin Russell; SHORT, R. Reproduction in mammals. Cambridge, 1972. BAKER, T. G. Oogenesis and ovulation. In. Reproduction in Mammals I Germ Cells and Fertilization, p. 29-30, 1972. BEARDEN, Henry Joe et al. Reproducción animal aplicada. México: Manual Moderno, 1982. BIGGERS, John D.; SCHUETZ, Allen W. Oogenesis. University Park Press, 1972. BINELLI, Mario; MURPHY, Bruce D. Coordinated regulation of follicle development by germ and somatic cells. Reproduction, Fertility and Development, v. 22, n. 1, p. 1-12, 2009. CHIARINI-GARCIA, Helio; RUSSELL, Lonnie D. High-resolution light microscopic characterization of mouse spermatogonia. Biology of reproduction, v. 65, n. 4, p. 1170-1178, 2001. CHOUDARY, J. B.; GIER, H. T.; MARION, G. B. Cyclic changes in bovine vesicular follicles. Journal of animal science, v. 27, n. 2, p. 468-471, 1968. CLERMONT, Yves; PEREY, Bernard. Quantitative study of the cell population of the seminiferous tubules in immature rats. American Journal of Anatomy, v. 100, n. 2, p. 241-267, 1957. COSTA, DEILER SAMPAIO; PAULA, T. A. R. Espermatogênese em mamíferos. Scientia, v. 4, 2003. CUNNINGHAM, James. Tratado de fisiologia veterinária. Elsevier Health Sciences, 2011. CUPPS, Perry T. (Ed.). Reproduction in domestic animals. Elsevier, 1991. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Fisiologia Clínica do Ciclo Estral de Vacas Leiteiras: Desenvolvimento Folicular, Corpo Lúteo e Etapas do Estro. 2020. Acervo pessoal. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Fisiologia da Reprodução Animal: Ovulação, Controle e Sincronização do Cio. 2020. Acervo pessoal. DUKES, Henry Hugh; SWENSON, Melvin J.; REECE, William O. Dukes fisiologia dos animais domésticos. Editora Guanabara Koogan, 1996. EPIFANO, Olga; DEAN, Jurrien. Genetic control of early folliculogenesis in mice. Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism, v. 13, n. 4, p. 169-173, 2002. ERICKSON, B. H. Development and senescence of the postnatal bovine ovary. Journal of animal science, v. 25, n. 3, p. 800-805, 1966. REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS -/- FELDMAN, Edward C. et al. Canine and feline endocrinology-e-book. Elsevier health sciences, 2014. FUSCO, Giuseppe; MINELLI, Alessandro. The Biology of Reproduction. Cambridge University Press, 2019. GALINA-HIDALGO, Carlos Salvador. A study of the development of testicular function and an evaluation of testicular biopsy in farm animals. 1971. Tese de Doutorado. Royal Veterinary College (University of London). GALLICANO, G. Ian. Composition, regulation, and function of the cytoskeleton in mammalian eggs and embryos. Front Biosci, v. 6, p. D1089-1108, 2001. GILBERT, Scott F. Biología del desarrollo. Ed. Médica Panamericana, 2005. GNESSI, Lucio; FABBRI, Andrea; SPERA, Giovanni. Gonadal peptides as mediators of development and functional control of the testis: an integrated system with hormones and local environment. Endocrine reviews, v. 18, n. 4, p. 541-609, 1997. HAFEZ, Elsayed Saad Eldin; HAFEZ, Bahaa. Reprodução animal. São Paulo: Manole, 2004. HEDGER, Mark P. Testicular leukocytes: what are they doing?. Reviews of reproduction, v. 2, n. 1, p. 38-47, 1997. HUTSON, James C. Testicular macrophages. In: International review of cytology. Academic Press, 1994. p. 99-143. HYTTEL, P. Gametogênese. In. HYTTEL, Poul; SINOWATZ, Fred; VEJLSTED, Morten. Embriologia veterinária. São Paulo: Elsevier Brasil, 2012. JOHNSON, Martin H. Essential reproduction. Nova Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2018. JONES, Richard E.; LOPEZ, Kristin H. Human reproductive biology. Academic Press, 2013. KIERSZENBAUM, Abraham L.; TRES, Laura L. Primordial germ cell‐somatic cell partnership: A balancing cell signaling act. Molecular Reproduction and Development: Incorporating Gamete Research, v. 60, n. 3, p. 277-280, 2001. MATZUK, Martin M. et al. Intercellular communication in the mammalian ovary: oocytes carry the conversation. Science, v. 296, n. 5576, p. 2178-2180, 2002. MCLAREN, Anne. Germ and somatic cell lineages in the developing gonad. Molecular and cellular endocrinology, v. 163, n. 1-2, p. 3-9, 2000. MCKINNON, Angus O. et al. (Ed.). Equine reproduction. John Wiley & Sons, 2011. MERCHANT-LARIOS, Horacio; MORENO-MENDOZA, Norma. Onset of sex differentiation: dialog between genes and cells. Archives of medical research, v. 32, n. 6, p. 553-558, 2001. MINTZ, Beatrice et al. Embryological phases of mammalian gametogenesis. Embryological phases of mammalian gametogenesis., v. 56, n. Suppl. 1, p. 31-43, 1960. MORALES, M. E. et al. Gametogénesis. I. Revisión de la literatura, con enfoque en la ovogénesis. Medicina Universitaria, v. 8, n. 32, p. 183-9, 2006. NAKATSUJI, NORIO; CHUMA, SHINICHIRO. Differentiation of mouse primordial germ cells into female or male germ cells. International Journal of Developmental Biology, v. 45, n. 3, p. 541-548, 2002. NILSSON, Eric; PARROTT, Jeff A.; SKINNER, Michael K. Basic fibroblast growth factor induces primordial follicle development and initiates folliculogenesis. Molecular and cellular endocrinology, v. 175, n. 1-2, p. 123-130, 2001. REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS -/- NORRIS, David O.; LOPEZ, Kristin H. The endocrinology of the mammalian ovary. In: Hormones and reproduction of vertebrates. Academic Press, 2011. p. 59-72. PEDERSEN, Torben. Follicle growth in the immature mouse ovary. European Journal of Endocrinology, v. 62, n. 1, p. 117-132, 1969. PINEDA, Mauricio H. et al. McDonald's veterinary endocrinology and reproduction. Iowa state press, 2003. ROSER, J. F. Endocrine and paracrine control of sperm production in stallions. Animal Reproduction Science, v. 68, n. 3-4, p. 139-151, 2001. RUSSELL, Lonnie D. et al. Histological and histopathological evaluation of the testis. International journal of andrology, v. 16, n. 1, p. 83-83, 1993. RÜSSE, I.; SINOWATZ, F. Gametogenese. Lehrbuch der Embryologie der Haustiere, p. 42-92, 1991. SAITOU, Mitinori; BARTON, Sheila C.; SURANI, M. Azim. A molecular programme for the specification of germ cell fate in mice. Nature, v. 418, n. 6895, p. 293-300, 2002. SALISBURY, Glenn Wade et al. Physiology of reproduction and artificial insemination of cattle. WH Freeman and Company., 1978. SAWYER, Heywood R. et al. Formation of ovarian follicles during fetal development in sheep. Biology of reproduction, v. 66, n. 4, p. 1134-1150, 2002. SCARAMUZZI, R. J.; MARTENSZ, N. D.; VAN LOOK, P. F. A. Ovarian morphology and the concentration of steroids, and of gonadotrophins during the breeding season in ewes actively immunized against oestradiol-17β or oestrone. Reproduction, v. 59, n. 2, p. 303-310, 1980. SEIDEL JR, G. E. et al. Control of folliculogenesis and ovulation in domestic animals: puberal and adult function. In: 9th International Congress on Animal Reproduction and Artificial Insemination, 16th-20th June 1980. II. Round tables. Editorial Garsi., 1980. p. 11-16. SKINNER, Michael K. Cell-cell interactions in the testis. Endocrine Reviews, v. 12, n. 1, p. 45-77, 1991. SMITZ, J. E.; CORTVRINDT, Rita G. The earliest stages of folliculogenesis in vitro. Reproduction, v. 123, n. 2, p. 185-202, 2002. SORENSEN, Anton Marinus. Reproducción animal: principios y prácticas. México, 1982. SUTOVSKY, Peter; MANANDHAR, Gaurishankar. Mammalian spermatogenesis and sperm structure: anatomical and compartmental analysis. In. The sperm cell: Production, maturation, fertilization, regeneration, p. 1-30, 2006. TAZUKE, Salli I. et al. A germline-specific gap junction protein required for survival of differentiating early germ cells. Development, v. 129, n. 10, p. 2529-2539, 2002. VAN STRAATEN, H. W. M.; WENSING, C. J. G. Leydig cell development in the testis of the pig. Biology of Reproduction, v. 18, n. 1, p. 86-93, 1978. TURNBULL, K. E.; BRADEN, A. W. H.; MATTNER, P. E. The pattern of follicular growth and atresia in the ovine ovary. Australian Journal of Biological Sciences, v. 30, n. 3, p. 229-242, 1977. WASSARMAN, Paul M. Gametogenesis. Londres: Academic Press, 2012. WROBEL, K.-H.; SÜß, Franz. Identification and temporospatial distribution of bovine primordial germ cells prior to gonadal sexual differentiation. Anatomy and embryology, v. 197, n. 6, p. 451-467, 1998. REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS -/- ZARCO, L. Gametogénese. In. PORTA, L. R.; MEDRANO, J. H. H. Fisiología reproductiva de los animales domésticos. Cidade do México: FMVZ-UNAM, 2018. ZIRKIN, Barry R. et al. Endocrine and Paracrine Regulation of Mammalian Spermatogenesis. In: Hormones and Reproduction of Vertebrates. Academic Press, 2011. p. 45-57. -/- REALIZAÇÃO -/- . (shrink)

1. INTRODUÇÃO -/- No "mundo" das produções animais, e sem que saibamos exatamente o motivo ou os motivos, não é incomum observar, mesmo a nível docente (faceta em que nos sentimos especialmente culpados), uma notável discussão (obscuridade de ideias e/ou na linguagem, produzida deliberadamente ou não) ao abordar os conceitos de fertilidade, fecundidade e prolificidade. -/- Esta falta de clareza conceitual torna-se tanto mais manifesta quando, precisamente a partir dos referidos conceitos, se pretende efetuar, por exemplo, uma programação ou uma (...) análise técnico-econômica de uma exploração pecuária. -/- O objetivo do presente trabalho é tentar introduzir com "clareza de ideias" acerca dos referidos conceitos essenciais na Zootecnia, sempre no domínio que nos é próprio, o das produções animais. Com a finalidade de tornar a exposição mais didática, construindo os conceitos sobre a cultura dos suínos. No entanto, que fique bem claro desde já que, com pequenas variações, pode-se considerar qualquer outra «espécie animal superior», incluindo as aves. -/- Para efeitos de brevidade e concisão, e porque serão abordados noutros trabalhos, não vamos aprofundar aqui, para além do estritamente indispensável, as questões relativas à anatomia do aparelho reprodutor e à fisiologia da reprodução. -/- -/- 2. FERTILIDADE -/- Segundo o Dicionário Geral Ilustrado da Língua Portuguesa: -/- — Fertilidade: Qualidade de fértil. -/- — Fértil: Virtude que tem a terra para produzir copiosos frutos. -/- A palavra "fertilidade" tem a sua raiz no vocábulo latino "fertilis" (produtivo, abundante). Ao nível da produção animal, a fertilidade pode ser definida como: -/- «A capacidade de um macho ou de uma fêmea púbere de produzir e liberar gametas maduros fisiologicamente aptos a fecundar (espermatozoides) ou para serem fecundados (ovócitos de segunda ordem)». -/- No caso da fêmea, o aparecimento da puberdade começa com a intervenção das hormonas gonadotrofinas FSH e LH (folículo estimulante e lúteo estimulante, respectivamente). Com ela se inicia o desenvolvimento de 15-30 ou mais folículos primários localizados no estroma ovariano, processo que se repetirá de forma cíclica enquanto não se inicia um processo de anafrodisia funcional (gestação) ou patológica. -/- 2.1 Fertilidade em suínos: formação de ovários, ovócitos, folículos e generalidades das fêmeas -/- Na porca, os ovários são duas formações ovais situadas na cavidade abdominal na região sublombar em ambos os lados do raquis. Geralmente, o ovário direito tem um tamanho superior ao esquerdo e, como no caso da maioria das fêmeas mamíferas, a maior parte da superfície ovariana está rodeada pelo epitélio germinal e pelo peritoneu, exceto numa pequena porção, ílio-ovárico, por onde penetram os vasos e os nervos. -/- O estroma ovárico é formado por uma rede de tecido conjuntivo em cujas maias se encontram numerosos folículos que contêm as células germinativas ou ovócitos em diversos estágios de desenvolvimento. Estes folículos manifestam-se na superfície do ovário da porca sob a forma de uma série de eminências arredondadas que lhe dão um aspecto de amora. -/- A fêmea já nasce com um número determinado de folículos primários originados durante o desenvolvimento embrionário, contendo cada folículo um ovócito de primeira ordem que alcançou um desenvolvimento de dictiotene da prófase meiótica ou mitose I. -/- A partir dos folículos primários originam-se folículos secundários ou poliestratificados, alcançando-se o grau de folículos terciários de Graaf ou maduros, com o aparecimento da puberdade. O folículo terciário ou antral caracteriza-se por um aumento de volume e uma grande complexidade, contém, em princípio, o ovócito de primeira ordem que sofreu o período de vitelo-gênese e que vai dar lugar ao ovócito de segunda ordem quando ocorre a lise do cumulus proliger ou ooforo, com o qual a célula sexual permanece agora livre no seio do líquido folicular. Neste processo o ovócito de primeira ordem sofreu modificações características como são um deslocamento do núcleo para a superfície da célula e o protoplasma distribui-se irregularmente. -/- Um folículo terciário ou maduro tem a seguinte estrutura desde a parte externa à interna: teca externa, teca interna, membrana de Slajvansky, membrana granulosa e as células da coroa radiada que rodeiam o ovócito, uma membrana pelúcida que envolve totalmente o ovócito de grande transcendência no momento da fecundação e finalmente o ovócito de primeira ordem. Existe uma cavidade denominada cavidade folicular, que contém um líquido segregado pelas células da granulosa, licor folicular de composição complexa, destacando as hormonas sexuais femininas e concretamente o 17-beta-estradiol. A membrana granulosa está relacionada com a coroa radiada pelo «cumulus proliger» ou ooforo que serve de nexo de ligação. -/- Posteriormente, e seguindo o processo, origina-se o folículo pré-ovulatório ou deiscente, produzindo-se a eclosão do folículo e libertando-se um ovócito de segunda ordem em período de metafase II graças a um processo que Pérez García denominou como ovocitação, termo que foi aceito nos diversos meios científicos, já que considera que o termo ovulação no caso dos vertebrados é incorreto. Este ovócito de segunda ordem é a verdadeira célula fértil, coisa que não ocorre quando se libera ou se produz o óvulo no oviduto; os óvulos são células inférteis. No processo de ovocitação intervém uma série de mecanismos que classificamos em pressores, enzimáticos e neuro-hormonais, destacando entre estes últimos a hormona luteoestimulante (LH), além dos fatores introváricos descritos recentemente. -/- Consequentemente, uma fêmea, no nosso caso suína, será fértil quando for capaz de levar a bom termo de forma regular e de acordo com a periodicidade do seu ciclo sexual o processo descrito supra. -/- Na prática cotidiana das explorações não é possível saber diretamente se uma fêmea é fértil ou não. Neste contexto, por exemplo, ninguém poderá nos informar se ante as manifestações psicomáticas do zelo existe fertilidade; pode tratar-se de um zelo anovular que requer para o seu diagnóstico a utilização de métodos endoscópicos ou ecográficos, assim como métodos cirúrgicos como a perfusão dos ovidutos ou do útero para obter os ovócitos liberados avaliando-se a quantidade e qualidade dos mesmos. -/- Por conseguinte, a frase frequentemente ouvida a nível das explorações: «é uma fêmea muito fértil», é, a menos que tenha sido efetuado o «controle específico» da reprodutora, pelo menos «tecnicamente inadequado». -/- 2.2 Fertilidade em suínos: formação, translocação e generalidades dos espermatozoides no macho -/- O caso do porco é um pouco diferente. No período embrionário formam-se as espermatogônias, células equivalentes às ovogonias da fêmea. De cada espermatogônia primária ou espermatogônia A1 por numerosas mitoses, produzem-se 16 espermatócitos primários mais uma espermatogônia B1 que repetirá o processo. Por conseguinte, o período de proliferação ou multiplicação difere significativamente do mesmo período no caso da fêmea, uma vez que no macho durante toda a vida sexual são produzidas continuamente novas espermatogônias. -/- Cada espermatócito primário, através de um processo de crescimento muito limitado, origina um espermatócito de primeira ordem que, durante o período de maturação, originará dois espermatócitos de segunda ordem (haploides) e, em segundo lugar, quatro espermátides (haploides). Cada uma destas espermátides, através de um processo de transformação denominado espermiogênese ou espermatohistogênese, originará um espermatozoide. Os espermatozoides passarão posteriormente do rete testis ao epidídimo, onde se armazenarão alelostaticamente. A trajetória dos espermatozoides antes de chegar ao epidídimo passa pelos tubos retos de Haller (muito lentamente pela pressão exercida) para chegar às lagunas de Haller e daí aos cones eferentes. O trânsito dos espermatozoides através do epidídimo é de fundamental importância porque é aqui onde tem lugar a verdadeira maturação. Os espermatozoides obtidos a nível da cabeça do epidídimo não terminaram a sua maturação e, portanto, carecem de capacidade fecundante, enquanto que aqueles provenientes da cauda deste órgão a têm em grande medida. No entanto, à saída do epidídimo, os espermatozoides ainda não atingiram a sua plena maturidade. Para isso deverão passar pelas ampolas do ducto deferente ou de Henle para que, como afirmam a maioria dos autores, tenha lugar a seleção de formas anormais e de espermatozoides fracos. As células intersticiais do epitélio seminífero são responsáveis por fornecer aos espermatozoides um material nutricional que exerce ações tróficas e endócrinas que favorecem o equilíbrio celular do espermatozoide. Finalmente estes espermatozoides, conjuntamente com as secreções prostáticas, das vesículas seminais e das glândulas bulbouretrais, terminarão sua trajetória na uretra, sendo eliminados ao exterior pelo órgão copulador ou pênis mediante o processo de ejaculação. -/- No momento da ejaculação libera-se o esperma, ou sêmen, que é o resultado da mistura do material espermático de origem testicular e as sucessivas secreções das glândulas acessórias antes citadas, que derramam seus produtos na uretra. No entanto, o processo final espermatogênico não termina no trato genital masculino, mas sim no trato feminino depois do coito ou da inseminação artificial graças ao conhecido processo extremamente complexo da capacitação espermática. -/- Um varrão é fértil a partir do momento em que é capaz de produzir espermatozoides normais. Analisando o esperma de forma adequada poderemos constatar com uma relativa precisão, tendo em conta a grande quantidade de fatores endógenos e exógenos que afetam a um ser tão sensível como o porco, o nível de fertilidade do mesmo. Devemos ter em mente que macho suíno adulto pode ser inicialmente muito fértil (apresentar uma grande quantidade de espermatozoides, de 400-1.300 x 106/ml na fração espermática do seu ejaculado) e, em vez disso, não ser apto para a reprodução porque pode apresentar defeitos no epidídimo e/ou nas ampolas de Henle pelo qual os espermatozoides não amadurecem e portanto não são úteis para efeitos reprodutivos. -/- Contudo, na prática, e de acordo com a própria definição, o porco é considerado fértil quando produz espermatozoides maduros com as seguintes características: -/- - Concentração correta; -/- - Capacidade motora adequada; -/- - Capacidade metabólica; -/- - Estrutura correta em relação à cabeça e ao flagelo (pescoço, trato intermediário e cauda, considerando esta última formada por seu trato principal e seu trato terminal), avaliando-se também o estado do acrossoma; -/- - Adequado comportamento cromocitógeno. -/- Logo deve ficar claro que a fertilidade é uma aptidão que em geral têm os machos e as fêmeas púberes para produzir e liberar gametas anatômicos e fisiológicos corretos (os híbridos das espécies cavalar e asnal, os mulos e os burdéganos, por exemplo, não são férteis; uma fêmea com ausência de desenvolvimento gonodal tampouco). -/- -/- 3. FECUNDIDADE -/- De acordo com o Dicionário da Língua Portuguesa: -/- — Fecundidade: Qualidade de fecundo. -/- — Fecundo: Que produz ou se reproduz por meios naturais. -/- A palavra «fecundidade» provém do latim fecunditas, significa «virtude e faculdade de produzir». Qualidade de fecundo, do latim fecundus, que «produz ou se reproduz em virtude dos meios naturais». -/- Esta definição pode conduzir, no âmbito das produções animais, a equívocos. Somos a favor da aplicação da seguinte definição de fecundidade. -/- «É a capacidade que um macho e/ou uma fêmea fértil tem para conseguir que os seus gametas, anatómica e fisiológica, aumentem normalmente: uma vez liberados, juntam-se aos do outro sexo para formar um zigoto». -/- Este fenômeno recebe o nome de fecundação, não sendo correto o de fertilização, que é utilizado por alguns autores. -/- 3.1 Generalidades e a fecundação em suínos -/- No caso da porca, para continuar com o mesmo exemplo ao longo de todo o trabalho, os gametas femininos, ovócitos de segunda ordem, sofrem uma descida ou migração, uma vez liberados do folículo maduro, através do oviduto para entrar em contato com os espermatozoides. -/- Esta migração pode ocorrer porque antes de ocorrer a mencionada deiscência folicular caracterizada por um congestionamento, tanto do próprio ovário como dos ovidutos ou trompas de Falópio, o pavilhão destas últimas aproxima-se do ovário (o oviduto de três partes: bandeira, corpo e istmo). Constituindo uma espécie de funil, graças à intervenção das fimbrias do pavilhão, no qual, em princípio, os oócitos deiscentes devem ser depositados com o respectivo líquido folicular. -/- As razões pelas quais o ovócito se dirige ao pavilhão não são bem conhecidas, embora se pense que a causa é devida às correntes que originam os cílios com seus movimentos. O ovócito percorre o oviduto num tempo adequado (reunindo, portanto, as condições adequadas de pH, pressão osmótica, etc.) para que o espermatozoide possa alcançá-lo e entrar em contato com ele. -/- Se o ovócito de segunda ordem não cair no infundíbulo ou transitar a uma velocidade inadequada pelo oviduto não poderá ter lugar a impregnação (penetração do espermatozoide no ovócito de segunda ordem) e portanto a fecundação (singamia e cariogamia). Há que ter em conta que a fecundação provoca a segunda etapa da maturação do ovócito caracterizada pela finalização da mitose II, já que como supracitado o ovócito de segunda ordem se libera no processo de metafase II (equacional), originando um óvulo que já contém o material cromossômico masculino e eliminando o segundo polocito. -/- Podemos interpretar que a eliminação deste segundo polocito, como consequência da penetração da cabeça do espermatozoide no ovócito originando-se um óvulo, seria como o resultado de uma espécie de incompatibilidade entre o pronúcleo do polocito e o que fornece o espermatozoide. Por conseguinte, no período de maturação da ovogênese produz-se, através de um processo reducional, um ovócito de segunda ordem e um primeiro pólcito. Posteriormente, o ovócito de segunda ordem originará por uma mitose equacional, que carece do período de duplicação do ADN no ciclo de Savel, um óvulo e um segundo pólcito. Às vezes, mas nem sempre, o primeiro polocito originará um terceiro e um quarto polocito mediante mitose, pelo que no total podem originar-se três polocito. Estes polocitos podem ser chamados de ovos abortivos porque carecem praticamente de deutoplasma que ficou englobado no óvulo e que permitirá o desenvolvimento embrionário em seus primeiros estádios até que se estabeleçam as conexões feto-maternas. -/- O óvulo maduro apresenta o pronúcleo feminino capaz de conjugar-se com o pronúcleo masculino, dando lugar à formação do zigoto. Mas, insisto mais uma vez, a penetração do espermatozoide ocorre sempre no estágio de ovócito de segunda ordem e nunca quando a célula sexual tenha alcançado o estádio de óvulo. -/- Evidentemente e depois de todo o comentado: -/- UMA PORCA PODE SER FERTIL E NÃO FECUNDA -/- Por isso bastaria, por exemplo, que o pavilhão da tromba não conseguisse aproximar-se de maneira adequada ao ovário, com o que os ovócitos de segunda ordem, anatômica e fisiologicamente normais, cairiam na cavidade abdominal. Nestas circunstâncias a fecundação, logicamente, seria totalmente impossível. -/- O espermatozoide, por sua vez, tem que subir um trecho do oviduto para "encontrar" o ovócito. Este avanço ocorre como consequência das contrações peristálticas do útero que realiza uma sucção do esperma. Neste momento os espermatozoides experimentam uma importante seleção biológica dado que para atravessar o istmo tubárico necessitam ter uma adequada vitalidade (na porca a união uterotubárica, assim como a primeira parte do istmo, atuam parcialmente como uma barreira). -/- Evidentemente, o espermatozoide não o tem fácil, embora consiga aproximar-se do ovócito graças às quatro hormonas produzidas pelos gametas (dois androgamonas e duas ginogamonas), embora atualmente fala-se da existência de três ginogamonas já que o ovócito se comporta como um polo positivo e a parte terminal da cabeça do espermatozóide como um polo negativo. -/- Uma vez que o espermatozoide entra em contato com o ovócito, deve «salvar» a camada protetora do ovócito (formada por um aglomerado mucoso de natureza espessa e viscosa, além de uma camada interna que pode ser mais ou menos poliestratificada que constitui a coroa radiada procedente das células da membrana granulosa). Para superar estes obstáculos, os espermatozoides têm uma estrutura, o acrossoma. Esta estrutura contém um complexo específico de lipoglicoproteínas que inclui uma série de enzimas como hialuronidase e acrosina. A hialuronidase está provavelmente envolvida na dispersão do cumulus proliger. A acrosina está relacionada com a penetração do espermatozoide através da zona pelúcida. -/- Então também podemos afirmar, como fizemos no caso da reprodutora, que: -/- UM PORCO TAMBÉM PODE SER FERTIL E NÃO FECUNDO -/- Bastaria para isso que os espermatozoides experimentassem um hipocinese, por isso sendo excessivamente lentos não tinham suficiente motilidade de avanço. -/- No entanto, sem ter a necessidade de chegar a estes extremos, o que deve ficar claro é que: -/- a) Fertilidade e fecundidade são dois conceitos claramente distintos. -/- b) Para que um reprodutor ou uma reprodutora possam tornar-se fecundos antes devem ser férteis. -/- Assim, por exemplo, um macho fértil pode não ser fecundo; quando um reprodutor não tem ereção, não tem suficiente ardor genérico, não é capaz, obviamente, de introduzir seu aparelho copulador no trato genital da fêmea. Esta situação pode ser ultrapassada, pelo menos em alguns casos, mediante a utilização de um ejaculador elétrico e posterior aplicação da técnica de inseminação artificial. -/- Uma fórmula clássica para determinar a porcentagem global de fecundidade obtida num rebanho durante um determinado período de tempo (T) pode ser a seguinte: -/- Fecundidade (T)(%)=(N° de fêmeas gestantes (T))/(N° de fêmeas cobertas (T)) x 100 -/- A mesma fórmula é utilizada para determinar a «capacidade fecundante» (CF) de um macho X durante um período T. -/- CF(x)(T)(%)=(N° de fêmeas cobertas / macho X (T) gestantes)/(N° de fêmeas cobertas / macho X (T) ) x 100 -/- Obviamente, na prática, a «capacidade fecundante final» do macho X não é apenas função das suas próprias aptidões, é também função da aptidão fecundante das fêmeas por ele cobertas. -/- Por esta razão, para que o parâmetro CFX(T) seja «fiável», o macho X deve ter coberto um elevado número de fêmeas durante o período T. Consequentemente, este período de tempo não pode ser excessivamente curto, dependendo do ciclo sexual da espécie. -/- Analisados os termos fertilidade e fecundidade, vamos tratar a despeito da prolificidade. -/- -/- 4. PROLIFICIDADE -/- Segundo o Dicionário da Língua Portuguesa: -/- — Prolífico: Que tem a virtude de gerar.; -/- — Gerar: Dar origem a um novo ser. -/- No âmbito das produções animais é um termo realmente fácil de de compreender, não existindo discrepância entre os autores. -/- Poderíamos estabelecer a seguinte definição para a prolificidade: -/- "É a capacidade que a fêmea reprodutora tem para proporcionar aos zigotos um meio adequado em que possam realizar o seu desenvolvimento e chegar ao término". -/- 4.1 Generalidades e prolificidade em suínos -/- No caso da porca, poderíamos definir, em primeiro lugar, a prolificidade como o número de leitões nascidos por parto. A maioria dos autores consideram os leitões nascidos vivos e os nascidos mortos; outros só computam os nascidos vivos. Nós nos inclinamos pela primeira consideração. -/- No seio da fêmea, uma vez realizada a fecundação, a «fusão» das células germinativas do macho e da fêmea, inicia-se a divisão das células do zigoto, que constituem uma massa ou um aglomerado de células não especializadas. (Quando no processo de divisão forem atingidas as 16 células, a mencionada massa celular não identificada recebe a denominação de mórula, a qual dará lugar à blástula ou blastocisto.) -/- Durante os primeiros dias este zigoto em divisão, que irá transformar-se em embrião, desloca-se; primeiro, ao longo do oviduto; depois, no útero. Uma vez alcançado o útero é quando ocorre a nidificação. Esta nidificação pode ocorrer porque a mórula segrega uma enzima que é capaz de fixar-se em uma porção do endométrio, resultando em uma cavidade. É precisamente nesta cavidade que tem lugar a «implantação». -/- Nos suínos, o momento da nidificação situa-se entre 10 e 15 dias a contar do início da gestação. Aproximadamente entre os 15-16 dias de gestação os embriões estão totalmente fixados nas paredes uterinas. A partir deste momento pode-se iniciar o desenvolvimento das estruturas que vão permitir com que a mãe possa alimentar os novos seres (durante os primeiros dias, os ovos fertilizados alimentam-se do seu próprio deutoplasma e do chamado leite uterino de Williams proveniente do endotélio uterino). -/- Uma vez desenvolvidas todas as estruturas necessárias (saco vitelino, corioalantoides, saco amniótico, etc.), o embrião pode desenvolver-se no limite das suas possibilidades, transformar-se num feto e tentar atingir o seu objetivo que não é outro senão o de chegar com vida ao final, quero dizer, na altura do parto. -/- Em suma, de acordo com o exposto até aqui, acerca prolificidade da porca, um cálculo para medir o índice reprodutivo é dado por: prolificidade Y em seu parto n será: -/- Prolificidade porca Yn = Número de leitões nascidos (vivos+mortos) -/- Quando se fala da prolificidade média de um lote de reprodutoras (entendendo-se por «lote de reprodutoras» um conjunto de porcas que se encontram no mesmo estado fisiológico), considera-se o número médio de crias durante o período de partos. -/- Assim, por exemplo, a prolificidade média de um lote de 20 porcas que pariram, na respectiva maternidade, 180 leitões vivos e 6 leitões mortos é: -/- Prolificidade médiando lote=(180 l.v.+ 6 l.m.)/(20 porcas paridas)=9,3 leitões/porca -/- Se nos referirmos a uma exploração com 200 porcas reprodutoras ativas presentes na propriedade, desde o dia 1 de Janeiro a 31 de Dezembro, ao qual foram «obtidos» 1800 leitões vivos e 40 leitões nascidos mortos, a prolificidade média da exploração durante este ano será: -/- Prolificidade média do rebanho=(1800 l.v+40 l.m.)/(200 reprodutoras)= 9,2 leitões/reprodutora ativa -/- Este número, a nível prático e referente exclusivamente a um ano, é pouco indicativo dado que dependerá da calendarização no programa de gestão da exploração. -/- Normalmente, o parâmetro mais utilizado para refletir o desempenho de uma exploração no aspecto reprodutivo é o da produtividade definida pela expressão: -/- Produtividade final real=prolificidade média x (N° de fêmeas paridas)/(N° total de fêmeas) -/- Suponhamos que, numa exploração de 200 porcas reprodutoras, tenham parido 150 leitões (vivos+mortos) com uma prolificidade média de 9,0 leitões, a produtividade será: -/- Produtividade final real=9,0 leit./porca x (150 porcas paridas)/(200 porcas total)=6,75 leit./porca -/- Se esta produtividade for referente à um ano, a fórmula será: -/- Produtividade final anual = prolificidade média x (N° de fêmeas paridas)/(N° total de fêmeas) x (365 dias)/I -/- Sendo I – Intervalo médio entre dois partos. -/- No exemplo (exploração) anterior, se o intervalo médio entre dois partos é de 154 dias, a produtividade final anual será: -/- Produtiv. final anual = 9,0 leit./porca x (150 p.paridas)/(200 p.presentes) x (365 dias)/(154 dias)=16 leit./porca/ano -/- Trata-se de um valor muito indicativo do nível médio de «eficácia produtiva» ou eficiência reprodutiva da exploração. -/- Tal como foi calculado para as reprodutoras, estima-se a eficácia produtiva de um macho reprodutor X a partir de uma fórmula semelhante, dada por: -/- Produtividade(mX) = prolificidade x (N° de fêmeas paridas)/(N° de fêmeas cobertas) -/- Onde a prolificidade é a média de crias das fêmeas paridas. -/- Se um macho reprodutor tiver coberto (inseminado) 200 porcas, ao qual 140 pariram um total de 850 leitões vivos e 20 leitões mortos, seu coeficiente produtivo é: -/- Produtiv.macho X=(870 leitões (vivos+mortos))/(140 porcas paridas) x (140 p.paridas)/(200 p.cobertas)=4,35 leit./porca coberta -/- Este parâmetro expressa o número médio de crias nascidas por fêmea coberta. -/- Numa exploração pecuária (especialmente numa exploração suinícola) torna-se muito interessante, na prática, estudar a evolução da produtividade dos machos reprodutores ao longo do tempo. -/- Numa exploração pode também ser interessante calcular a eficácia reprodutiva das fêmeas da exploração que exprime o número de dias necessários para obter uma criação (índice Ni). Este índice permite comparar a diferente eficácia reprodutiva de duas fêmeas e é definido pela seguinte expressão: -/- Ni=Ii/(Prolificidade i) -/- Sendo: -/- Ii = Intervalo médio entre dois partos de uma fêmea i. -/- Prolificidade i = Número médio de crias nascidas por parto na fêmea i. -/- Em nosso caso, a porca 134 tem um intervalo médio entre partos de 156 dias e uma prolificidade média de 9,1 leitões. Por sua vez, a porca 143 tem um I = 163 dias e uma prolificidade média de 9,5 leitões. Com base nos dados apresentados achamos o índice Ni, mediante os cálculos: -/- N134 = (156 dias)/(9,1 leitões)=17,14 dias/leit. -/- N143 = (163 dias)/(9,5 leit.) =17,16 dias/leit. -/- Neste caso, ao contrário do que se poderia perceber a olho nu, as duas reprodutoras possuem a mesma eficácia reprodutiva (quanto menor o índice Ni, maior a eficácia reprodutiva). Esta é a razão, de que numa exploração nem sempre um desmame precoce dos leitões (18-24 dias) é melhor que um desmame mais tardio (24-28 dias). -/- A eficácia reprodutiva numa exploração de R fêmeas reprodutoras durante um período de T dias é avaliada através da fórmula: -/- NiR = (T x R)/(N° de crias nascidas em T) -/- Se, numa exploração de 200 porcas reprodutoras, tiverem nascido, nos últimos 365 dias, um total de 1840 leitões (1800 leitões vivos e 40 leitões mortos), a eficácia reprodutiva será: -/- N200 = (365 dias x 200 porcas)/(1840 leit.nascidos)=39,67 dias/leit. -/- Ao qual equivale a uma prolificidade média do rebanho, no tempo considerado, de: -/- Prolificidade média do rebanho=(365 dias)/(39,67 dias/leit.)=9,2 leit. -/- Tal e como havia sido estimado anteriormente. -/- Não é necessário insistir na importância prática que tem, a nível das explorações, a correta consideração e a adequada utilização dos conceitos, parâmetros e índices expostos nas páginas precedentes. Neste sentido, em muitas das nossas explorações, também aqui, há ainda um longo caminho a percorrer. -/- -/- 5. RESUMO E PRIMEIRAS CONCLUSÕES -/- Ao longo deste trabalho venho tentado expor de uma forma mais clara e simples possível a realidade conceitual dos termos fertilidade, fecundidade e prolificidade dentro da perspectiva das produções animais. -/- Em todos os casos, trata-se de capacidades ou aptidões anatômica-fisiológicas dos reprodutores ligadas ao exercício da sua atividade no âmbito da exploração. -/- Nessa presente exposição, objetivou-se deixar claro que: -/- a) Fertilidade, fecundidade e prolificidade são conceitos totalmente distintos embora estejam correlacionados. -/- b) Um reprodutor e/ou reprodutora pode ser fértil e não fecundo. -/- c) Consequentemente, um reprodutor e/ou reprodutora não pode ser fecundo se não for fértil antes. -/- d) Um reprodutor e/ou reprodutora pode ser fértil e fecundo e não ser prolífico. -/- e) Consequentemente, para que um reprodutor e/ou reprodutora possa ser prolífico antes tem que ser fecundo. E se for fecundo, significa que também é fértil. -/- f) Na prática, as explorações só podem estimar, no âmbito do conceito geral de «eficácia reprodutiva», a fecundidade e a prolificidade dos reprodutores, nunca a sua fertilidade. -/- Uma vez classificados e estudados os referidos conceitos, estamos em condições de enfrentar outros temas ligados ao processo reprodutivo. -/- -/- 6. REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS -/- -/- BRACKETT, B. G.; JÚNIOR, G. E. A.; SEIDEL, S. M. Avances en zootecnia. Nuevas técnicas de reproducción animal. 1ª ed. Zaragoza: Editorial Acribia, 1988. -/- COLE, H. H.; CUPPS, P. T. Reproduction in domestic animals. 1ª ed. Londres: Academic Press, 1977. -/- FERREIRA, A. H. et al. Produção de suínos: teoria e prática. Brasília: ABCS, 2014. -/- GORDON, I. Reproducción controlada del cerdo. Zaragoza: Editorial Acribia, 1999. -/- HAFEZ, E. S. E.; HAFEZ, B. Reprodução animal. São Paulo: Manole, 2004. -/- HUGHES, P. E.; VARLEY, M. A. Reproducción del cerdo. Zaragoza: Editorial Acribia, 1984. (shrink)

When do objects at different times compose a further object? This is the question of diachronic composition. The universalist answers, ‘under any conditions whatsoever’. Others argue for restrictions on diachronic composition: composition occurs only when certain conditions are met. Recently, some philosophers have argued that restrictions on diachronic compositions are motivated by our best physical theories. In Persistence and Spacetime and elsewhere, Yuri Balashov argues that diachronic compositions are restricted in terms of causal connections between object stages. In a recent (...) article, Nikk Effingham argues that the standard objections to views that endorse restrictions on composition do not apply to a view that restricts composition according to compliance with the laws of nature. On the face of it, such restrictions on diachronic composition preserve our common-sense ontology while eliminating from it scientifically revisionary objects that travel faster than the speed of light. I argue that these attempts to restrict diachronic composition by appealing to either causal or nomological constraints face insurmountable difficulties within the context of special relativity. I discuss how the universalist should best respond to Hudson’s argument for superluminal objects, and in doing so, I present and defend a new sufficient condition for motion that does not entail that such objects are in superluminal motion. 1 Introduction2 Diachronic Composition3 Diachronic Composition and Superluminal Objects4 Restricting Diachronic Composition5 Causal and Nomological Restrictions on Composition in a Relativistic Context6 Superluminal Objects and Motion7 Conclusion. (shrink)

This article presents the findings of a seven-week case study which aimed to identify the benefits of self-assessment in EFL writing classes at tertiary level. The study was conducted with 17 B1- English language proficiency level students studying at an English preparatory programme of a foundation university. First, the students were introduced to using rubrics to assess a written product. Then, each week after students composed a writing, a paragraph for the first three weeks and an essay for the remaining (...) four weeks, the students were asked to assess their own writing by using the relevant rubric and filling in the self-assessment form. In addition, a questionnaire was conducted at the beginning of the study to investigate whether the students could identify their own strengths and weaknesses in writing, whether they could make sense of the criteria that are used for writing quizzes, and whether they made sense of the feedback given by the teachers for their writings. The same questionnaire was conducted again on the last day of the research to check whether the participants changed their opinions. The results revealed that the students improved their understanding of the rubrics over time by practice, they felt more responsible for their own learning, they were able to reflect on their own performance, and they became more autonomous learners. (shrink)

As is clear from the multiple references to knowledge in the proemium of fragment B1, Parmenides presented himself to his audiences as one who had achieved a profound insight into the nature of ‘what-is’. In support of this claim he conducted an elenchos or ‘testing’ of the ways of inquiry available for thinking, in the process revealing a set of sêmata or ‘signs’ indicating that what-is an eternal, indivisible, and unchanging plenum. In each of these respects, Parmenides was speaking the (...) language of discovery heard elsewhere in early Greek poetry. Similarly, his claim that we can neither learn nor know about what-is-not (hence must not say or think ‘it is not’) was justified by the ordinary meaning of the ancient Greek verbs for learning and knowing. Strikingly, Parmenides’ revisionary metaphysics rested in large measure on a widely shared view of what can be learned, known, and made known to others. -/- . (shrink)

The concept of universal in Aristotle’s philosophy has several aspects. 1) Universal and plurality Aristotle posits universal (καθόλου) versus particular (καθ᾿ ἕκαστον) each covering a range of elements: some elements are universal while others are particulars. Aristotle defines universal as ‘that which by nature is predicated (κατηγορεῖσθαι) of many subjects’ and particular as ‘that which is not’ so. (OI ., I, 7, 17a38-b1) The plurality of possible subjects of universal is what Aristotle insists on. The inclusion of the notion of (...) ‘plurality’ in the definition of universal might make us expect to have ‘singularity’ in the definition of particular. So, when Aristotle says that universal is that which is naturally predicable of many subjects, we expect him to define the particular as ‘that which is predicable of one subject only.’ Nonetheless, Aristotle does not and indeed cannot define it this way. We cannot find a text in which he defines particular as such simply because particulars are not predicable of any subject unless we regard their predication of themselves a predication, which Aristotle does not, at least in a genuine sense. Thus, he defines a particular only negatively. Hence, the capability of predication of a plurality is indeed the capability of predication itself because the particular cannot be predicated of anything. A particular is that which cannot be predicated of anything (or: of anything else, if saying of a thing of itself is to be considered as predication). It is ‘numerically one’ and what of which the universal is predicated (Met., B, 999b34-1000a1). Those that cannot be predicated of anything, or particulars, are of two kinds: primary substances and individual accidents. Besides Categories we can hardly find a text where Aristotle discusses individual accidents maybe because they are of much less importance for him compared with substances. However, substances are what he mentions repeatedly so that we can confine particulars to substances. In fact, it is substance that Aristotle considers so repeatedly as what cannot be predicated. As the main particulars and individuals, substances are posited as the main things that are not universal. The closeness of the two concepts of ‘substance’ and ‘unpredicability’ is to the extent that he ignores individual accidents and makes these concepts equal and as the opposite of universal: ‘what is not predicated of a subject is said a substance (οὐσία λέγετα τὸ μὴ καθ᾿ ὑποκειμένου) but what is always said of some subject is called a universal.’ (Met., Z, 1038b15-16. cf. Met., B, 1003a7-9) Therefore, since particulars cannot be predicated of any subject and, thus, every predication is necessarily a predication of a plurality of subjects, the inclusion of ‘plurality’ in the definition of universal is either i) in the sense of ‘representation’ or it must be regarded as ii) an unnecessary addition mentioned just for clarification or iii) only for avoiding cases where something is predicated of itself. By the first we mean this: though a substance is not said of anything, it represents some one thing and there is some one thing that is that substance. A universal, on the other hand, can represent a plurality of things. There is, however, a third possibility that has no essential difference with the sense of representation. Aristotle might have ‘arbitrary predication’ in mind when he suses ‘plurality’ in the definition of universal: while a particular can be the arbitrary predicate of just one thing, a universal can be predicated, both really and arbitrarily, of many things. Whatever Aristotle’s intention was, what is important for our investigation is this: Aristotle uses the notion of plurality in the definition of universal in spite of the fact that it is not necessary. What this implies is that this notion is so important for Aristotle that albeit every predictability is a predictability of a possible plurality, he adds the notion of plurality. What makes this notion important, I believe, is that he has something like a class in mind when he defines a universal because the notion of plurality is indistinguishable from a class. 2) Universal and whole; particular and part In Aristotle, the concepts of universal and whole are so close: ‘That which is true of a whole class and is said to hold good as a whole (which implies that it is a kind of whole) is true of a whole in the sense that it contains many things by being predicated of each, and that each and all of them, e.g. man, horse, god, are one because all are living things (τὸ μὲν γὰρ καθόλου καὶ τὸ ὃλως λεγόμενον ὡς πολλὰ περιέχον τῷ κατηγορεῖσθαι καθ’ ἑκάστου καὶ ἓν ἃπαντα εἶναι ὡς ἑκαστον, ...). Phil Corkum points to Aristotle’s distinction between quantitative and integral wholes in Met., 5, 26, 1023b26-33 where a quantitative whole is called homoiomerous, as the sum of animal while an integral whole, e.g. a house, is called heteromerous. He links the notion of homoiomerous to the notion of indivisibility of individuals (in 1b6-9 and 3b10-18) and indivisibility of universals. He believes that in PrA., I, 4, 25b32-26a2 it is the transitivity of mereological containment that is discussed. 3) Universal is common between instances Universal is common (κοινόν) between all the plurality of subjects it can be predicated of because what belongs to more than one thing must be common between them. (Met., Z, 1038b10-12) In the Same way, what is common cannot be a particular and, thus, a substance. (Met., Z, 1040b23-24) An individual or substance is a ‘this’ and a ‘this’ cannot be what common indicates simply because it is here in ‘this’ and can be nowhere else while common must be common between several things. In fact, what can be indicated by a common is indeed a ‘such.’ (Met., B, 1003a7-9) 4) Universal is the same in its instances We have a universal i) in all of its instances and ii) in the same way (ταὐτὸ ἐπὶ πὰντων). (Met, Γ, 1005a9-10) While the first point is evident (otherwise how could it be their universal?), the second point might seem not only ambiguous but the cause of many problems. For Aristotle, therefore, a universal must be ‘one’ in number and not many. This numerically one universal is the very universal for all its instances. It is the same universal that is predicated on each of its instances. This sameness is not, however, a mere homonymous sameness or the sameness of a homonymous word. All these three points, namely oneness, sameness and rejection of mere homonymous sameness are asserted in Aristotle’s own words τι ἕν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ἐπὶ πλειόνων μη ὁμώνυμον. (PsA., A, 11, 77a8-9) This non-homonymous unity is asserted also in PsA., A, 24, 85b15-16. 5) Universal as predicate Contrary to substance that cannot be a predicate, universal is what cannot be prevented from being in the place of predicate. Therefore, Aristotle distinguishes universal from subject because while the latter must necessarily be capable of being a predicate, though it might take the position of subject as well, the latter does not necessarily have such a capability especially when it is a this because it cannot be a predicate in such a case: ‘For the subject and universal differ in being or not being a ‘this’; like man and body and soul are the subject of accidents while the accident is something like musical or white.’ (Met., Θ, 1049a27-30) This indicates that a universal is basically different from subject and although it can be posited in the place of subject, it is the position of predicate that is its position as a universal. In Metaphysics, Z, 13, Aristotle asserts that ‘no universal can be substance.’ The same is asserted in Met., I, 1053b16-17 cf. 1060b21. As James H. Lesher points out, Aristotle’s position is that ‘nothing predicated universally is a substance.’ 6) Universal in substance In Met., 10388b8-9 Aristotle says that no universal is a substance. While a universal cannot be a substance in the way essence (to ti en einai) is, it is, Aristotle asserts, ‘in’ it (ἐν τούτῳ δὲ ἐνυπάρχειν) (Met., Ζ, 1038b16-18). Aristotle’s examples are: animal in man and horse. A universal is ‘in’ the thing it is its universal. But in what sense a universal can be in a thing? It cannot be in it as ‘in a subject’, which is denied in Categories for secondary substances. If we check the senses of being in, we can find some other senses of ‘being in’ some of which are compatible with this sense of ‘being in.’ Michael J. Loux believes that contrary to his earlier works like Peri Ideaon and Organon in which the immanence of universals signals a reproduction of the platonic two worlds picture, in his later works like Physics and Metaphysics, when Aristotle tells us that universals are in particulars he means that they are ‘components of or ingredients in sensible particulars.’ In Metaphysics (Δ, 1014b3-9) Aristotle compares elements with universals and call them ‘the most universal things because elements are present either in all or in many things. 7) Logos is of universal Not only universals have logos (Met., Z, 1038b18-19) but ‘Every logos and every science is of universals and not of particulars.’ (Met., K, 1059b25-26) The reason is that they are the same: the logos of the unjiversal ‘circle’ is nothing but ‘being circle’ and the logos of the universal ‘soul’ is ‘being soul.’ (Met., Z, 1035b33-1036a2) The same is said about definition. (Met, Z, 1036a27-29) 8) Universal: in the soul Contrasting individuals, universals are in the soul (So., 3, 5, 417b22-23; cf. PsA., B, 19, 100a6-7). Aristotle also says that the form, i.e. the essence, of the artwork is in the soul. (met., Z, 1032a32-b2) Moreover, as Michael J. Loux points out, ‘the Peri Ideon tells us that we need universals to serve as the objects of noetic acts.’ 9) Universal: not beside individual In spite of the fact that demonstration creates the opinion that demonstrating is based on the existence of universals as existing among the existing things, they do not have existence besides individuals (PsA., A, 24, 85a31-35; Met, Λ, 1071a19-23). Aristotle believes that universals of a P-series (B203, 71) are not παρὰ τὰ εἴδη: 999a6ff. Also check De Anima, II, 3, 414b20-25 10) Primary or commensurate universal Aristotle distinguishes ‘πρῶτον καθόλού’ (PsA., B, 17, 99a33-35) literally meaning ‘primary universal’ but mostly, and truly, translated as commensurate universal. While a universal merely ‘μὴ ἀντιςτρέφει,’ a primary universal ‘ᾧ ἓκαςτον μὲν μὴ ἀντιςτρέφει’ (PsA., B, 17, 99a33-35). Aristotle mentions three conditions for a commensurate universal. It is an attribute that i) belongs to every instance of its subject (without exception!!!), and this belonging is ii) essentially and iii) qua that subject itself (ᾗ αύτό). (PsA., A, 4, 73b26-28) However, he insists that the second and the third conditions are indeed the same. (PsA., A, 4, 73b28-30) The first condition he paraphrases as ‘to belong to any random instance of that subject’ and the second and the third as ‘when the subject is the first thing to which it can be shown to belong.’ (PsA., A, 4, 73b32-74a3) Aristotle’s example is ‘the equality of its angles to two right angles’. This attribute is not a commensurate universal of figure due to the first condition: it cannot be demonstrated of any figure. Nonetheless, though it can be demonstrated of every isosceles because every isosceles has angles equal to two right angles, it is not a commensurate universal of isosceles due to the other conditions: it is not predicated of isosceles qua isosceles but qua triangle. These conditions seem to be like regulators: they organize everything to match to the right group. The method of finding commensurate universal is like test and error method based on elimination: you must eliminate each of the higher or lower universals and check if the attribute remains or not. The commensurate universal is that which remains in between eliminated universals. (cf. PsA., A, 5, 74a37-b4) Brad Inwoodpresents an understanding of commensurate universal that is different from what I have understood and, thus, must be checked: ‘These universals are propositions in which, for example, ‘all A are B’ is true and which are still true universal statements if converted: ‘all B are A’ is also true.’ -/- . (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)

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)

An alliance of established experts on critical care, Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), has published two protocols for treatment of COVID-19. The first one, methylprednisolone, ascorbic acid, thiamine, and heparin (MATH+), is intended for hospital and intensive care unit treatment of pulmonary phases of the disease. It is based on affordable, commonly available components: anti-inflammatory corticosteroids (methylprednisolone, "M"), high-dose vitamin C infusion (ascorbic acid, "A"), vitamin B1 (thiamine, "T"), anticoagulant heparin ("H"), antiparasitic agent ivermectin, and supplemental components ("+") (...) including melatonin, vitamin D, elemental zinc, and magnesium. -/- The MATH+ protocol has received scarce attention due to the World Health Organization (WHO) advising against the use of corticosteroids in the beginning of the pandemic. In addition, randomized controlled clinical trials were required as a condition for adoption of the protocol. As the hospital mortality rate of MATH+ treated patients was approximately a quarter of the rate of patients receiving a standard of care, the authors of the protocol considered performing such trials unethical. Other parties have later performed clinical trials with corticosteroids and anticoagulants, which has led to a more widespread adoption of these components. -/- In October 2020, ivermectin was upgraded from an optional component to an essential component of the protocol. According to the authors, ivermectin is considered the first agent effective for both prophylaxis (prevention) of COVID-19 and for treatment of all phases of COVID-19 including outpatient treatment of the early symptomatic phase. Therefore, at the end of October 2020, a separate ivermectin-based I-MASK+ protocol for prophylaxis and early outpatient treatment of COVID-19 was published. (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)

There are at least two discussions about Pythagoreans in Aristotle’s works that can be related to paradigm, both in Book A of Metaphysics. In the first, Aristotle says that for Pythagoreans all the things are modeled after numbers (τὰ μὲν ἄλλα τοῖς ἀριθμοῖς ἐφαίνετο τὴν φύσιν ἀφωμοιῶσθαι πᾶσιν). (Met., A, 985b32-33) In the second, Aristotle tells us that Pythagoreans take ‘the first subject of which a given term would be predicable (ᾧ πρώτῳ ὑπάρξειεν ὁ λεχθεὶς ὃρος)’ as the substance of (...) the thing. His example is double and two: since two is the first thing of which double is predicated, double will be the substance of two. (Met., A, 987a22-25) 1) Forms as paradigms Some of the critiques of platonic Forms in Aristotle’s works are paradigm-oriented: they attack Plato’s theory on the basis that Platonians considered Forms as paradigms. The core of all Aristotle’s objections is that calling Forms paradigms is a mere poetical strategy and does not have any real effect. (Met., 991a20-22; M, 1079b24-26) We can recognize four reasons for Aristotle’s objections of forms as paradigms: a) To consider something as the paradigm of another thing to which it is like does not have any ontological effect: ‘For what it is that works, looking to the ideas? Anything can either be, or become, like another without being copied from it, so that whether Socrates exists or not a man might come to be like Socrates.’ (Met., A, 991a22-26; M, 1079b26-29) Therefore, paradigms are ontologically unnecessary: ‘It is quite unnecessary to set up a form as a paradigm … the begetter is adequate to the making of the product and the causing of the form in the matter.’ (Met., Z, 1034a2-5) Don’t these cases imply that Aristotle did have more the ontological necessity of paradigm in thought instead of its epistemological necessity? b) To consider Forms as paradigms means that a thing must have several paradigms; e.g. animal and too-footed and man will be paradigms of the same thing. (Met., A, 991a27-29; M, 1079b31-33) c) The theory that Forms are paradigms not only of sensible things but also of themselves makes the same thing both a paradigm and a copy (ἐικών). (Met., A, 991a29-b1; M, 1079b33-35) 2) Reasoning by paradigm Aristotle compares the arguments using paradigms to his own theory of syllogism: ‘We have an ‘example’ (παράδειγμα) when the major term is proved to belong to the middle by means of a term which resembles the third. It ought to be known that the middle belongs to the third term, and that the first belongs to that which resembles the third. For example, let A be evil, B making war against neighbors, C Athenians against Thebians, D Thebians against Phocians. If then we wish to prove that to fight against Thebians is an evil, we must assume that to fight against neighbors is an evil. Evidence of this is obtained from similar cases, e.g. that the war against the Phocians was an evil to Thebians. …Now it is clear that B belongs to C and to D (for both are cases of making war upon one’s neighbors) and that A belongs to D (for the war against the Phocians did not turn out well for the Thebians); but that A belongs to B will be proved through D.’ (PsA., B, 24, 66b38-69a11) An ‘example’ can also be made by several similar cases. (PrA., B, 24, 69a11-13) Aristotle notes (PrA., B, 24, 69a13-24) that reasoning by paradigm is ‘neither like reasoning from part to whole nor like reasoning from whole to part but is rather a reasoning from part to part, when both particulars are subordinate to the same term, and one of them is known.’ And it differs from induction in two ways: a) While induction uses all the particular cases to prove that the major term belongs to the middle, reasoning by paradigm does not draw its proof from all the particular cases. b) While induction does not apply the syllogistic conclusion to the minor term, reasoning by paradigm does make this application. (PrA., B, 24, 69a13-24) . (shrink)

The following are the characteristics of a genus: 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) A. Characteristics of relations between genera The characteristics of relations between genera, the relations between genera and species excluded, are as follows: 1. Genus is not an element in the composition of things. (Met., I, 1057b20-22) 2. Things resulting from the same division of the same genus are simultaneous by nature. (Cat., 13, 15a3-4) 3. Processes of proof cannot pass from one genus to another. (PsA., A, 23, 84b14-18) 4. It is not necessary for subordinate genera to have different accounts. (To., I, 15, ^107a19-) E.g. when we say a raven is a bird, we also say it is a certain kind of animal. 5. It is necessary for genera that are not subordinate one to the other to have different accounts. (To., I, 15, ^107a27-30) E.g. whenever we call a thing an engine, we do not call it an animal, nor vice versa. 6. If one of the genera is predicated in what it is, all of them, both higher and lower than this one, if predicated at all of the species, will be predicated of it in what it is; so that what has been given as genus is also predicated in what it is. (To., Δ, 2, ^122a10) 7. The same object cannot occur in two genera of which neither contains the other. (To., Z, 139b32-140a2) 8. Those to which the same figure (σχῆμα) of predication applies, are the same in genus. (Met., Δ, 1016b32-35) 9. Attributes that inhere always in each several things can be divided to two groups: those that are wider in extent but not wider than its genus and those wider than its genus. (PsA., B, 13, 96a24-27) 10. The relation between A and B must be extendable in respect of all the genera of A. Thus, if A is double of B, it must also be in excess, the genus of double, to B. Aristotle accepts, however, that this may be objectable in some cases: while knowledge is called knowledge of an object of knowledge, it cannot be called a state and disposition (which is the genus of knowledge) of an object of knowledge. In fact, it is a state and disposition of the soul. (To., Δ, 4, 124b28-34) B. Characteristics of species The following are the characteristics of species: 1. Things are said to be other in species if they are of the same genus but are not subordinate the one to the other. (Met., Δ, 1018a38-b2; Met., I, 1057b35-37) 2. Contraries are other than one another in species. (Met., Δ, 1018b5-7; Met., I, 1058b26-) 3. It is not sufficient for a difference to be the basis of distinguishing species in a genus because it belongs to the genus in virtue of its nature as, e.g., the difference between men and women belongs to animal in virtue of its nature. It must also be a modification peculiar to the genus (οἰκεῖα πάθη τοῦ γένους) in the strongest sense. (Met., I, 1058a29-37) Thus, contraries which are in the formula (ἐν τῷ λόγῳ) make a difference in species, but those which are in the compound material thing do not make one as e.g. being male and female is a difference in matter. (Met., I, 1058a37-b23) 4. Some things are peculiar to the species as distinct from genus: there are attributes peculiar to each distinct species. (PrA., A, 27, 43b27-29) 5. There is no necessity or even no possibility that things that are the same specifically should be the same numerically. (To., H, I, 155b30-) C. Characteristics of relations between genera and species The following are the characteristics of relations between genera and their species: 1. Although species predicated of individuals seem to be principles rather than the genera, it is hard to say, Aristotle asserts, in what sense species are to be taken as principles. (Met., B, 999a14-21) 2. Things that are one in species are all one in genus, while things that are one in genus are not all one in species. (Met., Δ, 1016b35a1) 3. The relation of a species to its genus is like the relation of primary substance to all others: the species is a subject for the genus (ὑπόκειται γὰρ τὸ εἴδος τῷ γένει) and the genera are predicated of the species but the species are not predicated of them. (Cat., 5, 2b17-22) 4. Of the species themselves- those which are not genera- one is no more a substance than another: a certain horse is no more a substance than another horse. (Cat., 5, 2b22-26) 5. Genera are prior to species since they do not reciprocate as to implication of existence (κατὰ τὴν τοῦ εἶναι ἀκολούθησιν). For example, if there is a fish there is an animal, but if there is an animal there is not necessarily a fish. (Cat., 13, 15a4-7) 6. What belongs both to a species and to its genus, it belongs to the species more properly indeed than to the genus. (PrA., A, 27, 43b29-32) 7. A predicate drawn from the genus is never ascribed to the species in a derived form and as its genus. Thus, e.g. coloured cannot be a genus of ‘white’ when we say ‘white is coloured.’ (To., B, I, ^109b1-5) 8. Genera are predicated of their species synonymously because the species take on both the name and the account of their genera. (To., B, I, ^109b3-6) 9. All the attributes that belong to the species belong to the genus as well but there is no necessity that all the attributes that belong to the genus should belong also to the species. (To., B, 4, 111a20-32) 10. Those things of which the genus is predicated must also of necessity have one of its species predicated of them. (To., B, 4, 111a33-) 11. The higher genus should be predicated of the species in what it is. (To., Δ, 2, ^122a6) 12. The species, or any of the things which are under the species, is not predicated of the genus because the genus is the term with the widest range of all. (To., Z, 6, 144a27f.) 13. The same species cannot be in two genera neither of which contains the other. (To., Z, 6, 144b14f.) 14. None of the species of a genus is prior or posterior to other species but they are thought to be simultaneous by nature. (Cat., 13, 14b38-15a1) 15. Daniel W. Graham points that sometimes Aristotle speaks of species as classes (Cat., 5, 2a14-17) and sometimes as properties or a certain character (ποιόν τι) of substances, which is difficult to be distinguished from the category of quality. (Cat., 3b13-22) D. Characteristics of differentia 1. The last differentia will be the substance, the definition and the form of the thing. (Met., Z, 1038a18-28) 2. If we divide according to accidental qualities, there will be as many differentiae as there are processes of division. (Met., Z, 1038a25-28) 3. The differentia divides the object from any of the things contained in the same genus. (To., Z, 3, 140a24-) 4. A. C. Lloyd argues that Aristotle’s logic of classification contains a vicious circle because: ‘For a genus to be predicated unequivocally and essentially of a species the specific differentiae have to be ‘appropriate’; but in order to know whether a proposed differentia is appropriate we have to know whether the genus is predicable essentially of the species thus defined.’ The predication of differentia on primary substance seems to make difficulties in Aristotle’s system, as Terence Irwin points out. It seems to violate the distinction of strong predication and inherence, a distinction between predication of count-nouns and predication of characterizing adjectives. Irwin says that this violation is only apparent because although the differentia-term is an adjective, its gender agrees with the gender of the understood genus-term and not with that of the subject term. ‘Man is biped’ is indeed ‘Man is a biped animal.’ This shows, Irwin asserts, ‘why Aristotle can still mention that strong predication is nominal and inherence is adjectival.’ Differentiae are not, however, secondary substances, as Aristotle himself insists. A differentia does not say what the thing is, as secondary substances do, but only what it is like or what sort it is. (ποιον: To., 122b12-17; 128a20-29; 139a28-31; 142b25-29) Nonetheless, differentiae are not qualities because they are not inherent. Thus, they cannot be regarded in any of the ten categories. Irwin thinks that this anomaly is unnecessary because Aristotle could give good reasons for taking differentiae to be second substances. E. Characteristics of relations between differentia and genera or species 1. It is not possible for the genus to be predicated of the differentia taken apart from the species. (Met., B, 998b23-25; Met., K, 1059b31-33; To., VI, 6, 144a32-b1) 2. It is not possible for the species of the genus to be predicated of the proper differentiae of the genus. (Met., B, 998b24-26) 3. Where the differentia is present, the genus accompanies it, but where the genus is, the differentia is not always present. (Met., Δ, 1014b12-14) 4. The number of species are equal to the number of differentiae. (Met., Z, 1038a15-18) 5. The differentiae of genera which are different and not subordinate one to the other are themselves different in kind. (Cat., 3, 1b16-20; To., I, 15, ^107b19-) 6. There is nothing to prevent genera subordinate one to the other from having the same differentia. (Cat., 3, 1b20-22) 7. Since the higher genera are predicated of the genera below them, all differentiae of the predicated genus will be differentia of the subject also. (Cat., 3, 1b21-24) 8. The definition of the differentia is predicated of that of which the differentia is said. (Cat., 5, 3a25-28) 9. In giving what a thing is it is more fitting to state the genus than the differentia. For example, anyone who says that man is an animal shows what man is better than who describes him as terrestrial. (To., Δ, 6, ^128a24-27) 10. The differentia always signifies a quality of the genus, but the genus does not do this of the differentia. (To., Δ, 6, 128a27-29; To., Z, 6, 144a20-23) 11. A specific differentia, along with the genus, always makes a species. (To., Z, 6, 143b^1-) 12. A genus is always divided by the differentiae that are co-ordinate with it in a division and the differentiae that are co-ordinate in a division are all true of the genus. (To., Z, 6, 143b^1-) 13. Differentia cannot be predicated of the genus because genus is the term with the wider range. (To., Z, 6, 144a27-) In fact, genus is predicated, not of the differentia, but of the object of which the differentia is predicated. (To., Z, 6, 144a^31-b3) 14. Neither species nor the objects under it can be predicated of the differentia because the differentia is a term with a wider range than the species. (To., Z, 6, 144b4-) 15. The differentia is posterior to genus but prior to the species. (To., Z, 6, 144b^9-) 16. The same differentia cannot be used of two genera neither of which contains the other and if they do not both fall under the same genus. Otherwise, the same species will be in two genera neither of which contains the other, which is impossible. (To., Z, 6, 144b14-) 17. Genus and differentia are prior to and more familiar than the species: ‘For annul the genus and the differentia; and the species too is annulled, so that they are prior to the species. They are also more familiar; for if the species is known, the genus and differentia must of necessity be known as well (for anyone who knows what a man is knows also what animal and terrestrial are), whereas if the genus or the differentia is known it does not follow of necessity that the species is known as well; thus the species is less intelligible.’ (To., Z, 4, 141b15-) F. Characteristics of relations in series of classes 1. Mutually exclusive series. If no term in the series ACD… is predicable of any term in the series BEF…, and if G- a term in the former series- is the genus of A, clearly G will not be the genus of B; since, if it were, the series would not be mutually exclusive. (PsA., A, 15, 79b6-11) 2. Atomic disconnection of series. Of two mutually exclusive series ACD and BEF, if neither A nor B has a genus and A does not inhere in B, this disconnection must be atomic. (PsA., A, 15, 79b6-14) G. Characteristics of relations of individuals 1. No individual in a species is more substance than another individual in another species. (Cat., 5, 2b26-28) An individual man, for instance, is no more a substance than an individual ox. 2. 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) 3. Not distinguishing between class membership and class inclusion? Some commentators like Vlastos and Ackrill (1963, 76) criticized Aristotle because he, they believe, did not distinguish between class membership (between species and particulars) and class inclusion (between genera and their species). Having accepted this point, Daniel W. Graham believes it is ‘question-begging in a curious way.’ Phil Corkum thinks that Aristotle employs mereological notions. (This criticism seems so strange because all the Aristotle’s point in distinguishing species 2 from genera is strictly the distinction of class membership and class inclusion as they call them so. (shrink)

Some forms of defining PNC in Aristotle’s works are as follows: a) Everything must be either affirmed or denied (φάναι ἢ ἀποφάναι). (Met., B, 996b28-29) or: it will not be possible to assert and deny the same thing truly at the same time. (Met., Γ, 1008a36-b1) In other words, ‘contradictory statements (ἀντικειμένας φάσεις) are not at the same time true. (Met., Γ, 1011b13-14) Also, ‘It is impossible that contradictories (ἀντίφασιν) should be at the same time true of the same thing.’ (...) (Met., Γ, 1011b15-16) Also, ‘Opposite statements (ἀντικειμένας φάσεις) can never be true of the same subjects.’ (Met., K, 1062a33-34; 1063b15-17) Also, ‘Of all affirmation or negation one is impossible. (PsA., A, 11, 77a22) b) A thing cannot at the same time be and not be. (Met., B, 996b30-31; Γ, 1006a3-5) This can also be extended to many other similar pairs of opposites: ‘The same thing cannot at the same time be and not be, or admit any other similar pair of opposites.’ (Met., K, 1061b34-1062a2) Also, ‘It will be possible for the same thing to be and not to be, except in virtue of an ambiguity.’ (Met., Γ, 1006b18-19) This is also asserted in another similar way: it is impossible that it should be at the same time true to say the same thing is a thing and is not a thing.’ (Met., Γ, 1006b33-34) c) ‘The same attribute cannot at the same time belong (ὑπάρχειν) and not belong to the same object in the same respect.’ (Met., Γ, 1005b19-21) d) Those positive and negative propositions are said to be contradictory which have the same subject and predicate. (OI, I, 7, 17a33-35) The opposition between an affirmation and a denial makes contradictories (ἀντίφασεως). (PsA., A, 2, 72a11-14) Based on Aristotle’s definition, ‘An affirmation is opposed to a denial in the sense which I denote by the term ‘contradictory’ (ἀντίφατικως), when, while the subject remains the same, the affirmation is of universal character and the denial is not.’ (OI., I, 7, 17b16-19) 1) Characteristics of PNC a) It is the most certain (Met., Γ, 1005b22-23 and b11) and the most indisputable (Met., Γ, 1006a5-6) of all principles. b) It is impossible: to believe its contrary (Met., Γ, 1005b24-30); to be really in that position (Met., Γ, 1008b11-13); and to defend it. (OI, I, 9, 18b17-19) Nonetheless, Aristotle thinks that many of the writers about nature assert the contrary of PNC and use a language opposite to it. (Met., Γ, 1005b35-1006a3) c) It is the starting point of all the other axioms. (Met., Γ, 1005b32-34) d) It is not hypothetical. (Met., Γ, 1005b13-17) e) Contradictories are extremely opposed to each other. (Met., Γ, 1007a1-4) f) Believing in PNC saves substance and essence and not believing in it makes all attributes accidents and there will be nothing as being essentially something. The reason is that something which essentially is a being cannot avoid being that thing. (Met., Γ, 1007a20-29 and b16-18) g) PNC supports plurality of things because otherwise all things will be one: ‘If all contradictories are true of the same subject at the same time, evidently all things will be one. For the same thing will be a trireme, a wall, and a man, if it is equally possible to affirm and deny anything of anything.’ (Met., Γ, 1007b18-22) In fact, PNC supports difference: ‘For if contradictories can be predicated alike of each subject, one thing will in no wise differ from another; for if it differs, this difference will be something true and peculiar to it.’ (Met., Γ, 1008a25-27) h) To accept truth and falsity, whether in an absolute sense (e.g. A is more true than B; or C is less true than D) entails PNC. (Met., Γ, 1008b2-7 and b31-35; 1009a2-5) In fact, PNC is entailed by accepting true affirmation. (Met., K, 1062b7-11) i) Judging and choosing between at least two things entails PNC: you cannot choose one as better than another without a previous judging that one is A and the other not A. (Met., Γ, 1008b18-24) The same is true about avoiding. (Met., Γ, 1008b24-29) j) PNC guarantees speaking and saying anything intelligible because otherwise e.g. saying ‘yes’ means both yes and no. (Met., Γ, 1008b7-13) k) Contradictories do not accept intermediates that means we must either affirm or deny a predicate on a subject and there is no third option. (Met., Γ, 1011b23-24; Met., I, 1055b1-2; PsA., A, 2, 72a11-14; Met., I, 1057a33-36) l) PNC is applicable also to the future time. (OI., I, 9, 19a28-29) m) PNC is presupposed by the least semantic of words. If we accept that each word has a meaning and, thus, signifies something definite, we cannot accept that it has the contradictory meaning and signies contradictory things and this approves PNC. Thus, Aristotle asks the opponent of PNC to say just one word, a significant word and takes this as the demonstration of PNC because by saying the word e.g. ‘man’ you have already signified man and not-man. (Met., Γ, 1005a11-13 and a18-22; 1006a28-31 and b13-15) Therefore, signification entails PNC: ‘He, then, who says this is and is not denies what he affirms, so that what the word signifies, he says it does not signify; and this is impossible. Therefore, if ‘This is’ signifies something, one cannot truly assert the contradictory.’ (Met., K, 1062a16-20) He says again: ‘If the word signifies something and this can be truly asserted of it, it necessarily is this; and it is not possible that that which is necessary should ever not be: it is not possible therefore to make the opposed assertions truly of the same subject.’ (Met., K, 1062a20-23; cf. Met., K, 1062a24-31) n) At Met., 4, 3, 1005b9-10 (check???) PNC is called as principle of things (ἀρχὰς τοῦ πράγματος). (quoted from B215, 517) . (shrink)

In Physics (Δ, 3, 210a14-24) Aristotle distinguishes eight senses in which one thing is said to be in another thing: 1. Part in whole; e.g. finger in hand 2. The whole in its parts: ‘For there is no whole over and above the parts.’ 3. Species in genus; e.g. man in animal 4. Genus in species (generally: the part of the specific form in the definition of the specific form) 5. Form in matter; e.g. health in the hot and the (...) cold 6. Event in its primary motive agent; e.g. the affairs of Greece center in the king 7. Existence of a thing centeres in its end (in ‘that for the sake of which’ it exists) 8. A thing in place, e.g. a thing in a vessel (‘the strictest sense of all’) Also in Physics (Δ, 3, 210b22-27) he distinguishes between three senses of ‘being in’ one of which is not among the above mentioned list: being in place (sense 8 above), as health is in the hot as a positive determination of it (sense 2 above) and an affection in a body. Since an affection in a body is neither a part in whole, nor a whole in part, nor a species in genus, nor a genus in species, nor a form in matter, nor an event in its motive agenet, nor a thing in its end, nor a thing in place, we must consider it the 9th sense: 9. An affection in its subject It is too strange, however, how this third sense is not among those eight senses while both are in the same page of Physics. It becomes even more strange when we read Categories where we see the crucial role of this last sense in Aristotle’s philosophy. There Aristotle distinguishes between two factors based on which he classifies beings to four classes: ‘being in’ and ‘being said of.’ The only thing he distincts this sense of ‘being in’ from is the first sense of our list, i.e. the sense of a part in a whole. He even does not distinguish it there from being in place, a differentiation he asserts in Physics (Δ, 3, 210b22-27). Nonetheless, we have implications there that: a) It must be differentiated from the sense (4) because it is repeatedly asserted that secondary substances are not in a subject. (Cat., 2 and 5) Thus the fourth sense in which a genus, a secondary substance, is in a species must be other than the ninth sense. b) It must also be different from the second sense because a quality or a quantity or generally an accident in a subject, if we are assumedly allowed to say so, is not a whole in its parts. c) It must also be differentiated from the senses (3), (5), (6) and (7) because no accident is either a species, a form, an event in its primary motive agent or a thing in its end. The origin of the problem of being non-comprehensive of the senses of ‘being in’ in Physics must be somewhere in the difference between Aristotle’s view in Categories and Physics: while in Categories he does not consider the ‘being in’ of quality in its subject as a part that is in, he considers it so in Physics: ‘It is from these, which are ‘parts’ (in the sense at least of being ‘in’ the man), that the man is called white …. So when there are parts, a thing will be in itself, as ‘white’ is in man because it is in body.’ (Phy., Δ, 3, 210b1-8) Whereas in Physics ‘white,’ a quality, is considered a part and its being in body is considered ‘being in’ of a part, it is not a part in Categories. (refer to Categories; cf. Cat., 5,3a29-32) If I am right in my interpretation, we must say that the ninth sense is indeed the same as the first sense and, thus, Physics’ eight partite classification somehow includes the sense mentioned in Categories. The case is not, however, so simple. What is ‘in its subject as its part in Physics is not the same as what is in its subject but not as its part in Categories. What is said to be in its subject in Physics is indeed the surface and not the white: ‘When there are parts of a whole- the one that in which a thing is, the other the thing which is in it- the whole will be described as being in itself. For a thing is described in terms of its parts, as well as in terms of the thing as a whole, e.g. a man is said to be white because his visible surface is white; or he is said to be scientific because his thinking faculty has been trained…. In this sense, then, but not primarily, a thing can be in itself, namely, as ‘white’ is in body (for the visible surface is in body), and science is in the mind.’ (Phy., Δ, 3, 210a30-b1) . (shrink)

In this article, the cosmological positions of George of Trebizond are regrouped and an attempt to evaluate his offer to the philosophy of nature in the Renaissance is presented. George of Trepizond dedicated a huge part of his work to the philosophical and scientific study of the world; he also renewed the way the Greek letters are studied and used.