TUCÍDIDES: GUERRA DO PELOPONESO E A BUSCA DA OBJETIVIDADE1 TUCÍDIDES: PELOPONNESE WAR AND THE SEARCH OF OBJECTIVITY Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro da Silva2 IFPE - Belo Jardim 1 CONTEXTO HISTÓRICO: GUERRA DE PELOPONESO Os gregos liderados por Atenas e Esparta venceram os persas na batalha naval, em Salamina (480 a.C.), e terrestre, em Plateia (479 a.C.), expulsando-os definitivamente da sua terra. Nos anos seguintes, Atenas consolidou seu poder sobre outras cidades, especialmente nas ilhas do Mar Jônico, formando a Confederação de Delos. (...) Ressentindo-se com a ascensão da rival, Esparta começou a bloquear o desenvolvimento do império ateniense. Temístocles,3 que assumiu papel preponderante nas guerras persas, começou a alertar a seus compatriotas das intenções da grande cidade do Peloponeso. Não obstante, foi derrubada por uma oligarquia, sendo exilado em seguida. Surgiu, então, uma nova liderança do partido democrático, Péricles, que, em 441 a.C., assumiu o governo de Atenas. 4 TUCÍDIDES nasceu, por volta de 465 a 460 a.C., em data incerta, em Halinute, 5 próximo de Atenas, descendente de rica família ateniense, sendo filho de Oberós. Sofreu muito com a grave epidemia de 430 a 427 a.C., na qual faleceu Péricles, mas a ela sobreviveu. Em 424 a.C., era comandante naval das tropas ateniense na Trácia, estacionada na ilha de Samos, mas não conseguiu impedir que o comandante espartano Brasidas ocupasse Anfípolis, cidade de grande importância para o fornecimento de trigo para Atenas, razão pela 6 qual foi exilado no mesmo ano.7 Depois de vinte anos, com o fim da guerra de Peloponeso, pôde retornar do ostracismo, falecendo em 400 a.C., sem ter terminado a sua obra História da Guerra do Peloponeso. Foi educado e influenciado pelas personalidades mais ilustres de Atenas, como Péricles e pelos sofistas, tendo ainda convivido com Eurípedes. Existia narração de encontro seu, ainda adolescente, com HERÔDOTOS, historiador da guerra com os persas e já 8 conhecido em sua época. Este lia trechos de sua História, por ocasião de concurso literário, durante a realização de Jogos Olímpicos, tendo TUCÍDIDES chegado às lágrimas, ao ouvir as narrativas, demonstrando seu pendor para a história.9 O autor escolheu como tema de sua obra a Guerra do Peloponeso, por ele considerada a mais importante até então, como expunha no início de sua obra: “1. O ateniense Tucídides escreveu a história da guerra entre os peloponesos e os atenienses, começando desde os primeiros sinais, na expectativa de que ela seria grande e mais importante que todas as anteriores, pois viu que ambas as partes estavam preparadas em todos os sentidos; além disto, observava os demais helenos aderindo a um lado ou ao outro, uns imediatamente, os restantes pensando em fazê-lo. Com efeito, tratava-se do maior movimento jamais realizado pelos helenos, estendendo-se também a alguns povos bárbaros, bem dizer à maior parte da humanidade”. 10 As relações entre Atenas e Esparta continuaram tensas, principalmente depois que aquela, ignorando essa, levantou uma nova e extensa muralha em sua volta, com a desculpa de precisar de defesa contra os persas. A Confederação de Delos, ao longo dos anos, serviu apenas para fortalecer seu poder marítimo e embelezar a cidade, que tinha sido destruída pelos persas. As cidades-estados que integravam a Confederação como aliadas passaram logo à condição de súditas, perdendo a liberdade. O estopim para a guerra foi a ajuda que os atenienses deram a Córcira, contra sua metrópole, Corinto, aliada dos espartanos, em 431 a.C. No começo, com a força de Atenas, na frota marítima, e de sua rival, com suas falanges, houve apenas incursões periódicas. Contudo, a grande peste de 429 a.C., que levou Péricles, bem como as desastrosas campanhas contra Siracura, na Sicília, em 415 a.C., cidade dória, que fornecia trigo para Esparta, enfraqueceu os atenienses. Logo seus aliados começaram a se revoltar e os espartanos levaram a guerra para a Ática, fazendo com que Atenas capitulasse em 404 a.C., sendo destruída suas muralhas e sua frota naval. O esforço de guerra foi tão grande que todo o mundo grego se enfraqueceu, permitindo que a Macedônia dominasse toda a Grécia, em 338 a.C. A única obra de TUCÍDIDES foi marcada pela objetividade e busca da verdade, evitando as fábulas e as lendas. A História da Guerra do Peloponeso compunha-se de cinco partes: a primeira, o Livro I, tratava da importância dessa guerra e do método histórico do autor; a segunda, os Livros II, III, IV e parte do V, versava sobre a chamada Guerra dos Dez Anos; a terceira, fim do Livro V, descrevia a paz precária; a quarta, Livros VI e VII, cobria a guerra na Sicília; e a quinta, Livro VIII, tratava da chamada Guerra de Decêleia e da operação na Ásia Menor. Faleceu antes de terminar sua obra, deixando-a inacabada, em 400 a.C. Não podia deixar de haver comparações entre as obras de TUCÍDIDES e HERÔDOTOS, pois enquanto este escreveu sobre amplo tema envolvendo várias regiões, povos e época, aquele restringiu seu assunto à Guerra de Peloponeso. O método de 11 TUCÍDIDES foi mais neutro e racional, sendo considerado mais objetivo do que o do outro, pois escrevia apenas com base no conhecimento pessoal ou em informações cuidadosamente verificadas. A exatidão e a objetividade levaram-no a ser considerado um dos maiores historiadores da Antiguidade e, até hoje, admirado pela precisão e pesquisa empreendida. 2 TUCÍDIDES E O MÉTODO: A BUSCA DA OBJETIVIDADE A obra de TUCÍDIDES tem fundamentação teórica no racionalismo de Anaxágora e 12 na visão crítica dos sofistas. Estava voltado para o rigor de exatidão, tanto nos fatos históricos, como na apreciação dos homens e nas descrições do espaço geográfico. Existia em sua obra um método, voltado para a aferição da verdade e a imparcialidade de julgamento, excluindo os mitos e as lendas. O autor procurou, inicialmente, separar seu método do utilizado por HERÔDOTOS ao denunciar que “20 [...] Os homens, na verdade, aceitam uns dos outros relatos de segunda mão dos eventos passados, negligenciando pô-los à prova ainda que tais eventos se relacionem com sua própria terra. [...] A tal ponto chegou a aversão de certos homens pela pesquisa meticulosa da verdade e tão grande é a predisposição para valer-se apenas do que está ao alcance da mão”.14 TUCÍDIDES procurou elaborar sua análise das ações históricas, como a movimentação de tropas e os combates, as matérias relativas à opinião pública, as discussões dos dirigentes sobre a estratégia adequada ou o confronto entre as delegações diplomáticas. Procurou, então, explicar a complexidade da situação política e a dificuldade de se escolher a opção adequada. Para ele, o conflito era permanente entre as soluções adequadas aos problemas apresentados, com base na influência sofista. O método utilizado significava exprimir a complexidade da situação e a dificuldade de escolha, dentro de um mesmo contexto. A discussão contraditória entre os oponentes representava as opções extremadas das soluções de problemas.15 Para Jackeline de Romilly, o método utilizado foi o da antiloquia, que consistia em opor discursos. Essa autora indicava que a metodologia de TUCÍDIDES estava perfeitamente exemplificada, nos dois discursos pronunciados em Camerina, por Heróncrates e pelo ateniense Eufemos, no Livro VI (§§ 75 a 87). Usava a prática jurídica, pois entre os gregos havia o hábito de sempre se ouvir duas teorias adversas, apresentadas como o maior vigor possível, de modo que da relação entre os dois discursos pudesse sair a verdade.16 Coube a TUCÍDIDES, ainda, a paternidade da investigação do passado, em um trabalho quase de arqueologia, ainda que ele não se tivesse preocupado em fazer escavações. Não obstante, trouxe para a história novas provas e informações. O autor afirmava, então, que: “22. [...] O empenho em apurar os fatos se constitui numa tarefa laboriosa, pois as testemunhas oculares de vários eventos nem sempre faziam os mesmos relatos a respeito das mesmas coisas, mas variavam de acordo com suas simpatias por um lado ou pelo outro, ou de acordo com sua memória. Pode acontecer que a ausência do fabuloso em minha narrativa pareça menos agradável ao ouvido, mas quem quer que deseje ter uma ideia clara tanto dos eventos ocorridos quanto daqueles que algum dia voltarão a ocorrer em circunstâncias idênticas ou semelhante em consequência de seu conteúdo humano, julgará minha história útil e isto me bastará. Na verdade, ela foi feita para ser patrimônio sempre útil, e não uma composição a ser ouvida no momento da competição por algum prêmio”. 17 A obra de TUCÍDIDES tinha seus problemas, pois às vezes era lenta e cansativa, sem a graça e a criatividade de HERÔDOTOS, mas a objetividade obtida representava um marco na análise histórica e política da humanidade. Precedera em dois mil anos a própria criação da ciência, podendo dizer que sua pesquisa tinha rigor científico e busca da verdade. Por outro lado, várias de suas antilogias foram criadas pelo autor, a partir de informações orais, com o uso da contradição, mas sem chegar exatamente a uma síntese, apenas informando as posições contrárias, sem qualquer opção pessoal. Notas: 1 In. COSTA, N. N. Ciência Política. 3. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Forense, 2012. p. 68-74. 2 Tecnólogo em agropecuária pelo Instituto Federal de Pernambuco campus Belo Jardim. Normalista pela Escola Frei Cassiano Comacchio. Pesquisador assíduo de assuntos com cunho filosófico, com ênfase em política. 3 “Temístocles, general e político ateniense (Atenas, c. 525 – Magnésia do Menandro, c. 460 a.C.). Chefe do partido democrático, havia aconselhado osateniensesa voltarem todasas suasatividades paraaexpansão marítima, encontrado neste ponto a oposição de Aristides, chefe do partido aristocrático. Tendo obtido a condenação deste ao ostracismo, Temístocles fez construir o porto de Pireu e equipou excelente frota. Ao ser invadidaa Grécia por Xerxes, obrigou os persas a aceitar um combate naval, antes que o exército grego se retirasse para o Peloponeso, daí resultando a vitória de Salamina (480). Apesar da oposição de Esparta, rival de Atenas, Temístocles fez reconstruir as muralhas de Atenas, fortificou a parte de Pireu e de Muníquia. Contado, em decorrência das intrigas de Esparta, foiacusado de peculato e condenado ao ostracismo (471)” (KOOGAN/HOUAISS. Enciclopédia e Dicionário Ilustrado, op. cit., p. 1558). 4 Vide nota 7 do capítulo II, Herôdotos. 5 “Tucídides em gr. Thoukidídes, historiador grego (Atenas c. 465 – 395 a.C.). Eleito estratego em 424 a.C., foi encarregado da defesa do litoral da Trácia durante a Guerra do Peloponeso. Derrotado, viu-se forçado a partir para o exílio e só regressou à sua pátria por volta de 404 a.C. No exílio começou aescrever (431 a.C.) suas Histórias da Guerra do Peloponeso, que não chegou a terminar e que é uma profundareflexão políticasobrea natureza do poder indo em busca das causas profundas dosacontecimentos. O desenvolvimento do conflito éaí narrado em estilo simples e direto, por vezes entremeados de trechos de grande força emotiva, como o discurso de Péricles sobre atenienses mortos na guerra. Além de ter sido o compilador de um relato concreto dos acontecimentos. Túcides é considerado o primeiro historiador a adotar uma postura críticaem relação aeles” (Grande Enciclopédia Larousse Cultural, op. cit., vol. 23, p. 5734). 6 “104. [...] E mandaram um mensageiro ao outro comandante para o território fronteiro à Trácia; ele era Tucídides filho de Oloros, o autor desta História, na época estacionado em Tasos, ilha situada a aproximadamente meio-dia de viagem por mar de Anfípolis e colônia de Paros, e lhe pediam para socorrê-los. Recebendo a mensagem, ele partiu imediatamente com sete naus que se encontravam lá, pois queriam chegar o mais depressa possível, principalmente para socorrer Anfípolis antes dela render-se, ou, se isto não fosse possível para ocupar Êion. 105. Nesse ínterim Brasidas, temendo a vinda dos de Tasos, e tendo ouvido dizer que Tucídides, um detentor dos direitos de exploração das minas de ouro naquela parte da Trácia, exercendo por isso grande influência sobre os homens mais importantes do continente, apressou-se em capturar a cidade” (TUCÍDIDES. A Guerra do Peloponeso. 3ª ed. Brasília: Universidade de Brasília, 1987, pp. 228-9). 7 “26. [...] Vivi a guerra inteira, tendo umaidade que me permitiaformar meu próprio juízo, e segui-aatentamente, de modo a obter informações precisas. Atingiu-me também uma condenação ao exílio que me manteve longe de minha terra por vinte anos após meu período de comando em Anfípolis e, diante de minhafamiliaridade com asatividades de ambos os lados, especialmente aquelas do Peloponeso em consequência de meu banimento, graças ao meu ócio pude acompanhar melhor o curso dos acontecimentos” (TUCÍDIDES. História da Guerra do Peloponeso, op. cit., p. 255). 8 Vide nota 12 do capítulo II, Herôdotos. 9 KURY, Mário Gama (Introdução. In: TUCÍDIDES. História da Guerra do Peloponeso, op. cit., p. 13) cita com referência dos fatos a obra de Marcelino, que escreveu a Vida de Tucídides, na época do imperador bizantino Justiniano. 10 TUCÍDIDES. A Guerra do Peloponeso, op. cit., p. 19. 11 “Tucídides começou do ponto em que Herôdotos deixou a narração – o termo de Guerra Persa. [...] Herôdotos escrevia com o fito de entreter o leitor culto; Tucídides escreve visando fornecer informaçõesaos futuros historiadores e orientar com a experiência do passado aos futuros estadistas. Herôdotos narra em estilo solto e fluente, inspirado talvez pelo modo dos poemas de Homero; Tucídides, como alguém que tinha ouvido filósofos, oradores e dramaturgos, escreve em estilo frequentemente complicado e obscuro. [...] Herôdotos abrangia os mais remotos lugares, e as mais variadas épocas; Tucídides força a sua história numa severa moldura cronológica de estações e anos sacrificando a continuidade da narrativa. Herôdotos escrevia mais à luz das personalidades do que dos processos, sentindo que estes se operam através daqueles; Tucídides, [...] inclina-se mais para o relato impessoal e para a consideração das causas, desenvolvimentos e resultado. Herôdotos descrevia acontecimentos remotos, a ele narrados, na maioria das vezes, de segunda e terceira mão; Tucídides com frequênciase exprime baseado na própriatestemunha, no de quem informa ou em documentos originais, em vários trechos reproduz os documentos citados” (DURANT, Will. A História da Civilização. nossa herança clássica, op. cit., vol. II, p. 341). 12 Vide nota 8 do capítulo II, Herôdotos. 13 “Os primeiros desses novos humanistas, os Sofistas, salientaram-se no tempo da grande eclosão do individualismo que se referem às Guerras Persas e da difusão da democracia por todo o mundo grego e os sofistas consideravam perda de tempo a busca de uma vaga e fugitiva verdade a respeito do universo. Achavam muito melhor estudar o problema, bem mais prático, do homem e da sociedade. Como mestres, sua finalidade ideal era preparar jovens para assumirem sua responsabilidade de cidadão” (SAVELLE, Max (coord.), História da Civilização Mundial: as primeiras culturas humanas, op. cit., vol. I, p. 203). 14 TUCÍDIDES. História de Guerra do Peloponeso, op. cit., p. 27. 15 CHÂTELLET, François. Tucídides: a guerra do peloponeso. In: CHÂTELLET, François, DUHAMEL, Olivier, e PISIER, Evelyne. Dicionário de Obras Políticas. Rio de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira, 1993, p. 1.221. 16 “Os Gregos sempre viram no princípio daantilogiaa própria condição dasabedoriae da compreensão. A antilogiaé a deliberação” (ROMILLY, Jackeline de. História e Razão em Tucídides. Brasília: Universidade de Brasília, 1998, p. 143). 17 TUCÍDIDES. História da Guerra de Peloponeso, Livro Primeiro, op. cit., p. 28. (shrink)

The quantitative argument against the notion of a best possible world claims that, no matter how many worthwhile lives a world contains, another world contains more and is, other things being equal, better. Parfit’s ‘ Mere Addition Paradox ’ suggests that defenders of this argument must accept his ‘ Repugnant Conclusion ’ : that outcomes containing billions upon billions of lives barely worth living are better than outcomes containing fewer lives of higher quality. Several responses to the Paradox are discussed (...) and rejected as either inadequate or unavailable in a theistic context. The quantitative argument fails if some world is such that addition to it is not possible, i.e., if it is intensively infinite, as Liebniz claimed. If the notion of such a world is incoherent, then no world is quantitatively best and the quantitative argument succeeds, but only at the cost of embracing the Repugnant Conclusion. (shrink)

‘Rival creator’ arguments suggest that God must have created the best of all possible worlds. These arguments are analyzed and evaluated, and Leibniz’s position defended.

‘Adams worlds’ are possible worlds that contain no creature whose life is not worth living or whose life is overall worse than in any other possible world in which it would have existed. Creating an Adams world involves no wrongdoing or unkindness towards creatures on the part of the creator. I argue that the notion of an Adams world is of little value in theodicy. Theists are not only committed to thinking that this world was created without wrongdoing or unkindness (...) but also must rule out the possibility that the world might have been better had God not existed. Nor is there much reason, independent of the availability of a satisfactory theodicy, for believing that the actual world is an Adams world. The need for a theodicy constructed along Leibnizian lines, incorporating the claim that this world is the best possible, is thus reinforced. (shrink)

In “The Best of All Possible Worlds” William E. Mann argues that some possible worlds are morally incommensurable with some others, because some choices are between incompatible alternatives that are themselves incommensurable. The best possible world must be better than, and hence commensurable with, every other world. So if anyone in the actual world ever faces a choice between incompatible alternatives that are morally incommensurable, this is not the best possible world. But it seems that some of us do, on (...) occasion, face such choices. So this is not the best possible world. (shrink)

That parthood is a transitive relation is among the most basic principles of classical mereology. Alas, it is also very controversial. In a recent paper, Ingvar Johansson has put forward a novel diagnosis of the problem, along with a corresponding solution. The diagnosis is on the right track, I argue, but the solution is misleading. And once the pieces are properly put together, we end up with a reinforcement of the standard defense of transitivity on behalf of classical mereology.

Intersectionality has become the primary analytic tool that feminist and anti-racist scholars deploy for theorizing identity and oppression. This paper exposes and critically interrogates the assumptions underpinning intersectionality by focusing on four tensions within intersectionality scholarship: the lack of a defined intersectional methodology; the use of black women as quintessential intersectional subjects; the vague definition of intersectionality; and the empirical validity of intersectionality. Ultimately, my project does not seek to undermine intersectionality; instead, I encourage both feminist and anti-racist scholars to (...) grapple with intersectionality's theoretical, political, and methodological murkiness to construct a more complex way of theorizing identity and oppression. (shrink)

We rely on language to know the minds of others, but does language have a role to play in knowing our own minds? To suppose it does is to look for a connection between mastery of a language and the epistemic relation we bear to our inner lives. What could such a connection consist in? To explore this, I shall examine strategies for explaining self-knowledge in terms of the use we make of language to express and report our mental states. (...) Success in these strategies will depend on the view we take of speakers' understanding of the words they use to speak their minds. The key is to avoid circularity in the account of how they know what they mean; for if knowing what one is saying in speaking a language provides a means of knowing one's own mind, it cannot simply be a part of it. I shall look at ways in which we might proceed here, and examine whether the strategy can make room for a genuinely first-person point of view. But first let me try to motivate the problem of self-knowledge. (shrink)

Assuming that events form a genuine ontological category, shall we say that a good inventory of the world ought to include “negative” events—failures, omissions, things that didn’t happen—along with positive ones? I argue that we shouldn’t. Talk of non-occurring events is like talk of non-existing objects and should not be taken at face value. We often speak as though there were such things, but deep down we want our words to be interpreted in such a way as to avoid serious (...) ontological commitment. (shrink)

Klein’s account of epistemic justification, infinitism, supplies a novel solution to the regress problem. We argue that concentrating on the normative aspect of justification exposes a number of unpalatable consequences for infinitism, all of which warrant rejecting the position. As an intermediary step, we develop a stronger version of the ‘finite minds’ objection.

In der Korrespondenz mit Clarke ist Leibniz' Standardargument gegen die Annahme, daß Raum und Zeit absolut seien, daß Gott sich bei der Wahl des zu erschaffenden Universums gezwungen sähe, gegen das Prinzip des zureichenden Grundes zu verstoßen, wenn diese Annahme richtig wäre: Bloße Unterschiede in räumlicher und zeitlicher Hinsicht ergeben keinen Vorteilsunterschied, und da Gott nur aus Vorteilsgründen handelt, sind solche Unterschiede nicht möglich. Leibniz stellt dieses Argument als ausschließlich abhängig vom Prinzip des zureichenden Grundes dar, eine gängige Interpretation ist (...) aber, daß dies Prinzip determinierte Objekte göttlicher Wahl nur dann ergibt, wenn ein ergänzendes Prinzip von Kontingenz hinzutritt. Diese Auslegung muß falsch sein, wenn Leibniz hier authentisch bleibt, und insofern wäre doch das Prinzip des zureichenden Grundes eher als irgendein Prinzip des Besten Leibniz' Prinzip der Kontingenz. (shrink)

Attempts to evaluate a belief or argument on the basis of its cause or origin are usually condemned as committing the genetic fallacy. However, I sketch a number of cases in which causal or historical factors are logically relevant to evaluating a belief, including an interesting abductive form that reasons from the best explanation for the existence of a belief to its likely truth. Such arguments are also susceptible to refutation by genetic reasoning that may come very close to the (...) standard examples given of supposedly fallacious genetic reasoning. (shrink)

The paper presents a paradoxical feature of computational systems that suggests that computationalism cannot explain symbol grounding. If the mind is a digital computer, as computationalism claims, then it can be computing either over meaningful symbols or over meaningless symbols. If it is computing over meaningful symbols its functioning presupposes the existence of meaningful symbols in the system, i.e. it implies semantic nativism. If the mind is computing over meaningless symbols, no intentional cognitive processes are available prior to symbol grounding. (...) In this case, no symbol grounding could take place since any grounding presupposes intentional cognitive processes. So, whether computing in the mind is over meaningless or over meaningful symbols, computationalism implies semantic nativism. (shrink)

Many philosophers still countenance senses or meanings in the broadly Fregean vein. However, it is difficult to posit the existence of senses without positing quite a lot of them, including at least one presenting every entity in existence. I discuss a number of Cantorian paradoxes that seem to result from an overly large metaphysics of senses, and various possible solutions. Certain more deflationary and nontraditional understanding of senses, and to what extent they fare better in solving the problems, are also (...) discussed. In the end, it is concluded that one must divide senses into various ramified-orders in order to avoid antinomy, but that the philosophical justification of such orders is, as yet, still somewhat problematic. (shrink)

Warning: includes two somewhat graphic images. This paper is an effort to lay out a taxomony of conceptual relations between the domains of the sublime and the religious. -/- .

An examination of the role played by general rules in Hume's positive (nonskeptical) epistemology. General rules for Hume are roughly just general beliefs. The difference between justified and unjustified belief is a matter of the influence of good versus bad general rules, the good general rules being the "extensive" and "constant" ones.

Global climate change is one of the most widely discussed problems of our time. However, many libertarian thinkers have not participated in the ethical dimensions of this discussion due to a narrow focus on the scientific basis for concern about climate change. In this paper, I reject this approach and explore the kind of response libertarians should be offering instead. I frame the climate change problem as one which concerns potential rights-infringements and explore different ways in which climate change might (...) be thought to infringe upon rights. I conclude that there are some ways in which climate change might be expected to result in rights-infringements, but that some of the current concern about climate change cannot be reconciled with a rights-oriented paradigm. I close by outlining future directions for research, emphasizing that much remains to be done in order to formulate a complete libertarian perspective on climate change. (shrink)

Remarks on naturalism--the belief that there is nothing besides the subway and its riders--and also on non-naturalism and supernaturalism, transcribed and edited from a notebook found on a subway train.

The theory according to which most ordinary objects are mere “entia successiva”—sequences of distinct mereological aggregates, whose unity resides exclusively in our minds—is a variant of the standard, three-dimensional conception of objects. For the aggregates are, at bottom, endurants, i.e., entities that persist through time by being fully present at any time at which they exist. In this paper I compare this theory with the so-called “stage view”, according to which ordinary objects—indeed, all objects—are sequences of momentary entities that cannot (...) truly be said to persist through time. Both theories face a number of intuitive difficulties but the stage view, I argue, has a lot more to offer in return. (shrink)

This article distinguishes between Machian empiricism and the logical positivism of the Vienna Circle and associated philosophers. Mach's natural philosophy was a first order attempt to reform and reorganize physics, not a second order reconstruction of the "language" of physics. Mach's elements were not sense data but realistic events in the natural world and in minds, and Mach admitted unobserved elements as part of his world view. Mach's critique of metaphysics was far more subtle and concerned the elimination of sensory (...) visual imagery from natural science, leaving only concrete elements and functions, very much an inspiration to the young Einstein and Heisenberg and a useful engine of theory construction in physics. (shrink)

CATEGORY: Philosophy play; historical fiction; comedy; social criticism. -/- STORYLINE: Katherine, a neurotic American lawyer, meets Christianus for a philosophy session at The Late Victorian coffee shop in London, where they also meet Wendy the waitress and Baldy the player. Will Katherine be able to overcome her deep depression by adopting some of Christianus’s satisfactionist ideas? Or will she stay unsatisfied and unhappy by stubbornly sticking to her own neti-neti nothingness philosophy? And what roles do Baldy, Wendy, and the Okefenokee (...) Man-Monster have in this connexion? -/- TOPICS: In the course of this philosophy play, Katherine and Christianus discuss many things: friendship, a Renoir painting, global warming, elephant conservation, freemasons, Prince of Wales and his tiger-hunting experience in Nepal, Victorian Chartism and a Kennington Common daguerreotype, a Mortality Proof, and, last but not least, Baldy, Wendy, and the gory plot of the Okefenokee Man-Monster. -/- NOTES: This work features elaborate footnotes and comments (including full bibliographical references) by the author, to enhance the reader's experience of the play and its philosophizing characters. (shrink)

Pojęcie niszy (otoczenia, kontekstu, siedliska, środowiska) nie cieszy się specjalnym zainteresowaniem ontologów, mimo że ma szerokie zastosowanie w rozmaitych dyscyplinach, od biologii ewolucyjnej po ekonomię. Niniejszy artykuł zawiera pierwszą teorię formalną tego pojęcia — teorię relacji pomiędzy przedmiotami a ich niszami. Teoria ta opiera się na istniejącym dorobku mereologii, topologii i teorii lokalizacji przestrzennej, które są narzędziami ontologii formalnej. Jest ona tutaj ilustrowana głównie za pomocą prostych przykładów z biologii, ale pojęcie niszy należy rozumieć — podobnie jak pojęcia części, granicy (...) i położenia — jako pojęcie strukturalne, znajdujące zastosowanie w obszernym zakresie różnych dziedzin. (shrink)

In a calculation involving imaginary numbers, we begin with real numbers that represent concrete measures and we end up with numbers that are equally real, but in the course of the operation we find ourselves walking “as if on a bridge that stands on no piles”. How is that possible? How does that work? And what is involved in the as-if stance that this metaphor introduces so beautifully? These are questions that bother Törless deeply. And that Törless is bothered by (...) such questions is a central question for any reader of Törless. Here I offer my interpretation, along with a reconstruction of the philosophical intuition that lies behind it all. (shrink)

Some philosophers have argued that the vagueness exhibited by names and descriptions such as ‘Mount Everest’, ‘Downtown Manhattan’, or ‘that cloud in the sky’ is ultimately ontological: they are vague because they refer to vague objects, objects with fuzzy boundaries. I take the opposite stand and argue for the view that all vagueness is semantic. There is no such thing as a vague mountain. Rather, there are many things where we conceive the mountain to be, each with its precise boundary, (...) and when we say ‘Everest’ we are just being vague as to which thing we are referring to. This paper defends this view against some plausible objections. (shrink)

In the past decade UNESCO has pursued a leadership role in the articulation of general principles for bioethics, as well as an extensive campaign to promulgate these principles globally.1 Since UNESCO's General Conference adopted the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights in 2005, UNESCO's Bioethics Section has worked with member states to develop a "bioethics infrastructure." UNESCO also provides an "Ethics Teacher Training Course" to member states and disseminates a "core curriculum," primarily targeting medical students. The core curriculum orients (...) itself by the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights and aims to articulate a set of "bioethical principles" that provide a "common global . (shrink)

It is often thought that acquiring a phenomenal concept requires having the relevant sort of experience. In "Extending Phenomenal Concepts", Andreas Elpidorou defends this position from an objection raised by Michael Tye (in "Consciousness Revisited: Materialism without Phenomenal Concepts"). Here, I argue that Elpidorou fails to attend to important supporting materials introduced by Tye.

This essay examines sections relevant to libertarianism in Will Kymlicka’s Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction (2nd ed.), making and explaining the following criticisms. Kymlicka’s “preface” misconstrues political philosophy’s progress, purpose, and its relation to libertarianism. In his “introduction”, his “project” mistakes libertarianism as “right-wing”, justice as compromise among “existing theories”, and equality as the “ultimate value.” His “a note on method” in effect takes as axioms, beyond philosophical examination, various alleged desiderata and the necessary moral role of the state. Moreover, (...) his “ultimate test” being “our considered convictions” amounts to a conservative and illogical justificationism at odds with radical and coherent critical rationalism. Kymlicka’s chapter on “libertarianism” mistakes it as, inherently and unavoidably, free-marketist, anti-consequentialist, deontological, Nozickian, requiring “a foundational moral premiss, without objective content, unmaximisable, indistinguishable from license, equality-based, anti-anarchist, “self-defeating”, indefensibly “unfair”, impractically “philosophical”, and without influence. A different version of libertarianism easily withstands all Kymlicka’s antipathetic criticisms. (shrink)

The critic Cyril Connolly once pointed out that diarists don’t make novelists. He went on to describe the problem for the would-be writer. “Writing for oneself: no public. Writing for others: no privacy” (Cyril Connolly, Journal). This paper addresses Connolly's worry about the public ad private: how can we reconcile the inner and conscious dimension of speech with its outer and public dimension? For if what people mean by their words involves, or consists in, what they have in mind when (...) they speak then how can what someone has in mind — the meaning she attaches to her words — be at the same time publicly accessible to others on the basis of her behaviour? The issue is whether there is a notion of the linguistic meaning of an expression that can do justice to both speakers’ inner experience of comprehension and to what is outwardly available in their public practice. (shrink)

Kukathas’s proposed libertarian dilemma is introduced and two key criticisms of it stated. The following critical commentary then makes several main points. Kukathas’s account of libertarianism offers no theory of liberty at all, nor a coherent account of aggression. Consequently, he cannot see that his “Federation of Liberty” is not libertarian by a basic understanding of morals and non-invasive liberty, still less by a more precise theory of liberty. In trying to explain his “Union of Liberty,” Kukathas evinces considerable confusion (...) about the nature of libertarianism. His argument that a monopoly legal system is inevitable is also neither plausible nor libertarian. He has apparently overlooked the cogent arguments against Nozickian minarchy, and in favor of anarchy. It is concluded that the neglect of libertarian theories of liberty and anarchy is the underlying problem. (shrink)

Some reflections on Nelson Goodman’s ontological pluralism (as emerging from his Ways of Worldmaking) and its influence on contemporary philosophy, taking the querelle with Quine in the columns of The New York Review of Books as a starting point.

Italian translation of "On Logical Relativity" (2002), by Luca Morena.

There are more things between heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophy, says Hamlet. Right. But there are also philosophies that have dreamt of things that are neither here nor there, as Goodman says. There is a danger of suffering from ontological myopia just as there is a danger of suffering from ontological allucination. This paper is about some basic strategies that are available to (or have been elaborated by) philosophers to steer clear of both dangers in (...) their efforts to draw up a good inventory of what there is. (shrink)

Italian translation of "Conjunction and Contradiction" (2004), by Francesco Berto.

This is a sequel to my paper "Il denaro è un’opera d’arte", focusing on the metaphysics of those peculiar social objects that play an increasingly central role in the financial world—derivatives. On the analysis I offer, they appear to run afoul of Searle’s theory of social objects (or of the theory outlined in my earlier paper), and I put forward some suggestions on where to look for the necessary adjustments.

The Doctrine of Potential Parts says that proper undetached parts are merely potential entities, entities that do not exist but would exist if they were detached from the rest. They are just aspects of the whole to which they belong, ways in which the whole could be broken down, and talk of such parts is really just talk about the modal properties of the whole. Here I offer a reconstruction of this doctrine and present an argument to illustrate its hidden (...) kinship with another, parallel but independent doctrine Doctrine of Potential Wholes. According to this second doctrine, disconnected wholes (i.e., wholes that are not in one piece) are in turn potential entities, entities that do not exist but would exist if their parts were suitably conjoined. (shrink)

A short dialogue around the question of whether the thoughts expressed by the characters of an historical novel belong to the characters or to the author.

A dialogue among statements that try to explain to each other the mechanisms and peculiarities of self-referential assertions and, particularly, of their context-dependence.

From Soul to Self takes us on a fascinating journey through philosophy, theology, religious studies and physiological sciences. The contributors explore the relationship between a variety of ideas that have arisen in philosophy, religion and science, each idea seeking to explain why we think we are somehow unique and distinct.

Roberto Cordeschi, La scoperta dell’artificiale. Psicologia, filosofia e macchine intorno alla cibernetica, Milano, Masson–Dunod, 1998, pp. 320; Domenico Parisi, Mente: I nuovi modelli della Vita Artificiale, Bologna, Il Mulino, 1999, pp. 200.

Recent conversation has blurred two very different social epistemic phenomena: echo chambers and epistemic bubbles. Members of epistemic bubbles merely lack exposure to relevant information and arguments. Members of echo chambers, on the other hand, have been brought to systematically distrust all outside sources. In epistemic bubbles, other voices are not heard; in echo chambers, other voices are actively undermined. It is crucial to keep these phenomena distinct. First, echo chambers can explain the post-truth phenomena in a way that epistemic (...) bubbles cannot. Second, each type of structure requires a distinct intervention. Mere exposure to evidence can shatter an epistemic bubble, but may actually reinforce an echo chamber. Finally, echo chambers are much harder to escape. Once in their grip, an agent may act with epistemic virtue, but social context will pervert those actions. Escape from an echo chamber may require a radical rebooting of one's belief system. (shrink)

The feeling of clarity can be dangerously seductive. It is the feeling associated with understanding things. And we use that feeling, in the rough-and-tumble of daily life, as a signal that we have investigated a matter sufficiently. The sense of clarity functions as a thought-terminating heuristic. In that case, our use of clarity creates significant cognitive vulnerability, which hostile forces can try to exploit. If an epistemic manipulator can imbue a belief system with an exaggerated sense of clarity, then they (...) can induce us to terminate our inquiries too early — before we spot the flaws in the system. How might the sense of clarity be faked? Let’s first consider the object of imitation: genuine understanding. Genuine understanding grants cognitive facility. When we understand something, we categorize its aspects more easily; we see more connections between its disparate elements; we can generate new explanations; and we can communicate our understanding. In order to encourage us to accept a system of thought, then, an epistemic manipulator will want the system to provide its users with an exaggerated sensation of cognitive facility. The system should provide its users with the feeling that they can easily and powerfully create categorizations, generate explanations, and communicate their understanding. And manipulators have a significant advantage in imbuing their systems with a pleasurable sense of clarity, since they are freed from the burdens of accuracy and reliability. I offer two case studies of seductively clear systems: conspiracy theories; and the standardized, quantified value systems of bureaucracies. (shrink)

In her BBC Reith Lectures on Trust, Onora O’Neill offers a short, but biting, criticism of transparency. People think that trust and transparency go together but in reality, says O'Neill, they are deeply opposed. Transparency forces people to conceal their actual reasons for action and invent different ones for public consumption. Transparency forces deception. I work out the details of her argument and worsen her conclusion. I focus on public transparency – that is, transparency to the public over expert domains. (...) I offer two versions of the criticism. First, the epistemic intrusion argument: The drive to transparency forces experts to explain their reasoning to non-experts. But expert reasons are, by their nature, often inaccessible to non-experts. So the demand for transparency can pressure experts to act only in those ways for which they can offer public justification. Second, the intimate reasons argument: In many cases of practical deliberation, the relevant reasons are intimate to a community and not easily explicable to those who lack a particular shared background. The demand for transparency, then, pressures community members to abandon the special understanding and sensitivity that arises from their particular experiences. Transparency, it turns out, is a form of surveillance. By forcing reasoning into the explicit and public sphere, transparency roots out corruption — but it also inhibits the full application of expert skill, sensitivity, and subtle shared understandings. The difficulty here arises from the basic fact that human knowledge vastly outstrips any individual’s capacities. We all depend on experts, which makes us vulnerable to their biases and corruption. But if we try to wholly secure our trust — if we leash groups of experts to pursuing only the goals and taking only the actions that can be justified to the non-expert public — then we will undermine their expertise. We need both trust and transparency, but they are in essential tension. This is a deep practical dilemma; it admits of no neat resolution, but only painful compromise. (shrink)

Hostile epistemology is the study of how environmental features exploit our cognitive vulnerabilities. I am particularly interested in those vulnerabilities arise from the basic character of our epistemic lives. We are finite beings with limited cognitive resources, perpetually forced to reasoning a rush. I focus on two sources of unavoidable vulnerability. First, we need to use cognitive shortcuts and heuristics to manage our limited time and attention. But hostile forces can always game the gap between the heuristic and the ideal. (...) Second, we need to trust others, and trust makes us vulnerable. In particular, we need to trust experts whose expertise lies beyond our individual ability to vet. So we must rely on various imperfect signals and proxies, like institutional affiliation, to manage our trust. We are forced to use these imperfect and exploitable forms of reasoning, in order to cope with a cognitively overwhelming world. I present the hostile epistemology framework as a counterbalance to vice epistemology, which tends to locate responsibility for bad beliefs in the character of the believer. I draw two conclusions from my analysis. First: suppose we accept that that only communities and institutions can know about the world. This deeply social approach doesn’t solve the problem of expert identification. The individual still faces a problem: given their incomplete understanding, how should the individual pick which group to trust? Second: we might have hoped to get some kind of static picture of the right principles of reasoning — but hostile epistemology presents a different picture. We have to use risky heuristics and shortcuts, which hostile forces can game and exploit. We can respond by shifting to a different set of heuristics, but this simply shifts the location of our vulnerabilities. These new heuristics are also exploitable. There is no end to this, only a constant struggle to adapt. Limited beings in a hostile epistemic environment are locked in an unending epistemic arms race. (shrink)

Due to Gӧdel’s incompleteness results, the categoricity of a sufficiently rich mathematical theory and the semantic completeness of its underlying logic are two mutually exclusive ideals. For first- and second-order logics we obtain one of them with the cost of losing the other. In addition, in both these logics the rules of deduction for their quantifiers are non-categorical. In this paper I examine two recent arguments –Warren (2020), Murzi and Topey (2021)– for the idea that the natural deduction rules for (...) the first-order universal quantifier are categorical, i.e., they uniquely determine its semantic intended meaning. Both of them make use of McGee’s open-endedness requirement and the second one uses in addition Garson’s (2013) local models for defining the validity of these rules. I argue that the success of both these arguments is relative to their semantic or infinitary assumptions, which could be easily discharged if the introduction rule for the universal quantifier is taken to be an infinitary rule, i.e. non-compact. Consequently, I reconsider the use of the ω-rule and I show that the addition of the ω-rule to the standard formalizations of first-order logic is categorical. In addition, I argue that the open-endedness requirement does not make the first-order Peano Arithmetic categorical and I advance an argument for its categoricity based on the inferential conservativity requirement. (shrink)

This chapter will review selected aspects of the terrain of discussions about probabilities in statistical mechanics (with no pretensions to exhaustiveness, though the major issues will be touched upon), and will argue for a number of claims. None of the claims to be defended is entirely original, but all deserve emphasis. The first, and least controversial, is that probabilistic notions are needed to make sense of statistical mechanics. The reason for this is the same reason that convinced Maxwell, Gibbs, and (...) Boltzmann that probabilities would be needed, namely, that the second law of thermodynamics, which in its original formulation says that certain processes are impossible, must, on the kinetic theory, be replaced by a weaker formulation according to which what the original version deems impossible is merely improbable. Second is that we ought not take the standard measures invoked in equilibrium statistical mechanics as giving, in any sense, the correct probabilities about microstates of the system. We can settle for a much weaker claim: that the probabilities for outcomes of experiments yielded by the standard distributions are effectively the same as those yielded by any distribution that we should take as a representing probabilities over microstates. Lastly, (and most controversially): in asking about the status of probabilities in statistical mechanics, the familiar dichotomy between epistemic probabilities (credences, or degrees of belief) and ontic (physical) probabilities is insufficient; the concept of probability that is best suited to the needs of statistical mechanics is one that combines epistemic and physical considerations. (shrink)