We present an account of the phenomenon of music based upon the hypothesis that there is a close parallel between the mechanics of life and the mechanics of mind, a key factor in the correspondence proposed being the existence of close parallels between the concepts of gene and musical idea. The hypothesis accounts for the specificity, complexity, functionality and apparent arbitrariness of musical structures. An implication of the model is that music should be seen as a phenomenon of transcendental character, (...) involving aspects of mind as yet unstudied by conventional science. (shrink)

Understanding the nature of pain depends, at least partly, on recognizing its subjectivity (thus, its first-person epistemology). This in turn requires using a first-person experiential method in addition to third-person experimental approaches to study it. This paper is an attempt to spell out what the former approach is and how it can be integrated with the latter. We start our discussion by examining some foundational issues raised by the use of introspection. We argue that such a first-person method in the (...) scientific study of pain (as in the study of any experience) is in fact indispensable by demonstrating that it has in fact been consistently used in conjunction with conventional third-person methodologies, and this for good reasons. We show that, contrary to what appears to be a widespread opinion, there is absolutely no reason to think that the use of such a first-person approach is scientifically and methodologically suspect. We distinguish between two uses of introspective methods in scientific experiments: one draws on the subjects’ introspective reports where any investigator has equal and objective access. The other is where the investigator becomes a subject of his own study and draws on the introspection of his own experiences. We give examples using and/or approximating both strategies that include studies of second pain summation and its relationship to neural activities, and brain imaging- psychophysical studies wherein sensory and affective qualities of pain are correlated with cerebral cortical activity. We explain what we call the experiential or phenomenological approach that has its origins in the work of Price and Barrell (1980). This approach capitalizes on the scientific prospects and benefits of using the introspection of the investigator. We distinguish between its vertical and horizontal applications. Finally, we conclude that integrating such an approach to standard third-person methodologies can only help us in having a fuller understanding of pain and of conscious experience in general. (shrink)

Since its publication, the Psychopathic Personality Inventory and its revision (Lilien- feld & Andrews, 1996; Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005) have become increasingly popular such that it is now among the most frequently used self-report inventories for the assessment of psychopathy. The current meta-analysis examined the relations between the two PPI factors (factor 1: Fearless Dominance; factor 2: Self-Centered Impulsivity), as well as their relations with other validated measures of psychopathy, internalizing and externalizing forms of psychopathology, general personality traits, and antisocial (...) personality disorder symptoms. Across 61 samples reported in 49 publications, we found support for the convergent and criterion validity of both PPI factor 2 and the PPI total score. Much weaker validation was found for PPI factor 1, which manifested limited convergent validity and a pattern of correlations with central criterion variables that was inconsistent with many conceptualizations of psychopathy. (shrink)

Dans cet article, nous examinerons le thème de la découverte en science. Nous soutiendrons qu’il est possible de définir une stratégie rationnelle soutenant la découverte au moyen du principe de l’abduction. Afin de démontrer cette thèse, il s’agira d’abord de diagnostiquer le problème de la complexité et de l’irrationalité de la découverte scientifique et de considérer la position néo-positiviste endossée par Karl Popper et Hans Reichenbach, selon laquelle la découverte ne peut faire l’objet d’une étude proprement logique ou épistémologique. Par (...) la suite, l’analyse se concentrera sur la position de Norwood R. Hanson qui, répondant et contredisant celle de Popper et de Reichenbach, affirme qu’il existe une « logique de la découverte », fondée sur le principe de l’abduction. Après avoir déployé l’argument de Hanson et explicité sa conception du principe de l’abduction, nous montrerons, en nous appuyant sur la vision d’Atocha Aliseda, comment l’abduction est liée à la découverte en science. Finalement, nous examinerons la notion d’inférence à la meilleure explication et le concept « d’hypothèse explicative » de Peter Lipton, ce qui permettra d’expliquer dans quelle mesure cette variante de l’abduction nous permet de comprendre les éléments et conditions qui favorisent la génération de découvertes en science. (shrink)

The text is translated from the book by D. Davidson: Truth, Language, and History. Oxford University press, 2005.pp. 127-141.

Le travail qui suit vise à présenter la distinction des contextes de découverte et de justification telle que proposée par Reichenbach. Nous analysons dans quels termes Reichenbach introduit cette distinction et nous montrons quelles difficultés elle implique. Nous étudions de manière synthétique, sur la base de sources secondaires critiques, la signification de cette distinction. En effet, nous analysons la motivation de cette distinction. Nous insistons sur l’ambiguïté de cette distinction, et nous montrons qu’elle veut distinguer deux éléments inséparables. Nous montrons (...) que les contextes sont inextricablement liés et que la découverte ne peut être exclue d’une étude épistémologique de la science. Néanmoins, nous cherchons à montrer qu’il existe des solutions à ce problème. Nous montrons que nous pouvons conserver la distinction si nous la comprenons dans le sens d’une distinction de perspectives sur la science. Nous montrons que cela permet une collaboration entre l’épistémologie et l’histoire. Enfin, nous montrons que la découverte peut être rationalisée et être l’objet d’une logique à part entière. (shrink)

This essay is devoted to the study of useful ways of thinking about the nature of interpretation, with particular attention being given to the so called normative character of mental explanation. My aim of illuminating the nature of interpretation will be accomplished by examining several views, some of which are common to both Donald Davidson and Daniel Dennett, concerning its unique characteristics as a method of prediction and explanation. Moreover, some of the views held by Davidson and Dennett will (...) be adopted, elaborated, and defended. The conclusions of these philosophers do not, however, form an acceptable whole. Thus I will attempt to moderate some of their views. In particular, I will attempt to show up the deficits of Davidson's view of the mental by defending the possibility some sort of psycho-physical reduction. Despite such philosophical pretensions, major parts of this essay will be devoted to sketching the foundations of a method for the interpretation of intentional behaviour which I take to embody the key features of our ordinary practice of interpretation. In particular, I will attempt to sketch the bases for a method of interpretation which is sensitive to the methodological considerations associated with the seemingly unique normative character of mental explanation. To this end, I will also investigate the question of how certain formal measures of coherence can be made to yield models for understanding the actual and possible bases of interpretation. (shrink)

In Examination of McTaggart's Philosophy, C.D. Broad advanced a distinctive ontology of things and processes. He argues that neither things nor processes are reduced to each other but instead are reduced to some further kind of entity: “absolute process.” This paper will present Broad's theory of absolute processes and argue that they are best understood as tropes by developing a version of Donald C. Williams's trope ontology. This process ontology of tropes is then defended against objections in the contemporary (...) metaphysics literature. (shrink)

-/- IFPE – Campus Belo Jardim Curso Técnico em Agropecuária -/- AVICULTURA: ANATOMIA DA GALINHA -/- AVICULTURA Anatomia básica da galinha -/- INTRODUÇÃO -/- A galinha é um animal vertebrado de sangue quente, parente evoluído dos répteis. Embora haja semelhanças entre ambas as espécies (aves e répteis), também existem grandes diferenças. Os répteis são seres pecilotérmicos, isto é, possuem sangue frio, o que significa que sua temperatura corporal não é regulada pelo seu próprio corpo para uma temperatura específica e, portanto, (...) é a temperatura do ambiente que geralmente a regula. Em contrapartida, as galinhas são homeotérmicas, elas possuem o sangue quente, o que significa que sua temperatura corporal é relativamente alta e, geralmente, quase constante. As galinhas, como qualquer outra ave, também são endotérmicas, ou seja, possuem a capacidade de gerar calor profundo, através dos nutrientes, para aumentar a temperatura do corpo. Em geral, as aves possuem uma média de 42 °C de temperatura corporal, o que é ideal para sua fisiologia normal, no entanto, quando estão em ambientes mais quentes as mesmas conseguem baixar sua temperatura através dos movimentos de batimento das asas para a expulsão do calor. Tanto os répteis quanto as galinhas põem ovos, ou seja, são animais ovíparos. Esses ovos são incubados, isto é, chocados com o fim de facilitar o desenvolvimento do feto embrião do corpo. O período de incubação dos ovos da galinha é de 21 dias. No entanto, a fêmea de réptil enterra seus ovos na areia ou no próprio solo, e a temperatura ao redor, do ambiente, é adequada para o crescimento do embrião em desenvolvimento. Durante o desenvolvimento embrionário natural, os ovos da galinha são cobertos (incubados) pela própria galinha e são mantidos a uma temperatura próxima da sua temperatura corporal durante todo o período de incubação. A temperatura ideal para a incubação dos ovos é de ± 37 °C (37,3 – 37,7 °C) e a umidade de 65%. Quando a galinha põe os ovos e percebe que está na hora de chocá-los essa passa por um período fisiológico de instinto materno para a incubação dos ovos, sendo denominado de “galinha choca”. Além de todas essas diferenças, a maioria das aves pode voar, enquanto os répteis não. -/- • EXTERIOR DA GALINHA -/- O corpo da galinha é coberto com uma combinação de pele, penas e escamas localizadas, sendo esta última uma derivação e/ou resquício dos répteis (Figuras 1 e 2). -/- PENAS -/- As aves estão quase que completamente cobertas por penas, o que é uma característica das mesmas, tornando-as diferentes de outros vertebrados. Durante o processo evolutivo da galinha, a maioria das escamas reptilianas transformaram-se em penas, apenas uma pequena parte se aproxima das escamas da pele dos répteis que é a das pernas. Ambas as escamas e penas são compostas principalmente da mesma proteína que é a queratina. As penas, dentre muitos propósitos, servem a muitas funções tais como: • Auxilia, juntamente com os ossos porosos (pneumáticos) na hora do voo; • Fornece a proteção contra as extremas temperaturas interiores e exteriores; • Repele a chuva e a neve; • Cria uma camuflagem natural contra os predadores; • Auxiliam na hora da reprodução; • Ajudam a atrair indivíduos da mesma espécie. Figura 1: nomenclatura do galo. Fonte: Adaptação da internet. Figura 2: nomenclatura exterior da galinha. Fonte: Adaptação da internet. -/- 1. Partes da pena Uma pena (figura 3) é composta de uma raiz chamada cálamo; uma longa pena ou eixo denominada raque para dar rigidez; farpas que se estendem a partir da pena; barba que se estendem a partir das farpas; e bárbulas que se estendem a partir da barba. Todas as partes, exceto o raque, tendem a entrelaçar na porção plana (a teia) da pena. A malha não é pronunciada na base da pena e a construção solta dá origem a penugem, muitas vezes diferente na cor da teia da pena. Figura 3: estrutura da pena de galinha. -/- Como as penas são estabelecidas? -/- Quando o pintainho nasce, ele é desprovido de penas. Exceto em suas asas e cauda, ele é coberto por uma leve penugem. Dentro de dias o poço entra em erupção e a teia da pena faz a aparição. Quando o animal tem entre 4 a 5 semanas ele está todo emplumado. As primeiras penas são fundidas, e um novo conjunto de penas nasce, ou seja, as penas mudam quando a ave tem cerca de 8 semanas de idade. Um outro conjunto de penas é concluído pouco antes da ave atingir a maturidade sexual, representando sua primeira plumagem madura. As penas representam entre 4 e 8% do peso vivo da ave, com diferenças relacionadas à idade, sexo e desgaste associados ao equipamento; aves mais velhas e machos têm uma porcentagem menor de penas do que as fêmeas e aves mais jovens. Figura 4: pintainho de 1 dia. Figura 5: frango com 45 dias. -/- Muda anual das penas -/- Como as penas velhas se desgastam, se quebram ou são arrancadas, a natureza proporcionou às aves adultas um método de renovação de rodas as suas penas uma vez por ano, soltando as penas restantes e criando um novo conjunto. O processo de queda e renovação das penas é conhecido como muda. Na natureza, as penas estão em constante queda em um padrão consistente para que a ave nunca esteja desprovida por completo de penas; a ave possuirá as penas velhas e as novas conforme forem surgindo. O processo normal de queda das penas velhas e de crescimento das novas requer de 3 a 4 meses. A muda e o crescimento de novas penas estão sob controle hormonal. Para a muda, as penas iniciam seu crescimento nós botões, isto é, na base das penas que, por sua vez, força as penas velhas a caírem naturalmente. Os níveis hormonais que induzem a produção de ovos e causam a ninhada inibem o crescimento dos botões das penas. Se a produção de ovos dor reduzida por meios artificiais, tais como a redução da ingestão de alimentos, a muda pode ser precipitada de forma mais rápida e completa, como ocorre nas denominadas mudas forçadas. Essas mudas são influenciadas pelo sistema alimentar ao qual as galinhas de postura, em especial, são submetidas a diminuição abrupta de ração, mudando o seu sistema fisiológico e demais funções. A galinha entra em estresse pela falta de alimento desavisado e começa um processo de mudança induzida artificialmente de suas penas. Esse método visa aumentar o tempo de postura das galinhas. -/- A forma da pena -/- As penas do corpo variam em tamanho sobre a superfície do corpo, o formato de ambas estão associadas com o sexo da ave. Os hormônios gonodais desempenham um papel crucial nessa variação sexual. Nos machos, esses hormônios são responsáveis pela ereção ou estreitamento das penas hackle, que ficam sobre o pescoço dos galos, da foice, sela e das penas falciformes menores dos machos. As penas não cobrem uniformemente o corpo, mas crescem em fileiras produzindo extensões de penas em áreas específicas do corpo. As principais penas estão localizadas no ombro, abdômen, coxa, costas, peito, pescoço, cabeça e nas asas. A ordem o tempo de aparecimento das penas são: Ombro e coxa 2 a 3 semanas Cauda e peito 3 a 4 semanas Pescoço, abdômen e perna 4 a 5 semanas Costas 5 a 6 semanas Coberturas da asa e cabeça 6 a 7 semanas Cor das penas -/- As penas podem ter muitas cores e padrões de cor. Em alguns casos, as diferenças de cor variam de acordo com a localização das penas no corpo. Os padrões de cor podem ser diferentes em ambos os sexos. As cores das penas e os padrões das penas são o resultado de diferenciações genéticas (a cor das penas está ligada ao sexo) e a presença de hormônios gonadotrópicos. Figura 6: penas do galo. Figura 7: penas da galinha. -/- Revestimento ceroso das penas -/- A glândula uropigial está localizada na área dorsal da cauda, e é a única glândula secretória presente na superfície das aves. Essa glândula segrega uma cera oleosa que a ave espalha sobre suas penas com o seu bico. O material faz com que as penas sejam resistentes à água; elas não absorvem água, e a água escorre rapidamente a partir das penas revestidas com esse óleo. -/- CABEÇA -/- A cabeça das aves é composta das seguintes partes: -/- 1. Crista -/- Existem vários tipos de cristas, mas apenas os três primeiros da seguinte lista são comuns nas aves comerciais, como é o caso da galinha. Os vários tipos de cristas incluem: -/- Figura 8: tipos de crista das aves. Fonte: Adaptação da internet. -/- O tipo de crista é resultado da interação gênica, conforme as leis de Mendel, mas o tamanho da crista está associado ao desenvolvimento gonodal bem como da intensidade da luz, seja ela artificial ou natural. A crista dos frangos de corte encontrados no Brasil, conforme as características genicas e/ou gonodais são a simples e a rosa. -/- 2. Olhos -/- As galinhas possuem a capacidade natural de discernimento de inúmeras cores, além da capacidade superior para concentrar e detectar os movimentos. Segundo o pesquisador STURKIE (1986) o olho da ave é o mais límpido órgão ocular de todo o reino animal. Nos olhos são encontradas ainda os anéis oculares, pálpebras e cílios compostos de penas cerdas de eixo reto. -/- Figura 9: olho de uma galinha. -/- 3. Orelhas -/- As espécies aviarias são conhecidas pelo seu profundo sentido auditivo. Sua produção de voz e capacidade de imitação de sons interfere na discriminação e intensidade de volume sobre a orelha. Na orelha também são encontrados os lóbulos que podem ser vermelho ou branco. -/- 4. Bico -/- O bico é um apêndice multifuncional de considerável importância. Ele está envolvido na apreensão de alimentos, defesa e agressão em comportamentos sociais, acasalamento, fabricação do ninho, preparação e comunicações entre os indivíduos. Suas funções normais são adversamente afetadas mediante a prática de manejo incorreta da debicagem, que consiste no corte do mesmo. Figura 10: cabeça de um galo. -/- Na cabeça das aves ainda são encontradas as barbelas, que são mais desenvolvidas nos machos e que, mediante a observação, podem indicar presença de doenças através da mudança de coloração. -/- PERNA -/- As canelas e a maioria dos pés são cobertos por escamas de algumas cores. A cor amarela é consequência dos pigmentos carotenoides dietéticos presentes na epiderme quando o pigmento de melanina encontra-se ausente. Os tons de preto são resultado do pigmento melânico presente na derme e na epiderme. Quando há uma pigmentação preta na derme e amarelada na epiderme a tonalidade fica esverdeada. Na ausência completa de ambos os pigmentos elas ficam esbranquiçadas. A coloração da perna das aves também pode ser ditada pela falta de nutrientes como o cálcio. As aves de postura depositam boa quantidade de cálcio dos ossos na casca do ovo, o que pode resultar na coloração branca da perna. As partes importantes da haste e do pé são o jarrete, canela e os dedos do pé. A maioria das galinhas possuem quatro dedos em cada pé, mas há algumas raças com cinco dedos. -/- PELE -/- A maior parte do corpo da ave é coberto com uma camada fina de pele. Com exceção da glândula uropigial (secretória) a pele é desprovida de demais glândulas. A ausência de glândulas sudoríparas torna impossível o resfriamento por evaporação da superfície do corpo da ave. A pele possui uma textura mais firme nas áreas da crista, lóbulos, bico, escamas, esporões e garras. Com exceção de certas áreas especializadas, a cor da pele é branca ou amarela. A coloração da pele também pode ser resultado de ingredientes adicionais da ração das aves, como o coloral. A densidade da cor amarela está indiretamente relacionada com a quantidade de xantofilas na dieta e inversamente correlacionada com a intensidade da produção de ovos. -/- • ESQUELETO -/- O esqueleto é a caixa de suporte do corpo ao qual os músculos estão ligados. A caixa torácica protege alguns dos órgãos vitais como o pulmão e o coração de impactos externos, e possui a capacidade de expansão e retração por meio da aspiração e/ou expiração do processo respiratório. Um exame minucioso da osteologia mostra que os ossos encontrados no esqueleto dos mamíferos também são encontrados no esqueleto das aves, como é o caso do fêmur. No entanto, alguns ossos da galinha são fundidos ou alongados. Outros são ocos para ajudar no voo, como os pneumáticos. A figura 11 ilustra os principais ossos encontrados no esqueleto da galinha. As vértebras do pescoço se movem livremente, mas ao contrário dos mamíferos, a porção restante da coluna vertebral é rígida, contendo vários ossos fundidos que conferem essa característica a coluna. Inúmeras vértebras torácicas estão unidas para formar uma base firme para a fixação das asas e seus músculos. Há também uma quilha pesada. As asas correspondem aos braços e mãos dos humanos com as pernas contendo os mesmos ossos encontrados na perna do homem, como o fêmur citado anteriormente. Os ossos do metatarso, comuns aos pés humanos, foram fundidos e alongados para formar a haste. -/- Figura 11: esqueleto da galinha. -/- Os ossos encontrados no crânio, úmero, quilha, clavícula e algumas vértebras são ocos, porosos e conectados ao sistema respiratório, com o ar movendo-se continuamente para dentro e para fora desses ossos especializados. A maioria dos ossos é leve, porém bastante resistentes. Há também um material ósseo macio e esponjoso conhecido como osso medular presente em quantidades variáveis nos ossos longos da perna (fíbula e tíbia), a alguns outros ossos do esqueleto de fêmeas que auxiliam o porte para a produção de ovos. Esse osso medular é usado para armazenamento de cálcio para uso posterior na produção de ovos, já que a casca do ovo é basicamente de cálcio. A quantidade de cálcio armazenada nesses ossos especializados é altamente variável, dependendo do comprimento e da taxa de produção de ovos; uma produção intensiva de ovos requer que esses ossos armazenam mais cálcio. A maior parte do cálcio necessidade para a produção da casca do ovo não é armazenada, mas vem diretamente da ração consumida pela galinha todos os dias. -/- • MÚSCULOS -/- Os músculos (figura 12) são classificados por sua função em voluntários e/ou involuntários. Os músculos voluntários são usados para o movimento e voo, enquanto que os músculos denominados involuntários (músculos lisos) são usadas no funcionamento de órgãos como o coração, intestinos, vasos sanguíneos e outros. Os músculos que movem a ave são especialmente importantes, mas aqueles que controlam a ação do coração, dos vasos sanguíneos, intestinos e outros órgãos vitais são tão importantes quanto, já que possuem uma função específica no bom funcionamento desses órgãos. Os músculos que movem as asas estão ligados à quilha (esterno). Esses músculos também suportam os órgãos vitais da cavidade abdominal. Esses músculos são bem desenvolvidos na maioria das aves, mas especialmente em frangos de corte, uma vez que a seleção genética produziu aves com peitos maiores. Os músculos são mais desenvolvidos e importantes em aves de corte, já que o músculo nada mais é do que a carne do animal, essa que é o consumo de bilhões de pessoas em todo o mundo. Nas galinhas pode-se encontrar tanto músculos brancos como vermelhos, dando origem a carne clara e a escura, pouco mais avermelhada. Na carne mais escura, é encontrado mais gordura e um composto de ferro e oxigênio denominado mioglobina, em comparação com a carne branca. Geralmente a atividade e função muscular determina sua cor. Na galinha, os músculos da perna são mais escuros do que os do peito, já que há um constante estresse nos músculos da perna que tem a função de manter o corpo ereto quando a ave está de pé. Nas aves voadoras selvagens, o músculo do peito é mais escuro porque o maior estresse é colocado sobre o mesmo durante o voo. Os frangos de corte possuem fibras musculares que são maiores em diâmetro e sua coloração é mais clara do que os de tipo camada. -/- • SISTEMA RESPIRATÓRIO -/- O sistema respiratório das aves é composto por: • cavidades nasais • laringe • traqueia • siringe (caixa de voz) • brônquios • pulmões • sacos de ar (9) • ossos contendo ar Os pulmões da galinha são pequenos em comparação com os dos mamíferos. Eles se expandem ou contraem ligeiramente conforme a expiração e aspiração, e não há um diafragma verdadeiro. Os pulmões são apoiados por nove sacos de ar e um grupo de ossos ocos, contendo ar. Há dois pares de sacos torácicos e dois pares de sacos na região abdominal, e um único saco de ar na região interclavicular. Figura 12: principais músculos da galinha. Fonte: FLORIANO, 2018. -/- Enquanto o ar se movimenta livremente dentro e fora dos sacos de ar, apenas os pulmões são responsáveis pela troca gasosa entre oxigênio e dióxido de carbono que ocorre durante a respiração. Tanto os pulmões quanto os sacos de ar funcionam como mecanismos de resfriamento à medida que a umidade de suas superfícies é exalada como vapor de água. A taxa respiratória é ditada pela concentração de dióxido de carbono presente no sangue; níveis maiores de CO2 aumentam a taxa, que varia entre 15 e 25 respirações por minuto na ave em repouso. -/- Figura 13: esquema do sistema respiratório da galinha. Fonte: SILVA. -/- • SISTEMA DIGESTIVO -/- A figura 14 apresenta o sistema digestivo simplificado da galinha. Os demais órgãos que o compõem são descritos abaixo. -/- BOCA -/- A galinha é desprovida de lábios, não possui paladar, bochechas ou dentes, mas possui uma mandíbula superior e inferior denominada bico que possui a função de apreensão da comida, defesa e outras específicas. A mandíbula superior está firmemente fixada ao crânio enquanto que a mandíbula inferior é articulada. O palato duro é dividido por uma longa fenda estreita no centro que está aberta para as passagens nasais. Essa abertura e ausência do paladar tornam impossíveis para a ave criar um vácuo para atrair água para sua boca. Portanto, para que possa beber água, a ave deve elevar sua cabeça para permitir que a água escorra pelo esôfago mediante a gravidade. A galinha possui uma língua em forma de punhal com uma superfície bastante áspera na região caudal da mesma, o que facilita a levar a comida para o canal do esôfago. A saliva, com sua enzima amilase que é usada na conversão dos amidos em açúcares durante o processo digestivo, é segregada pelas glândulas presentes na boca. Outra função da saliva de lubrificação dos alimentos que auxiliam no transporte das partículas dos alimentos para o esôfago e posteriormente ao papo onde transforma-se em bolo alimentar. -/- Figura 14: esquema do sistema digestório da galinha. Fonte: adaptação da internet. -/- As galinhas possuem menos papilas gustativas do que os mamíferos; enquanto o ser humano possui cerca de 9.000 as aves constam com apenas 250 a 350 papilas. As papilas gustativas da galinha estão localizadas em diversas regiões da boca e sob a língua. É difícil saber o sabor dos alimentos para as aves, no entanto os alimentos são consideradas como sendo ruins dentro da boca do animal, mas as aves respondem bem a gostos específicos como o sal e o açúcar. As galinhas possuem grande tolerância à acidez e alcalinidade da água de consumo, no entanto faz-se necessário oferecer uma água de qualidade e com pH próximo do 7. As aves conseguem discernir a temperatura da água, recusando a ingestão de água com temperaturas abaixo de 3 °C e com temperaturas acima dos 38 °C, a melhor temperatura gira em torno da ambiental (18 a 25 °C). -/- ESÔFAGO -/- O esôfago é o tubo pelo qual o alimento passa quando sai da paste traseira da boca (faringe) e vai para o proventrículo. É composto por duas regiões específicas, a parte superior que compreende a ligação entre a boca e o papo medindo aproximadamente 20 cm de comprimento na ave adulta e a parte inferior compreendendo o nexo entre o papo e o proventrículo medindo cerca de 16 cm de comprimento. -/- PAPO -/- Depois de ser engolido, o alimento sai da boca, entra no canal do esôfago e deposita-se em uma cavidade do corpo com características de uma bolsa denominada de papo, ao qual atua como o local de armazenamento do alimento transformando-o em bolo alimentar. No papo ocorre pouca ou nenhuma digestão, exceto a que envolve a secreção salivar da boca, que continua com sua atividade no papo, sendo assim o alimento é cada vez mais umedecido. Esse processo de alta salivação tanto na boca quanto no papo sobre os alimentos é para facilitar a total quebra do alimento em partículas menores, principalmente quando a ave possui uma dieta de milho em grão não triturado. -/- PROVENTRÍCULO -/- Um alargamento do esôfago pouco antes de sua ligação com a moela é conhecido como o proventrículo, às vezes alinhado de estômago glandular ou verdadeiro. É nesse compartimento ao qual os sucos gástricos são produzidos e segregados. A pepsina, uma enzima necessária no processo de digestão das proteínas, e o ácido clorídrico são segregados pelas células glandulares. A passagem do bolo alimentar pelo proventrículo é rápida, como consequência há pouca digestão do material alimentar nesse compartimento, no entanto o bolo alimentar vai para a moela, uma estômago mecânico que só é encontrado nas aves, na moela ocorre a ação enzimática sobre o bolo alimentar. -/- MOELA -/- A moela, às vezes denominada de estômago mecânico ou muscular das aves, fica entre o proventrículo e a porção superior do intestino delgado. Possui dois pares de músculos poderosos capazes de exercer grande força sobre os alimentos, triturando-os e formando partículas menores, além de possuir uma mucosa muito grossa, cuja superfície constantemente se desgasta e se desprende. A moela fica inativa quando está vazia, porém uma vez que o alimento entra nesse compartimento, as contrações musculares de suas paredes grosseiras entram em constante atividade. Quantos maiores as partículas dos alimentos mais rápidas são as contrações para quebrá-lo o mais rápido e eficientemente possível. Quando o material fino entra na moela sai em poucos minutos, mas quando o alimento é grosseiro pode permanecer nesta por várias horas. Para facilitar a quebra do alimento e a transformação do mesmo em partículas menores para a entrada no trato intestinal, as aves constantemente consomem pequenas pedras, cascalhos, areia e outros materiais que visam facilitar a moagem do alimento na moela. Atualmente, as práticas de moagem dos alimentos que formam as rações mais finas e o uso de fontes de cálcio com tamanho de partículas maiores para camadas praticamente eliminaram a necessidade de granulação nas dietas das aves comerciais de hoje. -/- INTESTINO DELGADO -/- O ID é composto por duas seções principais, a alça duodenal e o íleo. Dentro da alça duodenal encontra-se o pâncreas que segrega os sucos pancreáticos contendo as enzimas amilase, lipase e tripsina. Outras enzimas fundamentais do processo digestivo de açúcares e proteínas são produzidas e segregadas pelas paredes do ID. O ID é o local primário de absorção de nutrientes para a corrente sanguínea e, para as células. Na ave adulta, o IG pode chegar a medir aproximadamente 140 cm de comprimento. -/- CECO -/- Entre o ID e o intestino grosso encontram-se duas bolsas denominadas como ceco. Cada ceco tem aproximadamente 15 cm de comprimento na ave adulta. A função exata desse compartimento ainda não está bem definida, porém estudos concluíram que o ceco têm pouco a ver com a digestão, ele apenas participa em pequenas funções associadas à absorção de água. Uma pequena quantidade de digestão de carboidratos e proteínas, além da fermentação microbiana da fibra dietética também ocorre no ceco. -/- INTESTINO GROSSO -/- O IG é uma extensão relativamente curta do ID na ave, tendo cerca de 10 cm de comprimento na ave adulta. É duas vezes o diâmetro do ID. Estende-se a partir da extremidade do ID para a cloaca. O IG está envolvido no processo de reabsorção de água, e ao realizar esse processo, ajuda na manutenção do equilíbrio de água no organismo e em todo o corpo da ave. -/- CLOACA -/- A área bulbosa no final do trato alimentar (da boca até o ânus) é denominada de cloaca. Cloaca, no sentido comum, significa “esgoto comum” e, no caso da galinha, do aparelho digestivo, urinário e reprodutivo, todos desembocam na cloaca. É nesse compartimento que saem as fezes, o ovo, a urina, e por onde o galo deposita o esperma na galinha, porém em orifícios diferentes. Para facilitar a saída do ovo e para vedar os por presentes na casa contra microrganismos, na cloaca encontra-se uma glândula que secreta um óleo essencial para as funções citadas. O mesmo canal por onde são expelidas as fezes também sai a urina, logo as galinhas exoneram urina e fezes ao mesmo tempo e sobre o mesmo orifício. -/- ÂNUS -/- A abertura (ânus) é a abertura externa da cloaca. Seu tamanho varia muita nas fêmeas, dependendo se a mesma encontra-se ou não produzindo ovos, uma vez que fêmeas em produção possuem uma abertura mais dilatada para a passagem do ovo que é o feto do animal. É por esse orifício que passam as fezes e a urina. -/- ÓRGÃOS DIGESTIVOS SUPLEMENTARES -/- Certos órgãos estão intimamente associados a digestão nas aves, uma vez que suas secreções no trato gastrointestinal ajudam nos processos de quebra e absorção do material alimentar. São conhecidos como órgãos suplementares anexos e apêndices do sistema digestório. -/- 1. Pâncreas -/- O pâncreas encontra-se dentro da chamada alça duodenal do ID. É um órgão que segrega enzimas no duodeno por meio dos dutos pancreáticos. Essas enzimas ajudam na digestão de amidos, lipídios e proteínas. As enzimas, também conhecidas como sucos pancreáticos, neutralizam a condição ácida criada no proventrículo. -/- 2. Fígado -/- O fígado é composto por dois grandes lóbulos. Entre as funções do fígado está a secreção da bílis, um fluido ligeiramente pegajoso de coloração amarelo-verde ao qual contém ácidos biliares. Esses ácidos entram no ID sobre a extremidade inferior do duodeno e ajuda na digestão da gordura (lipídios). As secreções biliares não possuem enzimas digestivas. A função principal delas está associada a neutralização da condição ácida e ajuda na digestão da gordura formando emulsões. Além disso, o fígado está envolvido no metabolismo da gordura, proteínas e carboidratos. -/- 3. Vesícula biliar -/- Enquanto a galinha possui uma vesícula biliar, outras aves não. Como discutido supra, na seção do fígado, dois dutos biliares são usados na transferência da bile do fígado para os intestinos. O duro direitos através do qual a maior parte da bílis passa e é temporariamente armazenada, aumenta e forma a vesícula biliar. O duto esquerdo é menor, portanto, apenas uma pequena quantidade de bike passa através dele e vai diretamente para os intestinos. -/- • SISTEMA URINÁRIO -/- O sistema circulatório da galinha consiste em dois rins que se localizam logo atrás dos pulmões. Apenas um único ureter conecta cada rim com a cloaca. A urina das aves é composta basicamente de ácido úrico, que nada mais é do que o produto final do metabolismo proteico, que é misturado com as fezes na cloaca e expelido sobre as fezes como um material pastoso e branco. -/- • SISTEMA CIRCULATÓRIO -/- O objetivo do sistema circulatório é o transporte de oxigênio (O2) dos pulmões e os nutrientes que passam através das vilosidades presentes nas paredes intestinais para as células (sangue arterial). O sistema venoso transporta o dióxido de carbono (CO2) de volta para os pulmões e resíduos do metabolismo de volta para os rins para serem excretados do corpo através da urina. O coração da galinha, assim como o dos mamíferos, possui quatro câmaras, sendo dois átrios e dois ventrículos. A pulsação do coração na galinha pode chegar a uma taxa acelerada de cerca de 300 pulsações por minuto. Quanto menor a ave, mais rápidas são as contrações do coração, logo os batimentos são maiores. Os pintainhos mostram uma taxa aumentada à medida em que se desenvolvem. As aves sob a luz possuem uma frequência cardíaca mais acelerada, e na noite, sob baixa ou nenhuma luz, os batimentos diminuem consideravelmente. Estudos apontam que a taxa de galinhas individuais é mais baixa, porém pode acelerar mediante a excitação individual da mesma. -/- SANGUE -/- 1. Composição do sangue -/- O sangue é composto de plasma, sais e outros elementos, além de eritrócitos que são os glóbulos vermelhos e os leucócitos que são os glóbulos brancos (sistema imune). Na galinha, os eritrócitos possuem um núcleo em contraste com os dos mamíferos. O sangue da galinha contem cerca de 3 milhões de eritrócitos em cada milímetro cúbico. O baço serve como um local de armazenamento para os eritrócitos, expulsando o seu conteúdo para o sistema circulatório, conforme o necessário. O sangue constitui cerca de 12% do peso de um pintainho, e cerca de 6 a 8% em aves adultas. -/- 2. Função do sangue -/- O sangue possui inúmeras funções, dentre elas o transporte do oxigênio para as células do corpo; a remoção do dióxido de carbono a partir do O2 nas células; absorção de nutrientes do trato digestivo; transporte dos nutrientes para as células e tecidos; remoção de resíduos do metabolismo celular; transporte de hormônios produzidos pelas glândulas endócrinas para várias seções do corpo, além de ajudar na regulação do teor de água nos tecidos do corpo. -/- PRESSÃO ARTERIAL -/- A pressão arterial das aves de todas as idades pode ser estipulada através da medida de milímetros de mercúrio (mmHg). Mesmo a pressão do embrião em desenvolvimento pode ser medida. Tal como acontece com os seres humanos, a pressão arterial pode ser estimada segundo duas medidas separadas: 1. Pressão sistólica (arterial) 2. Pressão diastólica (como o sangue retorna ao coração) Seguindo essas medidas, a seguir estão apresentadas as pressões sanguíneas da galinha e do galo adultos: -/- Tabela 1: pressão arterial da galinha e do galo adultos Pressão sistólica (mmHg) Pressão diastólica (mmHg) Galinha adulta 145 – 180 133 – 160 Galo adulto 186 – 203 154 Fonte: STURKIE, 1986. -/- • SISTEMA NERVOSO -/- O sistema nervoso é o responsável pelo controle de todas as funções do corpo e consiste e inúmeras partes. O cérebro representa células nervosas altamente concentradas e serve como o alicerce de todos e quaisquer estímulos nervosos. A audição e a visão das aves são bem desenvolvidas, além disso a galinha possui a capacidade de discernir inúmeros sons e cores. A capacidade da galinha de distinguir os cheiros, no entanto, não é bem desenvolvido. As galinhas possuem a capacidade de aprendizagem; elas podem ser treinadas para seguir certos procedimentos físicos. Além disso, elas aprendem a reconhecer um grande número de companhias de terreno ainda jovens, e a capacidade de conhecer outras aves aumenta com a idade. -/- • GLÂNDULAS ENDÓCRINAS -/- Dentro do corpo encontram-se certas glândulas endócrinas além de certos tecidos que produzem produtos conhecidos como hormônios. Os hormônios passam diretamente para a corrente sanguínea e possui um efeito sobre as células e órgãos em muitas partes do corpo. Os hormônios são derivados primeiramente das proteínas e executam uma variedade de funções. Alguns aumentam a atividade de certos órgãos, outros diminuem a atividade dos órgãos, outros possuem um efeito sobre os processos metabólicos e reprodutivos. As glândulas produtoras de hormônios incluem: • Tireoide • Paratireoide • Hipófise • Hipotálamo • Testículo • Ovário • Pineal • Adrenal • Pâncreas Além das glândulas, os hormônios podem ser produzidos pela mucosa gástrica e intestinal. As funções e a interação dos hormônios são variadas e em grande número. A tiroxina, produzida pela tireoide, ajuda na regulação da taxa metabólica. O hormônio paratireoideo das paratireoides influencia o metabolismo do cálcio e do fósforo. Os hormônios hipofisários produzidas em uma pequena glândula na base do cérebro, ajudam no crescimento, e outros afetam a tireoide e a paratireoide; enquanto outros possuem um efeito pronunciado na ovulação, no oviduto, sobre a ninhada e na postura de ovos na fêmea, e na produção de sêmen no macho. Além de glândulas, hormônios também são produzidos pela mucosa gástrica e intestinal e um número de locais em todo o corpo. Os hormônios do ovário influenciam a deposição de gordura, aumentam a liberação de cálcio do osso medular e causam a ovulação. Os hormônios produzidos na glândula adrenal (suprarrenal) auxiliam na retenção de glicogênio pelo fígado e afetam o metabolismo mineral. Os produzidos pelo pâncreas produzem insulina e glicogênio, que regulam a utilização da glicose em seu nível na corrente sanguínea. Os hormônios do trato gastrointestinal aumentam a produção de suco gástrico, suco pancreático e da bílis. -/- • SISTEMA REPRODUTIVO -/- MACHO -/- O sistema reprodutor do galo (figura 15) consiste em dois testículos funcionais que localizam-se na área dorsal da cavidade corporal, em frente aos rins. Os dutos dos testículos desembocam no duto ou vaso deferente, que transporta o sêmen dos testículos para as papilas da área dorsal da cloaca e, em seguida, ao órgão copulatório localizado em uma das pregas da cloaca. Normalmente, o sêmen é armazenado no duto deferente onde é diluído através do fluido linfático; ambos são ejaculados como uma mistura durante a cópula. O pênis do galo é bastante pequeno. Uma linfa é produzida no pênis para formar uma suave ereção, todavia o pênis não penetra sobre a cloaca. Em vez disso, durante o processo copulatório, a cloaca da fêmea se abre e para expor a extremidade do oviduto onde o sêmen do galo é depositado. Uma vez que o sêmen plota-se no oviduto, ele é transportado do duto às bolsas, que são os locais de armazenamento do sêmen, onde é prendido antes do processo de fertilização do sêmen sobre o óvulo da fêmea. Os espermatozoides do galo possuem um capacete pontiagudo longo que é anexado a uma cauda longa (flagelo). O pH do sêmen deve ser neutro entre 7 e 7,4. O volume de sêmen ejaculado durante uma cópula pode ser alto chegando a 1,0 ml durante o primeiro acasalamento, volume que diminui para 0,1 ml conforme o número de acasalamentos. Figura 15: esquema dos órgãos reprodutivos do galo. Fonte: internet. -/- FÊMEA -/- O sistema reprodutor da galinha (figura 16) consiste em um ovário e oviduto funcional. A reprodução nas galinhas caracteriza-se, dentre outros pontos, pela ovoviviparidade, isto é, ao qual o embrião começa a se desenvolver dentro da galinha e termina seu desenvolvimento total de 21 dias fora do corpo da mãe, dentro do ovo. Algumas aves, como é o caso da galinha, nascem com os dois lados do ovário e oviduto, no entanto, apenas o ovário e o oviduto do lado esquerdo se desenvolvem e fincam funcionais. A galinha libera apenas 1 folículo (óvulo) a cada 25 horas, e esse óvulo (gema) é liberado todos os dias durante o ciclo da ave que é de 10 a 15 dias seguidos. Para suprir as necessidades do feto fora do corpo da mãe, o óvulo das aves é maior que o dos mamíferos. Os folículos possuem uma hierarquia entre eles, sendo assim, somente os que chegam a medir 8 mm de diâmetro continuam do desenvolvimento até a ovulação. O oviduto da ave é composto pelo infundíbulo, magno, istmo e útero. A vagina e a cloaca também fazem parte do trato reprodutivo da galinha. Detalhes específicos do trato reprodutivo da galinha será exposto no trabalho sobre formação do ovo. -/- • CRESCIMENTO DA GALINHA -/- O corpo da galinha é composto de grande número de células que são, geralmente, do mesmo tamanho em todas as raças, independentemente do peso corporal. A maioria dos desenvolvimento precoces no crescimento embrionário ocorrem como resultado da multiplicação celular, já que 1 célula se divide em 2, 2 em 4, 4 em 8, 8 em 16, 16 em 32, e assim por diante. Porém esse aumento rítmico não permanece por um período indefinido. Sendo assim, as células se especializam para a formação de diferentes componentes do corpo. A taxa de crescimento e a taxa de divisão celular das células especializadas varia de acordo com a função de cada célula e a idade do animal. Quando a ave é mais velha, a taxa de peso corporal diário é mais baixa, ou seja, o ganho de peso do animal será menor. -/- Figura 16: esquema do sistema reprodutor da galinha. Fonte: internet. -/- Após a eclosão, quando o número de fibras musculares (células únicas) já não aumenta, o crescimento das células musculares e nervosas passa a ser resultado do aumento das células e não da divisão celular. As fibras musculares possuem uma dimensão máxima que é controlada, principalmente, pela composição genética da ave, porém pode aumentar ou diminuírem de tamanho conforme quantidades variáveis de atividades. Tanto a síntese quanto a degradação de proteínas estão envolvidas e operam simultaneamente, com o resultado líquido determinando se os músculos aumentam ou diminuem de tamanho. Os músculos do peito são excepcionalmente bem desenvolvidos nas aves já que os mesmos são imprescindíveis para a movimentação das asas durante o voo, além de ser a parte da galinha com mais carne para o consumo. Atualmente, mediante o melhoramento genético, o peito e as coxas da galinha estão quase que 3 vezes maiores que os de frangos de 40 anos atrás (figura 17). A taxa de gordura de um frango está baseada em função do número de células que contém gordura. Algumas raças e linhagens de frangos possuem um número maior de células de gordura do que outras, uma consequência do melhoramento genético citado supra que aumentou a capacidade da carcaça (carne). As células de gordura atingem o desenvolvimento máximo no período inicial de crescimento. A capacidade de um frango de corte para ganhar peso rapidamente é principalmente o resultado de depósitos de células de gordura, em vez de aumentos no crescimento do esqueleto ou fibras musculares. Figura 17: desenvolvimento do frango de corte. Fonte: internet. -/- • ALTERAÇÃO CORPORAIS DURANTE A PRODUÇÃO DE OVOS -/- Durante algum tempo, as galinhas estão deitadas, isto é, no ciclo de postura, e em outro tempo elas estão sofrendo uma muda (figura 18) e certas alterações ocorrem em sua aparência. -/- MUDA -/- Algumas galinhas podem produzir alguns ovos após o início da muda, porém geralmente a cessação da produção de ovos se sobrepõe à muda. A duração do período da muda é variável. As boas produtoras de ovos passam pelo processo de muda no final da estação de postura, já os baixas produtoras de ovos mudam precocemente e lentamente. -/- Figura 18: galinha em processo de muda. Fonte: internet. Ordem da muda -/- Durante a muda, as penas caem das várias partes do corpo em uma ordem definida, geralmente a ordem é: 1° cabeça 2° pescoço 3° peito 4° costa 5° asas 6° cloaca/rabo Muitas vezes, um rebanho de aves vai experimentar um estresse temporário e abrupto resultante de uma possível doença ou mudança de ou no ambiente, o que causa uma muda parcial das penas da cabeça e do pescoço bem como das asas. Se a causa puder ser corrigida, não deve interferir na muda anual primária. -/- PIGMENTAÇÃO AMARELA -/- A coloração amarelada na pele e nas pernas da galinha pode ser em função de vários xantofilas (pigmentos hidroxicarotenoides) que são depositados na camada de gordura sob a pele. A única fonte de xantofilas casa aves é a dieta que ela come. Quanto mais xantofilas na ração, mais densa a cor da pele amarelada. Os xantofilas presentes nessa camada de gordura, sofrem continuamente uma degradação química, todavia são reabastecida a partir da alimentação da ave. -/- Branqueamento -/- Os xantofilas também são responsáveis pela cor amarela da gema do ovo. Porém, quando uma franga começa a colocar uma taxa elevada e rápida, a maioria dos xantofilas presentes na ração vai para as gemas dos ovos. Não sobra o suficiente para reabastecer aqueles que estão quimicamente perdidos na pele, em consequência da degradação, logo a pele começa a clarear. Quando mais tempo uma ave colocar os ovos, maior a taxa de clareamento (branqueamento). Quando a galinha tiver colocado cerca de 180 ovos, a pele terá uma coloração azul-branca. -/- OUTRAS MUDANÇAS RESULTANTES DA PRODUÇÃO DE OVOS -/- Há algumas mudanças relevantes na ave durante o curso da produção de ovos, as mais expressivas são: 1. A abertura do ânus torna-se grande e úmida; 2. Os ossos pubianos tornam-se mais finos; 3. O espaço entre os ossos pubianos aumenta; 4. A distância entre os ossos pubianos e a extremidade do osso da quilha aumenta. Essas características são fundamentais para a determinação do estado de postura das aves individuais. REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS -/- Anotações de aulas. Disciplina: Avicultura. Prof. Me. Cléber Rondinelli Gomes de Freitas. IFPE Campus Belo Jardim, 2017. BELL, Donald D. Anatomy of the chicken. In: Commercial Chicken Meat and Egg Production. Springer, Boston, MA, 2002. p. 41-58. DYCE, Keith M.; WENSING, Cornelius JG; SACK, Wolfganf O. Tratado de anatomia veterinária. Elsevier Brasil, 2004. FLORIANO, Luciane Sperandio. Anatomia e fisiologia das aves domésticas. Ururaí: rede E-tec, 2018. GETTY, Robert. Anatomia dos animais domésticos. Rio de Janeiro: Interamericana, 1981. KOCH, Tankred et al. Anatomy of the chicken and domestic birds. Iowa State University Press. 1973. -/- Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro da Silva Normalista pela EEFCC Técnico em Agropecuária pelo IFPE Campus Belo Jardim Acadêmico em Zootecnia pela UFRPE Assistente Técnico e Pesquisador da Embrapa Semiárido Assistente Técnico do Instituto Agronômico de Pernambuco E-mail: [email protected] Telefone: (82) 98143-8399 -/- Todos os direitos reservados Belo Jardim © 2020 -/- . (shrink)

INTRODUÇÃO O ovo da galinha consiste em uma célula reprodutiva bastante comparável às encontrada nos mamíferos. Todavia, no caso da galinha, essa célula reprodutiva localiza- se na superfície da gema, sendo preenchida por albumens, membranas de casca, casca e cutícula. O ovário é responsável pela formação da gema; as porções restantes do ovo originam-se no canal do oviduto. • OVÁRIO No momento do desenvolvimento precoce do embrião, existem dois ovários e dois ovidutos, entretanto o conjunto ovário-oviduto direito atrofia-se, deixando apenas (...) o ovário e o oviduto esquerdo funcional para a realização dos processos embrionários e de formação do ovo (feto). Antes da produção de óvulos, o ovário consiste em uma massa inerte de pequenos folículos que contém os óvulos. Alguns óvulos possuem estatura suficiente para serem vistos visualmente; outros requerem ampliação para serem detectados. A galinha possui inúmeros folículos presentes no ovário, que são capazes de suprir toda a produção de gemas da vida da ave. FORMAÇÃO DA GEMA A gema (figura 1) não é a verdadeira célula reprodutiva, mas como uma fonte de material alimentar a partir do qual a célula blastoderma e seu embrião resultante irão se sustentar durante o desenvolvimento. Quando uma franga atinge a maturidade sexual, o ovário e o oviduto sofrem algumas alterações. Cerca de 11 dias antes da fêmea colocar seu primeiro ovo, uma sequência de alterações hormonais ocorrem em seu organismo. O hormônio FSH (folículo estimulante) produzido pela glândula pituitária (hipófise) anterior faz com que os folículos ovarianos aumentem de tamanho, mas para que isso aconteça a fêmea deve ser exposta à luz, já que é o segundo fator relevante depois da nutrição adequada para a formação do ovo, uma vez que através do olho os estímulos da luz que entram no olho atingem as células nervosas até a hipófise que libera o FSH. Em suma, o ovário ativado começa a gerar hormônios como o estrogênio, progesterona e testosterona (esteroides sexuais). Os níveis plasmáticos mais elevados de estrogênio iniciam o desenvolvimento do osso medular, bem como estimula a produção de proteína albumina e a formação de lipídios (gordura) pelo fígado, além de aumentar o tamanho do oviduto, o que permite a produção de proteínas de albumina, membranas da casca, carbonato de cálcio para a formação da casca, e cutícula. A primeira gema (óvulo) que começa a amadurecer capta as grandes quantidades do material produzido pelo fígado e transportado pelo sistema circulatório diretamente para o ovário em desenvolvimento. Um ou dois dias depois da primeira, a segunda gema começa a se desenvolver, e assim por diante, até que no momento em que é posto o primeiro ovo, cerca de cinco a dez gemas já estão no processo de crescimento. É necessário em torno de 10 dias para que uma gema cresça e siga o caminho para se transformar num ovo posto. Depósitos de material de gema são lentos no início e possuem coloração clara. Eventualmente, o óvulo atinge um diâmetro de 6 mm, valor que cresce a uma taxa muito expressiva diária de até 4 mm. Um número maior de gemas encontram- se em desenvolvimento ao mesmo tempo em matrizes (galinhas reprodutoras) do que em poedeiras, no entanto a matriz não possui a capacidade de produzir uma taxa grande de ovos completos. A coloração presente na gema é xantofila, um pigmento carotenoides derivado da dieta do animal. O pigmento é transferido primeiro para a corrente sanguínea em função do processo de digestão e absorção, em seguida, rapidamente para a gema, bem como para outras partes do corpo como as penas. Consequentemente, em função da dieta, um teor mais elevado de xantofilas é depositado na gema durante as horas em que a galinha está comendo. Isso dá origem a depósitos de camadas escuras e claras no material da gema, dependendo do pigmento dietético disponível. Cerca de 7 a 11 anéis concêntricos são encontrados em cada gema. A formação de gemas é uniforme e a espessura total de depósitos de coloração clara e escura durante 24 horas é de cerca de 1,5 a 2,0 mm. A gema de ovo é composta basicamente de gorduras (lipídios) e proteínas, que combinam-se para a formação das lipoproteínas, das quais 60% do peso da gema é de lipoproteínas de baixa densidade (LDL), e são conhecidas por serem sintetizado pelo fígado através da ação do estrogênio. Na galinha poedeira, o LDL é removido do plasma sanguíneo como partículas intactas para a deposição do mesmo diretamente nos óvulos em desenvolvimento. Fatores que influenciam o crescimento da gema As gemas variam de tamanho entre as aves individuais de um aviário da mesma idade e são, geralmente, associados com as diferenças no peso corporal. O tamanho da gema não está associado a taxa de postura da ave, mas provavelmente com o tempo necessário para que os óvulos atinjam a maturidade e se desprendam. As gemas de uma galinha aumentam de tamanho ao longo do ciclo de produção. Além disso, o primeiro ovo posto em uma ninhada geralmente conterá uma gema maior do que os restantes. Os ovos colocados durante o final do dia são cerca de 0,5 gramas mais leves para cada hora adicional do dia; isso também está associado com gemas menores. A inclusão de gordura e proteína na dieta também demonstram um aumento significativo no tamanho da gema em desenvolvimento. Localização do disco germinativo O material da gema é colocado adjacente ao disco germinal (figura 1) que permanece na superfície da massa da gema globular. Uma vez que o ovo é posto, a gema gira para que o disco germinal permaneça na extremidade do ovo. OVULAÇÃO Quando a franga entra na maturidade, os óvulos são liberados do ovário para que possam entrar no canal do oviduto por um processo conhecido como ovulação. Cada óvulo encontra-se pendurado no ovário por uma haste estreita que contém as artérias que fornecem o sangue para a gema em desenvolvimento. As artérias sofrem diversas ramificações nas membranas superficiais da gema e o folículo têm um aspecto altamente vascular (figura 2), exceto pelo estigma, uma faixa estreita no entorno da gema que é quase desprovido de vasos sanguíneos. Figura 2: ovário com os folículos pequenos e prontos para se desprenderem. Fonte: IPA. Quando um óvulo está maduro, o hormônio progesterona, produzido pelo ovário, estimula o hipotálamo para causar a liberação do hormônio luteinizante (LH) da hipófise anterior que, por sua vez, faz com que o folículo maduro se rompa no local do estigma liberando o óvulo do ovário. A gema é então cercada apenas pela membrana vitelina (membrana da gema). Atraso da primeira ovulação A maturidade sexual, visualizada através da primeira ovulação da ave, pode ser acelerada ou retardada. Restringir a alimentação ou diminuir a duração do dia durante o período de crescimento da franga são os dois procedimentos principais para a agilizar o processo na galinha. O que inicia a ovulação? Não se sabe ao certo os parâmetros que definem a hora da primeira ovulação da ave, porém tanto o sistema nervoso quanto as secreções hormonais são de essencial importância na manifestação da mesma. A segunda ovulação é regulada mediante a oviposição (postura) do primeiro ovo cerca de 15 a 40 minutos após o primeiro ovo passar pelo canal da cloaca. As ovulações posteriores ocorrem com a mesma frequência em função dos ovos subsequentes serem postos. Ovos postos em ninhadas As galinhas põem ovos em dias sucessivos conhecidos como ninhadas, do qual nenhum é posto por um ou mais dias. O corrimento do ciclo da ninhada pode várias de 2 dias a mais de 200 antes de um dia é perdido, mas a maioria das poedeiras comerciais pode produzir mais de 50 ovos sucessivos, sem uma pausa durante as fases iniciais de produção no primeiro ciclo da ninhada. O comprimento da ninhada é bastante consistente nos indivíduos; as poedeiras com taxas de produção menores possuem um ciclo mais curto, enquanto que as grandes produtoras possuem ciclos mais longos. Uma vez que o comprimir do ciclo ninhada é estabelecido, a galinha não irá ovular por um ou mais dias e, em seguida, irá produzir outra ninhada. As poedeiras menos produtivas possuem um período de descanso mais longo entre as ninhadas do que as boas produtoras. Tempo necessário para produzir um ovo O tempo necessário para que um ovo atravesse o oviduto varia de acordo com os indivíduos. A maioria das galinhas põe ovos sucessivos com intervalos de tempo entre 23 a 26 horas. Se o tempo for maior que 24 horas, cada ovo será posto no final do dia. Os ovos postos à tarde passaram mais horas no oviduto do que os postos pela manhã. Eventualmente, os ovos são colocados tão tarde que o ritmo é quebrado e uma ovulação é pulada. Teoricamente, alguns autores dizem que o tempo ideal para uma boa formação de um ovo é de 25 horas. O óvulo se desprende do ovário entrando no canal do oviduto, permanece por 15 minutos no infundíbulo que é a primeira região do oviduto, em seguida o óvulo vai para o magno a segunda região do oviduto e permanece nessa região entre 2 a 3 horas. Em seguida, vai para o istmo, ficando nessa região entre 1 a 1,5 horas. Por último, vai para o útero permanecendo nessa região entre 18 a 20 horas. Por fim, vai para a vagina onde recebe um óleo, indo para a cloaca onde é posto. Tempo de ovulação As galinhas que produzem ninhadas mais longas colocam seu primeiro ovo no início do dia, uma ou duas horas após o nascer do Sol ou as luzes artificiais são ligadas. A ovulação da próxima gema acontece rapidamente após o primeiro ovo ser posto, com apenas um pequeno intervalo de tempo. As poedeiras com comprimentos mais curtos da ninhada colocam seu primeiro ovo mais tarde do dia, a ovulação da gema seguinte é mais lenta, e a defasagem de tempo para a postura é maior. A maioria das ovulações ocorre durante as primeiras horas da manhã, já que não é natural que a ovulação ocorra em meados do final da tarde. Produção de ovos no início da postura Durante a primeira semana de postura, a ovulação é bastante irregular, uma vez que o mecanismo hormonal da galinha não está em equilíbrio. Na maioria das vezes, apenas dois a quatro ovos são produzidos na primeira ninhada. Entretanto, na segunda ou terceira semana, a ovulação irá progredindo gradativamente em sua taxa de pico até cair lentamente a cada semana durante o restante do ciclo de postura. Luz e ovulação A luz, seja natural ou artificial, possui um efeito direto sobre a glândula pituitária, estimulando-a a segregar uma quantidade maior do hormônio FSH que, por sua vez, ativa a região ovariana. A duração e a intensidade da luz são fatores importantes no processo de planejamento de uma granja, bem como durante a fase de postura. O procedimento para iluminar corretamente um galpão de galinhas poedeiras não é uma tarefa fácil e será discutido trabalhos posteriores. Nidificação como indicação de ovulação Na maioria das vezes, a galinha procura um ninho cerca de 24 horas após a ovulação, levando aos pesquisadores a teorizar que a nidificação pode ser usada como um fator de indicação da ovulação. Evidentemente, a presença de um ovo totalmente formado na cloaca não tem nada a ver com o desejo da galinha de procurar um ninho. Por exemplo, algumas galinhas irão ovular, todavia por causa de um imprevisto, o óvulo não chega ao oviduto, essas mesmas galinhas ainda irão procurar um ninho no dia seguinte. Ovulação dupla Normalmente, apenas uma gema é ovulada por dia, entretanto, ocasionalmente duas gemas podem ser liberadas e, em raras ocasiões até três gemas podem ser liberadas. Se duas gemas serão ovuladas ao mesmo tempo, normalmente apenas uma entra no canal do oviduto, mas se ambas são apanhadas simultaneamente pelo oviduto, resultará em um ovo de gema dupla (figura 3). Cerca de dois terços dos ovos de gema dupla são resultantes de ovulações dentro de 3 horas de um para o outro. Se houver uma grande diferença de tempo de ovulação, dois ovos poderão ser produzidos no mesmo dia, porém na maioria das vezes o segundo ovo possui casca mole ou apenas é revestido por uma membrana (figura 4). Geralmente, os ovos de gema dupla são mais comuns durante a primeira parte do período de produção do ovo causados por um ovário hiperativo e, frequentemente, são associados com frangos de corte do que com galinhas poedeiras. A incidência é um traço herdado, uma vez que algumas aves mais velhas produzem um percentual maior de ovos com gema dupla do que outras, sendo assim, a característica pode ser hereditária. As aves criadas na estação da Primavera e no Verão também produzem um número maior de ovos de gema dupla do que as galinhas criadas no Outono e no Inverno. Figura 3: ovo de gema dupla. Fonte: IPA. Figura 4: ovo com casca mole. Fonte: IFPE. CASCA DE OVOS DEFEITUOSAS Quando o intervalo normal de 23 a 26 horas entre as ovulações é quebrado, mais ovos são produzidos com casca defeituosas (figuras 4 e 5), incluindo aqueles com textura de lixa, bandas brancas, salpicos de cálcio e depósitos de calcário. A ocorrência é maior em ovos de matrizes do que em poedeiras. Cerca de 5 a 7% dos ovos produzidos por uma matriz poderá apresentar alguma forma de deformações na casca. Esses defeitos estão associados principalmente com a idade do lote e com as raças mais propensas ao problema do que outras. Figura 5: deformações na casca do ovo. Fonte: internet. TAMANHO DA GEMA AFETA O TAMANHO DO OVO O tamanho do ovo normal está associado mais com o tamanho da gema do que com qualquer outros fator relevante, embora as variações nas secreções de albumina no oviduto possam ter alguma influência. A relação gema-albumina muda ao longo do ciclo de postura. Os ovos que são produzidos no início do período de postura possuem gemas que representam em torno de 25% do peso total do ovo, enquanto que as gemas compõem cerca de 30% do peso do ovo quando as galinhas estão perto do final do período de postura. Em outras palavras, à medida em que o tamanho do ovo aumenta, o peso da gema aumenta mais rapidamente do que o peso do albúmen. Em lotes de frangas, quando o tamanho do ovo é pequeno, o aumento de proteína na dieta pode aumentar o peso total até 3,5 g/cada. MANCHAS DE SANGUE E DE CARNE Muitas vezes, quando o saco vitelino se rompe ao longo do estigma, pequenos vasos sanguíneos perto da área da ruptura são quebrados, formando um coágulo de sangue ligado à gema. A frequência de hemorragias pode estar relacionada com uma série de fatores, como a genética, alimentação, idade da galinha etc. As manchas de sangue são de duas a três vezes mais comuns em galinhas que produzem ovos de casca marrom do que em galinhas poedeiras de casca branca. Qualquer tecido deslocado do saco folicular ou do oviduto poderá ser incluído ao ovo em desenvolvimento à medida que passa pelo oviduto. Esses pedaços de tecido escurecem com a idade e são conhecidos como manchas de carne. Muitas manchas de sangue escurecem também, e muitas vezes são classificadas de forma incorreta como manchas de carne. Este problema é especialmente prevalente em ovos de casca marrom, onde 15% ou mais dos ovos podem ser afetados, em comparação com menos de 1% em ovos de casca branca. Figura 6: ovo com mancha de carne e com mancha de sangue. Fonte: internet. • PARTES DO OVIDUTO O oviduto é um tubo lindo através do qual a gema passa e onde os componentes restantes do ovo como a clara e a casca são incorporados. Normalmente, o oviduto é relativamente pequeno em diâmetro, mas com a aproximação da primeira ovulação seutamanho e espessura se expandem de forma significativa para que possa favorecer a passagem e o desenvolvimento do ovo. Os segmentos do oviduto e sua finalidade serão resumidos no texto abaixo e ilustrados na figura 7 e 8. INFUNDÍBULO A porção superior do oviduto que possui uma formato de funil é denominada infundíbulo. Quando encontra-se funcional, seu comprimento é de aproximadamente 9 cm. Normalmente é inerte, exceto quando ocorre a ovulação, seu objetivo é captar a gema ou óvulo que se desprende do ovário para que a mesma entre no oviduto, por isso a forma de funil. Após a ovulação, a gema entra na bolsa ovariana ou na cavidade do corpo, a partir da qual é capturada pelo infundíbulo. A gema permanece nessa secção por apenas um curto período de cerca de 15 minutos, depois é forçada ao longo do oviduto através das várias contrações ou movimentos peristálticos. Mau funcionamento do infundíbulo Para que o infundíbulo seja completamente funcional, ele deve capturar todas as gemas que se desprendem do ovário e caiu na cavidade do corpo. No entanto, verificou- se que uma média de 4% das gemas não são atraídas para o segmento, porém permanecem na cavidade do corpo onde são reabsorvidas dentro de um dia. A porcentagem de gemas retidas varia entre as várias linhagens de galinhas, algumas podem reter até 10% de suas gemas na cavidade corporal. As matrizes são as mais afetadas do que as poedeiras. Camadas internas Às vezes, o infundíbulo perde a sua capacidade de captação de uma alta proporção de gemas, e acabam acumulando-se na cavidade do corpo mais rápido do que possam ser reabsorvidas. Tal problema é definido por “camadas internas”, embora o termo não defina de forma clara a condição. O abdômen em tais camadas torna-se distendido, e a galinha fica em uma posição ereta. MAGNO O magno é a porção secretória de albúmen do oviduto, possui cerca de 33 cm de comprimento nas poedeiras em média. Demora aproximadamente cerca de 2 a 3 horas para passagem do ovo em desenvolvimento passar pelo magno. Albúmen O albúmen em um ovo é composto por quatro camadas, sendo elas: Chalaza ou calaza 2,7% Líquido branco exterior 16,8% Densidade branca 57,3% Branco fino exterior 23,2% Fonte: BELL. Enquanto todos os quatro são produzidos no magno, o branco fino exterior não é concluído até que a água seja adicionada no útero. Chalaza ou calaza Ao quebrar um ovo, percebe-se duas partes torcidas conhecidas como calaza, estendendo-se de polos opostos da gema através do albúmen. L albúmen calcífero é produzido quando a gema entra pela primeira vez no magno, mas a torção para formação dos dois calazas acontece mais tardiamente, como o ovo gira na extremidade inferior do oviduto. Torcidas em direções opostas, a calaza tende a manter a gema no centro do ovo depois que ele é posto. Líquido interior branco À medida que o ovo em desenvolvimento passa pelo magno, apenas um tipo de albúmen é produzido, porém a adição de água juntamente com a rotação do ovo dão origem a várias outras camadas, uma delas e a expressiva é o líquido interno de coloração branca. Densidade branca O branco denso constitui a maior parte do ovo. Contém muco que tente a mantê- lo juntos. A quantidade de branco espesso gerada no magno é grande, mas a degradação da mucina e a adição de água, já que o ovo move-se através do oviduto, tendem a reduzir a quantidade desse líquido denso e grosso, aumentando a quantidade do branco fino. No momento em que o ovo é posto, ele possui cerca de um terço do seu conteúdo original de clara, porém o restante ainda compreende mais da metade do albúmen no ovo. Deterioração da qualidade dos ovos Após a postura dos ovos, há uma mudança constante no conteúdo interno do ovo. A clara é a primeira que começa a perder gradualmente a sua composição viscosa e o seu volume diminui, enquanto que o branco fino fica mais aguado e sua quantidade aumenta. Essas condições são afetadas pela temperatura de retenção, umidade relativa, tempo e certas doenças. A quantidade crescente de branco fino é um dos melhores indicadores das condições de idade (frescura) dos ovos. ISTMO Depois da passagem pelo magno, o ovo em desenvolvimento é forçado para o istmo, uma secção relativamente curta de aproximadamente 10 cm de comprimento, onde permanece entre 1 a 1,5 horas (média geral de 75 minutos). Aqui, as membranas da casca interna e externa são formadas de modo a representar a dona final do ovo. O conteúdo presente nesse momento não é suficiente para preencher completamente as membranas da casca, e o ovo assemelha-se a um saco parcialmente preenchido. As membranas da casca são um material parecido com um papel composto de fibras proteicas. A membrana interna estabelece-se primeiro, seguida pela membrana externa, que é três vezes mais grossa que a membrana interna. As duas membranas são mantidas juntas até que o ovo seja posto; em seguida, na extremidade do ovo, as duas membranas se separam para formar a célula de ar, essencial para a respiração do feto no caso de ovos de matrizes. Em uma pequena porcentagem dos ovos, a célula de ar se formará na extremidade pequena ou nas laterais. Importância da célula ou câmara de ar Quando o ovo é posto pela primeira vez não há célula de ar. Ela é estabelecida através da redução de temperatura e aumenta de diâmetro para cerca de 1,8 cm conforme a perda de água do ovo por evaporação. À medida em que o ovo envelhece, a umidade ou presença d água dentro do mesmo evapora através dos poros presentes na casca e a câmara de ar aumenta em diâmetro e profundidade. O tamanho da célula de ar pode ser afetado por várias condições de armazenamento. A alta temperatura circundante e/ou a baixa umidade aumentam o tamanho da câmara de ar. O tamanho da célula, conforme determinado pela ovoscopia, é usado em programas de classificação de julgamento da idade do ovo. As células de ar maiores são prerrogativas de pior qualidade interior. Membranas da casca atuam como barreiras As membranas da casca atuam como uma barreira à penetração de organismos microscópios tais como as bactérias que podem afetar diretamente a qualidade do mesmo para consumo ou o embrião em desenvolvimento. Os ovos postos por frangas possuem membranas de casca mais espessas do que os ovos postos por galinhas mais velhas, o que se determina que conforme a idade da ave, as membranas protetoras vão ficando mais finas o que pode levar a penetração de microrganismos que afetam a qualidade do ovo. ÚTERO (GLÂNDULA DA CASCA) O útero é o penúltimo caminho do ovo em desenvolvimento, possui cerca de 10 a 12 cm de comprimento nas galinhas poedeiras. O ovo em desenvolvimento normalmente permanece no útero de 18 a 20 horas, muito mais do que em qualquer outra seção do oviduto. Exterior fino branco depositado após as membranas da casca Quando o ovo entra pela primeira vez no útero, a água e os sais minerais são depositados através das membranas da casca pelo processo de osmose de dentro para fora das membranas da casca de forma gradativa e aderindo para liquefazer alguns dos albumens finos que formam a quarta camada, o branco fino exterior. A casca A calcificação da casca do ovo começa antes do mesmo entrar no útero. Pequenas quantidades de Ca aparecem na membrana externa da casca pouco antes do ovo deixar o istmo. Esses são os locais de iniciação para a deposição de cálcio no útero. A quantidade de Ca provavelmente herdada desempenha um papel primordial na deposição de Ca mais tarde no ovo. Eles desaparecem pouco tempo depois que o ovo entra na glândula da casca ou útero. A primeira camada da casca é depositada sobre os locais de iniciação (istmo) que forma a casca interna, uma camada composta de cristais de calcita que é um material com característica esponjosa. Essa camada é seguida pela adição da camada externa, que é composta por uma camada de cristais de calcita que são os calcários, camada que possui cerca de duas vezes mais espessura que a superfície interna da casca. Quanto mais longas forem as colunas de calcita, mais forte será a casca. A casca do ovo quando completa, é composta quase inteiramente de carbonato de cálcio (CaCO3), com pequenas quantidades de sódio, potássio e magnésio. Figura 9: carbonato e fórmula do cálcio presente no útero e istmo. Fonte: internet. Fontes de cálcio para a casca de ovo Existem apenas duas fontes de cálcio para a produção da casca, a alimentação e os ossos que atuam como locais de armazenamento de cálcio no corpo. Normalmente, a maioria do Ca para a formação dos ovos vem diretamente da ração que a ave come, com alguns derivados do osso medular que serve como reservatório de Ca. O reservatório é particularmente importante à noite, quando a ave não está comendo e a casca do ovo está em processo de desenvolvimento. Formação do carbonato de cálcio O carbonato de cálcio (figura 9) é formado quando os íons de Ca presentes no sangue e os íons carbonatos do sangue e da glândula da casca ou útero se combinam no útero. Qualquer fator que reduza o fornecimento de qualquer um desses íons interfere com a formação de CaCO3 e o desenvolvimento da casca do ovo, muitas vezes resultando em baixa qualidade da casca, que será discutida em outros trabalhos. Acredita-se que as altas temperaturas ambientais também podem contribuir para este problema, uma vez que as cascas de ovos são mais finas durante o tempo quente. Qualidade da casca Muitos fatores podem causar uma deterioração na qualidade da casca do ovo, e a influência desse má qualidade pode não ser em função do fornecimento inadequado de íons de cálcio ou carbonato. A qualidade da casca é, geralmente, definida como a capacidade da casca de suportar o choque, sua aparência geral e suavidade. A resistência da casca pode ser medida mediante várias técnicas, incluindo a resistência à quebra, gravidade específica, deformações e espessura da mesma. Vários fatores podem reduzir a qualidade da casca, por exemplo: 1. A qualidade é reduzida à medida que a ave envelhece e continua a postura, uma vez que a galinha não pode produzir de forma eficiente a quantidade adequada de carbonato de cálcio para cobrir os ovos maiores produzidos durante a última parte do ciclo de postura, mesmo com o Ca presente na ração de consumo. 2. Aumento das temperaturas ambientais. 3. Ovos postos de manhã possuem uma qualidade da casca inferior à dos ovos postos pela tarde. 4. Estresse experimentado pelas aves que receberam chuva ou que foram, de alguma forma, submetidas à água. 5. Praticamente todos os ovos deformados e os ovos submetidos a controles corporais são postos entre às 6 e 8 horas da manhã, complemento do item 3. 6. Certas doenças como a bronquite infecciosa e a doença de Newcastle. 7. Determinados antibióticos ou outros fármacos. Necessidades de cálcio durante a produção A demanda da poedeira por Cá é extremamente alta. As aves poedeiras requerem mais Ca para a produção de ovos para consumo do que as matrizes reprodutoras que produzem pintainhos. Uma galinha de 2 kg produzindo 250 ovos de 56,7 gramas em média por ano requer cerca de 560 gramas de Ca. Uma vez que essa quantidade é 25 vezes maior que a quantidade de Ca presente no esqueleto da ave, é evidente que a necessidade alimentar de Ca seja grande. A maioria das rações de postura contém de 3 a 4% de Ca para atender as necessidades e permitir as ineficiências de absorção do Ca para o corpo e sim para o ovo. Figura 10: estrutura do ovo e da casca. Fonte: Adaptação da internet. Poros da casca do ovo As duas camadas da casca do ovo interna e externa possuem pequenas aberturas chamadas poros. Em um ovo pode haver até 8000 poros. Através dessas pequenas aberturas, o ar consegue passar para o ovo e fornece oxigênio para o embrião em desenvolvimento. Além disso, o dióxido de carbono e a umidade são removidos do ovo passando por esses mesmos poros. No ovo recém-posto, os poros presentes são quase completamente fechados, porém à medida que o ovo envelhece ou é lavado, o número de poros abertos aumenta. Cor da casca A casca do ovo é predominantemente branca ou marrons. No entanto, uma raça sul-americana, a Araucana, produz ovos de casca verde ou azul. Os pigmentos produzidos no útero no momento em que a casca é produzida são os responsáveis pela coloração. O tom de coloração é bastante consistente de acordo com cada ave, com a intensidade da cor sendo uma derivação da composição genética do indivíduo. Algumas linhagens de aves põem ovos com cascas castanhas mais escuras, enquanto que outras podem variar até ao branco. O pigmento marrom nas cascas de ovos é a porfirina, uniformemente distribuída por toda a casca. A cutícula A cutícula é colocada na parte externa da casca no útero e representa a última das camadas de formação dos ovos. É composta principalmente de material orgânico. Contém uma alta porcentagem de água e atua como lubrificante natural durante o processo de postura. Todavia, uma vez que o ovo é posto, o material da cutícula seca rapidamente, selando os poros da casca o que ajuda a evitar uma troca rápida de ar e umidade entre o interior do ovo e o ambiente externo, além de vedar a passagem de bactérias e outros microrganismos que podem afetar a qualidade ou o embrião. Vários processos de limpeza da casca (lavagem e desinfecção) reduzem a eficácia da cutícula. Para evitar esse problema, os processadores de ovos comumente aplicam um revestimento de óleo mineral na superfície da casca durante o processamento. Tal óleo ajuda a diminuir a perda de umidade e mantém a qualidade interna do ovo. REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS ALBINO, L. F. T. et al. Galinhas poedeiras: Criação e alimentação. Viçosa: Aprenda Fácil, 2014. Anotações de aulas. Disciplina: Avicultura. Prof. Me. Cléber Rondinelli Gomes de Freitas. IFPE Campus Belo Jardim, 2017. BELL, Donald D. Formation of the egg. In: Commercial chicken meat and egg production. Springer, Boston, MA, 2002. p. 59-69. COTTA, Tadeu. Galinha: produção de ovos. Viçosa: Aprenda Fácil Editora, 2002. COTTA, T. Reprodução da galinha e produção de ovos. Lavras: UFLA-Faepe, p. 81- 92, 1997. DE MORAES, Ismar Araujo. Fisiologia da reprodução das aves domésticas. Fisiovet, 2006. FLORIANO, Luciane Sperandio. Anatomia e fisiologia das aves domésticas. Ururaí: rede E-tec, 2018. GRAU, C. R. Egg formation. In: Seabird energetics. Springer, Boston, MA, 1984. p. 33- 57. LANA, Geraldo Roberto Quintão. Avicultura. Recife: Livraria e Editora Rural Ltda, 2000 PERRINS, C. M. Eggs, egg formation and the timing of breeding. Ibis, v. 138, n. 1, p. 2- 15, 1996. STURKIE, Paul D. Fisiología aviar. Zaragoza: Acribia, 1967. (shrink)

This article raises two questions about Robert Myers and Claudine Verheggen's terrific book, Donald Davidson's Triangulation Argument: A Philosophical Inquiry. The first question, concerning the first part of the book, is whether, starting from the assumption that a solitary individual cannot have thought contents, we can show that adding another individual to the picture cannot resolve the problem. The second question, concerning the second part, is whether a more sophisticated, decision-theoretic, Humean about the pro-attitudes can respond to the objections (...) to the simple Humean view, and whether Davidson was not in fact just such a sophisticated decision-theoretic Humean. RÉSUMÉ: Cet article pose deux questions sur le formidable livre de Robert Myers et Claudine Verheggen, Donald Davidson's Triangulation Argument: A Philosophical Inquiry. La première question, qui concerne la première partie du livre, consiste à déterminer si, étant donné la supposition qu'un individu solitaire ne peut pas avoir de contenus mentaux, nous pouvons démontrer qu'ajouter un autre individu ne permet pas de résoudre le problème. La seconde question, qui concerne la deuxième partie du livre, est de savoir si un tenant d'une conception humienne des pro-attitudes plus sophistiquée, adhérant à la théorie de la décision, peut répondre aux objections formulées contre la simple conception humienne, et si Davidson n’était pas en fait un tenant de ce second type de conception humienne. (shrink)

Parmi les psychanalystes, c’est principalement Donald Winnicott qui a aidé Marc Richir à éclaircir et à approfondir la phénoménologie génétique déjà amorcée par Edmund Husserl. Ce travail a pour but de montrer les usages que Richir fait de Winnicott dans ses recherches visant à prolonger le projet husserlien. Selon la lecture de Richir, Winnicott insiste sur « la primauté de la constitution de l’objet transitionnel » en termes d’accès au réel. À l’aide des propres mots de Winnicott, nous allons (...) démontrer dans quel sens Winnicott privilégie le rôle constitutionnel de l’objet transitionnel, et comment Richir a assimilé et réinterprété cette étude de Winnicott. Suivant notre exposé, l’objet transitionnel va ainsi dévoiler sa complexité avec une fonction à la fois facilitatrice et dérangeante dans le processus « d’hominisation ». (shrink)

1. Introduction: a look back at the reasons vs. causes debate. 2. The interventionist account of causation. 3. Four objections to interventionism. 4. The counterfactual analysis of event causation. 5. The role of free agency. 6. Causality in the human sciences. -- The reasons vs. causes debate reached its peak about 40 years ago. Hempel and Dray had debated the nature of historical explanation and the broader issue of whether explanations that cite an agent’s reasons are causal or not. Melden, (...) Peters, Winch, Kenny and Anscombe had contributed their anticausal conceptions. The neo-Wittgensteinians seemed to be winning the day when in 1963 Donald Davidson published his seminal paper “Actions, Reasons, and Causes”. Davidson’s paper devastated the Wittgensteinian camp. It contained, among other things, a powerful attack on the logical connection argument. Davidson argued that the existence of a logical or conceptual connection between descriptions can never eliminate a causal relation, which holds between events simpliciter, not between events under certain descriptions. Davidson maintained that in a way, reasons can be causes. When somebody acts for a certain reason, his intentional attitudes, or rather changes in his attitudes, cause his bodily movements. Davidson also argued that rationalization is a species of causal explanation. For the definition of action, he argued that intentional actions are bodily movements caused in the right way by beliefs and desires that rationalize them. Davidson’s paper paved the way for causal theories of action, which superseded neo-Wittgensteinian analyses in the following decades. The causal theory was rapidly adopted by Alvin Goldman, David Armstrong, Paul Churchland, Myles Brand and many others, entering the mainstream and dominating the philosophy of action to this very day. In 1971 Georg Henrik von Wright published his book "Explanation and Understanding". The second chapter did not deal with agency, but with causation. It developed a new account of causation, the interventionist or experimentalist account. Focusing on causation, von Wright remedied a major shortcoming of the reasons vs. causes debate. The concept of causality, and the nature of the causal relation, received little attention in this debate, a fact that holds true for both camps. Mostly it was simply taken for granted that, as Hempel had declared, “causal explanation is a special type of deductive-nomological explanation”. One camp then aligned intentional explanations with D-N explanations, while the other camp insisted on their disparity. So strictly speaking, the label “reasons/causes debate” was a misnomer. The controversy dealt primarily with the question as to whether intentional explanations can take the form of D-N explanations, while the notion of causation, and the metaphysics of the causal relation, were left obscured. With von Wright’s new approach, the situation changed. Von Wright was primarily concerned with causation, but his approach contained an implicit attack on the causal theory of action as well. His core idea was that the notion of causality is intimately linked with, or even derived from, the notion of intentionally making something happen. Other philosophers, even Hume, had considered such a connection before, but often just to reject this view, regarding it as a kind of myth belonging to the infancy of the human mind. Von Wright took the idea seriously. He submitted the analysis that p is the cause of q if and only if by doing p we could bring about q. The causal theory of action was also concerned with the relation between causation and agency, to which its name bears witness. The causal theory of action holds that actions are bodily movements with a certain causal history. This is why von Wright’s account constituted a momentous challenge to the causal theory: it reversed the direction of conceptual dependency between both notions. Davidson and his followers tried to define what an intentional action is by using the notion of causation. The causal condition which the causal theory sets is part of the definition of “doing something intentionally”. Von Wright claimed that the conceptual dependency is the other way round. He used the notions of doing, and bringing about, to explain what causal relations are. So, instead of a causal theory of action, he advocated an agency theory of causation, as it may be dubbed. It is remarkable how seldom this clash of opinions about conceptual primacy is reflected in the literature. There are few exceptions: Fred Stoutland noticed the conflict, and he published a number of papers in which he compared Davidson’s and von Wright’s views. Von Wright’s book "Explanation and Understanding" was widely read and discussed in the seventies, especially in Europe. But it strikes me that especially in North America, where the causal theory of action became the orthodoxy of the day, von Wright’s challenge went largely unnoticed. Even Davidson did not seem to take it seriously. He nowhere takes notice of the interventionist theory of causation, while he does discuss von Wright’s earlier book "Norm and Action". As is well-known, Davidson favoured an alternative account of causation, based on “the principle of the nomological character of causality”, as he somewhat clumsily called it, or, later and less clumsily, “the cause-law thesis”. Davidson’s firm adherence to a nomological theory of causality may explain why he did not take much interest in alternative accounts. [...] -/- . (shrink)

Despite Donald Davidson's influential criticism of the very notion of conceptual schemes, the notion continues enjoying its popularity in contemporary philosophy and, accordingly, conceptual relativism is still very much alive. There is one major reason responsible for Davidson's failure which has not been widely recognized: What Davidson attacks fiercely is not the very notion, but a notion of conceptual schemes, namely, the Quinean notion of conceptual schemes and its underlying Kantian scheme-content dualism. However, such a notion simply cannot carry (...) the weight of conceptual relativism for it does not catch the essences of conceptual relativism. Consequently, I argue that the very notion of conceptual schemes and conceptual relativism have survived Davidson's attack. Therefore, the failure of the Quinean notion of conceptual schemes and Kantian scheme-content dualism, even if Davidson can claim victory, does not mark the end of the very notion of conceptual schemes.[ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]. (shrink)

THE MIND-BODY PROBLEM: A GUIDE TO THE CURRENT DEBATE (EDITED BY RICHARD WARNER AND TA D E U S Z SZUBKA) contains recent essays by the key players in the the field of the Mind-Body problem: Searle, Fodor, Problem Honderich, Nagel, McGinn, Stich, Rorty and others. But there are a few interesting exceptions, for example Edelman, Popper, Putnam and Dennett. Nevertheless, these thinkers do get a mention here and there, and nearly all the exciting topical issues are dealt with, including (...) externalism, functionalism, intentionality, Turing computational models, and the relationship between these philosophical problems and psychology. I am particularly struck by the tendency to engage in an evasive stratagem when it comes to stating the physicalist thesis. Instead of a clear definitive position about what kind of physical science would achieve the hoped-for reduction, what I found was variations on Lewis's claim that the reduction would be effected by a "unified body of scientific theories of the sort we now accept". Materialism used to be a clear doctrine: a clockwork Universe of impenetrable particles. But materialism transcended itself. First through Hobbes' and Leibniz's criticisms of Descartes, then Newton's demolition of the Cartesian idea that matter was essentially extension by introducing gravity (action at a distance) and then through the field theories of Faraday and Maxwell, and more recently through Einstein's work, which undermined the "substance" view of matter, something that remained permanent while other changes occurred. I contrast the perspectives of the Churchlands with those of Donald T. Campbell, Karl Popper and other evolutionary and emergentist views. -/- . (shrink)

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

Translation in Greek of "A Geneticist's Roadmap to Sanity" (2019) by G.B. Côté. Μεταφράστηκε και στα Γαλλικά από τους Gilbert B. Côté και Roger Lapalme και προστέθηκε η βιβλιογραφία στις 28 του Απρίλη 2020: Pour comprendre le monde et revenir à la raison. La théorie du tout d'un généticien. Η ώθηση για τη συγγραφή ήταν η ανήθικη προεδρία του Donald J. Trump. Σε αυτό το κείμενο, θέλω να εξερευνήσω τα θεμέλια της ύπαρξής μας. Θα θίξω σύντομα την ενσυνείδηση, την (...) ελεύθερη βούληση, τη θρησκεία, την ηθική, τα βάσανα της ζωής , το πρόβλημα της δυαδικότητας του νου και του σώματος, την αχρονικότητα, τα πολλαπλά σύμπαντα και το ανθρώπινο πεπρωμένο. Για να διευκολύνω αυτήν την παρουσίαση, θα πρέπει πρώτα να δείξω ότι ο μαθηματικός πλατωνισμός είναι μια λογική αναγκαιότητα για την ύπαρξη οποιουδήποτε σύμπαντος, και θα εισαγάγω τους αφηρημένους, κβαντικούς και υλικούς τρόπους ύπαρξης (στη φιλοσοφία) που αντιστοιχούν στην πληροφόρηση, την ενέργεια και τη μάζα (στη φυσική). Το κείμενο αυτό αποτελεί μια σύνοψη της προσωπικής μου θεωρίας των πάντων. (shrink)

In this article, I seek to assess the extent to which a ‘trope-theoretic’ version of Theism is a better theory than that of a theory of Atheism, as posited by Graham Oppy. This end will be achieved by utilising the systemisation of the theoretical virtues proposed by Michael Keas (as further modified by an application of the work of Jonathan Schaffer), the notion of a trope, introduced by D.C. Williams, and an aspect, proposed by Donald L.M. Baxter, which will (...) establish the basis of the trope-theoretic account of Theism that will be at the centre of our analysis. This assessment will ultimately show that Theism, rather than that of Atheism (Naturalism), can successfully achieve the trade-off between minimising theoretical commitments and maximising explanatory power. And thus, given this, the best theory of Theism—namely, that of ‘trope-theoretic Theism’—is to be privileged over that of the best theory of Atheism—namely, that of ‘Oppyian Naturalism’—and is able to provide grounds for a decisive reassessment of the cogency of Agnosticism. (shrink)

RÉSUMÉ : Dans son récent recueil d’articles Language, Truth and History, Donald Davidson semble pencher en faveur d’une philosophie du langage mettant l’accent sur la notion de l’intention communicative du sujet parlant; en quoi il se rapproche du point de vue de Paul Grice. Si cela est juste, la pensée de Davidson se serait dégagée de l’approche sémantique formelle qu’il soutenait dans ses Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Dans cet article, je soutiens que, bien qu’il y ait beaucoup de (...) similitudes entre ces deux penseurs, Davidson n’a pas abandonné ses précédentes vues sur le langage. (shrink)

Suite à la déclaration de la pandémie COVID-19, Slavoj Žižek a publié un livre intitulé « Pandemic!: COVID-19 Shakes the World », qui a déclenché une vague de réactions. Dans le livre, il présente comment les médias ont impitoyablement exploité ce sujet, accentuant la panique. De nombreuses études majeures ont prédit l'émergence d'une telle pandémie, mais ont été ignorées par tous les gouvernements, les déclarant exagérées. Žižek estime que la pandémie actuelle a conduit à la faillite du capitalisme « barbare (...) » actuel, se demandant si le chemin que l'humanité empruntera est un néo-communisme (il se décrit lui-même comme un « radical de gauche » et un « communiste en non qualifié »). Žižek fait valoir ces idées avec les mesures sociopolitiques pandémiques de la chancelière allemande Angela Merkel et du président français, et la nationalisation temporaire des chemins de fer par Boris Johnson. « Même le président américain Donald Trump a transféré des milliards de dollars aux Américains. Il a appelé à la reprise du secteur privé en termes de fournitures médicales. » DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28160.66566. (shrink)

‘Low-Quality Democracy’ - The Validity of the Notion and D.L. Horowitz’s Exemplification: The Case of Indonesia. This article discusses problems relating to terms used to define former authoritarian states, which are already called democratic, although some undemocratic features still characterize them. The latest English language literature on political science relating to this subject uses three terms that seem similar in meaning: ‘illiberal democracy,’ ‘flawed democracy,’ and ‘low-quality democracy.’ They have not been conceptualized so far. This means that there has been (...) no transition from the stage of ideas or views on their content, i.e., pre-theoretical notions to theorized concepts. Consequently, the terms cannot be understood unequivocally. The term ‘low-quality democracy’ has been recently propagated by Donald L. Horowitz, a renowned American political scientist. This researcher uses the term primarily to name the type of political regime that was formed after 1998 in Indonesia – the third largest democratic country in terms of population in the world. Not only does Horowitz use this term, but he also tries to explain its importance using the example of the imperfections that characterize the young Indonesian democracy. The aim of this article is to answer three questions: firstly, what is – according to Horowitz – the content of the term ‘low-quality democracy’ exemplified by the Indonesian democracy?; secondly, what problems of low-quality democracy has Horowitz identified on the example of Indonesia?; and thirdly, should this term be used in political science literature if similar terms such as ‘illiberal democracy’ and ‘flawed democracy’ are also used? Artykuł traktuje o problemach dotyczących pojęć stosowanych do określania byłych państw autorytarnych, które choć zaliczane są już do demokratycznych, to nadal charakteryzują się pewnymi niedemokratycznymi cechami. W najnowszym anglojęzycznym piśmiennictwie politologicznym odnoszącym się do tego zagadnienia rywalizują ze sobą głównie trzy zbliżone znaczeniowo terminy: „demokracja nieliberalna” (illiberal democracy), „demokracja wadliwa” (flawed democracy) i „demokracja o niskiej jakości” (low-quality democracy). Nie doczekały się one dotąd konceptualizacji. Oznacza to, że w żadnym ze wskazanych przypadków nie nastąpiło przejście od stadium wyobrażenia, czy też poglądów na temat ich treści, a zatem od pojęć przed-teoretycznych (ang. notions) na poziom pojęć steoretyzowanych (ang. concepts). W konsekwencji nie mogą być i nie są rozumiane w sposób jednoznaczny. Termin demokracja o niskiej jakości zyskał niedawno propagatora w osobie uznanego amerykańskiego politologa Donalda L. Horowitza. Badacz ten stosuje przedmiotowy termin przede wszystkim w celu nazwania rodzaju reżimu politycznego, który został wykształcony po 1998 r. w Indonezji – trzecim największym pod względem wielkości populacji demokratycznym państwie świata. Horowitz nie tylko jednak używa tego terminu, ale również próbuje wytłumaczyć jego znaczenie na przykładzie niedoskonałości, które charakteryzują młodą demokrację indonezyjską. Artykuł ma na celu wyjaśnienie trzech kwestii: po pierwsze, jaka jest treść terminu demokracja o niskiej jakości, którego egzemplifikacją – w opinii Horowitza – jest demokracja indonezyjska; po drugie, jakie problemy demokracji o niskiej jakości zidentyfikował Horowitz na przykładzie Indonezji; i po trzecie, czy zasadne jest stosowanie tego pojęcia w piśmiennictwie politologicznym w sytuacji, gdy w użyciu pozostają takie zbliżone znaczeniowo terminy jak demokracja nieliberalna i demokracja wadliwa. (shrink)

Ich habe viele kürzliche Diskussionen über die Grenzen der Berechnung und das Universum als Computer gelesen, in der Hoffnung, einige Kommentare über die erstaunliche Arbeit des Polymath Physikers und Entscheidungstheoretikers David Wolpert zu finden, aber habe kein einziges Zitat gefunden und so präsentiere ich diese sehr kurze Zusammenfassung. Wolpert bewies einige verblüffende Unmöglichkeit oder Unvollständigkeit Theoreme (1992 bis 2008-siehe arxiv dot org) über die Grenzen der Schlussfolgerung (Berechnung), die so allgemein sind, dass sie unabhängig von dem Gerät, das die Berechnung, (...) und sogar unabhängig von den Gesetzen der Physik, so dass sie für Computer, Physik und menschliches Verhalten gelten. Sie nutzen Cantors Diagonalisierung, das Lügner-Paradoxon und die Weltlinien, um das vielleicht ultimative Theorem in turing Machine Theory zu liefern, und geben scheinbar Einblicke in Unmöglichkeit, Unvollständigkeit, die Grenzen der Berechnung und das Universum als Computer, in alle möglichen Universen und alle Wesen oder Mechanismen, was unter anderem ein nicht quantenmechanisches Unsicherheitsprinzip und einen Beweis für Monotheismus erzeugt. Es gibt offensichtliche Verbindungen zum klassischen Werk von Chaitin, Solomonoff, Komolgarov und Wittgenstein und zu der Vorstellung, dass kein Programm (und damit kein Gerät) eine Sequenz (oder ein Gerät) mit größerer Komplexität erzeugen kann, als es besitzt. Man könnte sagen, dass dieses Werk den Atheismus impliziert, da es keine Entität geben kann, die komplexer ist als das physikalische Universum, und aus Wittgensteins Sicht ist "komplexer" bedeutungslos (hat keine Bedingungen der Befriedigung, d.h. Wahrheitsmacher oder Test). Selbst ein "Gott" (das heist ein "Gerät" mit unbegrenzter Zeit/Raum und Energie) kann weder bestimmen, ob eine bestimmte "Zahl" "zufällig"ist, noch einen bestimmten Weg finden, um nachzuweisen, dass eine bestimmte "Formel", "Satz" oder "Satz" oder "Gerät" (alles komplexe Sprachspiele) Teil eines bestimmten "Systems" ist. Wer aus der modernen zweisystems-Sichteinen umfassenden, aktuellen Rahmen für menschliches Verhalten wünscht, kann mein Buch "The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mindand Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle' 2nd ed (2019) konsultieren. Diejenigen,die sich für mehr meiner Schriften interessieren, können Talking Monkeys--Philosophie, Psychologie, Wissenschaft, Religion und Politik auf einem verdammten Planeten --Artikel und Rezensionen 2006-2019 2nd ed (2019) und Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2019) und andere sehen. (shrink)

Loneliness in medicine is a serious problem not just for patients, for whom illness is intrinsically isolating, but also for physicians in the contemporary condition of medicine. We explore this problem by investigating the ideal physician-patient relationship, whose analogy with friendship has held enduring normative appeal. Drawing from Talbot Brewer and Nir Ben-Moshe, we argue that this appeal lies in a dynamic form of companionship incompatible with static models of friendship-like physician-patient relationships: a mutual refinement of embodied virtue that draws (...) both persons together. The ideal physician-patient relationship has a dialectical character that fosters each member's improvement of phenomenologically recognizing and embodying moral virtues. A key component of this dynamic is a commitment to the common goal of the patient's health, realized through joint interactivities and conversations over time. The physician's presence to the patient's suffering—understood best as an alienating phenomenological condition for the patient—orients and discloses possibilities for virtuous caregiving by structuring the meanings of the goals, conversations, and joint narrative constitutive of their relationship. Presence to suffering, paradoxically, is perhaps an important prerequisite for this dynamic partnership. These activities dialectically build an interpretive horizon of understanding through which moral goods and character refinement—in and for the other—may become revealed for both persons in their shared being-in-the-world. This analysis of suffering, mood, and revealing of (possible) moral goods has implications for addressing the modern problem of loneliness for patients and physicians, who are increasingly inhibited from building flourishing relationships with each other. (shrink)

The no-miracles argument and the pessimistic induction are arguably the main considerations for and against scientific realism. Recently these arguments have been accused of embodying a familiar, seductive fallacy. In each case, we are tricked by a base rate fallacy, one much-discussed in the psychological literature. In this paper we consider this accusation and use it as an explanation for why the two most prominent `wholesale' arguments in the literature seem irresolvable. Framed probabilistically, we can see very clearly why realists (...) and anti-realists have been talking past one another. We then formulate a dilemma for advocates of either argument, answer potential objections to our criticism, discuss what remains (if anything) of these two major arguments, and then speculate about a future philosophy of science freed from these two arguments. In so doing, we connect the point about base rates to the wholesale/retail distinction; we believe it hints at an answer of how to distinguish profitable from unprofitable realism debates. In short, we offer a probabilistic analysis of the feeling of ennui afflicting contemporary philosophy of science. (shrink)

There is a history of thinking that photographs provide a special kind of access to the objects depicted in them, beyond the access that would be provided by a painting or drawing. What is included in the photograph does not depend on the photographer’s beliefs about what is in front of the camera. This feature leads Kendall Walton to argue that photographs literally allow us to see the objects which appear in them. Current generative algorithms produce images in response to (...) users’ text prompts. Depending on the parameters, the output can resemble specific people or things which are named in the prompt. This resemblance does not depend on the user’s beliefs, so generated images are in this sense like photographs. Given this parallel, how should we think about AI-generated images? (shrink)

This paper endeavors to understand the research landscape of finance research in Vietnam during the period 2008 to 2020 and predict the key defining future research directions. Using the comprehensive database of Vietnam’s international publications in social sciences and humanities, we extract a dataset of 314 papers on finance topics in Vietnam from 2008 to 2020. Then, we apply a systematic approach to analyze four important themes: Structural issues, Banking system, Firm issues, and Financial psychology and behavior. Overall, there have (...) been three noticeable trends within finance research in Vietnam: (1) assessment of financial policies or financial regulation, (2) deciphering the correlates of firms’ financial performances, and (3) opportunities and challenges in adopting innovations and ideas from foreign financial market systems. Our analysis identifies several fertile areas for future research, including financial market analysis in the post-COVID-19 eras, fintech, and green finance. (shrink)

Many philosophers are impressed by the progress achieved by physical sciences. This has had an especially deep effect on their ontological views: it has made many of them physicalists. Physicalists believe that everything is physical: more precisely, that all entities, properties, relations, and facts are those which are studied by physics or other physical sciences. They may not all agree with the spirit of Rutherford's quoted remark that 'there is physics; and there is stamp-collecting',' but they all grant physical science (...) a unique ontological authority: the authority to tell us what there is. Physicalism is now almost orthodox in much philosophy, notably in much recent philosophy of mind. But although often invoked, it is rarely explicitly defined. It should be. The claim that everything is physical is not as clear as it seems. In this paper, we examine a number of proposed definitions of physicalism and reasons for being a physicalist. We will argue both that physicalism lacks a clear and credible definition, and that in no non-vacuous interpretation is it true. We are concerned here only with physicalism as a doctrine about the empirical world. In particular, it should not be confused with nominalism, the doctrine that there are no universals.2 Nominalism and physicalism are quite independent doctrines. Believers in universals may as consistently assert as deny that the only properties and relations are those studied by physical science. And nominalists may with equal consistency assert or deny that physical science could provide enough predicates to describe the world. That is the question which concerns physicalists, not whether physical predicates name real universals. (We will for brevity write as if they do, but we do not need that assumption.). (shrink)

Pharmaceuticals or other emerging technologies could be used to enhance (or diminish) feelings of lust, attraction, and attachment in adult romantic partnerships. While such interventions could conceivably be used to promote individual (and couple) well-being, their widespread development and/or adoption might lead to “medicalization” of human love and heartache—for some, a source of serious concern. In this essay, we argue that the “medicalization of love” need not necessarily be problematic, on balance, but could plausibly be expected to have either good (...) or bad consequences depending upon how it unfolds. By anticipating some of the specific ways in which these technologies could yield unwanted outcomes, bioethicists and others can help direct the course of love’s “medicalization”—should it happen to occur—more toward the “good” side than the “bad.”. (shrink)

In this paper I explore Phyllis Rooney’s 2003 chapter, “Feminist Epistemology and Naturalized Epistemology: An Uneasy Alliance,” taking guidance from her critique of naturalized epistemology in pursuing my own analysis of another uneasy alliance: that between feminist epistemology and social epistemology. Investigating some of the background assumptions at work in prominent conceptions of social epistemology, I consider recent analyses of "epistemic bubbles" to ask how closely such analyses are aligned with ongoing research in feminist epistemology. I argue that critical feminist (...) insights in political philosophy are called for here, especially those that focus on multiple politically salient relationships and also emphasize practices of personal transformation as inseparably bound up with broader movements for social transformation. Insofar as feminist epistemology continues to carry another world in its heart, I argue that it will continue to rest uneasily with any effort to align it with—let alone subsume it within—the still emerging field of social epistemology. (shrink)

Causation is one of philosophy's most venerable and thoroughly-analyzed concepts. However, the study of how ordinary people make causal judgments is a much more recent addition to the philosophical arsenal. One of the most prominent views of causal explanation, especially in the realm of harmful or potentially harmful behavior, is that unusual or counternormative events are accorded privileged status in ordinary causal explanations. This is a fundamental assumption in psychological theories of counterfactual reasoning, and has been transported to philosophy by (...) Hitchcock and Knobe (2009). A different view--the basis of the culpable control model of blame (CCM)--is that primary causal status is accorded to behaviors that arouse negative evaluative reactions, including behaviors that stem from nefarious motives, negligence or recklessness, a faulty character, or behaviors that lead to harmful or potentially harmful consequences. This paper describes four empirical studies that show consistent support for the CCM. (shrink)

There is considerable disagreement about the epistemic value of novel predictive success, i.e. when a scientist predicts an unexpected phenomenon, experiments are conducted, and the prediction proves to be accurate. We survey the field on this question, noting both fully articulated views such as weak and strong predictivism, and more nascent views, such as pluralist reasons for the instrumental value of prediction. By examining the various reasons offered for the value of prediction across a range of inferential contexts , we (...) can see that neither weak nor strong predictivism captures all of the reasons for valuing prediction available. A third path is presented, Pluralist Instrumental Predictivism; PIP for short. (shrink)

The Homeostatic Property Cluster (HPC) account of natural kinds has become popular since it was proposed by Richard Boyd in the late 1980s. Although it is often taken as a defining natural kinds as such, it is easy enough to see that something's being a natural kind is neither necessary nor sufficient for its being an HPC. This paper argues that it is better not to understand HPCs as defining what it is to be a natural kind but instead as (...) providing the ontological realization of (some) natural kinds. (shrink)

One of the benefits of hypertext in a connected digital environment is the ability to interlink documents. This was part of the hyper-text focused vision of the internet that Tim Berners-Lee was trying to create in the 1990s when he developed the World Wide Web.

The theories of cultural anthropologist Ernest Becker arise from an existential and psychological analysis of the death terror/anxiety deep in the unconscious of every human. Becker details how this anxiety governs the ideologies and behaviors of our species—something now confirmed by thousands of experiments performed by psychologists engaged in contemporary terror management theory (TMT). Humans manage their anxiety through what Becker terms “hero systems”—concepts, beliefs, and myths we create to give us a sense of significance and meaning during, and even (...) beyond our mortal lives. Today, many dominant economic, technological, and religious hero systems seek to confirm our significance by denying that we are—like all other species—animals who must exist in a decaying, mortal body. Becker shows how this attempt to deny our “creatureliness” (basic biological nature) causes humans to stand against the natural world we are embedded in, leading to an assault on the planet and nonhuman animals. As a result, Becker believed pacifism was the only hero system capable of keeping humankind from destroying itself and the earth. Pacifism is the precursor to the more encompassing ethical concept of “reverence for life,” advocated by Dr. Albert Schweitzer. By respecting the will-to-live in all sentient beings, reverence for life transcends concern for humans alone and extends moral and physical safeguards to life as such. Confronting the fact that humans are increasingly alienated from their commodified world and their own being, reverence for life stands as a vital solution to many of our modern problems. And following contemporary TMT research, reverencing life can also expand one’s self-esteem, which research shows lowers death anxiety, reduces aggression, and offers authentic meaning to life itself. (shrink)

In Plato’s Philebus, Socrates’ second account of ‘false’ pleasure (41d-42c) outlines a form of illusion: pleasures that appear greater than they are. I argue that these pleasures are perceptual misrepresentations. I then show that they are the grounds for a methodological critique of hedonism. Socrates identifies hedonism as a judgment about the value of pleasure based on a perceptual misrepresentation of size, witnessed paradigmatically in the ‘greatest pleasures’.

The natural evolution of consciousness in different animal species mandates that conscious experiences are causally potent in order to confer any advantage in the struggle for survival. Any endeavor to construct a physical theory of consciousness based on emergence within the framework of classical physics, however, leads to causally impotent conscious experiences in direct contradiction to evolutionary theory since epiphenomenal consciousness cannot evolve through natural selection. Here, we review recent theoretical advances in describing sentience and free will as fundamental aspects (...) of reality granted by quantum physical laws. Modern quantum information theory considers quantum states as a physical resource that endows quantum systems with the capacity to perform physical tasks that are classically impossible. Reductive identification of conscious experiences with the quantum information comprised in quantum brain states allows for causally potent consciousness that is capable of performing genuine choices for future courses of physical action. The consequent evolution of brain cortical networks contributes to increased computational power, memory capacity, and cognitive intelligence of the living organisms. (shrink)

Despite increased philosophical and psychological work on practical wisdom, contemporary interdisciplinary wisdom research provides few specifics about how to develop wisdom (Kristjánsson 2022). This lack of practically useful guidance is due in part to the difficulty of determining how to combine the tools of philosophy and psychology to develop a plausible account of wisdom as a prescriptive ideal. Modeling wisdom on more ordinary forms of expertise is promising, but skill models of wisdom (Annas 2011; De Caro et al. 2018; Swartwood (...) 2013b; Tsai 2023) have been challenged on the grounds that there are important differences between wisdom and expert skills (Hacker-Wright 2015, p. 986; Kristjánsson 2015, pp. 98, 101; Stichter 2015, 2016, 2018). I’ll argue that we can both vindicate the promise of skill models of wisdom and begin to specify practically useful strategies for wisdom development by attending to a reflective process that I call Case-Based Critical Reflection. I begin by demonstrating the process as it arose in a notable example from everyday life, illustrating how the process can be usefully applied to a case study of interest to wisdom scientists, and explaining its philosophical pedigree. After isolating the key features that make it relevant to wisdom development, I argue that attending to the importance of Critical Reflection can defuse prominent objections to skill models of wisdom. (shrink)

Given the fact that many people use Wikipedia, we should ask: Can we trust it? The empirical evidence suggests that Wikipedia articles are sometimes quite good but that they vary a great deal. As such, it is wrong to ask for a monolithic verdict on Wikipedia. Interacting with Wikipedia involves assessing where it is likely to be reliable and where not. I identify five strategies that we use to assess claims from other sources and argue that, to a greater of (...) lesser degree, Wikipedia frustrates all of them. Interacting responsibly with something like Wikipedia requires new epistemic methods and strategies. (shrink)

The problem of underdetermination is thought to hold important lessons for philosophy of science. Yet, as Kyle Stanford has recently argued, typical treatments of it offer only restatements of familiar philosophical problems. Following suggestions in Duhem and Sklar, Stanford calls for a New Induction from the history of science. It will provide proof, he thinks, of “the kind of underdetermination that the history of science reveals to be a distinctive and genuine threat to even our best scientific theories” (Stanford 2001, (...) p. S12). This paper examines Stanford’s New Induction and argues that it – like the other forms of underdetermination that he criticizes – merely recapitulates familiar philosophical conundra. (shrink)

The Research Topic “On poverty and its eradication” was inspired by the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, first commemorated in Paris in 1987 and formally designated by the United Nations. This day is dedicated to renewing the commitment to universal human development, enabling all individuals to achieve their highest potential, and reflecting on how poverty hinders this progress. The urgency of addressing poverty has increased after the COVID-19 pandemic, which exacerbated existing issues and highlighted the critical need for (...) effective poverty eradication strategies. The studies included in this Research Topic aim to expand knowledge about poverty, its causes, consequences, and connections to crises, inequality, and fairness, and to assess policy measures for poverty reduction. The included contributions use various theoretical, empirical, quantitative, and qualitative approaches to drive sociological and policy-related discussions and initiatives, promoting fair and inclusive societies. (shrink)

Public reason liberalism demands that political decisions be publicly justified to the citizens who are subjected to them. Much recent literature emphasises the differences between the two main interpretations of this requirement, justificatory and political liberalism. In this paper, I show that both views share structural democratic deficits. They fail to guarantee political autonomy, the expressive quality of law, and the justification to citizens, because they allow collective decisions made by incompletely theorised agreements. I argue that the result can only (...) be avoided by changing public reason’s role in collective decision-making. Instead of incompletely theorised agreements, we should demand agreement both on the public reasons themselves and on the other premises that justify political decisions. In this way, it is always possible to point to a procedure-independent reason that justifies democratic decisions, and the reasoning of the state is public and contestable. Finally, I explain how this, in turn, implies that only political liberalism can be rescued—by accepting what I will call strong political liberalism. Modifying justificatory liberalism in the necessary way will inevitably open the door to an objectionable form of perfectionism. (shrink)

Control measures, such as “lockdowns”, have been widely used to suppress the COVID-19 pandemic. Under some conditions, they prevent illness and save lives. But they also exact an economic toll. How should we balance the impact of such policies on individual lives and livelihoods (and other dimensions of concern) to determine which is best? A widely used method of policy evaluation, benefit–cost analysis (BCA), answers these questions by converting all the effects of a policy into monetary equivalents and then summing (...) them up. A different method, social welfare analysis, proceeds by determining the effects of a policy on individual wellbeing and then applying an aggregation formula to them to evaluate the overall effects of a policy. In this chapter, we survey these methods and argue that social welfare analysis has important advantages. One crucial advantage is that it enables ethical considerations relating to the impact of policies on individual wellbeing and its distribution to be incorporated into policy assessments in a transparent way. We illustrate this with a simple numerical model for evaluating pandemic policies that vary in terms of the stringency of the controls that they impose on individual behaviour, showing how the evaluation depends on the ethical significance accorded to their impact on the wellbeing of different age and income groups. (shrink)

If there is to be any progress in the debate about what sort of positive moral status Kant can give the emotions, we need a taxonomy of the terms Kant uses for these concepts. It used to be thought that Kant had little room for emotions in his ethics. In the past three decades, Marcia Baron, Paul Guyer, Barbara Herman, Nancy Sherman, Allen Wood and others have argued otherwise. Contrary to what a cursory reading of the Groundwork may indicate, Kant (...) thinks the emotions play an important role in the moral life. I want to extend the work of Baron, Guyer, Herman, Sherman and Wood in three ways. First, I will set out in a diagram Kant's taxonomy of feelings and emotions. Agreement on such a taxonomy should make it easier to evaluate debates about Kant and the emotions. Second, I will focus on a certain subclass of emotions – reason-caused affects – that have previously received little attention, even from these Kant scholars. Third, these scholars base much of their defence of Kant on his later works – especially the Metaphysics of Morals and the Anthropology – but Kant's fairly rich taxonomy of the emotions, including reason-caused affects, is clearly in place at least as early as the Critique of Judgment . I believe that the Critique of Judgment is an importantly ignored resource for understanding the moral role of the emotions for Kant. The third Critique makes positive, philosophically interesting claims about the emotions and morality. Kant emphasizes certain roles for emotions in this work that he develops to the same extent nowhere else. Nevertheless, the Critique of Judgment goes all but unmentioned by many who write on these issues. In what follows, I will defend as many of my claims as possible using the third Critique. (shrink)

Inspired by the early Wittgenstein’s concept of nonsense (meaning that which lies beyond the limits of language), we define two different, yet complementary, types of nonsense: formal nonsense and pragmatic nonsense. The simpler notion of formal nonsense is initially defined within Tarski’s semantic theory of truth; the notion of pragmatic nonsense, by its turn, is formulated within the context of the theory of pragmatic truth, also known as quasi-truth, as formalized by da Costa and his collaborators. While an expression will (...) be considered formally nonsensical if the formal criteria required for the assignment of any truth-value (whether true, false, pragmatically true, or pragmatically false) to such sentence are not met, a (well-formed) formula will be considered pragmatically nonsensical if the pragmatic criteria (inscribed within the context of scientific practice) required for the assignment of any truth-value to such sentence are not met. Thus, in the context of the theory of pragmatic truth, any (well-formed) formula of a formal language interpreted on a simple pragmatic structure will be considered pragmatically nonsensical if the set of primary sentences of such structure is not well-built, that is, if it does not include the relevant observational data and/or theoretical results, or if it does include sentences that are inconsistent with such data. (shrink)

Philip Kitcher develops the Galilean Strategy to defend realism against its many opponents. I explore the structure of the Galilean Strategy and consider it specifically as an instrument against constructive empiricism. Kitcher claims that the Galilean Strategy underwrites an inference from success to truth. We should resist that conclusion, I argue, but the Galilean Strategy should lead us by other routes to believe in many things about which the empiricist would rather remain agnostic. 1 Target: empiricism 2 The Galilean Strategy (...) 3 Strengthening the argument 4 Success and truth 5 Conclusion. (shrink)

Plato articulates a deep perplexity about inquiry in ?Meno's Paradox??the claim that one can inquire neither into what one knows, nor into what one does not know. Although some commentators have wrestled with the paradox itself, many suppose that the paradox of inquiry is special to Plato, arising from peculiarities of the Socratic elenchus or of Platonic epistemology. But there is nothing peculiarly Platonic in this puzzle. For it arises, too, in classical Indian philosophical discussions, where it is formulated with (...) great clarity, and analysed in a way that casts it in a new light. We present three treatments of the puzzle in Indian philosophy, as a way of refining and sharpening our understanding of the paradox, before turning to the most radical of the Indian philosophers to tackle it. The Indian philosophers who are optimistic that the paradox can be resolved appeal to the existence of prior beliefs, and to the resources embedded in language to explain how we can investigate, and so move from ignorance to knowledge. Highlighting this structural feature of inquiry, however, allows the pessimist philosopher to demonstrate that the paradox stands. The incoherence of inquiry is rooted in the very idea of aiming our desires at the unknown. Asking questions and giving answers rests on referential intentions targeting objects in a region of epistemic darkness, and so our ?inquiry sceptic? also finds structurally similar forms of incoherence in the pragmatics of interrogative discourse. (shrink)

The recent literature on mental causation has not been kind to nonreductive, materialist functionalism (‘functionalism’, hereafter, except where that term is otherwise qualified). The exclusion problem2 has done much of the damage, but the epiphenomenalist threat has taken other forms. Functionalism also faces what I will call the ‘problem of metaphysically necessary effects’ (Block, 1990, pp. 157-60, Antony and Levine, 1997, pp. 91-92, Pereboom, 2002, p. 515, Millikan, 1999, p. 47, Jackson, 1998, pp. 660-61). Functionalist mental properties are individuated partly (...) by their relation to the very effects those properties’ instantiations are thought to cause. Consequently, functionalist causal generalizations would seem to have the following problematical structure: The state of being, among other things, a cause of e (under such-andsuch conditions) causes e (under those conditions).3 The connection asserted lacks the contingency one would expect of a causal generalization. Mental states of the kind in question are, by metaphysical necessity, causes of e; any state that does not cause e is thereby a different kind of state. Yet, a mental state’s being the sort of state it is must play some causal role if functionalism is to account for mental causation.4 In what follows, I first articulate more fully the problem of metaphysically necessary effects. I then criticize three functionalist attempts to solve the problem directly. Given the failure of functionalist efforts to meet the problem head-on, I consider less direct strategies: these involve formulating functionalism or its causal claims in such a way that they appear not to generate the problem of metaphysically necessary effects. I argue against these indirect solutions, in each case concluding either that the problem still arises or that avoiding it requires the adoption of an unorthodox form of functionalism (itself a surprising result). In the final.. (shrink)