In 2009, we celebrated the bicentennial of the birth of Charles Darwin and the sesquicentennial of the publication of his book The Origin of Species. This seems to be a good opportunity to evaluate the importance of Darwin’s work for the social sciences, mainly for philosophical anthropology. The aim of this paper is to discuss the traditional anthropocentric conceptions of man, which consider our biological species to be exceptional – qualitatively higher than other living organisms. Over the course of the (...) 20th century, philosophers have argued for the claim in a number of ways: man is supposed to be the only animal capable of laughter, love, thought or language. It has also been claimed that only members of Homo sapiens have free will, morality or religion. The paper refutes these arguments on the basis of contemporary studies by M. Davila Ross, H. Fischer, K. Arnold, K. Zuberbühler, G. Konopka, B. Libet, F. De Waal, M. Bekoff, P. Boyer, B. Hood, G. Paul and others. The author argues that the only differences between man and other animals are quantitative, and therefore the nature of humans should be studied using the methods of naturalized philosophy, with respect to the natural sciences. (shrink)

Joseph Butler was an Anglican priest and later a bishop who wrote about ethics, religion, and other philosophical themes. He is not well known today. During his lifetime and into the early part of the twentieth century he was better known especially for his major work the Analogy of Religion (1736). Today he is known mostly for his sermons which are interpreted as essays on ethics and for his essay on identity. Butler had a profound effect on J. H. Newman, (...) Matthew Arnold, and W. E. Gladstone and some effect on many other popular, academic, and professional readers. This book is as much about Butler’s sources and his reception as it is about the way he arranged and presented the evidence in the first half of the 18th century. He was a good man and is recognized by the Anglican church as a divine. We have no interest in taking a nostalgic look at a quaint figure in English church history. To those who claim Butler is unknown, that he was “blown out of the water” by John Wesley or Karl Barth, or Cornelius van Til, we can only say Butler is not as well known in the 20th and 21st centuries as in the 19th, but he is certainly not unknown to those who have taken any interest in philosophy, religion, or ethics. Today there has been a revival of interest in Bishop Butler. Our concern is to build and maintain a bridge that will help to keep this momentum. He offers an ethic that is universal and clearly Christian, yet it is based on the nature of man. Kant had a similar project, but in our opinion, Butler makes more compelling arguments. What is of interest to the Christian apologist is Butler’s work in this area. The purpose of this book is to present Butler’s ideas. We believe that his ethics have a universality that is applicable to people of all religious faiths and those that have none. It is common sense way of looking at ethics for everyday interaction. This book is a narrative argument presenting in detail how Butler’s creative arrangement of the evidence served as a bridge between the ancients as known in the Greek, Latin, and Hebrew originals, and the moderns, mostly Anglophone, who constituted Butler’s work environment and his reception in the latter day down to the present. We can hardly expect everyone to agree with Butler on all points, we certainly do not. The point at issue is rather whether he merits a seat at the present-day round table of deliberation on matters pertaining to philosophy, religion, and ethics. (shrink)

DIFERENCIAÇÃO SEXUAL -/- Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro da Silva Instituto Agronômico de Pernambuco Embrapa Semiárido -/- • _____OBJETIVO -/- Os estudantes de Veterinária e de Zootecnia estão ligados à disciplina Reprodução Animal, um pelos mecanismos fisiológicos para evitar e tratar as possíveis patologias do trato reprodutivo dos animais domésticos, e outro para o entendimento dos processos fisiológicos visando o manejo reprodutivo e a procriação para a formação de um plantel geneticamente melhorado. Sendo assim, a finalidade do presente trabalho é apresentar os (...) mecanismos que regulam as diferenças sobre o desenvolvimento embrionário relativos à diferenciação e determinação sexual de machos e fêmeas, que também incluem o desenvolvimento dos órgãos envolvidos na reprodução e a origem das diferenças entre ambos os sexos. -/- •____INTRODUÇÃO -/- Os organismos que se reproduzem sexualmente são descendentes de organismos ao qual não existia a diferenciação sexual. Em algum momento da evolução surgiu a reprodução sexual como um mecanismo para incrementar a diversidade genética e facilitar a troca de informações genéticas mediante o material genético da fêmea com o do macho. Devido sua origem comum, na maioria das espécies, tanto os machos como as fêmeas possuem todos os genes necessários para desenvolverem-se em qualquer dos sexos. O que efetivamente faz diferença entre os sexos é a forma e a ordem ao qual se expressam os genes durante o processo de desenvolvimento. A diferenciação sexual é regulada principalmente por mecanismos epigenéticos, mais do que as diferenças genéticas de grande magnitude entre os sexos. Todo o controle epigenético de qualquer processo de desenvolvimento depende basicamente de uma série de expressões gênicas, através da qual a expressão de certa combinação de genes resulta na presença de determinadas proteínas, conhecidas como os fatores de transcrição, que induzem ou reprimem a expressão de outro(os) gene(es), a partir dos quais se produzem novas proteínas, que em certos casos também atuam como fatores de transcrição para outros genes, e assim sucessivamente. Logo, a expressão ou falta de expressão de um gene ao início da série pode resultar em um ladrão totalmente diferente da expressão de outros genes subsequentes, o que pode ocasionar profundas mudanças no processo de desenvolvimento e até a mutações indesejáveis. O padrão predeterminado de expressões gênica relativo a diferenciação sexual na maioria das espécies tanto domésticas quanto selvagens, leva ao desenvolvimento de um dos sexos (o padrão predeterminado dos mamíferos é o sexo feminino). Em consequência, a diferenciação faz com que um indivíduo do sexo oposto exija a expressão de um gene de determinação sexual que desvie a subsequente série de expressões gênica em direção ao dito sexo. Nos mamíferos, a expressão do gene SRY, localizado no cromossomo Y (e portanto ausente nas fêmeas), redige o padrão de diferenciação sexual de sua via pré-estabelecida feminina em direção ao padrão masculino. A existência de uma única diferença genética (presença do gene SRY nos machos e ausentes nas fêmeas), vai se amplificando e termina resultando no desenvolvimento de indivíduos diferentes entre si. Esse é um mecanismo de diferenciação sexual cromossômica. O primeiro passo de uma série de diferenciação sexual, em sentido estrito, não depende nem requer necessariamente a presença de um gene diferente em algum dos sexos. O gene “disparador” da diferenciação sexual pode estar presente em todos os embriões, porém pode expressar-se somente em algum deles, devido a fatores ambientais que formam parte da sua regulação epigenética, isto é, uma determinação sexual ambiental. Em algumas espécies de tartarugas ou de lagartos a expressão ou falta de expressão do gene “disparador”, por exemplo, depende da temperatura existente durante a incubação dos ovos, pelo qual alguns embriões desenvolvem-se como machos e outros como fêmeas, apesar de não existir diferença genética entre eles, simplesmente como consequência da temperatura: a determinação sexual depende da temperatura a que cada um deles foi submetido durante a incubação. Em certas espécies as temperaturas mais elevadas facilitam o desenvolvimento de fêmeas e outras de machos, enquanto que em outras espécies as temperaturas amenas (intermediárias) resultam em machos, e as inferiores como as superiores induzem o desenvolvimento de fêmeas. A existência dessa diversidade indica que a temperatura por si mesma não é a que induz ou a que provoca o desenvolvimento do macho e da fêmea, senão a que atua somente como um regulador inicial da diferenciação sexual. Em outras espécies o fator ambiental que regula a determinação sexual pode ser distinto. A densidade populacional, por exemplo, pode atuar como um regulador. Podemos concluir que a determinação sexual dependente da temperatura ou de outros fatores ambientais estabelece-se antes da determinação sexual cromossômica, a qual evoluiu depois como um método que oferece maior certeza e resultado, já que a proporção de machos e fêmeas não é afetada por mudanças ambientais ou de hábitat. -/- •___FORMAÇÃO INICIAL DA GÔNADA -/- Basicamente em todos os embriões, inicialmente se formam as chamadas gônadas indiferenciadas (com o potencial de desenvolver-se em ovários ou testículos) a partir da invasão das cristas genitais pelas células germinais primordiais, que migram desde seu local de origem no epiblasto, perto do lugar onde o saco vitelino se une com o intestino primitivo e que chegam até às cristas genitais que são engrossamentos de tecido situados na região mesonéfrica do embrião. A migração das células germinais primordiais ocorre muito cedo sobre o processo de desenvolvimento do embrião (dia 26 nos bovinos). Ao chegas as cristas genitais, as células germinativas proliferam-se e se organizam com as células somáticas já existentes nas cristas para ir formando a gônada (figura 1). Para regular essa remodelação e conformação adequada da gônada vários genes se expressam, como o OCT-4 (que aparentemente mantém a totipotencialidade da gônada), assim como o SF-1 (Fator esteroidogênico 1) e o WT-1 (gene associado ao tumor de Wilms). Esses dois últimos genes estimulam a proliferação celular e estabelecimento dos cordões sexuais. Nessa etapa inicial do desenvolvimento todos esses genes se expressam sem distinção de sexo, pelo que a gônada em formação mantém a capacidade de se diferenciar em testículo ou em ovário. -/- Figura 1: migração das células germinais primordiais em direção a crista gonodal. Diferenciação das gônadas femininas e masculinas. Fonte: ZARCO, 2018. -/- •___SEXO CROMOSSÔMICO -/- Têm-se observado que nos mamíferos a determinação sexual depende diretamente dos cromossomos. As fêmeas possuem dois cromossomos sexuais X (um contribuído do óvulo e o outro por um espermatozoide “X”). Os machos, por sua vez, possuem um cromossomo sexual X(proveniente do óvulo) e um cromossomo sexual Y, que provém de um espermatozoide “Y” (figura 2). A metade dos espermatozoides produzidos por um macho são X e a metade Y, isso porque durante a espermatogênese a divisão meiótica provoca que a partir de cada espermatócito primário, célula diploide que por pertencer a um indivíduo macho tem um cromossomo X e um Y, se originem das espermátides haploides a cada um das que eles tocam cromossomos X, e outras espermátides haploides as que eles tocam os cromossomos Y. Dessa forma, de acordo com o tipo do espermatozoide que fertilize o ovócito, se originará um indivíduo com cariótipo feminino “XX” ou um cariótipo masculino “XY” (figura 2). Esse processo é conhecido como sexo cromossômico, ao qual se determina o momento da fertilização. Figura 2: nos mamíferos todos os óvulos produzidos pelas fêmeas possuem um cromossomo sexual X. A metade dos espermatozoides produzidos pelos machos possuem um cromossomo X e a outra metade possui um cromossomo Y. Dependendo do cromossomo presente no espermatozoide que fertilize o óvulo pode-se gerar um indivíduo XX (fêmea) ou um XY (macho). Fonte: ZARCO, 2018. -/- O cromossomo “Y” é uma “invenção” relativamente recente na história da evolução das espécies e do estudo da genética. Surgiu a partir de uma mutação de um cromossomo “X”, que resultou na perda de um de seus braços, que é por onde se originou a morfologia do cromossomo Y. A maioria dos genes presentes no cromossomo Y também existem no cromossomo X; assim mesmo somente alguns genes do cromossomo Y foram evoluídos até ser diferentes dos genes do cromossomo X. Embora os machos possuam um cromossomo que não está presente nas fêmeas, esse mesmo cromossomo não aporta toda a informação genética original. Todos os genes existentes nas fêmeas estão também presentes nos dos machos, já que eles também possuem um cromossomo X. Uma particularidade do cromossomo Y, ao existir somente uma cópia nos machos, é que ele sofre um entrecruzamento com um cromossomo análogo durante o processo de meiose, pelo que o cromossomo Y de um macho é idêntico ao de seu progenitor e ao de seus descendentes, exceto no caso em que ocorra uma mutação espontânea. Em contraste, os cromossomos X das fêmeas (um proveniente do pai e outro da mãe) se entrecruzam durante a meiose, por onde cada óvulo produzido pela fêmea terá uma combinação de alelos distinta em seu cromossomo X. Ao estudar as diferenças presentes na sequência de DNA do cromossomo Y, é possível identificar a distância filogenética entre os indivíduos (quanto mais diferenças existirem entre os cromossomos significa que seu ancestral comum está mais longe). Algo análogo ocorre com o DNA das mitocôndrias, que sempre são aportados pela mãe e nunca sofrem recombinação genética. Gene SRY -/- Um dos poucos genes do cromossomo Y que não possuem correspondência com o cromossomo X é o gene SRY (Sex-determining Region of the Y chromossome – região do cromossomo Y determinante do sexo). Esse gene se expressa somente na gônada em formação nos embriões machos, em particular em células precursoras das células de Sertoli; ele codifica uma proteína da família SOX (SRY-like Box) que é uma família formada por proteínas que possuem um domínio de união ao DNA e que atuam como fatores de transcrição. Ao produzir-se a proteína SRY nas células precursoras das células de Sertoli estimula-se a expressão (transcrição) de outro gene análogo, denominado SOX-9 que, por sua vez, atua como um fator de transcrição que ativa a expressão de outros genes, como o FGF-9 (Fibroblast Growth Factor-9), ou seja ele é o estimulante de ativação dos demais. Os produtos dos genes SOX-9 e FGF-9 iniciam uma cascata de expressões que provocam a diferenciação das células de suporte da gônada indiferenciada (crista genital) em células de Sertoli. Em seguida, essas células dirigem a diferenciação das células intersticiais da crista genital em células de Leydig, o que finalmente resulta na formação de um testículo. Outro dos efeitos da proteína codificada por SOX-9 é um estímulo maior da expressão de seu próprio gene, pelo qual é produzido um ciclo de retroalimentação positiva que favorece a continuidade do processo de formação testicular. Como nos embriões da fêmea não existe o gene SRY, a gônada indiferenciada não é estimulada para expressar os genes SOX-9 nem o FGF-9 nas células de suporte (que nesse caso serão precursoras de células da granulosa). A gônada, em mudança, expressa em forma constitutiva, isto é, sem a necessidade de estimulação, outra cascata de genes que incluem o WNT4 (Wingless-integration Factor 4) e o RAPO1 (Respondina-1), que por sua vez iniciam uma cascata de expressão gênica, a qual provoca a diferenciação das células somáticas da gônada indiferenciada para formação das células da granulosa e células da teca, esse feito conduz, por sua vez, a formação de um ovário. No embrião macho a proteína SOX-9 inibe a expressão dos genes WNT4 e RSPO-1, pelo que a presença do gene SRY, e portanto de SOX-9, inibem a formação de um ovário ao mesmo tempo que estimulam a formação do testículo (figura 3). Em suma, se o embrião possui genótipo XY (um embrião macho), o gene SRY começa a expressar-se sobre as células precursoras da gônada imediatamente depois da formação da mesma, quando os cordões sexuais primários estão se desenvolvendo na medula. A expressão do gene, assim como a presença subsequente das proteínas SOX-9 e FGF-9 estimula a distinção das células de Sertoli e que se organizem os tubos seminíferos a partir dos cordões sexuais primários. Em contrapartida, em um embrião com genótipo XX (fêmea) não existe o gene SRY, pelo qual é impossível que se elevem os níveis das proteínas SOX-9 e FGF-9 e as células precursoras não se diferenciam em células de Sertoli, e portanto os cordões sexuais primários sofrem regressão. Depois de alguns dias, começam a organizar-se os cordões sexuais secundários e as células precursoras iniciam a expressão do gene WNT4, o que leva as mesmas a diferenciar-se em células da granulosa, que serão a base para a conformação dos folículos ovarianos. Se em um embrião XY, macho, a expressão do gene SRY demora, é formada um ovo-testículo devido a que algumas das células somáticas das cristas gonodais começam a expressar o gene WNT4, e a diferenciar-se em células da granulosa, enquanto que em outras a proteína SRY chega a tempo para dirigir a diferenciação para formação das células de Sertoli. No ovário em formação é expressado um gene denominado DAX-1 (Dosage-sensitive Sex Reversal). Esse gene, localizado no cromossomo X, codifica uma proteína que é um membro da família dos receptores nucleares ao que lhe falta o domínio de união ao DNA, pelo que parece atuar no bloqueio de diversos fatores de transcrição, entre os que se encontra o SRY. Como a proteína DAX-1 impede a ação da proteína SRY, um excesso de expressão do gene DAX-1 pode provocar a feminilização gonodal de indivíduos XY, macho, embora tenham SRY. Em condições normais, a expressão adequada do gene DAX-1 não é capaz de evitar a masculinização gonodal de embriões com o gene SRY, daqui o nome de reversão sexual dependente da dose. Figura 3: série de expressão gênica para a determinação gonodal. SRY (Região do cromossomo Y determinante do sexo), SOX-9 (SRY-like Box-9), FGF-9 (Fator de crescimento de fibroblastos-9), WNT4 (Wingless-integration Factor-4), RSPO-1 (Respondina-1). Uma vez que o SRY induz a expressão de SOX-9 na gônada masculina, inicia-se um processo de feedback positivo mediante o qual os níveis de expressão de SOX-9 e FGF-9 vão aumentando, ao mesmo tempo que inibem a expressão de WNT-4 e RSPO-1. Na gônada feminina não se expressam SRY, SOX-9 e nem FGF-9, o que permite que se expressem os genes WNT-4 e RSPO-1, que iniciam uma cascata de sinalização que dirige a formação de um ovário. Fonte: ZARCO, 2018. -/- • ___DIFERENCIAÇÃO SEXUAL DOS GENITAIS -/- Uma vez que se formam os testículos, todo o desenvolvimento subsequente dos órgãos e as características “masculinas” em lugar das femininas é em consequência dos hormônios produzidos pelos testículos em formação, incluindo os andrógenos e o hormônio inibidor dos ductos de Müller. Mediante a ausência de testículos todo o desenvolvimento dos órgãos genitais internos e externos segue um padrão feminino, sem levar em conta se estão presentes os ovários; o que significa a ausência de hormônios gonodais determina que o embrião se desenvolva como fêmea, uma vez que não requerem hormônios ovarianos para desencadear o padrão feminino. Por sua vez, as gônadas masculinas (os testículos), produzem substâncias que desviam o desenvolvimento em direção ao padrão masculino. Sob etapas relativamente rápidas da diferenciação todos os embriões possuem dois pares de dutos sexuais, os dutos de Wolff ou mesonéfricos e os dutos de Müller ou paramesonéfricos (figura 4). A testosterona secretada pelos testículos do feto macho em desenvolvimento atua sobre os dutos de Wolff, o que induz a formação posterior dos dutos deferentes, do epidídimo e das glândulas seminais (figura 4). Figura 4: formação dos órgãos genitais internos a partir dos dutos de Wolff no macho e dos dutos de Müller na fêmea. Fonte: ZARCO, 2018. -/- Os testículos produzem ao mesmo tempo, uma glicoproteína chamada Hormônio Inibidor dos Dutos de Müller (Müllerian Inhibiting Hormone, MIH, também chamado de Anti-Müllerian Hormone, AMH); como o seu nome indica, inibe o desenvolvimento dos dutos de Müller ou paramesonéfricos, provocando sua regressão, que impede a formação dos órgãos genitais característicos da fêmea como os ovidutos, o útero, a cérvix e a porção cranial da vagina (figura 4). O MIH é uma glicoproteína da família dos fatores de crescimento transformativo β (TGFβ). O gene MIH possui locais de união para os produtos dos genes SOX-9 e SF-1, pelo que a presença simultânea de ambos fatores de transcrição é necessária para a secreção do MIH e leva a cabo sua função de iniciação dos dutos de Müller sobre o embrião macho (vale lembrar que nessa etapa tanto a gônada de embriões machos como de embriões fêmeas expressam o gene SF-1, mas somente o macho expressa o SOX-9, para que unicamente esse último produza MIH). O certo é que na gônada do embrião fêmea não se produzem quantidades importantes da proteína SOX-9, além de que se produz a proteína DAX-1, mesma que antagoniza tanto a SOX-9 como a SF-1, todo o qual impede a produção de MIH e resulta no desenvolvimento dos dutos de Müller até a formação dos ovidutos, útero, cérvix e a porção cranial da vagina (figura 4). Assim, na fêmea, ao não haver testículos não circulam concentrações elevadas de andrógenos, o que impedirá o desenvolvimento dos dutos de Wolff, enquanto que os dutos de Müller se desenvolvem já que não haverá a presença do MIH para impedi-lo. O desenvolvimento dos genitais internos e externos femininos não requerem a presença de nenhum hormônio ovariano o que levará a cabo de maneira predeterminada (ou pré-estabelecida) na ausência de testículos. Outra estrutura interna que também se desenvolve de forma distinta nos machos e nas fêmeas é o seio urogenital, que no embrião macho é estimulado pela testosterona para formação da próstata, das glândulas bulbouretrais e da uretra peniana, enquanto que na fêmea forma a porção caudal da vagina. A respeito dos órgãos genitais externos (figura 5), nos embriões de ambos os sexos existem estruturas precursoras chamadas de tubérculo genital e pregas vestibulares. Na fêmea o tubérculo genital da origem ao clitóris e as pregas vestibulares dão origem aos lábios vulvares sem a necessidade da atuação de hormônios ovarianos, já que o padrão “por via pré-estabelecida” é feminino. Em contrapartida, no macho, tanto o tubérculo genital quanto as pregas vestibulares respondem ao hormônio 5α-dehidro-testosterona (DHT), ao qual se formam as células da pele da zona genital a partir da testosterona que é secretada pelos testículos. Para isso existem nas células a enzima 5α-reductasa, que transforma a testosterona em DHT. Uma vez formada, a DHT atua sobre as pregas vestibulares do embrião macho para que se fusionem e formem o escroto (em lugar dos lábios vulvares), e sobre o tubérculo genital para formar o pênis (em lugar do clitóris). Figura 5: estruturas que se desenvolvem nos embriões de cada sexo a partir do seio urogenital, o tubérculo genital e as pregas vestibulares. A cor do né de cada estrutura final corresponde com a cor do nome da estrutura a partir da qual se originou. Fonte: ZARCO, 2018. -/- • ___DIFERENCIAÇÃO SEXUAL DO SISTEMA NERVOSO -/- Existem inúmeras diferenças funcionais entre o sistema nervoso da fêmeas e o do machos, em humanos podem incluir diferenças tão complexas como a maior capacidade de verbal da mulher ou a maior capacidade de orientação espacial do homem. Nessa parte será abordada aquelas diferenças que influenciam diretamente sobre a função reprodutiva, como as diferenças na regulação da secreção de gonadotropinas ou as diferenças na capacidade de comportamento sexual masculino ou feminino. É necessário lembrar que, apesar de que essas diferenças se originem durante um período crítico da vida fetal ou neonatal (dependendo da espécie), geralmente se fazem presentes até que o animal chegue a vida adulta e demonstre obter ou não a capacidade para se comportar como macho ou como fêmea uma vez que é exposto aos hormônios sexuais que são secretada depois da puberdade. Igualmente aos processos acima citados, podemos afirmar que nos mamíferos o padrão pré-estabelecido de comportamento sexual e de secreção de gonadotropinas é o feminino. Se durante os primeiros dias de vida neonatal uma rata fêmea não é exposta a nenhum hormônio gonodal, ao chegar a vida adulta ela terá a capacidade de se comportar como fêmea na presença de estrógenos, assim como de secretar um pico pré-ovulatório de GnRH/LH em resposta aos mesmos (figura 6). Essa rata, portanto, não poderá se comportar como macho embora que em sua vida adulta seja exposta a testosterona. O sistema nervoso do rato macho recém-nascido que é exposto aos andrógenos produzidos pelos testículos, em detrimento, faz com que adquiram o potencial para se comportar como machos em sua vida adulta e que perdem o potencial para ter conduta de fêmeas na presença e/ou administração de estrógenos (processo conhecido como desfeminização do SNC). Se por meios de experimentos injetamos testosterona em uma rata fêmea recém-nascida, essa rata não poderá se comportar como fêmea em sua vida adulta, e passará a se comportar como macho. A castração neonatal de um rato (visando evitar a exposição de seu SNC a andrógenos testiculares), assim mesmo, resultará em sua vida adulta um padrão feminino (SNC feminizado e não masculinizado). O hipotálamo das ratas adultas possui uma área em que o número, características e densidade dos corpos neurais difere em machos e fêmeas, essa área é denominada como “núcleo sexualmente dimórfico do hipotálamo”, e tem demonstrado que quando as ratas são tratadas com testosterona na vida neonatal, a morfologia de seu núcleo sexualmente dimórfico será masculinizado em sua vida adulta, enquanto que a castração neonatal de ratos resulta em um núcleo sexualmente dimórfico feminizado em sua vida adulta. Isso significa que a exposição ou não a testosterona na vida neonatal é o que determina que tipo de núcleo sexualmente dimórfico se desenvolverá, o que por sua vez está relacionado com o tipo de conduta que o animal poderá expressar em sua vida adulta. Não deixa de ser um paradoxo que ao injetar uma dose elevada de estrógenos nos primeiros dias de vida de uma rata, os núcleos sexualmente dimórficos da mesma se desenvolverão como macho e em sua vida adulta seu potencial de conduta estará masculinizado e desfeminizado. O hormônio “feminino” conhecido como estradiol, masculiniza o hipotálamo e a conduta do animal. Logo, se a rata neonatal for exposta a injeção de andrógeno não-aromatizado (que não pode ser transformado em estrógenos pelas células) ela não se masculiniza. A masculinização e desfeminização dos ratos ou das ratas tratados com testosterona, na realidade, não são provocados pela própria testosterona, senão pelos estrógenos que se formam dentro dos neurônios quando absorvem a testosterona do sangue e a aromatizam para transformá-la em estrógenos (figura 6). Figura 6: desfeminização e masculinização do sistema nervoso central por meio da testosterona, que quando não absorvida pela α-fetoproteína pode entrar nos neurônios, onde se aromatizam para serem transformados em estrógenos, hormônio que é responsável pela desfeminização. Fonte: ZARCO, 2018. Por que as ratas, que possuem ovários funcionalmente produtores de estrógenos, não se masculinizam? A resposta está em uma proteína denominada α-fetoproteína que circula em altas concentrações nos fetos e nos recém-nascidos. Essa proteína possui a capacidade de unir-se aos estrógenos, ao qual impede seu entrada nas células. Os ratos, em desenvolvimento, produzem testosterona, no entanto não possui afinidade pela α-fetoproteína, o que permite com que ela circule livremente. Ao chegar ao SNC, a testosterona (que não foi absorvida) pode entrar nos neurônios e dentro deles se aromatizam e transformam-se em estrógenos, que finalmente masculinizam o SNC. A diferenciação sexual do hipotálamo depende, em síntese, da presença ou ausência dos testículos, o que permite que se produza ou não o hormônio testosterona que pode não ser absorvida por parte da α-fetoproteína, transformar-se em estrógenos e masculinizar o SNC. -/- •___CONCLUSÃO -/- Nos mamíferos todo o processo que se requerem para o desenvolvimento de um macho depende da existência de somente um gene do cromossomo Y, o gene SRY; a ausência desse gene resulta no desenvolvimento de uma fêmea. A presença ou ausência do gene SRY determina, então, a cadeia de eventos morfogênicos que ocorrerá em sua expressão ou não, para desenvolver todos os órgãos e características de um macho ou de uma fêmea. Por essa razão, os indivíduos com uma monossomia XOA (síndrome de Turner) são fêmeas (por não possuir o cromossomo Y nem o gene SRY), enquanto que os indivíduos triploides XXY (síndrome de Kleinefelter) são machos embora possuam dois cromossomos X. Em algumas espécies, no entanto, têm-se identificado machos que são cromossomicamente XX; nesses casos é determinado invariavelmente que por ser um erro durante a meiose a região do cromossomo Y em que reside o gene SRY tem sido transloucada ao cromossomo X. Da mesma forma, em alguns casos tem sido encontrado fêmeas com cariótipo XY; que nelas se identifica uma mutação inabilitante do gene SRY. Isso demonstra experimentalmente que por meio da engenharia genética é possível produzir machos com cariótipo XY mas com o gene SRY eliminado (knockout). Como é de se esperar, esses machos desenvolvem ovários e todos seus órgãos genitais, tanto internos quanto externos, e se desenvolvem como fêmeas. Os machos cromossomicamente XX transgênicos aos que se insertam uma cópia do gene SRY, desenvolvem testículos e um fenótipo masculino, embora sejam estéreis por causa da ausência de alguns genes do cromossomo Y que são necessários para a realização de uma espermatogênese normal. As falhas nos mecanismos de diferenciação sexual podem, diretamente, ocasionar anormalidades como as observadas nas bezerras Freemartin, que são bezerras originadas de uma gestação gemelar em que seu gêmeo era macho. O que sucede é que na espécie bovina, quando há uma gestação gemelar, é produzido um certo grau de anastomose entre as placentas dos fetos, o que permite a troca de sangue e de células entre ambos. Os produtos recebem, então, algumas células de seu gêmeos, que encontram seu lugar no órgão correspondente e se integram a ele. No caso particular das gônadas, quando o ovário primitivo de um embrião fêmea é colonizado por algumas células gonodais de seu gêmeo macho, essas células expressam o gene SRY, o que fará com que essa região da gônada se diferencie como testículo. Como resultado, se desenvolve um ovo-testículo (com maior ou menor proporção de tecido testicular dependendo do grau de colonização da gônada em formação por células provenientes do gêmeo macho). Ademais, ao haver certa quantidade de tecido testicular produtor de MIH, circularão sobre o feto fêmea níveis desse hormônio que, embora baixos, afetarão o desenvolvimento normal dos dutos de Müller, fazendo com que as bezerras Freemartin possuam genitálias internas ausentes ou pouco desenvolvidas. Os andrógenos produzidos pelas zonas de tecido testicular, por fim, são suficientes para causar um certo grau de masculinização, que se manifesta como um clitóris mais grande que o normal ou um desenvolvimento corporal masculinizado. -/- REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS -/- ARNOLD, Arthur P.; CHEN, Xuqi; ITOH, Yuichiro. What a difference an X or Y makes: sex chromosomes, gene dose, and epigenetics in sexual differentiation. In: Sex and gender differences in pharmacology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013. p. 67-88. CUNNINGHAM, James. Tratado de fisiologia veterinária. Elsevier Health Sciences, 2011. DERIVAUX, Jules; BARNABÉ, Renato Campanarut. Reprodução dos animais domésticos. Zaragoza: Acribia, 1980. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Desenvolvimento Embrionário e Diferenciação Sexual nos Animais Domésticos. Disponível em:. Acesso em: Julho de 2020. HAFEZ, Elsayed Saad Eldin; HAFEZ, Bahaa. Reprodução animal. São Paulo: Manole, 2004. HIDALGO, C. Galina et al. Reproducción de animales domésticos. México: Limusa, 2008. MACLAUGHLIN, David T.; DONAHOE, Patricia K. Sex determination and differentiation. New England Journal of Medicine, v. 350, n. 4, p. 367-378, 2004. MCCARTHY, Margaret M.; ARNOLD, Arthur P. Reframing sexual differentiation of the brain. Nature neuroscience, v. 14, n. 6, p. 677, 2011. PLANT, Tony M.; ZELEZNIK, Anthony J. (Ed.). Knobil and Neill's physiology of reproduction. Academic Press, 2014. REY, Rodolfo. Diferenciación sexual embrio-fetal: De las moléculas a la anatomía. Revista chilena de anatomía, v. 19, n. 1, p. 75-82, 2001. SENGER, P. L. Embryogenesis of the pituitary gland and male or female reproductive system. In. Pathways to Pregnancy and Parturition. Current Conception Inc, v. 1, p. 8-76, 1997. ZARCO, L. Diferenciación sexual. In. PORTA, L. R.; MEDRANO, J. H. H. Fisiología reproductiva de los animales domésticos. Cidade do México: FMVZ-UNAM, 2018. -/- REALIZAÇÃO -/- . (shrink)

This paper draws together as many as possible of the clues and pieces of the puzzle surrounding T. S. Eliot’s “infamous” literary term “objective correlative”. Many different scholars have claimed many different sources for the term, in Pound, Whitman, Baudelaire, Washington Allston, Santayana, Husserl, Nietzsche, Newman, Walter Pater, Coleridge, Russell, Bradley, Bergson, Bosanquet, Schopenhauer and Arnold. This paper aims to rewrite this list by surveying those individuals who, in different ways, either offer the truest claim to being the source (...) of the term, or contributed the most to Eliot’s development of it: Allston, Husserl, Bradley and Bergson. What the paper will argue is that Eliot’s possible inspiration for the term is more indebted to the idealist tradition, and Bergson’s aesthetic development of it, than to the phenomenology of Husserl. (shrink)

It has been argued that rationality consists in responding correctly to reasons. Recent defenses of the normativity of rationality assume that this implies that we always ought to be rational. However, this follows only if the reasons rationality requires us to correctly respond to are normative reasons. Recent meta-epistemological contributions have questioned whether epistemic reasons are normative. If they were right, then epistemic rationality wouldn’t provide us with normative reasons independently of wrong-kind reasons to be epistemically rational. This paper spells (...) out this neglected challenge for the normativity of epistemic rationality by connecting the two bodies of literature. Moreover, it generalizes this challenge to the rationality of desire, intention, and emotion. The upshot is that we can only answer the normative question about rationality if we debate about blame and accountability for holding different kinds of irrational attitudes, as well as about the sources of mental normativity. (shrink)

Modern philosophy recognizes two major ethical theories: deontology, which encourages adherence to rules and fulfillment of duties or obligations; and consequentialism, which evaluates morally significant actions strictly on the basis of their actual or anticipated outcomes. Both involve the systematic application of universal abstract principles, reflecting the culturally dominant paradigm of technical rationality. Professional societies promulgate codes of ethics with which engineers are expected to comply, while courts and the public generally assign liability to engineers primarily in accordance with the (...) results of their work, whether intended or unintended. A third option, prominent in ancient philosophy, has reemerged recently: virtue ethics, which recognizes that sensitivity to context and practical judgment are indispensable in particular concrete situations, and therefore rightly focuses on the person who acts, rather than the action itself. Beneficial character traits—i.e., virtues—are identified within a specific social practice in light of the internal goods that are unique to it. This paper proposes a comprehensive framework for implementing virtue ethics within engineering. (shrink)

Eva Schmidt argues that facts about incoherent beliefs can be non-evidential epistemic reasons to suspend judgment. In this commentary, I argue that incoherence-based reasons to suspend are epistemically superfluous: if the subjects in Schmidt’s cases ought to suspend judgment, then they should do so merely on the basis of their evidential reasons. This suggests a more general strategy to reduce the apparent normativity of coherence to the normativity of evidence. I conclude with some remarks on the independent interest (...) that reasons-first epistemology might have within an evidentialist framework. (shrink)

What should we believe when epistemic and practical reasons pull in opposite directions? The traditional view states that there is something that we ought epistemically to believe and something that we ought practically to (cause ourselves to) believe, period. More recent accounts challenge this view, either by arguing that there is something that we ought simpliciter to believe, all epistemic and practical reasons considered (the weighing view), or by denying the normativity of epistemic reasons altogether (epistemic anti‐normativism). I argue against (...) both accounts and defend the traditional view. An agent can be blameworthy in doxastic dilemmas for complying with their practical but not their epistemic reasons. This reveals how epistemic reasons are normative: the concept of epistemic blame helps us track epistemic normativity. (shrink)

Many of our attitudes are non-culpable: there was nothing that we should have done to avoid holding them. I argue that we can still be blameworthy for non-culpable attitudes: they can impair our relationships in ways that make our full practice of apology and forgiveness intelligible. My argument poses a new challenge to indirect voluntarists, who attempt to reduce all responsibility for attitudes to responsibility for prior actions and omissions. Rationalists, who instead explain attitudinal responsibility by appeal to reasons-responsiveness, can (...) make sense of blameworthiness for non-culpable attitudes. In response, voluntarists could propose a revision of our actual practices. This would lead us into a quite different debate. (shrink)

The Pessimistic Induction over the history of science argues that because most past theories considered empirically successful in their time turn out to be not even approximately true, most present ones probably aren’t approximately true either. But why did past scientists accept those incorrect theories? Kyle Stanford’s ‘Problem of Unconceived Alternatives’ is one answer to that question: scientists are bad at exhausting the space of plausible hypotheses to explain the evidence available to them. Here, I offer another answer, which I (...) call the ‘Problem of Misleading Evidence.’ I argue that this proposal is, in important respects, superior to Stanford’s. (shrink)

This paper could be thought of as divided into two parts. In the first I show through a series of thought experiments that it is a mistake to think of one’s individual experience as necessarily belonging to only one particular place, time and organism. In repetitions across a universe large enough to host them, the particular experience that one finds oneself in, which can be individuated only by the detailed type that is the entirety of its momentary subjective content, would (...) exist equally in every occurrence of that type, much as a moment in the plot of a novel would exist equally in every copy of that novel. Each distinguishable subjective moment of experience is thus a ‘moment universal’. In the second part of the paper I draw from this the conclusion that there could not be any proper possessors of lines of experience - that there are no proper persons - no continuing subjects of consciousness and self-interest. About five years after writing this paper I came to see that the particular identity of an experience could not be confined by types of momentary subjective detail any more than it could be confined by particular places, times or organisms. All experience is equally here, now and mine and all conscious organisms are equally I. My argument for this crucial further development is presented in ‘One Self – The Logic of Experience’, Inquiry 33 (1991): pp. 39-68. (shrink)

The method of reflective equilibrium (MRE) is a method of justification popularized by John Rawls and further developed by Norman Daniels, Michael DePaul, Folke Tersman, and Catherine Z. Elgin, among others. The basic idea is that epistemic agents have justified beliefs if they have succeeded in forming their beliefs into a harmonious system of beliefs which they reflectively judge to be the most plausible. Despite the common reference to MRE as a method, its mechanisms or rules are typically expressed in (...) a metaphorical or simplified manner and are therefore criticized as too vague. Recent efforts to counter this criticism have been directed towards the attempt to provide formal explications of MRE. This paper aims to supplement these efforts by providing an informal working definition of MRE. This approach challenges the view that MRE can adequately be characterized only in the negative as a set of anti-essentialisms. I argue that epistemic agents follow MRE iff they follow four interconnected rules, which are concerned with a minimalistic form of foundationalism, a minimalistic form of fallibilism, a moderate form of holism, and a minimalistic form of rationality. In the critical spirit of MRE, the corresponding working definition is, of course, provisional and revisable. In general, the aim is to contribute to a reflective equilibrium (RE) concerning MRE. If it is successful, this working definition provides a better grasp of the most basic elements of the method and thereby enhances our understanding of it. (shrink)

It is often argued that there are no practical reasons for belief because we could not believe for such reasons. A recent reply by pragmatists is that we can often believe for practical reasons because we can often cause our beliefs for practical reasons. This paper reveals the limits of this recently popular strategy for defending pragmatism, and thereby reshapes the dialectical options for pragmatism. I argue that the strategy presupposes that reasons for being in non-intentional states are not reducible (...) to reasons to act. Pragmatists who want to preserve a motivational constraint on reasons therefore have exactly two options: either arguing that there are irreducible reasons for being in non-intentional states ; or arguing that we can believe directly for practical reasons. I argue that the prospects for the former option are dim because irreducible reasons to be in states are hard to square with the motivational constraint on reasons. Returning to the more traditional route of arguing for pragmatism by defending a version of doxastic voluntarism therefore seems to be the more promising way for pragmatists to go. (shrink)

Imagine two urns, each with a thousand beads - in one all the beads are blue while in the other only one of the thousand is blue. If one of these urns is pushed forward (based on the toss of a fair coin) and the single bead then randomly drawn from it is blue, we must infer that it is a thousand times more probable that the urn pushed forward is the purely blue one. The hypothesis that this was instead (...) the urn with only one blue bead would require that the occurrence of the evidence, the blue bead being drawn, was something improbable - and it is improbable that something improbable is what has occurred. Next consider an example of only one urn with no prior description. By the same reasoning as above, if all the first beads randomly drawn are blue, it is becoming more and more probable that the beads in the urn are generally blue. (Otherwise something improbable would be happening in another colour not appearing; and what’s improbable is improbable.) It is therefore probable also that the next bead drawn will be blue. This is induction. As Hume would have said, we could not know a priori, given this evidence, that the next bead will be blue. But, as he overlooked, we can know a priori, given this evidence, that it is probable that the next bead will be blue. In neither urn example has the belief regarding the beads been formed as a Humean habit of expectation after many observations of beads. (In the first case there is only one observation. The second could be modified to have all the beads drawn out at once.) Rather the belief is a product of a priori reasoning about probability. Next imagine that a coin has been tossed a thousand times and landed heads every time. There was a fair and a loaded coin. According to the same reasoning, it is overwhelmingly more probable that the coin used was the loaded one. For that the fair coin had so landed is most improbable. The hypothesis that there is no external world makes the orderliness in my current experience improbable - much like getting all heads with a fair coin. (Uncaused sensation would most probably be chaotic.) The most probable hypothesis is that of things like those we believe in causing this orderliness - as the coin’s being loaded would have caused all heads. The hypothesis that my experience has been made to take this pattern by a Cartesian malicious demon or by scientists controlling my brain in a vat can only falsely seem to make the character of the experience probable by sneaking in an inherently improbable ad hoc specification that this sort of pattern of experience was that which they were aiming at producing - like an ad hoc specification that the fair coin was one that by chance landed heads all thousand times. We may thus reject such hypotheses as improbable. So this is the problem of induction solved and scepticism answered through a priori reasoning. (shrink)

How can we be responsible for our attitudes if we cannot normally choose what we believe, desire, feel, and intend? This problem has received much attention during the last decades, both in epistemology and ethics. Yet its connections to discussions about reasons and rationality have been largely overlooked. This book develops the foundations of an ethics of mind by investigating the responsibility that is presupposed by the requirements of rationality that govern our attitudes. It has five main goals. First, it (...) reinterprets the problem of responsibility for attitudes as a problem about the normativity of rationality. Second, it connects substantive and structural rationality by drawing on debates about responsibility. Third, it supports recent accounts of the normativity of rationality by explicitly defending the view that epistemic reasons and other ‘right-kind’ reasons are genuine normative reasons. Fourth, it breaks the stalemate between rationalist and voluntarist accounts of mental responsibility by proposing a hybrid view. Finally, it argues that irrationality can warrant moral blame, thus revealing an unnoticed normative force of rational requirements. Length of manuscript: 85,000 words. (shrink)

Proponents of the reasoning view analyze normative reasons as premises of good reasoning and explain the normativity of reasons by appeal to their role as premises of good reasoning. The aim of this paper is to cast doubt on the reasoning view by providing counterexamples to the proposed analysis of reasons, counterexamples in which premises of good reasoning towards φ‐ing are not reasons to φ.

Although he is best known as the founder of pragmatism, the name that Charles Sanders Peirce prefers to use for his comprehensive system of thought is "synechism" because the principle of continuity is its central thesis. This paper arranges and summarizes numerous quotations and citations from his voluminous writings to formalize and explicate his distinctive mathematical conceptions of hyperbolic and topical continuity, both of which are derived from the direct observation of time as their paradigmatic manifestation, and then apply them (...) in normative science and metaphysics, especially logic as semeiotic and cosmology. The resulting conclusion is that the intelligibility of the universe is plausibly explained by conceiving it as one immense sign, a vast inferential process: a semiosic continuum whose connected constituent signs are indefinite until deliberately marked off, with God the Creator as its overall dynamical object in the infinite past and God completely revealed as its overall final interpretant in the infinite future. (shrink)

I argue that the problem of responsibility for attitudes is best understood as a puzzle about how we are responsible for responding to our object-given reasons for attitudes – i.e., how we are responsible for being (ir)rational. The problem can be solved, I propose, by understanding the normative force of reasons for attitudes in terms of blameworthiness. I present a puzzle about the existence of epistemic and mental blame which poses a challenge for the very idea of reasons for attitudes. (...) We are left with three options: denying that there are any reasons for attitudes, opting for pragmatism about reasons for attitudes, or arguing that the challenge rests on a misunderstanding of the normative force of reasons for attitudes. I finally suggest a version of the last strategy. We can understand the normative force of reasons for attitudes, and thereby solve the problem of mental responsibility, by acknowledging that the way we blame each other for failing to respond correctly to our reasons for attitudes is different from the way we blame each other when one failed to respond correctly to reasons for action. (shrink)

Broome takes the debate on rationality to be concerned with the ordinary use of 'rational'. I argue that this is at best misleading. For the object of current theories of rationality is determined by a specific use of 'rational' that is intimately connected to blame and praise. I call the property it refers to 'rationalityRESP'. This focus on rationalityRESP, I argue, has two significant implications for Broome's critique of theories of rationality as reasons-responsiveness. First, rationalityRESP is plausibly conceived of as (...) a kind of reasons-responsiveness. Secondly, Broome's dispute with internalists about normativity as well as his dispute with externalists about rationality both hinge on questions regarding the concept of responsibility. I conclude that philosophers should integrate discussions about responsibility in their debates about rationality. (shrink)

The semeiotic of Charles Sanders Peirce is irreducibly triadic, positing that a sign mediates between the object that determines it and the interpretant that it determines. He eventually holds that each sign has two objects and three interpretants, standardizing quickly on immediate and dynamical for the objects but experimenting with a variety of names for the interpretants. The two most prominent terminologies are immediate/dynamical/final and emotional/energetic/logical, and scholars have long debated how they are related to each other. This paper seeks (...) to shed new light on the matter by reviewing the numerous manuscript drafts where Peirce develops the latter nomenclature while attempting to introduce his pragmatism to a general audience. It then goes on to examine an additional set of interpretants, intentional/effectual/communicational, and shows that the three different trichotomies can be understood as complementary, rather than redundant or conflicting. (shrink)

Since anonymous agents can spread misinformation with impunity, many people advocate for greater accountability for internet speech. This paper provides a veritistic argument that accountability mechanisms can cause significant epistemic problems for internet encyclopedias and social media communities. I show that accountability mechanisms can undermine both the dissemination of true beliefs and the detection of error. Drawing on social psychology and behavioral economics, I suggest alternative mechanisms for increasing the trustworthiness of internet communication.

Many commentators on Alfred Tarski have, following Hartry Field, claimed that Tarski's truth-definition was motivated by physicalism—the doctrine that all facts, including semantic facts, must be reducible to physical facts. I claim, instead, that Tarski did not aim to reduce semantic facts to physical ones. Thus, Field's criticism that Tarski's truth-definition fails to fulfill physicalist ambitions does not reveal Tarski to be inconsistent, since Tarski's goal is not to vindicate physicalism. I argue that Tarski's only published remarks that speak approvingly (...) of physicalism were written in unusual circumstances: Tarski was likely attempting to appease an audience of physicalists that he viewed as hostile to his ideas. In later sections I develop positive accounts of: (1) Tarski's reduction of semantic concepts; (2) Tarski's motivation to develop formal semantics in the particular way he does; and (3) the role physicalism plays in Tarski's thought. (shrink)

The author defends the claim that there are cases in which we should promote irrationality by arguing (1) that it is sometimes better to be in an irrational state of mind, and (2) that we can often influence our state of mind via our actions. The first claim is supported by presenting cases of irrational _belief_ and by countering a common line of argument associated with William K. Clifford, who defended the idea that having an irrational belief is always worse (...) than having a rational one. In support of the second claim, the author then explains how the control we have over our beliefs could look like. In conclusion, the author suggests that the argument of this essay is not restricted to the irrationality of beliefs, but can be applied to irrational states of mind in general. In an outlook on the “ethics of belief” debate, the author points out that the argument of this essay need not conflict with evidentialism, but does so when combined with another plausible claim about the meaning of doxastic ought-statements. (shrink)

Peirce is best known as the founder of pragmatism, but his dissatisfaction with how others understood and appropriated it prompted him to rename his own doctrine “pragmaticism” and to compose several variants of his original maxim defining it, as well as numerous restatements and elaborations. This paper presents an extensive selection of such formulations, followed by analysis and commentary demonstrating that for Peirce the ultimate meaning of an intellectual concept is properly expressed as a conditional proposition about the deliberate, self-controlled (...) conduct of its interpreters, not the law-governed behavior of its object. (shrink)

Strawson's view on punishment has been either neglected or recoiled from in contemporary scholarship on ‘Freedom and Resentment’ (FR). Strawson's alleged retributivism has made his view suspect and troublesome. In this article, we first argue, against the mainstream, that the punishment passage is an indispensable part of the main argument in FR (section 1) and elucidate in what sense Strawson can be called ‘a retributivist’ (section 2). We then elaborate our own hypothesis of symbolic retribution to explain the continuum between (...) moral reactive attitudes and punishment that Strawson only adumbrates (section 3). After this justification of the punitive response to wrongdoing, we compare and contrast our specific kind of retributivist hypothesis with other positions in the so-called ‘new retributivism’ (section 4). Our hypothesis differs from other subvarieties of expressive retributivism in putting centre stage the idea of punishment as taking up a reverential stance towards the victim. (shrink)

I present an explanatory argument for the reasons-first view: It is superior to knowledge-first views in particular in that it can both explain the specific epistemic role of perception and account for the shape and extent of epistemic justification.

Many have tackled the question ‘What (if anything) is analytic philosophy?’ I will not attempt to answer this vexed question. Rather, I address a smaller, more manageable set of interrelated questions: first, when and how did people begin using the label ‘analytic philosophy’? Second, how did those who used this label understand it? Third, why did many philosophers we today classify as analytic initially resist being grouped together under the single category of ‘analytic philosophy’? Finally, for the first generation who (...) described themselves as analytic philosophers, what was their intended contrast class? Relatedly, when did ‘continental philosophy’ become the standard opposition? Some evidence I present justifies received answers to these questions; other evidence supports surprising and unorthodox answers to these questions. (shrink)

Definitions I presented in a previous article as part of a semantic approach in epistemology assumed that the concept of derivability from standard logic held across all mathematical and scientific disciplines. The present article argues that this assumption is not true for quantum mechanics (QM) by showing that concepts of validity applicable to proofs in mathematics and in classical mechanics are inapplicable to proofs in QM. Because semantic epistemology must include this important theory, revision is necessary. The one I propose (...) also extends semantic epistemology beyond the ‘hard’ sciences. The article ends by presenting and then refuting some responses QM theorists might make to my arguments. (shrink)

I argue that a certain type of naturalist should not accept a prominent version of the no-miracles argument (NMA). First, scientists (usually) do not accept explanations whose explanans-statements neither generate novel predictions nor unify apparently disparate established claims. Second, scientific realism (as it appears in the NMA) is an explanans that makes no new predictions and fails to unify disparate established claims. Third, many proponents of the NMA explicitly adopt a naturalism that forbids philosophy of science from using any methods (...) not employed by science itself. Therefore, such naturalistic philosophers of science should not accept the version of scientific realism that appears in the NMA. (shrink)

Imagine that you and a duplicate of yourself are lying unconscious, next to each other, about to undergo a complete step-by-step exchange of bits of your bodies. It certainly seems that at no stage in this exchange of bits will you have thereby switched places with your duplicate. Yet it also seems that the end-result, with all the bits exchanged, will be essentially that of the two of you having switched places. Where will you awaken? I claim that one and (...) the same person possesses both bodies, occupies both places and will experience both awakenings, just as a person whose brain has been bisected must at once experience both of the unconnected fields of awareness, even though each of these will falsely appear to him as the entirety of his experience. I also claim that the more usual apparent boundaries of persons are as illusory as those in brain bisection; personal identity remains unchanged through any variation or multiplication of body or mind. In all conscious life there is only one person - I - whose existence depends merely on the presence of a quality that is inherent in all experience - its quality of being mine, the simple immediacy of it for whatever is having experience. One powerful argument for this is statistical: on the ordinary view of personhood it is an incredible coincidence for you (though not for others) that out of 200,000,000 sperm cells the very one required on each occasion for your future existence was first to the egg in each of the begettings of yourself and all your ancestors. The only view that does not make your existence incredible, and that is not therefore (from your perspective) an incredible view, is that any conscious being would necessarily have been you anyway. It is a consequence that self-interest should extend to all conscious organisms. (shrink)

Why, if at all, should we object to economic inequality? Some central arguments – the argument from decreasing marginal utility for example – invoke instrumental reasons and object to inequality because of its effects. Such instrumental arguments, however, often concern only the static effects of inequality and neglect its intertemporal conse- quences. In this article, we address this striking gap and investigate income inequality’s intertemporal consequences, including its potential effects on humanity’s (very) long-term future. Following recent arguments around future generations (...) and so-called longtermism, those effects might arguably matter more than inequality’s short-term con- sequences. We assess whether we have instrumental reason to reduce economic inequality based on its intertemporal effects in the short, medium, and the very long term. We find a good short and medium-term instrumental case for lower economic inequality. We then argue, somewhat speculatively, that we have instrumental reasons for inequality reduction from a longtermist perspective too, primarily because greater inequality could increase existential risk. We thus have instrumental reasons to reduce inequality, regardless of which time-horizon we take. We then argue that from most consequentialist perspectives, this pro tanto reason also gives us all-things-considered reason. And even across most non-consequentialist views in philosophy, this argument gives us either an all-things-considered or at least weighty pro tanto reason against inequality. (shrink)

Confused terms appear to signify more than one entity. Carnap maintained that any putative name that is associated with more than one object in a relevant universe of discourse fails to be a genuine name. Although many philosophers have agreed with Carnap, they have not always agreed among themselves about the truth-values of atomic sentences containing such terms. Some hold that such atomic sentences are always false, and others claim they are always truth-valueless. Field maintained that confused terms can still (...) refer, albeit partially, and offered a supervaluational account of their semantic properties on which some atomic sentences with confused terms can be true. After outlining many of the most important theoretical considerations for and against various semantic theories for such terms, we report the results of a study designed to investigate which of these accounts best accords with the truth-value judgments of ordinary language users about sentences containing these terms. We found that naïve participants view confused names as capable of successfully referring to one or more objects. Thus, semantic theories that judge them to involve total reference failure do not comport well with patterns of ordinary usage. (shrink)

Two different versions of the ending of the first additament to C. S. Peirce's 1908 article, "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God," appear in the Collected Papers but were omitted from The Essential Peirce. In one, he linked the hypothesis of God's Reality to his entire theory of logic as semeiotic, claiming that proving the latter would also prove the former. In the other, he offered a final outline of his cosmology, in which the Reality of God as (...) Ens necessarium is indispensable to both the origin and order of our existing universe of Signs. Exploring these passages, as well as the unpublished manuscript drafts of the article, provides important insights into the key concepts of instinct and continuity within Peirce's comprehensive system of thought. (shrink)

This challenging paper presents an ingenious argument for a functionalist theory of mind. Part of the argument: My visual cortex at the back of my brain processes the stimulation to my eyes and then causes other parts of the brain - like the speech centre and the areas involved in thought and movement - to be properly responsive to vision. According to functionalism the whole mental character of vision - the whole of how things look - is fixed purely in (...) the pattern of responses to vision and not in any of the initial processing of vision in the visual cortex. That this functionalist theory of vision is true can be proved with alarming ease. Imagine that just the left side of my visual cortex is replaced by a gadget that has precisely the same input/output relationship to the rest of the brain as the left visual cortex had. According to any view but functionalism, the character of my vision on the right side of my visual field (normally processed by the left visual cortex) would change radically with this change in all the intrinsic properties involved in the visual cortex, with this preservation of nothing but its functional role in bringing about my responses to vision. But, say I, we have enough here to be sure that in such a case there could be no change in the character of my vision. For we know by the stipulation of sameness of output that my responses in speech, thought and movement to the right side of my visual field will be precisely the same as they would have been with the natural left visual cortex and will harmonise just as they would have done with my responses to the other side of my vision. But if half my vision had disappeared or changed I’d be speaking, thinking and acting like someone with problems on the right side of his vision. It is impossible to separate my responses to vision from the character of my vision. The character of my vision is logically determined by the pattern of responses - by nothing but the functional role of my vision. (shrink)

Current debates about reasons and reasoning often draw comparisons between epistemic and practical reasons and reasoning and presuppose substantial unity between the practical and epistemic domains. This stance seems to conflict with a stark Humean contrast between the two domains: With respect to practical reasons and reasoning, Hume highlights the role of impressions, especially the passions, in motivating and rationalizing action, while apparently downplaying the potential relevance of beliefs, reason, or reasons. With respect to epistemic reasons and theoretical reasoning, he (...) urges us to proportion our belief to the evidence (EHU 10.4), which suggests a significant epistemic role for evidential reasons. My contribution ar-gues that there is nonetheless a convincing and interesting unified Humean account of reasons and reasoning across both domains. To present my case, I first narrow down the unity claim that I am interested in. I then closely engage with Hume’s claims in epistemology, the philos-ophy of action, and metaethics to develop the unified Humean account. (shrink)

Wenn wir Peter Singers Konklusion in „Famine, Affluence, and Morality“ (1972) akzeptieren, dann handeln wir im Alltag sehr viel häufiger falsch, als es uns lieb ist. Anstatt über die Natur von Altruismus zu philosophieren, könnten wir auch möglichst effektiv Hungerleidenden helfen. Ist es daher etwa moralisch verwerflich – weil egoistisch – zu philosophieren? In diesem Beitrag beleuchte ich die Gründe, die wir haben, Philosophie in den Mittelpunkt unseres Lebens zu stellen. Ich argumentiere, dass Philosophieren – genauso wie die Beschäftigung mit (...) Kunst und Wissenschaft – nur dann gerechtfertigt sein kann, wenn es praktische Gründe jenseits von Gründen des persönlichen Nutzens und der Moral gibt. Dabei schliesse ich an Susan Wolfs Idee an, dass diese Tätigkeiten ein Leben mit Sinn erfüllen können. Es bleibt jedoch offen, ob in einer Welt voller Ungerechtigkeit die moralischen Gründe gegen das Philosophieren (und für andere Handlungsoptionen) nicht dennoch überwiegen. (shrink)

Sebastian Schmidt (Zürich) fragt in seinem Beitrag »Wie vernünftig sind Verschwörungstheoretiker?«, wie es um die Vernunft derjenigen steht, die einer Verschwörungstheorie über die Corona-Pandemie anhängen. Im Umgang mit Corona scheint sich zu bestätigen, was die Psychologie seit Jahrzehnten lehrt: Menschen unterliegen in ihrem Denken kognitiven Fehlern und Verzerrungen. Doch ist verschwörungstheoretisches Denken, das solche Fehler ebenfalls begeht, deshalb irrational? Schmidt warnt davor, einander zu leichtfertig als irrational zu betrachten, und verweist auf die wichtige Rolle, die intellektuelles Vertrauen in (...) Wissensgemeinschaften spielt. Am Beispiel des sogenannten Bestätigungsfehlers führt er aus, dass Menschen, die ihre Überzeugungen nicht fortwährend kritisch prüfen, in diesem Verhalten durchaus rational sein können. (shrink)

This is an essay on the tasks and capacities of aesthetic theory and the pitfalls that beset it. I want to show that aesthetics can be enlightening by revealing and studying the facets and dimensions of experiences we call aesthetic, experience that is expansive and revelatory. This kind of experience can also clarify the relation of aesthetics to other areas of knowledge, such as cultural studies, and conversely, the bearing of other disciplines on our aesthetic understanding. Aesthetic theory, however, is (...) easily caught up in secondary, unproductive, and false issues, and these are what gives this essay its title. What is important, I want to argue, is not what we label beautiful or call art but where we find the kind of value experiences traditionally associated with appreciating beauty, natural and artistic, and how we can enhance and develop such experiences. However, this also requires recognizing the converse of such values in the loss, the negation, the desecration of this mode of experience. I conclude by proposing a larger philosophical role for aesthetics. (shrink)

Do non-human animals have an interest in sociopolitical freedom? Cochrane has recently taken up this important yet largely neglected quest ion. He argues that animal freedom is not a relevant moral concern in itself, because animals have a merely instrumental but not an intrinsic interest in freedom (Cochrane 2009a, 2012). This paper will argue that even if animals have a merely instrumental interest in freedom, animal freedom should nonetheless be an important goal for our relationships with animals. Drawing on recent (...) work on the value of freedom, it will be argued that freedom is non-specifically instrumentally valuable. Accordingly, freedom is a means to other goods, but often it is not possible to identify those goods in advance or aim for them directly. Some of the reasons that make freedom non-specifically valuable for human relationships, it will be argued, also apply to relationships between humans and animals. Amongst other implications, it will be shown how this argument provides a response to those who fear that stricter animal protection policies might undermine people’s freedom: A concern for freedom actually requires stricter protection policies rather than speak against them. (shrink)

In a recent Philosophy of Science article Gerhard Schurz proposes meta-inductivistic prediction strategies as a new approach to Hume's. This comment examines the limitations of Schurz's approach. It can be proven that the meta-inductivist approach does not work any more if the meta-inductivists have to face an infinite number of alternative predictors. With his limitation it remains doubtful whether the meta-inductivist can provide a full solution to the problem of induction.

This paper examines the relation between Cartwright's concept of 'capacities' and Mill's concept of 'tendencies' and argues that they are not equivalent. Cartwright's concept of 'capacities' and her motivation to adopt it as a central notion in her philosophy of science are described. It is argued that the Millian concept of 'tendencies' is distinct because Mill restricts its use to a set of special cases. These are the cases in which causes combine 'mechanically'. Hence for Mill 'tendencies' do not merely (...) describe the operation of causes, but also and perhaps even primarily how they combine. This does not hold of Cartwrightian capacities which are meant to have unlimited applicability. Mill also explicitly denies the realism of 'capacities' in a sense which overlaps with Cartwright's. Her attempt to derive empirist credentials for her notion of capacity from Mill is therefore unsuccessful. (shrink)

Mathematics textbooks teach logical reasoning by example, a practice started by Euclid; while logic textbooks treat logic as a subject in its own right without practical application to mathematics. Stuck in the middle are students seeking mathematical proficiency and educators seeking to provide it. To assist them, the article explains in practical detail how to teach logic-based skills such as: making mathematical reasoning fully explicit; moving from step to step in a mathematical proof in logically correct ways; and checking to (...) make sure inferences are logically correct. The methodology can easily be extended beyond the four examples analyzed. (shrink)

Although Peirce frequently insisted that continuity was a core component of his philosophical thought, his conception of it evolved considerably during his lifetime, culminating in a theory grounded primarily in topical geometry. Two manuscripts, one of which has never before been published, reveal that his formulation of this approach was both earlier and more thorough than most scholars seem to have realized. Combining these and other relevant texts with the better-known passages highlights a key ontological distinction: a collection is bottom-up, (...) such that the parts are real and the whole is an ens rationis, while a continuum is top-down, such that the whole is real and the parts are entia rationis. Accordingly, five properties are jointly necessary and sufficient for Peirce’s topical continuum: rationality, divisibility, homogeneity, contiguity, and inexhaustibility. (shrink)

Scientific anti-realists who appeal to the pessimistic induction (PI) claim that the theoretical terms of past scientific theories often fail to refer to anything. But on standard views in philosophy of language, such reference failures prima facie lead to certain sentences being neither true nor false. Thus, if these standard views are correct, then the conclusion of the PI should be that significant chunks of current theories are truth-valueless. But that is semantic anti-realism about scientific discourse—a position most philosophers of (...) science, anti-realists included, consider anathema today. Therefore, proponents of the PI confront a dilemma: either accept semantic anti-realism or reject common semantic views. I examine strategies (with particular emphasis on supervaluations) for the PI proponent to either lessen the sting of this argument, or learn to live with it. 1 Introduction2 Designation Failure 2.1 Designation failure leads to truth-valueless sentences2.1.1 Direct reference theory2.1.2 Fregeanism2.1.3 Accounts of reference-fixing: why ‘phlogiston’ fails to designate 2.2 Objection: sentences exhibiting designation failure are false not truth-valueless 2.3 Avoiding truth-valuelessness via controversial semantic positions3 What to do? Closing the Gaps4 Conclusion. (shrink)

The underdetermination of theory by data obtains when, inescapably, evidence is insufficient to allow scientists to decide responsibly between rival theories. One response to would-be underdetermination is to deny that the rival theories are distinct theories at all, insisting instead that they are just different formulations of the same underlying theory; we call this the identical rivals response. An argument adapted from John Norton suggests that the response is presumptively always appropriate, while another from Larry Laudan and Jarrett Leplin suggests (...) that the response is never appropriate. Arguments from Einstein for the special and general theories of relativity may fruitfully be seen as instances of the identical rivals response; since Einstein’s arguments are generally accepted, the response is at least sometimes appropriate. But when is it appropriate? We attempt to steer a middle course between Norton’s view and that of Laudan and Leplin: the identical rivals response is appropriate when there is good reason for adopting a parsimonious ontology. Although in simple cases the identical rivals response need not involve any ontological difference between the theories, in actual scientific cases it typically requires treating apparent posits of the various theories as mere verbal ornaments or computational conveniences. Since these would-be posits are not now detectable, there is no perfectly reliable way to decide whether we should eliminate them or not. As such, there is no rule for deciding whether the identical rivals response is appropriate or not. Nevertheless, there are considerations that suggest for and against the response; we conclude by suggesting two of them. (shrink)

W.V.O. Quine has famously objected that (1) properties are philosophically suspect because (2) there is no entity without identity and (3) the synonymy criterion for property identity won't do because there's no such concept as synonymy. (2) and (3) may or may not be right but do not prove (1). I reply that Leiniz's Law handles property identity, as it does for everything else, then respond to a variety of objections and confusions.

Human beings define their identity primarily by the way they present, design and style their bodies. In doing so, individuals make statements about their affiliation to a social context. Globalisation implies a change of identity among the members of less industrialised cultures, as they are exposed to effects of cultural dominance. For the individual, this exposure can be the stronger, the more autonomous his or her culture of origin used to be before the confrontation. There is a bias of cultural (...) elements that are being transferred, so that the industrialised culture has a strong impact on other cultures. Global consent with regard to behaviour patterns, especially to bodily self-presentation and the related cognitive styles, leads to the obliteration of traditional knowledge, which is interwoven with the behaviour upon which identity had been defined previously. The cultural elements transferred are being used for the construction of globally standardised personal identities, whereat elements concerning the visual design of the human body are of major relevance for defining the self. The loss of variegated identities in favour of belonging to the global society brings about a number of problems, which can be demonstrated in functional models. These models, in turn, may support the planning of interventional strategies and rescue work. In this article, the role of the body within the destabilising effects of cultural change are analysed, and chances for intervention are discussed. (shrink)

In my recent book, Art and Engagement (1991), I develop the idea of aesthetic engagement as central to the appreciation of art. The human contribution to the constitution of the "work" of art, I claim, is a critical part of appreciative experience. This contribution, however, is easily misread into the history of the idea of experience that has dominated Western philosophy since the seventeenth century, a history that sees experience as an inner, personal, subjective affair. From this vantage point, the (...) metaphysical implications of an aesthetics of experience seem to lead resolutely to idealism.1 'Experience', however, is a troublesome term precisely because its meaning is equivocal. Despite its association with philosophical idealism, experience allows a range of interpretations in various contexts. Even though aesthetic experience is often understood subjectively, it is mistaken to think that it allows of no other alternative. These comments raise a complex of issues, two of which I want to consider here: first, the metaphysical significance of experience and, second, the bearing of art on metaphysics. (shrink)

Most people will agree that if my brain were made to have within it precisely the same pattern of activity that is in it now but through artificial means, as in its being fed all its stimulation through electrodes as it sits in a vat, an experience would result for me that would be subjectively indistinguishable from that I am now having. In ‘The Story of a Brain’ I ask whether the same subjective experience would be maintained in variations like (...) these: The hemispheres are in different vats but interacting with each other through radio transmission. Smaller chunks - and eventually the individual neurons - are interacting in this way. The hemispheres or the smaller chunks undergo internally the same pattern of activity but without interacting with each other. (shrink)