The developing body of empirical work on the "Gettier effect" indicates that, in general, the presence of a Gettier-type structure in a case makes participants less likely to attribute knowledge in that case. But is that a sufficient reason to diverge from a JTB theory of knowledge? I argue that considerations of good model selection, and worries about noise and overfitting, should lead us to consider that a live, open question. The Gettier effect is perhaps so transient, and so sensitive (...) to other, epistemologically-inappropriate factors, that it raises the question of whether it ought to be counted as something to include in our theories -- or as a piece of noise to be excluded from them. (shrink)

How ought we to go about forming and revising our beliefs, arguing and debating our reasons, and investigating our world? If those questions constitute normative epistemology, then I am interested here in normative metaepistemology: the investigation into how we ought to go about forming and revising our beliefs about how we ought to go about forming and revising our beliefs -- how we ought to argue about how we ought to argue. Such investigations have become urgent of late, for the (...) methodology of epistemology has reached something of a crisis. For analytic epistemology of the last half-century has relied overwhelmingly on intuitions,1 and a growing set of arguments and data has begun to call this reliance on intuition seriously into question (e.g., Weinberg, Nichols, and Stich 2001; Nichols, Stich, and Weinberg 2003; Cummins 1998). Although that method has not been entirely without defenders (BonJour 1998; Bealer 1996; Jackson 1998; Sosa forthcoming; Weatherson 2003), these defenses have not generally risen to the specific challenges leveled by the anti-intuitionist critics. In particular, the critics have attacked specific ways of deploying intuitions, and the defenders have overwhelmingly responded with in-principle defenses of the cogency of appealing to intuition. An analogy here would be someone’s responding to arguments alleging systematic.. (shrink)

Must philosophers incorporate tools of experimental science into their methodological toolbox? I argue here that they must. Tallying up all the resources that are now part of standard practice in analytic philosophy, we see the problem that they do not include adequate resources for detecting and correcting for their own biases and proclivities towards error. Methodologically sufficient resources for error- detection and error-correction can only come, in part, from the deployment of specific methods from the sciences. However, we need not (...) imagine that the resulting methodological norms will be so empirically demanding as to require that all appeals to intuition must first be precertified by a thorough vetting by teams of scientists. Rather, I sketch a set of more moderate methodological norms for how we might best include these necessary tools of experimental philosophy. (shrink)

Much discussion about experimental philosophy and philosophical methodology has been framed in terms of the reliability of intuitions, and even when it has not been about reliability per se, it has been focused on whether intuitions meet whatever conditions they need to meet to be trustworthy as evidence. But really that question cannot be answered independently from the questions, evidence for what theories arrived at by what sorts of inferences? I will contend here that not just philosophy's sources of evidence, (...) but also its inferential resources, are in great need of closer examination. (shrink)

Michael Rose’s Zukünftige Generationen in der heutigen Demokratie: Theorie und Praxis der Proxy-Repräsentation (Future Generations in Today’s Democracy: Theory and Practice of Proxy Representation) is an ambitious and fascinating work. It provides a new conceptualisation of the representation of future generations and it also delivers the most extensive empirical study of institutions for the representation of future generations available to date. The book is based on Rose’s PhD thesis at the Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany, and is 516 pages long (...) (excluding an extensive bibliography, list of sources and appendices). A third of the thesis is devoted to short case studies of a total of 29 institutions which are presented in a catalogue format, allowing this section to be used as an encyclopaedia. The book is written concisely and is well documented throughout. (shrink)

This editorial introduces the Journal of Consciousness Studies special issue on "Animal Consciousness". The 15 contributors and co-editors answer the question "How should we study animal consciousness scientifically?" in 500 words or fewer.

The central hypothesis of the collaboration between Language and Computing (L&C) and the Institute for Formal Ontology and Medical Information Science (IFOMIS) is that the methodology and conceptual rigor of a philosophically inspired formal ontology greatly benefits application ontologies. To this end r®, L&C’s ontology, which is designed to integrate and reason across various external databases simultaneously, has been submitted to the conceptual demands of IFOMIS’s Basic Formal Ontology (BFO). With this project we aim to move beyond the level of (...) controlled vocabularies to yield an ontology with the ability to support reasoning applications. Our general procedure has been the implementation of a meta-ontological definition space in which the definitions of all the concepts and relations in LinKBase® are standardized in a framework of first-order logic. In this paper we describe how this standardization has already led to an improvement in the LinKBase® structure that allows for a greater degree of internal coherence than ever before possible. We then show the use of this philosophical standardization for the purpose of mapping external databases to one another, using LinKBase® as translation hub, with a greater degree of success than possible hitherto. We demonstrate how this offers a genuine advance over other application ontologies that have not submitted themselves to the demands of philosophical scrutiny. LinKBase® is one of the world’s largest applications-oriented medical domain ontologies, and BFO is one of the world’s first philosophically driven reference ontologies. The collaboration of the two thus initiates a new phase in the quest to solve the so-called “Tower of Babel”. (shrink)

As part of a review symposium on DARWIN'S ARGUMENT BY ANALOGY: FROM ARTIFICIAL TO NATURAL SELECTION (2021), the journal METASCIENCE invited Roger White, Jon Hodge and me to submit a response to the thoughtful commentaries on our book by Andrea Sullivan-Clarke, David Depew and Andrew Inkpen.

Patient-funded trials are gaining traction as a means of accelerating clinical translation. However, such trials sidestep mechanisms that promote rigor, relevance, efficiency, and fairness. We recommend that funding bodies or research institutions establish mechanisms for merit review of patient-funded trials, and we offer some basic criteria for evaluating PFT protocols.

Software application ontologies have the potential to become the keystone in state-of-the-art information management techniques. It is expected that these ontologies will support the sort of reasoning power required to navigate large and complex terminologies correctly and efficiently. Yet, there is one problem in particular that continues to stand in our way. As these terminological structures increase in size and complexity, and the drive to integrate them inevitably swells, it is clear that the level of consistency required for such navigation (...) will become correspondingly difficult to maintain. While descriptive semantic representations are certainly a necessary component to any adequate ontology-based system, so long as ontology engineers rely solely on semantic information, without a sound ontological theory informing their modeling decisions, this goal will surely remain out of reach. In this paper we describe how Language and Computing nv (L&C), along with The Institute for Formal Ontology and Medical Information Sciences (IFOMIS), are working towards developing and implementing just such a theory, combining the open software architecture of L&C’s LinkSuiteTM with the philosophical rigor of IFOMIS’s Basic Formal Ontology. In this way we aim to move beyond the more or less simple controlled vocabularies that have dominated the industry to date. (shrink)

In this article, we propose the Fair Priority Model for COVID-19 vaccine distribution, and emphasize three fundamental values we believe should be considered when distributing a COVID-19 vaccine among countries: Benefiting people and limiting harm, prioritizing the disadvantaged, and equal moral concern for all individuals. The Priority Model addresses these values by focusing on mitigating three types of harms caused by COVID-19: death and permanent organ damage, indirect health consequences, such as health care system strain and stress, as well as (...) economic destruction. It proposes proceeding in three phases: the first addresses premature death, the second long-term health issues and economic harms, and the third aims to contain viral transmission fully and restore pre-pandemic activity. -/- To those who may deem an ethical framework irrelevant because of the belief that many countries will pursue "vaccine nationalism," we argue such a framework still has broad relevance. Reasonable national partiality would permit countries to focus on vaccine distribution within their borders up until the rate of transmission is below 1, at which point there would not be sufficient vaccine-preventable harm to justify retaining a vaccine. When a government reaches the limit of national partiality, it should release vaccines for other countries. -/- We also argue against two other recent proposals. Distributing a vaccine proportional to a country's population mistakenly assumes that equality requires treating differently situated countries identically. Prioritizing countries according to the number of front-line health care workers, the proportion of the population over 65, and the number of people with comorbidities within each country may exacerbate disadvantage and end up giving the vaccine in large part to wealthy nations. (shrink)

Consciousness has an important role in ethics: when a being consciously experiences the frustration or satisfaction of its interests, those interests deserve higher moral priority than those of a behaviourally similar but non-conscious being. I consider the relationship between this ethical role and an a posteriori (or “type-B”) materialist solution to the mind-body problem. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that, if type-B materialism is correct, then the reference of the concept of phenomenal consciousness is radically indeterminate between a (...) neuronal-level property that is distinctive to mammals and a high-level functional property that is much more widely shared. This would leave many non-mammalian animals (such as birds, fish, insects and octopuses) with indeterminate moral status. There are ways to manage this radical moral indeterminacy, but all of these ways lead to profoundly troubling consequences. (shrink)

Last year saw the 20th anniversary edition of JECP, and in the introduction to the philosophy section of that landmark edition, we posed the question: apart from ethics, what is the role of philosophy ‘at the bedside’? The purpose of this question was not to downplay the significance of ethics to clinical practice. Rather, we raised it as part of a broader argument to the effect that ethical questions – about what we should do in any given situation – are (...) embedded within whole understandings of the situation, inseparable from our beliefs about what is the case, what it is that we feel we can claim to know, as well as the meaning we ascribe to different aspects of the situation or to our perception of it. Philosophy concerns fundamental questions: it is a discipline requiring us to examine the underlying assumptions we bring with us to our thinking about practical problems. Traditional academic philosophers divide their discipline into distinct areas that typically include logic: questions about meaning, truth and validity; ontology: questions about the nature of reality, what exists; epistemology: concerning knowledge; and ethics: how we should live and practice, the nature of value. Any credible attempt to analyse clinical reasoning will require us to think carefully about these types of question and the relationships between them, as they influence our thinking about specific situations and problems. So, the answers to the question we posed, about the role of philosophy at the bedside, are numerous and diverse, and that diversity is illustrated in the contributions to this thematic edition. (shrink)

D. M. Armstrong famously claims that deterministic laws of nature are contingent relations between universals and that his account can also be straightforwardly extended to irreducibly probabilistic laws of nature. For the most part, philosophers have neglected to scrutinize Armstrong’s account of probabilistic laws. This is surprising precisely because his own claims about probabilistic laws make it unclear just what he takes them to be. We offer three interpretations of what Armstrong-style probabilistic laws are, and argue that all three interpretations (...) are incompatible either with some feature of Armstrong’s broader metaphysics or with essential features of his account of laws (or both). (shrink)

This chapter will consider three themes relating to the significance of intuitions in contemporary philosophy. In §1, I’ll review and explore the relationship between philosophical use of words like ‘intuitively’ and any kinds of mental states that might be called ‘intuitions’. In §2, I’ll consider the widely-discussed analogy between intuitive experience and perceptual experience, drawing out some interesting similarities and differences. Finally, in §3, I’ll introduce the recent movement of ‘experimental philosophy’, and consider to what extent its projects are tied (...) up with questions about the role of intuitions in philosophy. My primary aim will be to survey and explain; I will make no effort, however, to hide the fact that I’m a philosopher and a partisan to some of these debates. So there will be some arguments for controversial points of view, too—hopefully these will be easily perceptible, and my opponents fairly represented. Limitations of space demand a rather superficial treatment of most of our topics; endnotes will direct the reader to more comprehensive discussions. (shrink)

Most see having their individuality stifled as equivalent to the terrible forced conformity found within speculative fiction like George Orwell's 1984. However, the oppression of others by those in power has often been justified through ideologies of individualism. If we look to animistic traditions, could we bridge the gap between these extremes? What effect would such a reevaluation of identity have on the modern understanding of selfhood? The term ' in-dividual' suggests an irreducible unit of identity carried underneath all of (...) our titles and experiences—the real self. By linking Marilyn Strathern's elaboration of dividualism and Nurit Bird-David's relational epistemology , a clear contrast forms between the animistic sense of self and that of the West. This system of selfhood more readily encourages a life lived in Henri Bergson's sense of duration and sets up a state of dialogical discourse , as seen in Mikhail Bakhtin's work. These concepts challenge the traditional praise for individuality and exposes how individualism can be used as a tool of marginalization as seen in Michel Foucault's critique of authorship. I argue that pursuing a sense of self rooted in these concepts instead of individualism mitigates this marginalization via a more socially aware cultural environment that the traditional Western sense of self fails to create. (shrink)

Intuitively, collective nouns are pseudo-singular: a collection of things (a pair of people, a flock of birds, etc.) just is the things that make ‘it’ up. But certain facts about natural language seem to count against this view. In short, distributive predicates and numerals interact with collective nouns in ways that they seemingly shouldn’t if those nouns are pseudo-singular. We call this set of issues ‘the distribution problem’. To solve it, we propose a modification to cover-based semantics. On this semantics, (...) the interpretation of distributive predicates and numerals depends on a cover, where the choice of cover is strongly semantically constrained by the noun with which they interact. (shrink)

In the General Psychopathology Jaspers famously draws a distinction between the understandable and explainable. Meaningful connections between psychic events, he argues, can only be understood empathetically and cannot be explained causally. The idea behind this distinction, according to some interpreters at least, seems to be that psychic events do not fall under any general causal rules whereas ordinary events do fall under such rules. Also Jaspers distinguishes empathetic understanding of the connection between two psychic events from a mere interpretation of (...) it, which may turn out to be false. Hence, understanding seems to be able to give us the truth about the connection and is factive as well as self-evident in nature. Contemporary epistemologists, such as Linda Zagzebsky, Duncan Pritchard, and Jonathan Kvanvig, for example, distinguish three varieties: propositional, objectual or holistic, and atomistic understanding. They do not agree on factivity and transparency of understanding. What then is the difference between their views and that of Jaspers? This essay compares recent epistemological views of understanding with those of Jaspers and critiques his claims about empathetic understanding as being both factive and self-evident or transparent; to show that empathetic understanding of connections between psychic events needs a public criterion for its individuation. (shrink)

A review of David M. Berry’s Critical Theory and the Digital (London: Bloomsbury, 2014) and Christian Fuchs’s Social Media: A Critical Introduction (London: Sage, 2014) which was published in Krisis: Journal for Contemporary Philosophy 2015, Issue 1: Pirates & Privateers.

In Distributed Like Bread: Hans Urs von Balthasar Speaks to Seminarians, Jonathan Ciraulo engages with the theological insights of Hans Urs von Balthasar, especially as they pertain to the priesthood and seminary formation. This work not only introduces readers to Balthasar's complex and nuanced understanding of the priestly vocation but also serves as a guide for those discerning or living out this calling. Through a detailed examination of Balthasar’s life and writings, Ciraulo uncovers the profound notion that the priesthood (...) is a mission, one in which God elects individuals to become instruments of divine grace despite and within their human limitations. (shrink)

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

This thesis proposes that key, competing theories of dispositions mistake and conflate how we identify, designate and talk about dispositions and dispositional terms for the nature of dispositions and the meaning of dispositional terms when they argue that: a) dispositions are extrinsic properties of their bearers (Boyle 1666) b) all properties are purely dispositional (Bird 2007) c) all properties are purely categorical (there are no dispositional properties) (Armstrong in AMP 1996) d) dispositional and categorical properties are separate and distinct (...) properties (Prior, Pargetter and Jackson 1982). In so doing these theories make unwarranted and unsupported ontological conclusions about dispositions. The thesis traces the principal source of this confusion and conflation to a reliance on the counterfactual analysis of dispositions that wrongly encourages the conflation of a disposition (say fragility) with its manifestation (shattering). There is good reason to hold that the counterfactual analysis of dispositions is false — the truth of a counterfactual statement (such as “if x were dropped x would break”) is neither necessary nor sufficient for the truth of a dispositional ascription (such as “x is fragile”). (shrink)

In one of the earlier influential papers in the field of experimental philosophy titled Normativity and Epistemic Intuitions published in 2001, Jonathan M. Weinberg, Shaun Nichols and Stephen Stich reported that respondents answered Gettier type questions differently depending on their ethnic background as well as socioeconomic status. There is currently a debate going on, on the significance of the results of Weinberg et al. (2001) and its implications for philosophical methodology in general and epistemology in specific. Despite the debates, (...) however, to our knowledge, there has not been a replication attempt of the experiments of the original paper. We collected data from four different sources (two on-line and two in-person) to replicate the experiments. Despite several different data sets and in various cases larger sample sizes and hence greater power to detect differences, we failed to detect significant differences between the above-mentioned ethnic and socioeconomic groups. Our results suggest that epistemic intuitions are more robust across ethnic and socioeconomic groups than Weinberg et al. (2001) indicates. Given our data, we believe that the notion of differences in epistemic intuitions among different ethnic and socioeconomic groups that follows from Weinberg et al. (2001) needs to be corrected. (shrink)

Bird reveals an important problem at the heart of Armstrong’s theory of laws of nature: to explain how a law necessitates its corresponding regularity, Armstrong is committed to a vicious regress. In his very brief response, Armstrong gestures towards an argument that, as he admits, is more of a “speculation.” Later, Barker and Smart argue that a very similar problem threatens Bird’s dispositional monist theory of laws of nature and he is committed to a similar vicious regress. In (...) this paper, first, I construct Armstrong’s would-be argument in response to Bird. Second, I argue that his response makes his account of laws and natural properties incompatible with science. Finally, I argue that Armstrong’s strategy to address Bird’s criticism can be used, quite ironically, to defuse Barker and Smart’s argument against Bird. (shrink)

This article aims to provide a reassessment of the relationship between God and abstract objects. This reassessment will provide a new conceptualisation of this important relationship and will be formulated, first, within the theoretical framework of ‘Theistic Aspectivalism’, which is grounded on the notion of an aspect, proposed by Donald L.M. Baxter, which provides a means to ward off the ‘Bootstrapping Problem’. Second, within the theoretical framework of ‘Theistic Essentialism’, which is based on the notion of essence and essential dependence, (...) as proposed by Kit Fine, Jonathan Lowe, and Katherin Koslicki, which provides a metaphysical basis for the relationship between God and abstract objects to be further elucidated and for the position of 'Platonic Theism' to be free from the primary issues that are often raised against it. (shrink)

Die Moralphilosophie des 20. und 21. Jahrhunderts hat mit Konsequentialismus, Deontologie, Kontraktualismus und Tugendethik nicht nur höchst einflussreiche Theorieparadigmen produktiv weiterentwickelt, sondern auch eine Reihe wichtiger neuer Probleme aufgeworfen. Der vorliegende Band versammelt zentrale Beiträge der analytischen Moralphilosophie, u. a. von David Gauthier, Shelly Kagan, Frances Kamm, Thomas Nagel, Michael Slote, Christine Swanton und Susan Wolf, die für ein Verständnis gegenwärtiger Diskussionen in der normativen Ethik unabdingbar sind. -/- Inhaltsverzeichnis: Vorwort Einleitung: Analytische Moralphilosophie der Gegenwart -/- 1. Konsequentialismus Shelly Kagan: (...) Ein Plädoyer gegen die Alltagsmoral Peter Railton: Entfremdung, Konsequentialismus und die Anforderungen der Moral -/- 2. Deontologie Thomas Nagel: Ethik William David Ross: Was macht richtige Handlungen richtig? -/- 3. Kontraktualismus David Gauthier: Warum Kontraktualismus? Thomas Scanlon: Die Struktur des Kontraktualismus -/- 4. Tugendethik Christine Swanton: Eine tugendethische Theorie des richtigen Handelns Michael Slote: Akteursbasierte Tugendethik -/- 5. Moralische Aggregation John Taurek: Zählt die Anzahl? Frances M. Kamm: Aggregation und zwei moralphilosophische Methoden -/- 6. Das Prinzip der Doppelwirkung Jonathan Bennett: Vorhergesehene Nebenwirkungen vs. beabsichtigte Folgen Ralph Wedgwood: Zur Verteidigung der Lehre von der Doppelwirkung -/- 7. Moralische Rechte H. L. A. Hart: Gibt es natürliche Rechte? Joseph Raz: Über die Beschaffenheit von Rechten -/- 8. Moralischer Zufall Thomas Nagel: Moralischer Zufall Susan Wolf: Die Moral des moralischen Zufalls. (shrink)

The paper discusses the sense in which the changes undergone by normative economics in the twentieth century can be said to be progressive. A simple criterion is proposed to decide whether a sequence of normative theories is progressive. This criterion is put to use on the historical transition from the new welfare economics to social choice theory. The paper reconstructs this classic case, and eventually concludes that the latter theory was progressive compared with the former. It also briefly comments on (...) the recent developments in normative economics and their connection with the previous two stages. (Published Online April 18 2006) Footnotes1 This paper suspersedes an earlier one entitled “Is There Progress in Normative Economics?” (Mongin 2002). I thank the organizers of the Fourth ESHET Conference (Graz 2000) for the opportunity they gave me to lecture on this topic. Thanks are also due to J. Alexander, K. Arrow, A. Bird, R. Bradley, M. Dascal, W. Gaertner, N. Gravel, D. Hausman, B. Hill, C. Howson, N. McClennen, A. Trannoy, J. Weymark, J. Worrall, two annonymous referees of this journal, and especially the editor M. Fleurbaey, for helpful comments. The editor's suggestions contributed to determine the final orientation of the paper. The author is grateful to the LSE and the Lachmann Foundation for their support at the time when he was writing the initial version. (shrink)

As I head home from work, I’m not sure whether my daughter’s new bike is green, and I’m also not sure whether I’m on drugs that distort my color perception. One thing that I am sure about is that my attitudes towards those possibilities are evidentially independent of one another, in the sense that changing my confidence in one shouldn’t affect my confidence in the other. When I get home and see the bike it looks green, so I increase my (...) confidence that it is green. But something else has changed: now an increase in my confidence that I’m on color-drugs would undermine my confidence that the bike is green. Jonathan Weisberg and Jim Pryor argue that the preceding story is problematic for standard Bayesian accounts of perceptual learning. Due to the ‘rigidity’ of Conditionalization, a negative probabilistic correlation between two propositions cannot be introduced by updating on one of them. Hence if my beliefs about my own color-sobriety start out independent of my beliefs about the color of the bike, then they must remain independent after I have my perceptual experience and update accordingly. Weisberg takes this to be a reason to reject Conditionalization. I argue that this conclusion is too pessimistic: Conditionalization is only part of the Bayesian story of perceptual learning, and the other part needn’t preserve independence. Hence Bayesian accounts of perceptual learning are perfectly consistent with potential underminers for perceptual beliefs. (shrink)

Chapter 14. Andrea Timár engages with literary representations of the experience of perpetrators of dehumanization. Her chapter focuses on perpetrators of dehumanization who do not violate laws of their society (i.e., they are not criminals) but exemplify what Simona Forti, inspired by Hannah Arendt, calls “the normality of evil.” Through the parallel examples of Dezső Kosztolányi’s Anna Édes (1926) and Doris Lessing’s The Grass is Singing (1950), Timár first explores a possible clash between criminals and perpetrators of dehumanization, showing literature’s (...) exceptional ability to reveal the gap between ethics and law. Second, she examines novels focalized through perpetrators and the difficult narrative empathy they provoke, arguing that only the critical reading of these novels can make one engage with the potential perpetrator in oneself. As case studies, Timár examines Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe (1719), which may potentially turn its reader into an accomplice in the process of dehumanization, and J.M. Coetzee’s Foe (1986), which puts on critical display the dehumanizing potentials of both aesthetic representation and sympathy as imaginative violence. Third, she reads Jonathan Littell’s The Kindly Ones [Les Bienveillantes, 2006], which can make the reader question, through the polyphony of the voice of its protagonist, the notions of narrative voice and readerly empathy, only to reveal that the difficulty involved in empathizing with perpetrator characters lies not so much in the characters’ being perpetrators, but rather in their being literary characters. Eventually, Timár briefly touches upon the problem of the aesthetic and the comic via Nabokov’s Lolita (1955) to ask whether one can avoid some necessarily dehumanizing aspects of humor. (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)

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

În acest articol încerc să argumentez opinia că, așa cum este definită eugenia, este foarte dificil de făcut o diferențiere clară între știință (medicină, ingineria genetică) și eugenie. Și de stabilit o linie peste care ingineria genetică nu ar trebui să treacă, conform unor norme morale, juridice și religioase. Atâta timp cât acceptăm ajutorul geneticii în găsirea unor modalități de combatere a cancerului, diabetului sau HIV, acceptăm în mod implicit și eugenia pozitivă, conform definiției actuale. Și atâta timp cât acceptăm (...) screening-ul genetic, și intervenții asupra fătului nenăscut, sau avortul, acceptăm în mod implicit și eugenia negativă. În plus, la nivel de guverne, deși oficial eugenia este repudiată, ea a fost legalizată în foarte multe țări până de curând, și încă mai este acceptată și legalizată, chiar dacă în forme mai subtile, și în prezent. În Introducere definesc termenul și modurile de clasificare. Urmează Istoria eugeniei pornind din perioada antică, introducerea eugeniei de Francis Galton, practica eugeniei ca politică de stat în diverse țări, și eugenia actuală (eugenia liberală). Analizez apoi diverse probleme ridicate de Etica eugeniei liberale, și am dezvoltat o secțiune aparte pentru Viitorul eugeniei, cu accent pe proiectul genomului uman. În final, în secțiunea Concluzii expun opiniile personale cu privire la practica actuală a eugeniei. Am folosit ca surse principale de investigație articolele lui Kenneth M. Ludmerer, ”American Geneticists and the Eugenics Movement: 1905-1935”, Kathy J. Cooke, ”Duty or Dream? Edwin G. Conklin's Critique of Eugenics and Support for American Individualism”, Jonathan Anomaly, ”Defending Eugenics”, John R. Harding Jr. ”Beyond Abortion: Human Genetics and the New Eugenics”, Michael Boulter, ”Bloomsbury Scientists”, Chapter Title: The rise of eugenics, 1901–14, Michael Ruse and Edward O. Wilson, ”Moral Philosophy as Applied Science” și Goering, Sara, "Eugenics". (shrink)

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

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

This introduction summarizes the contributions made by authors Ian Cornelius, Bernd Frohmann, Ronald E. Day, Jonathan Furner, John M. Budd, Don Fallis, Birger Hjørland, Torkild Thellefsen, Elin K. Jakob, Jack Mills, Elaine Svenonius, Stephen Paling, Hope A. Olson, Amanda Spink and Charles Cole, and Søren Brier, to an inaugural review of the Philosophy of Information from perspectives in Library and Information Science/Studies. Philosopher Luciano Floridi provides an Afterword with respect to the application of this new school of thought as (...) of 2004. -/- [A decennial issue was published in 2015, also in Library Trends, and a third issue on the topic is planned for 2024.] -/- . (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)

What happens to the inner light of consciousness with the death of the individual body and brain? Reductive materialism assumes it simply fades to black. Others think of consciousness as indicating a continuation of self, a transformation, an awakening or even alternatives based on the quality of life experience. In this issue, speculation drawn from theoretic research are presented. -/- Table of Contents Epigraph: From “The Immortal”, Jorge Luis Borges iii Editor’s Introduction: I Killed a Squirrel the Other Day, Gregory (...) M. Nixon iv-xi Research Essays The Tilde Fallacy and Reincarnation: Variations on a "Skeptical" Argument Teed Rockwell 862-881 Death, Consciousness, and Phenomenology, Steve Bindeman 882-899 The Idealist View of Consciousness After Death, Bernardo Kastrup 900-909 Consciousness, a Cosmic Phenomenon—A Hypothesis, Eva Déli 910-930 The Theory of a Natural Afterlife: A Newfound, Real Possibility for What Awaits Us at Death, Bryon K. Ehlmann 931-950 Near-Death Cases Desegregating Non-Locality/Disembodiment via Quantum Mediated Consciousness: An Extended Version of the Cell-Soul Pathway, Contzen Pereira & J Shashi Kiran Reddy 951-968 On the Possible Existence of Quantum Consciousness After Brain Death, Massimo Pregnolato & Alfredo Pereira Jr. 969-991 Science and Postmortem Survival, Edward F. Kelly 992-1011 Explorations ISS Theory: Cosmic Consciousness, Self, and Life Beyond Death in a Hyperdimensional Physics, Chris H. Hardy 1012-1035 Does the Consciousness End, Remain Awake, or Transform After Death? Radivoj Stankovich (with Micho Durdevich) 1036-1050 Big Bang Spirituality, Life, and Death, Ken Bausch 1051-1063 Death, Consciousness and the Quantum Paradigm, Ronald Peter Glasberg 1064-1077 Living With Limits: The Continuum of Consciousness, Donald Brackett 1078-1098 Mysticism, Consciousness, Death, Mike Sosteric 1099-1118 What Dies? Eternalism and the Afterlife in William James, Jonathan Bricklin 1119-1140 Theories of Consciousness and Death: Does Consciousness End, Continue, Awaken, or Transform When the Body Dies? Roger Cook 1141-1153 It’s the Other Way Around: Matter is a Form of Consciousness and Death is the End of the Illusion of Life in the World, James P. Kowall & Pradeep B. Deshpande 1154-1208 Statements A Feminine Vision for the World Consciousness, & a New Outrageous Ontology, Lorna Green 1209-1217 The Mask of Eternity: The Quest for Immortality and the Afterlife, Iona Miller 1218-1228 Are We Really “such stuff as dreams are made on”? Chris Nunn 1229-1225 Is the Afterlife a Non-Question? (Let's Hope Not), Deepak Chopra 1226-1230 Life After Death? An Improbable Essay, Stuart Kauffman 1231-1236. (shrink)

Pharmacoeconomics (PE) is a relatively newly developed and fast-changing discipline [1]. PE plays a crucial role in healthcare decision-making by evaluating the costs and outcomes of different treatment options. In Libya, however, the implementation of PE evaluations faces various challenges that hinder its effective integration into healthcare systems. This communication analyses the current needs and prospects of PE by examining the challenges in its implementation, the benefits of integrating it into healthcare decision-making, and strategies to enhance its utilization in the (...) country's healthcare landscape. By exploring these different aspects, it is possible to gain a comprehensive understanding of Libya's status and potential advancements in PE. In Libya, the earliest records related to PE trace back to the late 19th century, specifically around 1835 during the Turkish colonization. During that time, various documents documented details such as drug prices, direct costs associated with specific diseases, expenditures on essential pharmaceuticals, and annual inventories of health and pharmaceutical institutions [2]. Over the past 80 years since modern Libya’s establishment after the colonial era, Libyan authorities have consistently published annual statistical reports. These reports cover expenditures on medicines, pharmaceuticals, and therapeutic materials, as well as the stock levels in healthcare facilities [3]. However, despite this data, there remains a significant lack of literature on PE, with a few exceptions that do not meet the standards expected of PE studies. (shrink)

This book can be seen as both, a celebration of past and present achievements of creative expression, artistic articulation, cultural contributions, and mediated movements for the sake of liberalization and democracy, and a warning against a “cultural revolution” defined by censorship, suppression of pluralist opinions, unnatural conformity in science and journalism, and the distinction between “fake news” and “fact” handled by artificial intelligence or part-time fact checkers.

In Flourish, the positive psychologist Martin Seligman (2011) identifies five commonly recognized factors that are characteristic of human flourishing or wellbeing: (1) “positive emotion,” (2) “relationships,” (3) “engagement,” (4) “achievement,” and (5) “meaning” (p. 24). Although there is no settled set of necessary and sufficient conditions neatly circumscribing the bounds of human flourishing (Seligman, 2011), we would mostly likely consider a person that possessed high levels of these five factors as paradigmatic or prototypical of human flourishing. Accordingly, if we wanted (...) to go about the practical task of actually increasing our level of wellbeing, we ought to do so by focusing on practically increasing the levels of the five factors that are characteristic of wellbeing. If, for instance, an activity such as musical engagement can be shown to positively influence each or all of these five factors, this would be compelling evidence that an activity such as musical engagement can positively contribute to one’s living a flourishing life. I’m of the belief that psychological research can and should be used, not only to identify and diagnose maladaptive psychological states, but identify and promote adaptive psychological states as well. In this article I advance the hypothesis and provide supporting evidence for the claim that musical engagement can positively contribute to one’s living a flourishing life. Since there has not yet been a substantive and up-to-date investigation of the possible role of music in contributing to one’s living a flourishing life, the purpose of this article is to conduct this investigation, thereby bridging the gap and stimulating discussion between the psychology of music and the psychology of wellbeing. (shrink)

This article provides an original account of slurs and how they may be differentially used by in-group and out-group speakers. Slurs are first distinguished from other terms and their role in social interaction is discussed. A new distinction is introduced between three different uses of slurs : the paradigmatic derogatory use, non-paradigmatic derogatory use, and non-paradigmatic non-derogatory use. I then account for their literal meaning and explain how a family-resemblance conception of category membership can clarify our understanding of the various (...) natural-language uses of slurs, -. The focus is restricted primarily to race-based and sex-based slurs used in the context of English speakers, and the article concludes with desiderata to be met by any subsequent analyses of slurs. (shrink)

Dit werkstuk betrekt zich op de vraag of de de facto legitimiteit van Knoet de Grote als koning van Angelsaksisch Engeland, te verklaren is aan de hand van de theorieën over legitimiteit zoals gepostuleerd door Maximilian Carl Emil Weber (1864—1920). Bestaande literatuur over Knoet de Grote zijn troonsbestijging, zoals dat van vooraanstaand 19e-eeuws historicus Edward Augustus Freeman, zou een ‘geromantiseerd’ beeld hebben geschetst van de kwestie. Dit werkstuk zal kijken of dit beeld, aan de hand van Webers theorie over waar (...) legitimiteit in gegrond kan zijn, ten eerste terecht te noemen is en, ten tweede, of het Knoets status als legitiem vorst van het ‘Angelsaksische’ volk goed kan verklaren. (shrink)

This article assesses how autonomy and machine learning impact the existential risk of nuclear war. It situates the problem of cyber security, which proceeds by stealth, within the larger context of nuclear deterrence, which is effective when it functions with transparency and credibility. Cyber vulnerabilities poses new weaknesses to the strategic stability provided by nuclear deterrence. This article offers best practices for the use of computer and information technologies integrated into nuclear weapons systems. Focusing on nuclear command and control, avoiding (...) autonomy and machine learning is recommended as one means to reduce the existential risk of unintended nuclear conflict. (shrink)

Jacques Monod (1971) argued that certain molecular processes rely critically on the property of chemical arbitrariness, which he claimed allows those processes to “transcend the laws of chemistry”. It seems natural, as some philosophers have done, to interpret this in modal terms: a biological relationship is chemically arbitrary if it is possible, within the constraints of chemical “law”, for that relationship to have been otherwise than it is. But while modality is certainly important for understanding chemical arbitrariness, understanding its biological (...) role also requires an account of the concrete causal-functional features that distinguish arbitrary from non-arbitrary phenomena. In this paper I elaborate on this under-emphasised aspect by offering a general account of these features: arbitrary relations are instantiated by mechanisms that involve molecular adapters, which causally couple two properties or processes which would otherwise be uncorrelated. Additionally, adapters work by acting as intermediate rather than cooperating causes. (shrink)

Moral and political forms of constructivism accord to people strong, “constitutive” forms of discursive standing and so build on, or express, a commitment to discursive respect. The paper explores dimensions of discursive respect, i.e., depth, scope, and purchase; it addresses tenuous interdependencies between them; on this basis, it identifies limitations of the idea of discursive respect and of constructivism. The task of locating discursive respect in the normative space defined by its three dimensions is partly, and importantly, an ethical task (...) that is beyond constructivism. Interdependencies between these dimensions call into question the possibility of a plausible and coherent form of discursive respect that is deep, inclusive in scope, and rich in purchase. This does not mean that we should reject discursive respect, or constructivism, for that matter. But it suggests that the task of reconciling the dimensions of discursive respect may not allow for widely shareable results. This task needs to be addressed on non-constructivist grounds. Accordingly, we have reasons to concede that constitutive forms of discursive standing are less fundamental in the order of justification than weaker, “derivative” forms, and this is so especially if we take constitutive standing to mark an important good. (shrink)

How is it possible for David Hume to be both withering skeptic and constructive theorist? I recommend an answer like the Pyrrhonian answer to the question how it is possible to suspend all judgment yet engage in active daily life. Sextus Empiricus distinguishes two kinds of assent: one suspended across the board and one involved with daily living. The first is an act of will based on appreciation of reasons; the second is a causal effect of appearances. Hume makes the (...) same distinction, only he extends the sort of assent involved in daily life to theoretical matters as well. He is a skeptic both in finding no reason to grant the first sort of assent and in being subject to the second. (shrink)

Cognitive categories in the geographic realm appear to manifest certain special features as contrasted with categories for objects at surveyable scales. We have argued that these features reflect specific ontological characteristics of geographic objects. This paper presents hypotheses as to the nature of the features mentioned, reviews previous empirical work on geographic categories, and presents the results of pilot experiments that used English-speaking subjects to test our hypotheses. Our experiments show geographic categories to be similar to their non-geographic counterparts in (...) the ways in which they generate instances of different relative frequencies at different levels. Other tests, however, provide preliminary evidence for the existence of important differences in subjects’ categorizations of geographic and non-geographic objects, and suggest further experimental work especially with regard to the role in cognitive categorization of different types of object-boundaries at different scales. (shrink)