The current rise of neurodevelopmental disorders poses a critical need to detect risk early in order to rapidly intervene. One of the tools pediatricians use to track development is the standard growth chart. The growth charts are somewhat limited in predicting possible neurodevelopmental issues. They rely on linear models and assumptions of normality for physical growth data – obscuring key statistical information about possible neurodevelopmental risk in growth data that actually has accelerated, non-linear rates-of-change and variability encompassing skewed distributions. Here, (...) we use new analytics to profile growth data from 36 newborn babies that were tracked longitudinally for 5 months. By switching to incremental (velocity-based) growth charts and combining these dynamic changes with underlying fluctuations in motor performance – as the transition from spontaneous random noise to a systematic signal – we demonstrate a method to detect very early stunting in the development of voluntary neuromotor control and to flag risk of neurodevelopmental derail. (shrink)

The current resurgence of interest in cognition and in the nature of cognitive processing has brought with it also a renewed interest in the early work of Husserl, which contains one of the most sustained attempts to come to grips with the problems of logic from a cognitive point of view. Logic, for Husserl, is a theory of science; but it is a theory which takes seriously the idea that scientific theories are constituted by the mental acts of cognitive subjects. (...) The present essay begins with an exposition of Husserl's act-based conception of what a science is, and goes on to consider his account of the role of linguistic meanings, of the ontology of scientific objects, and of evidence and truth. The essay concentrates almost exclusively on the Logical Investigations of 1900/01. This is not only because this work, which is surely Husserl's single most important masterpiece, has been overshadowed first of all by his Ideas I and then later by the Crisis. It is also because the Investigations contain, in a peculiarly clear and pregnant form, a whole panoply of ideas on logic and cognitive theory which either simply disappeared in Husserl's own later writings or became obfuscated by an admixture of that great mystery which is 'transcendental phenomenology'. (shrink)

A recent wave of scholarship has challenged the traditional way of understanding of self-command in Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments as ‘Stoic’ self-command. But the two most thorough alternative interpretations maintain a strong connection between self-command and rationalism, and thus apparently stand opposed to Smith’s overt allegiance to sentimentalism. In this paper I argue that we can and should interpret self-command in the context of Smith’s larger sentimentalist framework, and that when we do, we can see (...) that self-command is ‘sentimentalized’. I offer an interpretation of Smithian self-command, arguing that self-command has its motivational basis in the natural desire for the pleasure of mutual sympathy; that self-command is guided by the sentimental standard of propriety; and that self-command works through the psychological mechanism of the ‘supposed’ impartial spectator. And I show that Smithian self-command is a home-grown, sentimentalist virtue and not an awkward rationalistic transplant. (shrink)

The discipline of applied ethics already has a certain familiarity in the Anglo-Saxon world, above all through the work of Peter Singer. Applied ethics uses the tools of moral philosophy to resolve practical problems of the sort which arise, for example, in the running of hospitals. In the University at Buffalo (New York) there was organized on April 24-25 1998 the world's first conference on a new, sister discipline, the discipline of applied ontology. Applied ontologists seek to apply ontological tools (...) to solving practical problems of the sort which arise in various extra-philosophical domains, including law and government administration. (shrink)

What might Adam Smith have learned from Jane Austen and other novelists of his moment? This paper finds and examines a serious problem at the center of Adam Smith’s moral psychology, stemming from an unacknowledged tension between the effort of the spectator to sympathize with the feelings of the agent and that of the agent to moderate her feelings. The agent’s efforts will result in her opacity to spectators, blocking their attempts to read her emotions. I argue that (...) we can resolve this tension by looking to developments in eighteenth-century literature, as perfected in the hands of Jane Austen. I focus on two techniques, focalization and free indirect style, and I show that the problems for spectatorship diminish when we see that good Smithian spectators are savvy readers. (shrink)

An ontology of geographic kinds is designed to yield a better understanding of the structure of the geographic world, and to support the development of geographic information systems that are conceptually sound. This paper first demonstrates that geographical objects and kinds are not just larger versions of the everyday objects and kinds previously studied in cognitive science. Geographic objects are not merely located in space, as are the manipulable objects of table-top space. Rather, they are tied intrinsically to space, and (...) this means that their spatial boundaries are in many cases the most salient features for categorization. The ontology presented here will accordingly be based on topology (the theory of boundary, contact and separation) and on mereology (the theory of extended wholes and parts). Geographic reality comprehends mesoscopic entities, many of which are best viewed as shadows cast onto the spatial plane by human reasoning and language. Because of this, geographic categories are much more likely to show cultural differences in category definitions than are the manipulable objects of table-top space. (shrink)

This letter addresses the editorial decision to publish the article, “Research on group differences in intelligence: A defense of free inquiry” (Cofnas, 2020). Our letter points out several critical problems with Cofnas's article, which we believe should have either disqualified the manuscript upon submission or been addressed during the review process and resulted in substantial revisions.

The fact that there is such a thing as a degree of formedness [Gestaltung], that every Gestalt has a certain Gestalt level, is of fundamental significance. A rose is a Gestalt of higher level than a heap of sand: this we recognize just as immediately as that red is a fuller, more lively colour than grey. The higher Gestalten are distinguished further from the lower by the fact that the product of unity and multiplicity [Einheit und Mannigfaltigkeit] is in their (...) case greater. (shrink)

We are addressing this letter to the editors of Philosophical Psychology after reading an article they decided to publish in the recent vol. 33, issue 1. The article is by Nathan Cofnas and is entitled “Research on group differences in intelligence: A defense of free inquiry” (2020). The purpose of our letter is not to invite Cofnas’s contribution into a broader dialogue, but to respectfully voice our concerns about the decision to publish the manuscript, which, in our opinion, fails to (...) meet a range of academic quality standards usually expected of academic publications. (shrink)

In a series of recent publications, orofacial researchers have debated the question of how ‘bruxism’ should be defined for the purposes of accurate diagnosis and reliable clinical research. Following the principles of realism-based ontology, we performed an analysis of the arguments involved. This revealed that the disagreements rested primarily on inconsistent use of terms, so that issues of ontology were thus obfuscated by shortfalls in terminology. In this paper, we demonstrate how bruxism terminology can be improved by paying attention to (...) the relationships between (1) particulars and types, and (2) continuants and occurrents. (shrink)

This is a revised version of the introductory essay in C. Eschenbach, C. Habel and B. Smith (eds.), Topological Foundations of Cognitive Science, Hamburg: Graduiertenkolleg Kognitionswissenschaft, 1994, the text of a talk delivered at the First International Summer Institute in Cognitive Science in Buffalo in July 1994.

Achieving space situational awareness requires, at a minimum, the identification, characterization, and tracking of space objects. Leveraging the resultant space object data for purposes such as hostile threat assessment, object identification, and conjunction assessment presents major challenges. This is in part because in characterizing space objects we reference a variety of identifiers, components, subsystems, capabilities, vulnerabilities, origins, missions, orbital elements, patterns of life, operational processes, operational statuses, and so forth, which tend to be defined in highly heterogeneous and sometimes inconsistent (...) ways. The Space Domain Ontologies are designed to provide a consensus-based realist framework for formulating such characterizations in a way that is both consistent and computable. Space object data are aligned with classes and relations in a suite of ontologies built around the existing Space Object Ontology. They are stored in a dynamically updated Resource Description Framework triple store, which can be queried to support space situational awareness and the needs of spacecraft operators and analysts. This paper provides an overview of the Space Domain Ontologies and their development and use. It presents the motivation for and advantages of the Space Domain Ontologies, including the benefits they provide for enhancing and maintaining long-term space situational awareness. (shrink)

In what respects is Western civilization superior or inferior to its rivals? In raising this question we are addressing a particularly strong form of the problem of relativism. For in order to compare civilizations one with another we would need to be in possession of a framework that is neutral and objective, a framework based on principles of evaluation which would be acceptable, in principle, to all human beings. Morality will surely provide one axis of such a framework (and we (...) note in passing that believers in Islam might quite reasonably claim that their fellow-believers are characteristically more moral than are many in the West). Criteria such as material wellbeing, too, will need to play a role, as also will happiness or pleasure (and again we note that it is not clear a priori that there is more happiness in the West than there is among the citizens of other civilizations). Since, however, these axes of evaluation do not run in tandem, we cannot expect to be able to formulate some single criterion which would enable us to rank civilizations in a simple unilinear order. Even happiness (pace some proponents of the utilitarian philosophy) comes in different types, and to count in the civilization stakes the happiness involved would presumably need to be of the right kind. Thus it is not clear that happiness derived from, say, taking drugs or torturing small animals is going to be able to count in favor of a civilization as much as, say, happiness derived from reading poetry or planting corn. Hence, for these and other reasons, we will have to deal with a multidimensional framework, in which some civilizations may excel along some axes but do badly on others. A further problem turns on the fact that there is no such relation as better than. Rather, when A is better than B then this is always in some respect C. Yet even when we compare one thing with another in some given respect we are not always dealing with a simple linear order. This is because the relation ‘being better than in respect C’ is not in every case transitive.. (shrink)

The analytical philosophy of the last hundred years has been heavily influenced by a doctrine to the effect that the key to the correct understanding of reality is captured syntactically in the ‘Fa’ (or, in more sophisticated versions, in the ‘Rab’) of standard first order predicate logic. Here ‘F’ stands for what is general in reality and ‘a’ for what is individual. Hence “f(a)ntology”. Because predicate logic has exactly two syntactically different kinds of referring expressions—‘F’, ‘G’, ‘R’, etc., and ‘a’, (...) ‘b’, ‘c’, etc.—so reality must consist of exactly two correspondingly different kinds of entity: the general (properties, concepts) and the particular (things, objects). We describe the historical influence of this view, and also show how standard first-order predicate logic can be used for the logical formalization of a more adequate “six category ontology”, which recognizes, at the level of both particulars and universals, not only things or objects but also events and qualities. (shrink)

Recent work in formal philosophy has concentrated over-whelmingly on the logical problems pertaining to epistemic shortfall - which is to say on the various ways in which partial and sometimes incorrect information may be stored and processed. A directly depicting language, in contrast, would reflect a condition of epistemic perfection. It would enable us to construct representations not of our knowledge but of the structures of reality itself, in much the way that chemical diagrams allow the representation (at a certain (...) level of abstractness) of the structures of molecules of different sorts. A diagram of such a language would be true if that which it sets out to depict exists in reality, i.e. if the structural relations between the names (and other bits and pieces in the diagram) map structural relations among the corresponding objects in the world. Otherwise it would be false. All of this should, of course, be perfectly familiar. (See, for example, Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1027 b 22, 1051 b 32ff.) The present paper seeks to go further than its predecessors, however, in offering a detailed account of the syntax of a working universal characteristic and of the ways in which it might be used. (shrink)

Do mountains exist? The answer to this question is surely: yes. In fact, ‘mountain’ is the example of a kind of geographic feature or thing most commonly cited by English speakers (Mark, et al., 1999; Smith and Mark 2001), and this result may hold across many languages and cultures. But whether they are considered as individuals (tokens) or as kinds (types), mountains do not exist in quite the same unequivocal sense as do such prototypical everyday objects as chairs or (...) people. (shrink)

Die klassische bikategoriale Ontologie von Substanzen und Akzidentien ist für die Festlegung der Strukturen menschlichen und tierischen Verhaltens nicht hinreichend, da die Umwelten dieses Verhaltens sich nicht in dieses klassische System einfügen. Wir bieten dementsprechend den Grundriß einer Theorie der besonderen Gebilde, die die Alltagswelten menschlicher und tierischer Verhalten konstituieren. Die Ausgangsüberlegung ist die folgende, Wir sind alle (Schau)spieler, und diese brauchen eine Bühne. Unsere Bühne ist die jeweilige Umwelt, in der wir leben und handeln. Der Terminus ‘Umwelt’ wird hierbei (...) in Analogie zu Husserls Begriff der Lebenswelt verwendet. Er bezeichnet dementsprechend einen strukturierten Teil der Welt, in den sich ein Lebewesen, z.B. ein Mensch, einpaßt. Die Umwelt ist, wenn man so will, demnach die Bühne, auf welcher sich unser Verhalten abspielt. Der Versuch, das Wesen solcher Umwelten ontologisch festzulegen, bringt allerdings ein schwieriges Problem mit sich - ein Problem so alt wie Platons Höhlengleichnis und so neu wie gegenwärtige Reflexionen amerikanischer Philosophen zur Metaphysik der virtuellen Realität und zum Gedankenexperiment des Gehirns im Tank. Es gibt nämlich in manchen Fällen grobe Inkonsistenzen zwischen (1) der Umwelt, wie wir sie uns gerade vorstellen, und (2) der Umwelt als Bestandteil der wirklichen Welt. Das Problem, zwischen diesen beiden Umweltklassen einen Ausgleich zu finden, wird im letzten Teil des Aufsatzes behandelt. (shrink)

In der klassischen Logik von Aristoteles bis Wolff findet sich eine durchgängige Parallelität von logischen (einschließlich grammatikalischen und psychologischen) und ontologischen Gebilden. Der Logiker beschäftigt sich mit Subjekt und Prädikat, aber gleichzeitig auch z.B. mit Substanz und Akzidenz als Entitäten in der Welt. Nach Kant begann für die Logik eine Phase, in der diese ontologische oder objektbezogene Seite verloren ging. Gegen Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts beginnt man dann aber wieder über die ontologischen Korrelate des Denkens und des Urteilens zu sprechen. (...) Wir zeigen, dass diese Wiederbelebung der alten Logik mit der Einführung des Terminus ‘Sachverhalt’ in die Sprache der Philosophie verbunden ist. (shrink)

Die Entwicklung der Philosophie in Österreich unterscheidet sich in markanter Weise von der Hauptlinie der philosophischen Entwicklung in Deutschland. Dabei fällt bei der österreichischen Philosophie vor allem die konsequente Orientierung an den Wissenschaften auf. In der philosophiegeschichtlichen Forschung sind für diese Besonderheit der österreichischen Philosophie z. B. von Otto Neurath, Rudolf Haller, Friedrich Stadier und J.C. Nyiri verschiedene Erklärungen vorgeschlagen worden. In diesen spielen in jeweils unterschiedlicher Weise Faktoren der spezifisch österreichischen Entwicklungen in historischer, institutioneller, politischer und religiöser Hinsicht eine (...) Rolle. Der vorliegende Aufsatz kritisiert demgegenüber bereits die diese Erklärungsversuche tragende Fragestellung: Die philosophischen Entwicklungen in Österreich bedürfen - so lautet die neue These - gar nicht einer besonderen Erklärung; denn sie stellen den geistesgeschichtlichen Normalfall dar. Vielmehr ist eine Erklärung dafür notwendig, daß sich die wissenschaftliche Philosophie und die mit ihr verbundenen Charakterzüge stilistischer Klarheit, technischer Kompetenz, systematischer Orientierung, Spezialisierung und Professionalisierung im gleichen Zeitraum nicht auch in Deutschland entwickelt haben. Eine solche Erklärung läßt sich - so eine weitere These des Aufsatzes - ziemlich leicht aus der besonderen Rolle der (traditionellen idealistischen) Philosophie im deutschen Nationalbewußtsein herleiten. (shrink)

in Abortion and the Status of the Fetus, Volume XIII of the series, “Philosophy of Medicine,” eds. William B. Bondeson, H. Tristram Englehardt, Stuart Spicker, and Daniel H. Winship (Dordrecht, Holland/Boston, Massachusetts: D. Reidel, 1983), pp. 229-245.

We have a variety of different ways of dividing up, classifying, mapping, sorting and listing the objects in reality. The theory of granular partitions presented here seeks to provide a general and unified basis for understanding such phenomena in formal terms that is more realistic than existing alternatives. Our theory has two orthogonal parts: the first is a theory of classification; it provides an account of partitions as cells and subcells; the second is a theory of reference or intentionality; it (...) provides an account of how cells and subcells relate to objects in reality. We define a notion of well-formedness for partitions, and we give an account of what it means for a partition to project onto objects in reality. We continue by classifying partitions along three axes: (a) in terms of the degree of correspondence between partition cells and objects in reality; (b) in terms of the degree to which a partition represents the mereological structure of the domain it is projected onto; and (c) in terms of the degree of completeness with which a partition represents this domain. (shrink)

Physical reality is all the reality we have, and so physical theory in the standard sense is all the ontology we need. This, at least, was an assumption taken almost universally for granted by the advocates of exact philosophy for much of the present century. Every event, it was held, is a physical event, and all structure in reality is physical structure. The grip of this assumption has perhaps been gradually weakened in recent years as far as the sciences of (...) mind are concerned. When it comes to the sciences of external reality, however, it continues to hold sway, so that contemporary philosophers B even while devoting vast amounts of attention to the language we use in describing the world of everyday experience B still refuse to see this world as being itself a proper object of theoretical concern. Here, however, we shall argue that the usual conception of physical reality as constituting a unique bedrock of objectivity reflects a rather archaic view as to the nature of physics itself and is in fact incompatible with the development of the discipline since Newton. More specifically, we shall seek to show that the world of qualitative structures, for example of colour and sound, or the commonsense world of coloured and sounding things, can be treated scientifically (ontologically) on its own terms, and that such a treatment can help us better to understand the structures both of physical reality and of cognition. (shrink)

It is argued that medical science requires a classificatory system that (a) puts functions in the taxonomic center and (b) does justice ontologically to the difference between the processes which are the realizations of functions and the objects which are their bearers. We propose formulae for constructing such a system and describe some of its benefits. The arguments are general enough to be of interest to all the life sciences.

In this paper we propose a formal theory of partitions (ways of dividing up or sorting or mapping reality) and we show how the theory can be applied in the geospatial domain. We characterize partitions at two levels: as systems of cells (theory A), and in terms of their projective relation to reality (theory B). We lay down conditions of well-formedness for partitions and we define what it means for partitions to project truly onto reality. We continue by classifying well-formed (...) partitions along three axes: (a) degree of correspondence between partition cells and objects in reality; (b) degree to which a partition represents the mereological structure of the domain it is projected onto; and (c) degree of completeness and exhaustiveness with which a partition represents reality. This classification is used to characterize three types of partitions that play an important role in spatial information science: cadastral partitions, categorical coverages, and the partitions involved in folk categorizations of the geospatial domain. (shrink)

It is argued that medical science requires a classificatory system that (a) puts functions in the taxonomic center and (b) does justice ontologically to the difference between the processes which are the realizations of functions and the objects which are their bearers. We propose formulae for constructing such a system and describe some of its benefits. The arguments are general enough to be of interest to all the life sciences.

To Aaron Pacitti and Michael Cauvel–whose journal article, “Rent-Seeking Behavior and Economic Justice: A Classroom Exercise” broadly argues that “understanding the [complexities] of rent-seeking behavior helps fill the gap between economics and politics”–the varieties of rent are wide and, therefore, can only be described in their category-specific positions. I will discuss three of these categories in more detail below, but for now, I propose that a useful working grasp of economic rent involves “the amount paid to the owner of a (...) factor of production over the cost that is to be necessarily incurred on utilizing such elements in the production process.” In math terms, ‘economic rent’ equals the agreed-upon-amount paid by the consumer (when that amount far exceeds the market value of the product) minus the cost spent by the producer to make the product (when that cost is far below the typical amount to produce the product). Originally, the concept of economic rent concerned land ownership and the production of natural goods. Two major economists, Adam Smith and David Ricardo, offered insights into the general makeup and logic of what they called, the rent of land and simply rent, respectively. (shrink)

Ontological realism aims at the development of high quality ontologies that faithfully represent what is general in reality and to use these ontologies to render heterogeneous data collections comparable. To achieve this second goal for clinical research datasets presupposes not merely (1) that the requisite ontologies already exist, but also (2) that the datasets in question are faithful to reality in the dual sense that (a) they denote only particulars and relationships between particulars that do in fact exist and (b) (...) they do this in terms of the types and type-level relationships described in these ontologies. While much attention has been devoted to (1), work on (2), which is the topic of this paper, is comparatively rare. Using Referent Tracking as basis, we describe a technical data wrangling strategy which consists in creating for each dataset a template that, when applied to each particular record in the dataset, leads to the generation of a collection of Referent Tracking Tuples (RTT) built out of unique identifiers for the entities described by means of the data items in the record. The proposed strategy is based on (i) the distinction between data and what data are about, and (ii) the explicit descriptions of portions of reality which RTTs provide and which range not only over the particulars described by data items in a dataset, but also over these data items themselves. This last feature allows us to describe particulars that are only implicitly referred to by the dataset; to provide information about correspondences between data items in a dataset; and to assert which data items are unjustifiably or redundantly present in or absent from the dataset. The approach has been tested on a dataset collected from patients seeking treatment for orofacial pain at two German universities and made available for the NIDCR-funded OPMQoL project. (shrink)

This book presents Robert S. Hartman’s formal theory of value and critically examines many other twentieth century value theorists in its light, including A.J. Ayer, Kurt Baier, Brand Blanshard, Paul Edwards, Albert Einstein, William K. Frankena, R.M. Hare, Nicolai Hartmann, Martin Heidegger, G.E. Moore, P.H. Nowell-Smith, Jose Ortega y Gasset, Charles Stevenson, Paul W. Taylor, Stephen E. Toulmin, and J.O. Urmson.

A discussion of the new interpretation of Adam Smith's system proposed by Ortmann and Walvaerens.

I build on Adam Smith’s account of the impartial spectator in The Theory of Moral Sentiments in order to offer a modest ideal observer theory of moral judgment that is adequate in the following sense: the account specifies the hypothetical conditions that guarantee the authoritativeness of an agent’s (or agents’) responses in constituting the standard in question, and, if an actual agent or an actual community of agents are not under those conditions, their responses are not authoritative in setting (...) this standard. However, in the account that I provide, the hypothetical conditions can themselves be constructed from the psychology and interactions of actual human beings. In other words, facts about the morally appropriate and inappropriate are determined from hypothetical conditions that––while agents in a given society might have yet to attain them––can be constructed from those agents’ shared experiences. Thus, the account offers both an attainable standard of moral judgment and a standard that can transcend the biases of the society which gave rise to it. I also defend the account against three challenges: (a) ideal observer theories do not offer the right kind of motivation to act on the verdicts of the ideal observer; (b) ideal observer theories cannot explain why the idealization in question is well-motivated and not objectionably ad hoc; (c) the standard used in ideal observer theories cannot be defended upon further reflection, because we would need a non-arbitrary, second-order standard to govern our reflection on the first-order standard of moral judgment. (shrink)

In this book review, I discuss Smith’s new interpretation of Socrates' epistemology of virtue, according to which (a) Socratic virtue knowledge is craft knowledge (knowing how to live well), and such knowledge comes in degrees; and (b) Socrates has a certain degree of virtue knowledge, and one does not have to be an inerrant expert to have any virtue knowledge at all. I argue that Smith succeeds in presenting Socratic philosophy in a new light, while also pointing to (...) remaining questions about his account of virtue—specifically, about what exactly the craft of virtue is and how we can practice it and thereby improve ourselves. (shrink)

In this paper I consider two strategies for providing tenseless truth-conditions for tensed sentences: the token-reflexive theory and the date theory. Both theories have faced a number of objections by prominent A-theorists such as Quentin Smith and William Lane Craig. Traditionally, these two theories have been viewed as rival methods for providing truth-conditions for tensed sentences. I argue that the debate over whether the token-reflexive theory or the date theory is true has arisen from a failure to distinguish between (...) conditions for the truth of tensed tokens and conditions for the truth of propositions expressed by tensed tokens. I demonstrate that there is a true formulation of the token-reflexive theory that provides necessary and sufficient conditions for the truth of tensed tokens, and there is a true formulation of the date theory that provides necessary and sufficient conditions for the truth of propositions expressed by tensed tokens. I argue that once the views are properly formulated, the A-theorist’s objections fail to make their mark. However, I conclude by claiming that even though there is a true formulation of the token-reflexive theory and a true formulation of the date theory, the New B-theory nonetheless fails to provide a complete account of the truth and falsity of tensed sentences. (shrink)

This paper introduces and evaluates a possible truthmaking argument for a robust conception of aboutness commitment. According to the argument, the pure aboutness-based account of truthmaking and the thesis of Truthmaker Commitment entails that a truthbearer is ontologically committed to what it is about in an appropriate sense of “aboutness”. However, this argument encounters challenges, notably an inherent explanatory circularity within the robust conception of aboutness commitment, and a radical inconsistency between its two premises in terms of their underlying motivations. (...) To address these issues, this paper proposes a more moderate conception of aboutness commitment, drawing inspiration from B. Smith’s mixed aboutness-based account of truthmaking. According to this moderate proposal, the representationalist notion of intended aboutness, or the anti-representationalist notion of general aboutness, constrains, but does not determine, the notion of ontological commitment, which in turn contributes to a stronger notion of genuine or satisfied aboutness. This modified moderate conception not only sidesteps the explanatory circularity, but also aligns more closely with the objective of providing a fundamental ontology. Therefore, it is recommended as a fitting approach to engaging in the relation between aboutness and ontological commitment. (shrink)

I argue that we are sometimes morally responsible for having and using (or not using) our concepts, despite the fact that we generally do not choose to have them or have full or direct voluntary control over how we use them. I do so by extending an argument of Angela Smith's; the same features that she says make us morally responsible for some of our attitudes also make us morally responsible for some of our concepts. Specifically, like attitudes, concepts (...) can be (a) conceptually and rationally connected to our evaluative judgments, (b) in principle subject to rational revision (reasons‐responsive), and (c) the basis for actual and potential moral assessments of people that we have good reasons to endorse. Thus, we are open to moral appraisal on the basis of having and using (or not using) our concepts when they reflect our evaluative judgments, though even then it is not always appropriate to praise or blame us on that basis. (shrink)

Contemporary discussions about operational definition often hark back to Stanley Smith Stevens’ classic papers on psychological operationism (1935ab). Still, he was far from the only psychologist to call for conceptual hygiene. Some of Stevens’ direct colleagues at Harvard---most notably B. F. Skinner and E. G. Boring---were also actively applying Bridgman’s conceptual strictures to the study of mind and behavior. In this paper, I shed new light on the history of operationism by reconstructing the Harvard debates about operational definition in (...) the years before Stevens published his seminal articles. Building on a large set of archival evidence from the Harvard University Archives, I argue that we can get a more complete understanding of Stevens’ contributions if we better grasp the operationisms of his former teachers and direct colleagues at Harvard’s Department of Philosophy and Psychology. (shrink)

Peter Godfrey-Smith writes in the section 3.3 “The Ravens Problem” of his book “Theory and Reality” [chapter “Induction and Confirmation”]: “First, the logical empiricists were concerned to deal with the case where generalizations cover an infinite number of instances. In that case, as we see each raven we are not reducing the number of ways in which the hypothesis might fail”. Infinite sets and finite sets have different properties and follow different rules. For example: let’s call “bag X” a (...) specific bag that contains 90 marbles; the generalization A “All marbles in bag X are red” covers a finite number of instances. By contrast, the generalization AE “All things that are not red are not marbles in bag X” covers an infinite number of instances. The propositions A and AE are logically equivalent, but there is an asymmetry due to the fact that A can only have a finite number of instances (since the set of the marbles contained in bag X is a finite set). Because of the aforementioned asymmetry, even though A and AE are logically equivalent propositions, it is wrong to equate an instance of A with an instance of AE. Another example involving a finite set: let’s call “barrique X” a certain 205-liter (54.1553 US gal) barrique. In the following generalization, the expression "all minerals" should not be understood as "all types of minerals", but should be understood literally as "all minerals". B “All minerals are in barrique X”. BE “All objects that are not in barrique X are not minerals”. Of course, a 205-litre barrique cannot contain an infinite number of minerals; the set of objects contained in barrique X is a finite set: therefore in the generalization B we refer to a set that is assumed to be an infinite set (the set of minerals) and to a set (the finite set of minerals contained in barrique X) that is not assumed to be an infinite set. By contrast, in the generalization BE we refer to two sets that are assumed to be infinite sets (the set of all objects that are not contained in barrique X and the set of all objects that are not minerals). Therefore, although B and BE are logically equivalent propositions, an instance of BE cannot be equivalent to an instance of B. Now, let’s analyze the following generalizations. C “All the elements of the set of ravens are elements of the set of black ravens”. CE “All the things that are not elements of the set of black ravens are not elements of the set of ravens”. It is assumed that the number of ravens is infinite, but it is not assumed that the number of black ravens is infinite: that the number of black ravens is infinite is only a hypothesis (for which confirmation is sought), it cannot be assumed as true that the number of black ravens is infinite. Therefore, in the generalization C we refer to a set that is assumed to be an infinite set (the set of ravens) and to a set (the set of black ravens) that is not assumed to be an infinite set. By contrast, in the generalization CE we refer to two sets that are assumed to be infinite sets (the set of all objects that are not elements of the set of black ravens and the set of all objects that are not elements of the set of ravens). Someone could argue that in the generalizations C “All the elements of the set of ravens are elements of the set of black ravens” and CE “All the things that are not elements of the set of black ravens are not elements of the set of ravens” only the set of ravens is assumed to be infinite: but even in this case an asymmetry would remain because C “ All the elements of the set of ravens are elements of the set of black ravens” refers to a set (the set of ravens) that is assumed to be an infinite set and to a set (the set of black ravens) that is not assumed to be infinite; by contrast, CE “All the things that are not elements of the set of black ravens are not elements of the set of ravens” in this case would refer to two sets that are not assumed to be infinite sets. Because of the aforementioned asymmetries, an instance of C cannot be equivalent to an instance of CE. -/- -/- . (shrink)

This paper reconstructs the ways in which metaphors are used in the text of “The Wealth of Nations”. Its claims are: a) metaphor statements are basically similar to those in the “Theory of the Moral Sentiments”; b) the metaphors’ ‘primary subjects’ refer to mechanics, hydraulics, blood circulation, agriculture, medicine; c) metaphors may be lumped together into a couple of families, the family of mechanical analogies, and that of iatro-political analogies. Further claims are: a basic physico-moral analogy is the framework for (...) Smith’s psychological theory as well as for his overall social theory and for his theory of market mechanisms; a iatro-mechanical analogy is as pervasive as the physico-moral analogy and provides the framework for his overall evolutionary theory of society; the invisible-hand simile relies on the physico-moral analogy, and elaborates on the role of vis attractiva and vis a tergo in mechanics. (shrink)

John Rawls raises three challenges – to which one can add a fourth challenge – to an impartial spectator account: (a) the impartial spectator is a utility-maximizing device that does not take seriously the distinction between persons; (b) the account does not guarantee that the principles of justice will be derived from it; (c) the notion of impartiality in the account is the wrong one, since it does not define impartiality from the standpoint of the litigants themselves; (d) the account (...) would offer a comprehensive, rather than a political, form of liberalism. The narrow aim of the article is to demonstrate that Adam Smith's impartial spectator account can rise to Rawls's challenges. The broader aim is to demonstrate that the impartial spectator account offers the basis for a novel and alternative framework for developing principles of justice, and does so in the context of a political form of liberalism. (shrink)

Evolutionary psychiatry suggests that mental disorders can be explained in evolutionary terms (a) as failures of psychological mechanisms to produce the adaptive effects for which they were naturally selected, (b) as mismatches between naturally selected psychological mechanisms and contemporary environmental pressures, or (c) as naturally selected psychological mechanisms whose effects continue to be adaptive. In this paper, I present a philosophical critique of evolutionary psychiatry that draws on Subrena Smith’s matching problem for evolutionary psychology. For evolutionary psychiatry hypotheses to (...) be empirically supported, proponents of evolutionary psychiatry must demonstrate (1) that the contemporary psychological mechanisms involved in mental disorders resemble the psychological mechanisms of our evolutionary ancestors, (2) that the contemporary psychological mechanisms are phylogenetically descended from the ancestral psychological mechanisms, and (3) that the ancestral psychological mechanisms were naturally selected because their effects had adaptive benefits. However, for many mental disorders, evolutionary psychiatry lacks the methodological resources to demonstrate these conditions. Therefore, many evolutionary psychiatry hypotheses are empirically untestable and remain indefinitely underdetermined by data. (shrink)

I am looking at an apple. The apple has a lot of properties and some, but not all, of these are part of my phenomenology at this moment: I am aware of these properties. And some, but not all, of these properties that I am aware of are part of my perceptual (or sensory) phenomenology. If I am attending to the apple’s color, this property will be part of my perceptual phenomenology. The property of being a granny smith apple (...) from Chile is unlikely to be part of my perceptual phenomenology. Here are two problems for anyone who is interested in conscious experience in general, and perceptual experience in particular: (a) How can we tell which properties are part of our phenomenology and which ones are not? (b) How can we tell which properties are part of our perceptual phenomenology and which ones are part of our non-perceptual phenomenology? I will focus on (b) in this paper. My aim is twofold: I propose a methodology for answering the question of which properties are part of our perceptual phenomenology and I provide an example for how this methodology could be applied. (shrink)

The “film as philosophy” (FAP) hypothesis turned into a field if its own right during the 2000s, after S. Mulhall’s On Film (2001). In this work, Mulhall defended that some films philosophize for themselves. This caused controversy. Around the same time of On Film’s release, B. Russell published the article “The philosophical limits of film” (2000). This article had one of the first attacks against FAP, posing some main objections based on metaphilosophical grounds, which were called the “generality” and the (...) “explicitness” objections. These objections made by Russell and by M. Smith are based on the idea that film and philosophy are too different in their purposes or ways of presentation, ideas that are grounded in implicit or explicit conceptions of philosophy. In this chapter, these will be analyzed, as well as some other metaphilosophically grounded objections, as a line of reasoning connecting to attempts of responding to them will be drawn. After doing so, it will be concluded that their metaphilosophical grounds are implausible, and, thus, they are not definite objections against FAP. (shrink)

Philosophy has long either dismissed or paid only minimal attention to creativity, and even with the rise of research on imagination, the creative imagination has largely been ignored as well. The aim of this volume is to correct this neglect. By bringing together existing research in various sub-disciplines, we also aim to open up new avenues of research. The chapters in Part I provide some framing and history on the philosophical study of imagination and creativity, along with an overview of (...) the empirical literature. Part II explores imagination and creativity as they manifest in, and in turn shape, the individual. Part III surveys the role of imagination and creativity across a wide variety of artistic domains, and the chapters of Part IV turn to societal domains. Part V focuses on the interplay of imagination and creativity with regard to particular features of creative subjects and different kinds of creative subjects. *** -/- Part I: Theories and Approaches 1. Theories of Imagination (Peter Kung) 2. Theories of Creativity (Julia Langkau) 3. Historical Treatments of Imagination in the Western Tradition (Lucia Oliveri) 4. Historical Treatments of Creativity in the Western Tradition (Elliot Paul) 5. Non-Western Treatments of Imagination (Reza Hadisi and Jing Iris Hu) 6. Non-Western Treatments of Creativity (Nicolas B. Verger and Vlad Glăveanu) 7. Empirical Treatments of Imagination and Creativity (Dustin Stokes) 8. Experimental Philosophy of Imagination and Creativity (Michael T. Stuart) 9. The Relationship between Imagination and Creativity (Margherita Arcangeli) -/- Part II: Imagination and Creativity in Mind and Action 10. Imagination, Creativity, and Skill (Amy Kind) 11. Imagination, Creativity, and Attention (Bence Nanay) 12. Imagination, Creativity, and Agency (Caterina Moruzzi) 13. Imagination, Creativity, and Emotion (Julien Deonna and Fabrice Teroni) 14. Imagination, Creativity, and Embodiment (Adriana Clavel-Vázquez and María Jimena Clavel Vázquez) 15. Imagination, Creativity, and Gender (Luke Roelofs) 16. Imagination, Creativity, and Race (Nicholas Whittaker) 17. Imagination, Creativity, and Child Development (Thalia Goldstein, Anna Sofia Caruso, Darian Stapleton, and Lamin Fatty) -/- Part III: Imagination and Creativity in the Arts 18. Imagination, Creativity, and the Visual Arts (Claire Anscomb) 19. Imagination, Creativity, and Music (Matteo Ravasio) 20. Imagination, Creativity, and Fiction (Hannah H. Kim) 21. Imagination, Creativity, and Dance (David Davies and Anna Pakes) 22. Imagination, Creativity, and the Culinary Arts (Patrik Engisch) 23. Imagination, Creativity, and Film (Murray Smith) 24. Imagination, Creativity, and Acting (Tzachi Zamir) 25. Imagination, creativity, and fashion (Laura T. Di Summa) -/- Part IV: Imagination and Creativity in Society 26. Imagination and Creativity in the Scientific Realm (Alice Murphy) 27. Imagination and Creativity in the Moral Realm (Tim Mulgan) 28. Imagination and Creativity in the Political Realm (Avshalom Schwartz) 29. Imagination and Creativity in the Law (Maksymilian Del Mar) 30. Imagination and Creativity in the Religious Realm (Neil Van Leeuwen) 31. Imagination and Creativity in Business (Eric Peterson) 32. Imagination and Creativity in Times of Crisis (Jennifer Fraser and Noah Stemeroff) Part V: Emerging Issues in Imagination and Creativity Research 33. Imagination, Creativity, and Aphantasia (Andrea Blomkvist) 34. Imagination, Creativity, and Neurodivergence (Sofia Ortiz-Hinojosa) 35. Imagination, Creativity, and Non-Human Animals (Henry Shevlin) 36. Imagination, Creativity, and Artificial Intelligence (Peter Langland-Hassan) 37. Collective Imagination and Collective Creativity (Nick Wiltsher) . (shrink)

The problem of variability concerns the fact that empirical data does not support the existence of a coordinated set of biological markers, either in the body or the brain, which correspond to our folk emotion categories; categories like anger, happiness, sadness, disgust and fear. Barrett (2006a, b, 2013, 2016, 2017a, b) employs this fact to argue (i) against the faculty psychology approach to emotion, e.g. emotions are the products of emotion-specific mechanisms, or “modules”, and (ii) for the view that emotions (...) are constructed from domain-general “core systems” with the aid of our folk concepts. The conjunction of (i) and (ii), she argues, heralds a paradigm shift in our understanding of emotion: emotions aren’t triggered but made. In this paper, I argue such a shift is premature for a faculty psychology framework can accommodate the neurobiological variability of emotion. This can be done by treating emotions as developmental modules: non-innate systems which behave like modules, but form as a product of ontogenetic development. (shrink)

The Ontology for Biomedical Investigations (OBI) is an ontology that provides terms with precisely defined meanings to describe all aspects of how investigations in the biological and medical domains are conducted. OBI re-uses ontologies that provide a representation of biomedical knowledge from the Open Biological and Biomedical Ontologies (OBO) project and adds the ability to describe how this knowledge was derived. We here describe the state of OBI and several applications that are using it, such as adding semantic expressivity to (...) existing databases, building data entry forms, and enabling interoperability between knowledge resources. OBI covers all phases of the investigation process, such as planning, execution and reporting. It represents information and material entities that participate in these processes, as well as roles and functions. Prior to OBI, it was not possible to use a single internally consistent resource that could be applied to multiple types of experiments for these applications. OBI has made this possible by creating terms for entities involved in biological and medical investigations and by importing parts of other biomedical ontologies such as GO, Chemical Entities of Biological Interest (ChEBI) and Phenotype Attribute and Trait Ontology (PATO) without altering their meaning. OBI is being used in a wide range of projects covering genomics, multi-omics, immunology, and catalogs of services. OBI has also spawned other ontologies (Information Artifact Ontology) and methods for importing parts of ontologies (Minimum information to reference an external ontology term (MIREOT)). The OBI project is an open cross-disciplinary collaborative effort, encompassing multiple research communities from around the globe. To date, OBI has created 2366 classes and 40 relations along with textual and formal definitions. The OBI Consortium maintains a web resource providing details on the people, policies, and issues being addressed in association with OBI. (shrink)

A realist theory of truth for a class of sentences holds that there are entities in virtue of which these sentences are true or false. We call such entities ‘truthmakers’ and contend that those for a wide range of sentences about the real world are moments (dependent particulars). Since moments are unfamiliar, we provide a definition and a brief philosophical history, anchoring them in our ontology by showing that they are objects of perception. The core of our theory is the (...) account of truthmaking for atomic sentences, in which we expose a pervasive ‘dogma of logical form’, which says that atomic sentences cannot have more than one truthmaker. In contrast to this, we uphold the mutual independence of logical and ontological complexity, and the authors outline formal principles of truthmaking taking account of both kinds of complexity. (shrink)

SOCIOLOGIA DO TRABALHO: O TRABALHO E A SUA EVOLUÇÃO CONCEITUAL AO LONGO DA HISTÓRIA – SOBRE A DEFINIÇÃO DE TRABALHO -/- -/- SOCIOLOGY OF WORK: WORK AND ITS CONCEPTUAL EVOLUTION THROUGH HISTORY – ON THE DEFINITION OF WORK -/- -/- Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro da Silva – IFPE-BJ, CAP-UFPE e UFRPE. E-mails: [email protected] e [email protected]. WhatsApp: (82)98143-8399. -/- -/- RESUMO -/- Começamos, diminuto, com uma análise da complexidade do conceito de “trabalho”. Apresento ao leitor as várias interpretações que o mesmo termo (...) obteve ante as mais diversas culturas. Para essa análise, gozamos de elementos da história e da filosofia do trabalho, tendo como objetivo supremo, culminar numa perspectiva genérica e integral o suficiente para a compreensão dos mais variados trabalhos humanos existentes na história da humanidade e, com isso, sugerir um novo olhar para a sociologia do trabalho, deixando de lado, juntamente com outras disciplinas científicas, um conceito vago, defasado e reduzido, bem como sem potencialidade para o futuro do trabalho, como um trabalho formal e primordialmente assalariado. -/- Palavras-chave: Conceito, Trabalho; História; Definição. -/- ABSTRACT -/- We begin, diminutive, with an analysis of the complexity of the concept of “”work. I present to the reader the various interpretations that the same term has obtained before the most diverse cultures. For this analysis, we enjoy elements of the history and philosophy of work, having as supreme objective, to culminate in a generic and integral perspective sufficient for the understanding of the most varied human works existing in the history of mankind and, thus, to suggest a new look at the sociology of work, leaving aside, together with other scientific disciplines, a vague, laggard and reduced concept, as well as without potentiality for the future of work, as a formal and primarily salaried work. -/- Keywords: Concept; Work; History; Definition. -/- -/- BASES TEMÁTICAS DESSE TRABALHO -/-  O trabalho é um conceito construído socialmente; -/-  A modernidade trouxe consigo mudanças significativas quanto à valorização do trabalho; -/-  A origem dos mercados de trabalho, juntamente com o surgimento do capitalismo, minimizaram o trabalho como um mero emprego assalariado; -/-  O trabalho, no entanto, apresenta múltiplas manifestações nas nossas sociedades. -/- -/- 1. SOBRE A DEFINIÇÃO DO TRABALHO -/- Gostaríamos de começar esse texto com uma introdução à definição de trabalho, uma questão de importância indiscutível, considerando o trabalho não apenas como o objeto de estudo da Sociologia do Trabalho, mas também como um tema de discussão contemporânea que obteve inúmeros conceitos de grandes autores ao longo da história, desde o trabalho como algo “escravista” ao homem, até a supervalorização do mesmo mediante ao homem. -/- O trabalho, nas palavras de Yves Simon (1903-1961) , é um daqueles termos que são precedidos por fatos da vida cotidiana do homem, que se escondem por trás do mistério do habitual ou usual. É um termo, portanto, que possui uma riqueza factual muito superior à qualquer definição que se pode concentrar. Santo Agostinho (354-430), referindo-se ao tempo, sabia o que era, mas se o perguntassem como defini-lo, apontou que não sabia como fazê-lo (“Si nemo ex me quaerat, scio; si quaerenti explicare velim, nescio”), traduzindo (“Se ninguém me perguntar, sei o que é; mas se quiser explicá-lo a quem me perguntar, não sei”). -/- Assim como Agostinho, algo parecido acontece conosco quando nos pedem para definir o trabalho. Assim como diria Werner Sombart (1863-1941), a palavra pode não ter um significado real, apesar de seu uso frequente. E é que o trabalho, como uma atividade criativa, faz parte da história humana desde sua gênese, há mais de 2 milhões de anos atrás, quando o homo habilis mostrou-se capaz de criar conscientemente e por si próprio (e não por mera carga genética como acontece com várias espécies animais) seus próprios instrumentos. -/- O supracitado Yves Simon, escolheu em seu texto mais representativo sobre o tema, uma maneira mais razoável de se definir o trabalho. Começou com o método de caso mais óbvio. Nesse sentido, mostrou que a ambivalência entre o trabalho manual e intelectual que o tempo parece não deixá-lo ir completamente, optara pelos “trabalhadores ao invés dos advogados, comerciantes ou homens de letras”. Essa ordem de prioridade não significa exclusão, mas sim graus de aceitação que considero fazer parte do critério ainda mantido por muitos a respeito do termo “trabalho”. -/- Nesse sentido, argumenta-se que o trabalho manual corresponde a sua ligação direta com a natureza física. O termo “direto” não ignora a mediação de máquinas e ferramentas, apenas comenta seu caráter relacional com a natureza. Logo, o trabalho significa a modificação de algo. -/- Entre as características desse trabalho, ao menos o manual, Simon ressalta que é uma atividade apenas transitória. Isso significa que o trabalho produz um efeito fora do agente que o executa. É o caso de um carpinteiro que age sobre a madeira para moldá-la e transformá-la em um bem de uso posterior como uma mesa, um banco, etc. -/- O mesmo autor ressalta que, se o efeito reside apenas no agente e não em um assunto externo, estaríamos enfrentado algo que chamaríamos de jogo, esporte, exercício ou mesmo a “imitação do trabalho”. -/- Por outro lado, o trabalho é uma atividade útil, isto é, propício para produzir um bem que seja útil e desejável por alguém. Finalmente, a racionalidade é um elemento que distingue o trabalho dos homens em relação com os animais. Essa ideia remonta com Hume (1711-1776), que insistia que o trabalho distingue os homens dos animais. Essa visão também será desenvolvida com Marx (1818-1883), que reproduzimos mediante uma célebre passagem do primeiro livro de O Capital. -/- [...] Pressupomos o trabalho numa forma em que pertence exclusivamente ao homem. Uma aranha executa operações semelhantes às do tecelão, e a abelha envergonha mais de um arquiteto humano com a construção dos favos de suas colmeias. Mas o que distingue, de antemão, o pior arquiteto da melhor abelha é que ele construiu o favo em sua cabeça, antes de construí-lo em cera (MARX, 1996, p. 297/98). -/- Na tradição marxista, foi Engels (1820-1895) quem parou mais nesses questões. Em seu ensaio particular escrito em 1876 e intitulado “O papel do trabalho na transformação do macaco em homem”, sintetiza a ideia de que é o trabalho quem cria e faz o homem. -/- Passando para o trabalho intelectual, Simon ressalta que, na verdade, a medida em que contribui para o trabalho manual desenvolvido por outros, a atividade intelectual também poderá ser denominada de trabalho. Avançando nessa concepção do filósofo, posteriormente, ele aponta “para que uma atividade seja qualificada como trabalho, ela deve ser não apenas honesta mas, também, socialmente produtiva”. -/- Essa concepção de utilidade produtiva é a mais generalizada no momento de distinção do trabalho com demais atividades. Como exemplo, podemos citar Friedmann (1902-1977) que aponta que a utilidade é a primeira característica do trabalho humano. E ainda cita economistas como Colson (1853-1939). Ressalta ainda que “o trabalho é o meio pelo qual o homem exerce suas capacidades físicas e morais para a produção de riquezas ou serviços”. Por outro lado, o filósofo Bergson (1859-1941) escreveu que “o trabalho humano consiste em criar utilidade”. Não obstante, Friedmann se pergunta se a teleologia do trabalho é a única variável a ser tomada em conta para a construção da definição do conceito. Nesse sentido, ele aponta a necessidade de se incluir outros fatores relevantes para essa edificação do conceito, uma vez que os animais também “criam utilidade”. Logo, a distinção poderia estar presente no “marco de uma luta social contra a natureza”. Mediante isso, o trabalho seria “essencialmente através da técnica, a transformação que o homem faz da natureza que, por sua vez, reage ao homem modificando-a”. É a mesma visão marxista que fizemos referência anteriormente, segundo o qual o “trabalho é, em primeiro lugar, um processo entre o homem e a natureza, como o qual o homem regula, realiza e a controla por meio de suas ações, sua troca de assuntos com a natureza. Coloca em ação suas forças naturais que configuram sua corporeidade, seus braços e pernas, cabeça e mãos, para que desse modo, possa assimilar, sob uma forma útil à sua própria vida, os materiais que a natureza o proporciona. E ao mesmo tempo que age na natureza externa e a transforma, transforma também sua própria natureza, desenvolvendo, assim, as faculdades antes adormecidas em si”. Inteligentemente, Friedmann foi capaz de assegurar que, no mundo contemporâneo, tal definição é parcial, uma vez que, nem todas as atividades do homem são rurais e manufatureiras, onde a relação-transformação com a natureza é mais evidente. As atividades denominadas terciárias, segundo a tradicional tipologia de Colin Clark (1905-1989), e que ampliarei posteriormente no conceito de trabalho intelectual, também devem ser levadas em consideração. Nesse sentido, Friedmann ressalta que, no século XX, o homem no trabalho não é sempre e menos ainda, no sentido clássico do termo, um homo faber. -/- Todavia, isso força Friedmann a pensar em um conceito diferente de trabalho e, para isso, ele confia que “determinada imposição” é específica e o diferencia de outras atividades que não são trabalho. Dessa maneira, para um trabalho ser tal deverá ter uma quota indispensável de obrigações. -/- Tantas indagações e reflexões acerca do supracitado, nos obriga a perguntamo-nos: a pessoa “trabalha” apenas se for obrigada a fazê-lo? Os animais não trabalham/produzem? Em condições de alienação desenvolvida e, portanto, o homem desconhecendo o fim último do seu labor, não estamos lidando com um trabalho? Quem age sobre a natureza, afim de destruí-la logo, não lhe conferindo valor, está trabalhando? A dona de casa que não produz para o mercado de trabalho não está trabalhando? Todas essas perguntas, se respondidas, fariam menção a um conceito de trabalho que, sem dúvida, ainda não foi unanimemente construído pela humanidade. De fato, quando vemos culturas e povos distintos, notamos que eles lidaram com conceitos muito diferentes sobre o que é e o que não é trabalho. Mesmo dentro dessas culturas – incluindo a nossa- e aqueles tempos - incluindo o nosso -, podemos notar uma pluralidade de abordagens que obedece a perspectivas distintas e, por vezes, conflitantes. Acrescenta-se a isso que, hoje em dia, temos herdado muitos atributos do trabalho das culturas anteriores, o que torna nossa sociedade representada, sociologicamente, por um caldeirão de comportamentos e conceitualizações relacionados ao trabalho, o que dificulta a partir de critérios mais ou menos consensuais. Posteriormente, veremos quais são esses critérios e como eles evoluíram ao longo da história para alicerçar nossa perspectiva contemporânea acerca do trabalho. -/- Hannah Arendt (1906-1975), dado às dificuldades supracitadas, decidiu traçar a etimologia dos termos de trabalho em questão, em sua famosa obra A condição humana de 2007, em que aclara os termos e as distinções entre trabalho e labor. Etimologicamente temos o grego distinguindo a partir de ponein e ergazesthai; o Latim entre laborare e facere ou fabricare; o inglês com labor e work e, por fim, o alemão entre arbeiten e werken. Em todos eles, aponta Arendt, apenas os equivalentes de “trabalho” significam, sem infortúnio, sofrimento e infelicidade. O Arbeiten alemão foi aplicado somente para designar as atividades de campo exercida pelos servos e não ao trabalho dos artesãos, denominado Werken. Outros autores sinalam que em francês Travailler que tem uma substituição do termo “trabalho”, vem do “Tripalium” (do latim “Tripaliare”, uma espécie de instrumento de tortura usado na antiguidade para castigar os escravos). De qualquer forma, todos os supra conceitos não são aceitos por todos os etimologistas. -/- Essas distinções são eloquentes na medida em que reproduzem a visão de diferentes e inúmeras culturas em relação ao trabalho. Nesse sentido, seguindo o pensamento arendtiano, existe um conceito que faz menção à uma avaliação notadamente negativa, e é o que deu origem à conformação do termo “labor”. Por outro lado, a mesma etimologia distingue outro termo (a obra) que representa conotações positivas. O que distingue os dois termos e o que popularizou Locke quando se referiu ao “trabalho de nossos corpos e trabalho de nossas mãos”? A diferença está, de acordo com Arendt, em que o trabalho cria bens fúteis dedicados ao mero consumo promovendo assim, com o passar dos anos, uma sociedade de massas onde desaparecerá o trabalho dito bem feito, típico de artesãos, que criam objetos de uso durável ao longo do tempo, mediante um processo de fabricação e que, em nenhum momento, implica o tédio ou a alienação características de uma sociedade de massa. Os gregos, segundo a pensadora, e então vamos confirmar isso, nunca praticaram essa diferença: tanto o trabalho quanto o artesanato na antiguidade grega eram reservados para os escravos, uma vez que todas as obrigações tinham uma natureza servil. Estes se opuseram à contemplação de quaisquer tipos de atividades. Nos chama a atenção que em nossa sociedade, a partir da idade moderna, houve a inversão da perspectiva acerca do trabalho, isto é, houve uma “glorificação” do mesmo em que foi conferido uma elevação do animal laborans sobre o animal racional. A pensadora alemã ainda nos diz que em vez da distinção trabalho-labor, surge outras que devemos nos atentar, são a relação entre trabalho produtivo e improdutivo; entre trabalho qualificado e não qualificado e, finalmente, entre o já conhecido binômio do trabalho manual-intelectual. A primeira dessas distinções, a relação entre produtividade e improdutividade, foi a mais transcendente e primordial nas origens das ciências econômica e social. Adam Smith (1723-1790) e Karl Marx desprezaram o trabalho improdutivo a tal ponto de não considerar o mesmo como trabalho ao menos que enriquecesse o mundo. Essa distinção se aproxima do supracitado trabalho-labor do princípio. A elevação do trabalho produtivo, acima das visões antigas; é expressamente perceptível em alguns autores clássicos. É o que acontece com as contribuições do filósofo Marx, para quem o trabalho é uma fonte de produtividade (originada na energia humana não exaurida e que produz a mais-valia); com Smith, para quem o trabalho é uma fonte de riqueza; e com Locke, para qual o trabalho é fonte de propriedade. -/- Em relação ao trabalho qualificado e não qualificado, Arendt nos diz que não tem mais sentido na atualidade a sua discussão, uma vez que, esse praticamente desapareceu sob a influência das modernas tecnologias organizacionais. Logo, a distinção entre trabalho e labor estaria obsoleta e abandonada em favor do próprio trabalho. -/- A distinção entre trabalho manual e intelectual tornou-se amplamente interessante desde a perspectiva arendtiana. Com efeito, como cada ocupação deve mostrar sua utilidade para toda a sociedade em seu conjunto, e a utilidade da ocupação intelectual -diz Arendt- chega a ser mais que duvidosa quando confrontada com a glorificação do trabalho, seria mais que natural que os intelectuais quisessem conformar a população laboriosa, algo inimaginável entre os gregos. A isso se soma a demanda que o mundo contemporâneo faz do trabalho intelectual. -/- O pensamento revolucionário do século XX não era alheio a essa distinção. Haya de la Torre (1895-1979), um pensador e líder da oposição peruana do século XX, disse afirmando claramente uma leitura de classe que divide o trabalhador do explorador: -/- “A revolução está em uma distinção que todos podemos fazer por si só: há aqueles que vivem do seu próprio trabalho e há aqueles que vivem do trabalho dos outros. Todos, de acordo com sua consciência, poderá decidir a qual dessas duas classes pertence” (1924, pp. 24-25). (Tradução própria). -/- Se rastrearmos por uma linha histórica, no entanto, veremos como esse trabalho intelectual não foi considerado trabalho, uma vez que partiu do mundo do lazer e da contemplação entre os gregos. -/- Apenas com a “glorificação” do trabalho, antes supracitada, é que o “intelectual” assume uma perspectiva de ser considerado trabalho, não obstante, sob pena de ser considerado improdutivo em uma sociedade onde o valioso parece ser tudo aquilo que tem poder produtivo. -/- Posteriormente, traçaremos uma linha histórica sobre os conceitos e perspectivas acerca dos trabalhos manual e intelectual desde os gregos, passando pela “glorificação” na era moderna até os dias atuais. -/- -/- REFERENCIAL TEÓRICO -/- ARENDT, H. A condição humana. Trad. Roberto Raposo. Posfácio de Celso Lafer. 10ª ed. Rio de Janeiro: Forense Universitária, 2007. -/- AZEVEDO, G. C.; SERIACOPI, R. História geral e do Brasil. Vol. Único. 1ª ed. São Paulo: Ática, 2008. -/- BAVA, A. C. Introdução a sociologia do trabalho. 1ª ed. São Paulo: Ática, 1990. -/- BOMENY, H. et al. Tempos modernos, tempos de sociologia. 2ª ed. São Paulo: Editora do Brasil, 2013. -/- BRAICK, P. R.; MOTA, M. B. História: das cavernas ao terceiro milênio. 4ª ed. São Paulo: Moderna, 2016. -/- FRIEDMANN, G.; NAVILLE, P. Tratado de Sociologia do Trabalho. 1ª ed. São Paulo: Cultrix, 1973. -/- MACHADO, I. J. de R.; AMORIM, H. J. D.; BARROS, C. R. de. Sociologia hoje. 1ª ed. São Paulo: Ática, 2013. -/- MARX, K. O Capital: crítica da economia política. 1ª ed. São Paulo: Nova Cultural, 1996. Col. Os Economistas. -/- NOGUERA, J. A. El concepto de trabajo y la teoría social crítica. Barcelona: Papers, 2002. -/- OLIVEIRA, P. S. de. Introdução a sociologia. 24ª ed. São Paulo: Ática, 2001. -/- SIMÓN, Y. R. Work, society and culture. 1ª ed. Nova Iorque: Fordham University Press, 1971. -/- SILVA, A. et al. Sociologia em movimento. 2ª ed. São Paulo: Moderna, 2016. -/- TORRE, V. R. H. de la. Moral Revolucionaria. In: Bohemia azul, Lima, n° 7, 1924. -/- Estimule a criatividade, respeite o direito autoral. -/- Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro da Silva © 2019. (shrink)

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

FISIOLOGIA DO CICLO ESTRAL DOS ANIMAIS -/- Departamento de Zootecnia – UFRPE Embrapa Semiárido e IPA -/- • _____OBJETIVO -/- O cio ou estro é a fase reprodutiva dos animais, onde as fêmeas apresentam receptividade sexual seguida de ovulação. Para tanto, é necessário entender a fisiologia do estro para a realização do manejo reprodutivo dos animais. Em geral, as fêmeas manifestam comportamentos fora do comum quando estão ciclando, tais comportamentos devem ser observados para que não percam o pico de ovulação (...) e, consequentemente, para que não perca o momento de monta ou inseminação para emprenhar o animal. Neste trabalho, o estudante compreenderá o ciclo estral identificando as diferenças entre as espécies domésticas, para considerá-las na manipulação do mesmo. -/- • _____INTRODUÇÃO -/- As fêmeas dos mamíferos domésticos apresentam, em sua vida reprodutiva, even-tos recorrentes conhecidos como ciclos estrais que se caracterizam por uma série de alte-rações ovarianas, genitais, endócrinas e comportamentais. Esses ciclos são o fundamento da reprodução e possuem a finalidade de que ocorra a ovulação de forma sincronizada com o acasalamento para conduzir a uma gestação. A compreensão deste é de suma im-portância para alcançar uma boa eficiência produtiva nas propriedades pecuárias; consi-derando que a oportunidade de gestar os animais se limita a períodos, em geral, muito curtos, que ocorrem em cada ciclo. Assim que as fêmeas atingem a puberdade, em bovinos entre 11 e 19 meses, inicia-se a apresentação dos ciclos estrais, o que geralmente indica o início da receptividade sexual, também chamada de "estro" ou "cio", por ser a fase mais fácil de reconhecer devido ao qual a fêmea busca, atrai e aceita a montaria do macho. Todavia, para uma melhor eficiência reprodutiva, as fêmeas que apresentarem o primeiro cio não devem ser colocadas à disposição do macho ou da IA, uma vez que ela ainda não possui o aporte e a condição corporal ideal para conseguir gestar; logo para serem colocadas à reprodução devem estar ao terceiro estro ou possuir entre 60 a 70% do seu peso vivo adulto. Depois da receptividade ocorre um período em que a fêmea não atrai nem aceita o macho. Assim, um ciclo estral é definido como o período entre um estro e o seguinte. Quando durante o ciclo estral ocorre uma cópula fértil, as fêmeas passam a uma fase de anestro fisiológico, causado pela gestação, em que cessa o ciclo estral e passam a não apresentarem atividade sexual. Nas espécies sazonais (cabras, éguas e ovelhas), a manifestação dos ciclos estrais também é limitada pela época do ano em que as fêmeas apresentam um anestro sazonal. Essas espécies sazonais ou estacionais apresentam cio durante a época em que os dias apresentam a presença de luz por mais tempo; isto é, dias mais longos. Deve-se considerar que a ciclicidade feminina pode ser alterada por eventos patológicos como processos infecciosos, persistência do corpo lúteo, desnutrição e estresse, entre outros. -/- • _____CONTROLE ENDÓCRINO DO CICLO ESTRAL -/- As mudanças ovarianas, genitais e comportamentais que ocorrem ao longo dos ciclos estrais são controladas pelo sistema endócrino e são o resultado de uma complexa interação entre hipotálamo, hipófise, ovário e útero. Vários hormônios participam desse processo, dos quais serão descritos a importância e a participação dos mais relevantes (figura 1). -/- Figura 1: Interação hormonal do eixo hipotálamo-hipófise-gonodal. No lado esquerdo, com linhas contínuas, os principais hormônios são exemplificados quando há um folículo pré-ovulatório. No lado direito, com linhas pontilhadas, os hormônios envolvidos são mostrados quando a estrutura ovariana predominante é o corpo lúteo. Fonte: RANGEL, 2018. A Kisspeptina é um peptídeo hipotalâmico que tem sido denominado regulador central, pois os neurônios que a produzem recebem informações do meio ambiente e do próprio corpo, o que indica o momento ideal para a reprodução. Além de modular a secreção de GnRH durante o ciclo estral, esse hormônio controla tanto o início da puberdade quanto da estacionalidade reprodutiva. Além disso, é inibido durante a lactação, bloqueando a atividade reprodutiva das fêmeas nessa fase. Os neurônios produtores de Kisspeptina possuem receptores de estradiol, que os regulam para modular a liberação tônica e cíclica de GnRH, controlando assim a secreção de gonadotrofina; além disso, foi sugerida a participação de outros hormônios neurotransmissores e neuropeptídios na modulação da secreção de GnRH. Entre eles estão os estimuladores: norepinefrina, serotonina, aminoácidos excitatórios (principal-mente glutamato) e neurotensina. Atuando como inibidores: GABA e opioides endógenos (principalmente o β-endorfina). O GnRH é um neuropeptídio hipotalâmico que estimula a produção e liberação de LH, de forma que um pulso de LH é sempre precedido por um pulso de GnRH. Os estrogênios foliculares têm, por outro lado, um efeito de feedback positivo com o LH, aumentando a produção de GnRH pelo centro cíclico e a formação de seus receptores nos gonadotrópicos da hipófise. Como resultado, a maturação dos folículos ovarianos é alcançada e os picos pré-ovulatórios de estradiol e LH são alcançados. No centro tônico da secreção de GnRH, os estrogênios inibem a liberação desse hormônio quando os animais estão na vida pré-púbere ou nos estágios de anestro, e a sensibilidade a esse feedback negativo diminui durante os estágios reprodutivos. No sentido estrito, a liberação de FSH pelos gonadotrópicos hipofisários não requer a presença do GnRH, que participa antecipadamente do estímulo de sua síntese; o FSH é considerado, então, um hormônio secretado constitutivamente, ou seja, constantemente, a menos que haja um estímulo inibitório. Este estímulo inibitório existe graças aos estrogênios e à inibina, que são produzidos pelos folículos em desenvolvi-mento, especialmente pelo folículo dominante. A progesterona é um hormônio esteroide produzido pelo corpo lúteo (CL) que inibe a secreção de LH. Isso é realizado tanto indiretamente por meio da inibição da secreção de GnRH no nível hipotalâmico, quanto por ação direta no nível da hipófise, uma vez que bloqueia a formação de receptores de GnRH nos gonadotropos. Assim, diminui a frequência dos pulsos de LH, que é mantida em níveis basais capazes de participar da formação e manutenção do corpo lúteo, mas incapaz de causar ovulação. Na vaca, o papel do LH na manutenção do corpo lúteo é controverso, uma vez que alguns autores propõem que apenas o hormônio do crescimento participe para esse fim, pois a administração de inibidores de GnRH quando há corpo lúteo funcional não afeta a secreção de progesterona. Se a fertilização não for alcançada com sucesso, eventualmente o corpo lúteo deve ser destruído por apoptose (processo conhecido como luteólise), para permitir a ocorrência de um novo ciclo estral. Nesse caso, os hormônios participantes são a ocitocina, produzida inicialmente no nível central e posteriormente pelo CL; e a prostaglandina F2alfa (PGF2α), secretada pelo endométrio uterino ao final do diestro; entre ambos os hormônios estabelecerão um mecanismo de feedback positivo até que se complete a luteólise. -/- • _____FREQUÊNCIA DE APRESENTAÇÃO DOS CICLOS ESTRAIS -/- As espécies são classificadas de acordo com a frequência com que apresentam seus ciclos estrais em um dos três grupos existentes (figura 2). -/- Figura 2: classificação das espécies domésticas de acordo com a frequência de apresentação de seus ciclos estrais ao longo do ano. Fonte: RANGEL, 2018. -/- Tabela 1: tipo e duração do ciclo estral de diferentes espécies Monoéstricas -/- São as espécies que apresentam um único ciclo estral, uma ou duas vezes ao ano, que culmina com um período de anestro, que faz parte do mesmo ciclo. Em geral, a fase de receptividade sexual dessas espécies é muito longa para garantir a fecundação. Dentro desta classificação está a família Canidae, que inclui cães domésticos, lobos e raposas. Os cães domésticos são capazes de se reproduzir em qualquer época do ano, portanto, não são considerados sazonais; apesar disso, observou-se que o estro tende a ocorrer com mais frequência no final do inverno ou início da primavera. Como exceção, a raça de cães Basenji é considerada sazonal, pois eles sempre têm seus ciclos férteis no outono. -/- Poliéstricas estacionais ou sazonais -/- São espécies que para garantir que seus filhotes nasçam na época do ano mais favorável à sua sobrevivência, apresentam uma série de ciclos estrais durante uma estação limitada do ano (figura 3). No final desta estação, os animais entram em anestro sazonal, que termina com o início da próxima estação reprodutiva. Dentro deste grupo estão as espécies que se reproduzem nas épocas do ano em que está aumentando a quantidade de horas-luz por dia ou fotoperíodo crescente (primavera-verão), como equinos e gatos; o último mostra a atividade ovariana entre janeiro e setembro (ou até outubro) nas zonas temperadas. Há outro grupo de espécies que se reproduzem em períodos de fotoperíodo decrescente (outono-inverno), entre as quais estão ovinos e caprinos. -/- Figura 3: classificação das espécies domésticas, de acordo com a estacionalidade de sua reprodutiva. Fonte: RANGEL, 2018. Poliéstricas contínuas -/- As espécies deste grupo são caracterizadas por ciclos estrais durante todo o ano. Dentro desta classificação estão bovinos e suínos. -/- • _____ETAPAS DO CICLO ESTRAL -/- Do ponto de vista das estruturas ovarianas predominantes, o ciclo estral se divide em duas fases: a fase folicular, na qual os folículos ovarianos se desenvolvem e amadurecem, além da ovulação; nas espécies poliéstricas, esta fase começa com a regressão do corpo lúteo do ciclo anterior. A outra é conhecida como fase lútea e refere-se às etapas do ciclo em que o corpo lúteo se forma e tem sua maior funcionalidade. Cada uma dessas fases pode ser dividida em etapas de proestro e estro (fase folicular); e metaestro e diestro (fase lútea) (figura 4). Algumas espécies, adicionalmente, podem apresentar períodos de anestro e interestro, como parte de seus ciclos estrais (figura 4). -/- Figura 4: etapas dos ciclos estrais dos animais domésticos. Fonte: RANGEL, 2018. -/- Fase folicular -/- É identificada porque os hormônios ovarianos predominantes são os estrogênios (produzidos pelos folículos em crescimento), que desencadeiam o comportamento sexual e fazem com que o aparelho reprodutor passe por algumas adaptações para atrair o macho, preparar-se para a cópula e facilitar o transporte dos gametas. O proestro começa quando as concentrações de progesterona do ciclo anterior baixem para níveis basais devido à regressão do CL; e termina quando o comportamento de receptividade sexual começa. É caracterizado pelo crescimento do folículo dominante da última onda folicular do ciclo anterior; portanto, sua duração depende do grau de desenvolvimento em que o folículo se encontra no momento da luteólise. Nesse estágio, aumenta-se a produção de estradiol e inibina secretada pelo folículo ou folículos que iniciaram seu desenvolvimento durante o final do período de diestro. As concentrações de FSH diminuem no início do proestro; entretanto, eles começam a aumentar à medida que o estro se aproxima. O LH, devido ao efeito do estradiol, passa a aumentar sua frequência de secreção e diminuir a amplitude de seus pulsos, o que acentua a produção de andrógenos pelas células da teca e a capacidade de aromatização das células da granulosa, com o consequente aumento na produção de estradiol. O aumento do estradiol desencadeia a apresentação comportamental do estro que também é conhecido como estágio de cio, calor ou receptividade sexual, uma vez que representa o único período em que a fêmea procura ativamente o macho e aceita a montagem e a cópula. O comportamento sexual pode variar em intensidade entre diferentes espécies. Durante a fase de estro, o(s) folículo(s) em desenvolvimento no ovário adquirem sua maturidade e tamanho pré-ovulatório (figura 5), atingindo as concentrações máximas de estradiol. Um feedback positivo é então exercido entre o estradiol, GnRH e LH, para que ocorra o pico de LH pré-ovulatório que será responsável pela ovulação. -/- Figura 5: folículos ovarianos de porcas. Esquerda: pequenos folículos, estágio de proestro. À direita: folículos pré-ovulatórios, estágio de estro. Fonte: RANGEL, 2018. -/- O estro é a fase do ciclo em que ocorre a ovulação em espécies domésticas, com exceção dos bovinos que ovulam durante o metaestro inicial. A ovulação, por outro lado, manifesta-se espontaneamente na maioria das espécies domésticas, com exceção dos felinos, leporídeos e camelídeos, nos quais a cópula deve ocorrer para induzi-la, por isso são conhecidos como espécies de ovulação induzida (figura 6). Nessas espécies, a cópula provoca um reflexo nervoso que atua no nível hipotalâmico para induzir a liberação de GnRH e, portanto, o pico pré-ovulatório de LH. Existem outras espécies em que a cópula não estimula a ovulação, mas é necessária para induzir a formação do CL (figura 6). Dentro dessas espécies estão ratos e camundongos. -/- Figura 6: classificação das espécies domésticas, segundo a espontaneidade da ovulação e a formação do corpo lúteo. Fonte: RANGEL, 2018. -/- Em caninos, deve-se considerar que, embora tradicionalmente se diga que a ovulação ocorre dois dias após o início do estro, ela pode ocorrer mais tarde, em alguns casos ocorrendo próximo ao final do estro. Em geral, durante a fase folicular, o útero tem maior suprimento e as glândulas endometriais entram em fase proliferativa, aumentando seu tamanho. Isso faz com que o útero fique mais tônico, ou seja, mais firme, exceto no caso de éguas e carnívoros nos quais os estrogênios fazem com que o útero se encontre com edema e sem tonalidade, enquanto a cérvix aparece relaxada durante o estro. Além disso, o aumento do suprimento de sangue causa hiperemia e congestão do epitélio vaginal e vulvar (figura 7). Para permitir a passagem do esperma, a cérvix se abre e a produção de um muco cervical muito fluido, cristalino e abundante é aumentada; o útero e o oviduto aumentam suas contrações. Nessa última ação participam as prostaglandinas contidas no plasma seminal (PGF₂α e PGE). Na vagina, o número de camadas de células do epitélio começa a aumentar e as células da superfície tornam-se cornificadas. No caso da cadela, a situação hormonal durante a fase folicular é completamente diferente do resto das espécies domésticas (figura 8), uma vez que há altas concentrações de estrógenos durante o proestro, que atingem seu nível máximo 24 a 48 h antes de seu término; ao mesmo tempo, os folículos iniciam sua luteinização, antes de serem ovulados. Essa situação provoca a liberação de progesterona, que começa a aumentar suas concen-trações; à medida que aumenta, as concentrações de estradiol começam a cair. Assim, o estro começa quando os níveis de progesterona atingem uma concentração de cerca de 1 ng/ml. O pico de LH ocorre durante a transição do proestro para o estro e a ovulação ocorre 48 a 60 horas depois; processo que pode se estender de 24 a 96 h. Os níveis de progesterona aumentam após o início do estro, de modo que antes da ovulação estão entre 2 e 4 ng/ml, enquanto as concentrações entre 5 e 10 ng/ml estão relacionadas ao tempo de ovulação. Uma vez que as concentrações de estradiol caem abaixo de 15 pg/ml, o estro é encerrado (figura 8). -/- Figura 7: comparação da aparência vulvar em porcas. O círculo azul indica a vulva de uma porca que não está em estro, enquanto um círculo vermelho mostra uma vulva apresentando hiperemia e edema característicos da fase de estro. Fonte: Acervo pessoal do autor. -/- As altas concentrações de estradiol no proestro são responsáveis pela atração da fêmea pelo macho a partir desta fase, porém, não apresentará comportamento receptivo até o início da fase de estro. Deve-se levar em consideração que algumas cadelas podem não aceitar o macho, apesar de estarem endócrinamente na fase de estro, o que pode ser atribuído às condições de manejo, aos comportamentos adquiridos ou às características hierárquicas, ou ainda a distúrbios relacionados a endocrinologia da reprodução (anorma-lidades hormonais e/ou baixas concentrações de hormônios). No caso das éguas, não há menção à fase de proestro e os eventos que ocorreriam nessa fase estão englobados no estro, que tradicionalmente será denominado fase folicular ou simplesmente estro (figura 9). -/- Figura 8: Endocrinologia do ciclo estral da cadela. Fonte: RANGEL, 2018. -/- Figura 9: duração das etapas do ciclo estral das éguas. A ovulação ocorre nos últimos 2 dias da fase de estro. Fonte: RANGEL, 2018. -/- Fase lútea -/- Durante essa fase, o esteroide ovariano predominante é a progesterona, cujo objetivo é manter a gravidez se a fertilização for bem-sucedida. Para isso, os estrogênios pré-ovulatórios favorecem a formação de receptores de progesterona uterina, então a presença da progesterona faz com que as glândulas endometriais entrem em sua fase secretora e iniciem a produção de histiotrofo ou leite uterino, para nutrir o produto que poderia estar potencialmente presente. Já na fase lútea, ocorre redução das concentrações de estrogênio, o que causa diminuição do tônus uterino, hiperemia e edema vulvar. Por fim, a cérvix se fecha e o muco cervical torna-se espesso, pegajoso, opaco e menos abundante, de modo a isolar o útero por fora, evitando a entrada de microrganismos que poderiam comprometer a possível gravidez. O metaestro começa quando a fêmea deixa de aceitar a montaria do macho e termina quando há um CL funcional bem estabelecido. Este estágio corresponde ao período de transição entre a dominância estrogênica e o aumento das concentrações de progesterona. Nesse estágio, as concentrações de FSH são aumentadas pela queda repentina de estradiol e inibina após a ovulação, o que permite o recrutamento da primeira onda folicular. Nesta fase, o ovário contém o corpo hemorrágico, a partir do qual se desenvolverá o CL (figura 10). O corpo hemorrágico tem meia-vida muito curta, pois as células que compõem suas paredes iniciam sua luteinização imediatamente após ou mesmo antes da ovulação. -/- Figura 10: ovários bovinos. Corpo hemorrágico (CH); folículos (F) e corpo lúteo (CL). -/- O diestro, por sua vez, constitui a etapa mais longa do ciclo estral e é caracterizado por um CL que se encontra em sua atividade secretora máxima. Somente no final dessa fase, e se não houver fecundação, o CL sofre luteólise; caso contrário, o CL é mantido de forma a preservar a gestação, prolongando um estado fisiológico semelhante ao do diestro. A imagem 11 esquematiza o ciclo estral da vaca, eventos ovarianos e endócrinos, bem como a duração das etapas do ciclo estral. Nessa fase, a progesterona atinge suas concentrações máximas e exerce efeito negativo na liberação de LH, pois inibe a formação de receptores de GnRH nos gonadotropos hipofisários, bem como a secreção de GnRH pelo hipotálamo. Além disso, observam-se aumentos repetidos da secreção de FSH com o consequente aumento do desenvolvimento folicular e das concentrações plasmáticas de estradiol e inibina. No entanto, os folículos que começam seu desenvolvimento, não conseguem completar sua maturação e sofrem regressão (ondas foliculares). A égua é a única fêmea doméstica que pode ovular naturalmente durante a fase lútea, com uma incidência de ovulação de 10-25% nesta fase. Figura 11: etapas, estruturas ovarianas e endocrinologia do ciclo estral da vaca. Fonte: RANGEL, 2018. -/- No final do diestro, os estrogênios sensibilizam o endométrio, de modo que as células epiteliais formam os receptores de ocitocina. Após uma primeira secreção de ocitocina da neurohipófise e secreções subsequentes originadas do corpo lúteo, um mecanismo de feedback positivo é iniciado para a secreção de PGF2α. O papel da PGF2α é destruir o CL quando não houver fertilização. Deve-se considerar que para o útero ser capaz de produzir PGF2α deve haver um período prévio de exposição à progesterona, durante o qual aumenta o conteúdo de precursores das prostaglandinas no endométrio, como o ácido araquidônico (ácido graxo C20H32O2). O anestro é considerado como um período de inatividade reprodutiva, mesmo quando continua havendo atividade hormonal e desenvolvimento folicular, uma vez que o estímulo é insuficiente para que ocorra a maturação folicular e a ovulação. Ao longo desta fase não haverá alterações comportamentais ou morfológicas nas fêmeas. Nas espécies estacionais ou sazonais, o anestro é muito importante, pois limita a estação reprodutiva de forma que os partos ocorram na época do ano que pode ser mais favorável para a sobrevivência dos filhotes. Em espécies poliéstricas contínuas, o anestro aparecerá em casos de processos fisiológicos como gestação ou amamentação, ou devido a condições patológicas que interrompem a ciclicidade. Em caninos, o anestro é considerado mais uma fase do ciclo estral (figura 12), e é o estágio de transição entre o diestro de um ciclo e o proestro do próximo; na verdade, o anestro é a fase mais longa do ciclo nessa espécie, pois pode durar de 4 a 10 meses, dependendo do indivíduo. Em algumas espécies de animais domésticos, o anestro pode ocorrer pós-parto. O interestro é uma fase de repouso entre as ondas foliculares e é característica do ciclo estral de espécies cuja ovulação é induzida, como os felinos e camelídeos, por exemplo, a lhama e a alpaca. Ao longo desta fase, não há comportamento sexual. Sua apresentação se deve ao fato de a monta não ter ocorrido ou de não ter sido capaz de induzir a ovulação, de modo que os folículos ovarianos regridem, dando origem a um novo recrutamento folicular. No caso dos felinos, foi relatado que até 50% das cópulas simples são insuficientes para causar ovulação. -/- Figura 12: etapas do ciclo estral da cadela. A ovulação ocorre dois dias após o início do cio. Fonte: RANGEL, 2018. -/- • _DURAÇÃO DOS CICLOS ESTRAIS E PARTICULARIDADES POR ESPÉCIE -/- As variações na duração do ciclo estral e as fases presentes entre as diferentes espécies domésticas são indicadas na tabela 2. Em particular, existe uma grande variação entre os indivíduos dependendo da duração das fases do ciclo estral em caninos e felinos, sendo difícil precisar sua duração, já que no caso da cadela o anestro é parte integrante do ciclo; na gata, a duração do ciclo anovulatório é diferente daquele em que ocorreu a ovulação. Assim, em um ciclo anovulatório, a gata pode manifestar períodos de estro de sete dias em média, seguidos de 2 a 19 dias sem estro (período denominado interestro), que são continuados com outro período de estro. Quando ocorre a ovulação e não é fértil, surge uma fase lútea de 35 a 37 dias e às vezes demora mais 35 dias para o animal apresentar um novo estro. Em cadelas, não há estágio de metaestro propriamente dito, pois a ovulação ocorre no início do estro, de forma que, ao término do comportamento sexual, os corpos lúteos já estão formados. Da mesma forma, as gatas não apresentam este estágio, portanto, se ocorrer ovulação, a fase de estro é imediatamente seguida pela fase diestro (figura 13). Figura 13: etapas e endocrinologia do ciclo estral da gata. Fonte: RANGEL, 2018. -/- Tabela 2: Duração do ciclo estral e suas fases nas diferentes espécies domésticas Espécie Ciclo (dias) Proestro (dias) Estro Metaestro (dias) Diestro (dias) Interestro (dias) Anestro Bovina 21 (17-24) 2 a 3 8-18 h 3 a 5 12 a 14 - Pós-parto (vacas de leite) Lactacional (vacas de corte) Ovina 17 (13-19) 2 24-36 h 2 a 3 12 - Estacional Caprina 21 2 a 3 36 h (24-48) 3 a 5 8 a 15 - Estacional Suína 21 (17-25) 2 24-72 h 2 14 - Lactacional Equina 21 (15-26) - 4-7 d - 14 a 15 - Estacional Canina - 9 (3-20) 9 d (3-20) - 63 ± 5 em gestantes 70 a 80 em vazias - 4 a 10 meses Felina - 1 a 2 7 d (2-19) - 35 a 37 8 (2-19) Estacional (30-90 d) Onde: d = dias. h = horas. -/- O ciclo estral das éguas é dividido apenas em duas fases, folicular e lútea; às vezes também conhecido como estro e diestro, respectivamente (figura 14). No caso de bovinos, a ovulação ocorre durante a fase de metaestro, entre quatro e 16 horas após o término do estro, ou de 30 a 36 horas após o início do estro (figura 15). Uma vez que a ovulação ocorre, e como consequência da queda repentina nas concentrações de estradiol, algumas vacas podem ter uma secreção vulvar sanguinolenta (figura 16). -/- Figura 14: endocrinologia do ciclo estral da égua. Fonte: RANGEL, 2018. -/- Figura 15: duração das etapas do ciclo estral das vacas. A ovulação ocorre no metaestro ou de 4 a 16 horas depois do término do cio. Fonte: RANGEL, 2018. -/- Figura 16: secreção vulvar sanguinolenta em vaca no estágio de metaestro • ___DESENVOLVIMENTO FOLICULAR -/- Embora o desenvolvimento folicular que leva à ovulação ocorra na fase folicular do ciclo estral e desempenhe um papel essencial no controle do ciclo, durante a fase lútea também ocorre o desenvolvimento folicular, mas os folículos não conseguem realizar sua maturação final e ovulação; mesmo em animais pré-púberes e em animais em anestro, há crescimento folicular. Por isso o desenvolvimento folicular é considerado um processo constante e dinâmico. As fêmeas têm certo número de folículos e ovócitos desde o nascimento, que em geral excede consideravelmente o número de oócitos que serão ovulados ao longo de suas vidas. Aproximadamente 90% dos folículos ovarianos começam a crescer, mas não ovulam e regridem, fato conhecido como atresia folicular. Estima-se que a atresia ocorra em qualquer época de desenvolvimento, mas é mais comum nos estágios dependentes de gonadotrofinas. A razão pela qual as ondas foliculares se desenvolvem durante a fase lútea, culminando na atresia, é que a progesterona produzida pelo corpo lúteo inibe a pulsação de LH. Assim, os folículos dominantes não obtêm suprimento suficiente desse hormônio para completar seu crescimento e ovular, causando sua regressão. Quando os folículos sofrem atresia, cessa a produção de estradiol e inibina, retomando a secreção de FSH, iniciando um novo recrutamento folicular. No final do período de diestro, quando as concentrações de progesterona começam a diminuir devido à luteólise, os estrogênios foliculares estimulam a secreção de LH, que fornece suporte suficiente para o crescimento e maturação dos folículos até que a ovulação seja desencadeada. -/- • ___OVULAÇÃO -/- A ovulação ocorre graças a um processo de remodelação, adelgaçamento e ruptura da parede folicular ao nível do estigma, que é uma área de tecido desprovida de vascularização, que se forma na superfície do folículo ovulatório (figura 17). Nas espécies domésticas, o folículo pode se desenvolver e ovular em qualquer parte da superfície do ovário, com exceção dos equinos, nos quais, devido à conformação anatômica característica do ovário desta espécie, a ovulação sempre ocorre ao nível da fossa de ovulação. O pico de LH que precede a ovulação estimula a síntese e a liberação local de PGE₂ e PGF₂α, bem como o início da produção de progesterona pelas células foliculares. Junto com o pico pré-ovulatório de LH, ocorre aumento da quantidade de fluido folicular, graças ao aumento da permeabilidade vascular da teca (ação estimulada em conjunto com a PGE₂) e ao aumento do suprimento sanguíneo no período pré-ovulatório; entretanto, a pressão intrafolicular não aumenta porque a parede do folículo está distendida. -/- Figura 17: ruptura do estigma folicular durante o processo de ovulação. Fonte: Internet. -/- A ovulação começa com um enfraquecimento da parede folicular, porque a PGF₂α causa a liberação de enzimas lisossomais das células da granulosa do folículo pré-ovulatório. O aumento local da progesterona faz com que as células da teca interna sintetizem colagenase, uma enzima que cliva as cadeias de colágeno do tecido conjuntivo, enfraquecendo a túnica albugínea que constitui a parede folicular. À medida que a parede enfraquece, forma o estigma - projeção avascular - na região apical, o que indica que a ovulação está se aproximando. O estigma é o local onde o folículo se rompe, permitindo a liberação do oócito, que sai envolto pelas células da coroa irradiada e acompanhado pelo fluido contido no antro folicular. -/- • ___CORPO LÚTEO -/- Após a ovulação, as células que permanecem na cavidade folicular desenvolvem um CL, que é considerado uma glândula temporária; sua função essencial é a produção hormonal e só está presente durante o diestro, na gestação e em algumas patologias como a piometra. A luteinização, ou formação do CL, é mediada principalmente pelo LH; no entanto, outros hormônios também estão envolvidos, como o hormônio do crescimento (GH). Assim, o tratamento com GH em animais hipofisectomizados foi encontrado para restaurar a função normal do CL; enquanto em espécies como roedores e caninos, a formação do CL é induzida e mantida pela prolactina, hormônio que não participa com essa finalidade no caso dos ruminantes. Durante a luteinização, os remanescentes das células da granulosa se diferenciam em grandes células lúteas, que são capazes de secretar progesterona continuamente (basal), e possuem grânulos secretores responsáveis pela produção e liberação de ocitocina e relaxina, esta última durante a gestação de algumas espécies. Enquanto as células da teca formam as pequenas células lúteas, que não secretam ocitocina e produzem progesterona em resposta ao LH (tônico). O corpo lúteo é, finalmente, constituído de células luteais grandes e pequenas, fibroblastos, células mioides, células endoteliais e células do sistema imunológico. Outro fator importante para o processo de luteinização é a formação de uma rede vascular, essencial para aumentar o fluxo sanguíneo para o CL. A referida formação vascular é mediada principalmente por dois fatores, fator de crescimento de fibroblastos (FGF), que no estágio inicial do desenvolvimento lúteo estimula a proliferação de células endoteliais pela ação de LH, e fator de crescimento endotélio-vascular (VEGF) que promove a invasão de células endoteliais para a camada de células da granulosa e a organização e manutenção da microvasculatura do CL. A luteólise é um processo essencial para retomar a ciclicidade das fêmeas. Sucede ao final do diestro quando não ocorre a fecundação e consiste na desintegração funcional e estrutural do CL. O primeiro refere-se à queda nas concentrações de progesterona, enquanto o segundo abrange a regressão anatômica da estrutura lútea e a recuperação do tamanho normal do ovário. A desintegração funcional, com a consequente queda nas concentrações de progesterona, ocorre antes que a regressão estrutural seja observada. Caso ocorra a gestação, a vida do CL é prolongada, visto que existem mecanismos que o resgatam de sua regressão. Durante o diestro, a progesterona produzida pelo CL bloqueia inicialmente a ação do estradiol e da ocitocina. Para esse último, causa uma redução no número de receptores de ocitocina endometrial, modificando sua estrutura. Desta forma, não é possível estabelecer um feedback positivo entre a ocitocina e a PGF₂α, que será responsável pela luteólise. No entanto, à medida que o diestro progride, a progesterona esgota seus próprios receptores, de modo que, no final desse estágio, ela perde a capacidade de inibir os receptores de ocitocina. O estradiol ativa, então, o centro de geração de pulso de ocitocina no hipotálamo e começa a induzir o endométrio tanto a formação de seus próprios receptores como os da ocitocina. A ocitocina e o estradiol trabalham juntos para aumentar a atividade e a concentração das enzimas envolvidas na síntese de PGF2α: a fosfolipase (enzima responsável pela liberação de ácido araquidônico de fosfolipídios da membrana celular) e a prostaglandina sintetase (enzima responsável pela transformação do ácido araquidônico em prostaglandina). Dessa forma, a ocitocina hipotalâmica, liberada de forma pulsátil pela neurohipófise, estimula inicialmente a síntese e secreção de PGF2α através do endométrio. A PGF2α possui receptores em grandes células do CL, que aumentam seu número à medida que o ciclo estral progride. Assim, quando a PGF2α endometrial atinge o ovário provoca a liberação de ocitocina lútea, desencadeando um mecanismo local de feedback positivo, que agindo no endométrio aumenta a secreção de PGF2α. Este circuito continua até que se alcance uma frequência de pulsos de PGF2α de aproximadamente cinco pulsos em 24 h, uma frequência que é capaz de desencadear a luteólise. Em equinos, o CL não produz ocitocina; no entanto, as células endometriais os produzem, então a secreção por PGF2α depende do estímulo da ocitocina que vem desta última fonte e da hipófise. Ressalte-se que o CL deve atingir certo grau de maturidade para que possa ser receptivo à ação da PGF2α. Isso é conseguido através da formação de receptores para a PGF2α e desenvolvendo a capacidade de expressar a prostaglandina sintetase, de modo que o CL requer para produzir PGF2α na forma autócrina para atingir a lise. As células endoteliais e as células imunes, típicas do CL, também intervêm no processo de luteólise estrutural. As células endoteliais secretam proteína quimiotática de monócitos (MCP-1), para recrutar macrófagos que migram através do epitélio vascular que foi sensibilizado pela PGF2α. Os macrófagos ativados secretam o fator necrose tumoral alfa (TNFα) que atua sobre as células do corpo lúteo causando apoptose celular. A PGF2α também participa da luteólise funcional, inibindo a síntese de progesterona e reduzindo a síntese e fosforilação da proteína responsável pelo transporte de colesterol para a mitocôndria (StAR). Além disso, a PGF2α induz a produção de endotelina-1 (ET1) pelas células endoteliais encontradas no corpo lúteo, as quais contribuem para uma redução na síntese de progesterona. -/- • ___FATORES QUE AFETAM O CICLO ESTRAL -/- A apresentação dos ciclos estrais é natural e impreterível; no entanto pode ser afetada por fatores ambientais como o fotoperíodo, e fatores específicos do indivíduo como a sociabilidade e amamentação, além dos fatores de manejo como a nutrição e, consequentemente, o ECC das fêmeas e a endocrinologia (hormônios). Todos esses fatores serão explicados a seguir. -/- Fotoperíodo -/- O fotoperíodo é determinado pelo número de horas de luz do dia ao longo do ano e é considerado um dos fatores ambientais mais consistentes e repetíveis. A quantidade diária de horas-luz tem maior efeito nas espécies sazonais para determinar o início da atividade reprodutiva. No entanto, em espécies poliéstricas contínuas, variações anuais na ciclicidade também podem ser observadas, um exemplo disso é a acentuada sazonalidade nos nascimentos de búfalos e zebuínos. Da mesma forma, o momento em que uma bezerra ou leitão nasce afeta a idade em que atinge a puberdade, e a explicação para isso é que o fotoperíodo a que estão expostos impacta seu desenvolvimento. Assim, observou-se que uma maior quantidade de horas de luz do dia (suplementação de quatro horas por dia por cerca de dois meses) pode adiantar o início da puberdade em novilhas. -/- Amamentação -/- Em espécies como suínos e bovinos de corte, o anestro pós-parto é mantido pelo estímulo que a prole exerce sobre a mãe no momento da amamentação. Dessa forma, sob esses estímulos a fêmea deixará de apresentar cio enquanto estiver alimentando as crias (figura 18). Na ação de amamentação, pensa-se que participa o reconhecimento filial, onde intervêm a visão, o olfato e a audição. A verdade é que a participação de estímulos táteis é questionável, visto que foram realizados estudos nos quais a denervação da glândula mamária não antecipou o reinício da ciclicidade em fêmeas que amamentavam seus filhotes. O mecanismo pelo qual a amamentação afeta a atividade reprodutiva está relacionado a um aumento da sensibilidade do hipotálamo ao efeito inibitório do estradiol. Nisso intervêm os fatores como os opioides (endorfinas, encefalinas e dinorfinas) e os glicocorticoides. -/- Figura 18: na esquerda porca amamentando seus filhotes e a direita vaca com o bezerro no pé. -/- Nutrição -/- A função reprodutiva depende da existência de um consumo de energia superior ao necessário para manter as funções fisiológicas essenciais do corpo e as funções de produção, como termorregulação, locomoção, crescimento, manutenção celular ou lactação. Considera-se que o efeito da nutrição na atividade reprodutiva é maior nas fêmeas do que nos machos, devido a uma maior demanda de energia exigida pelas fêmeas para manter uma gestação do começo ao fim (figura 19). Quando o consumo de energia é insuficiente, a função reprodutiva é bloqueada para não comprometer as funções vitais. Desta forma, os animais pré-púberes que sofreram deficiências nutricionais durante o seu crescimento apresentam um atraso no início da sua atividade reprodutiva. Assim, existem sinais metabólicos ao nível do sistema nervoso central, como o IGF-I e a leptina, que indicam ao organismo o grau de desenvolvimento somático do indivíduo. Animais adultos que já iniciaram sua atividade reprodutiva também podem ser afetados pela nutrição, de forma que sua ciclicidade pode ser interrompida por perdas de peso corporal igual ou superior a 20%. Da mesma forma, o reinício da atividade ovariana pós-parto é retardado quando as fêmeas estão submetidas a dietas deficientes em proteínas, energia, minerais etc. -/- Figura 19: comparação das condições corporais em vacas leiteiras. À esquerda: uma vaca com uma condição corporal adequada, que está ciclando normalmente. À direita: vaca em péssimo estado corporal e, portanto, em anestro. -/- As deficiências nutricionais de energia e proteína não afetam diretamente os níveis circulantes de FSH em animais intactos, mas o efeito da desnutrição pode ser mascarado por feedback negativo dos hormônios ováricos sobre a secreção de FSH, uma vez que os animais ovariectomizados com uma boa condição corporal têm maiores concentrações de FSH que os de condição corporal pobre. Em contraste, a secreção de LH é altamente sensível a deficiências nutricionais e a mudanças na condição corporal. O diâmetro do folículo dominante é reduzido quando os animais estão a perder peso, o que se correlaciona com uma diminuição na produção de estradiol, o que diminui a secreção de LH e consequentemente é evitada a maturação folicular terminal e a ovulação, o que os animais entrarem em anestro. No pós-parto, a ciclicidade se recupera quando as concentrações basal e média de LH, bem como a sua frequência de secreção aumenta para exceder o nadir do balanço energético (este último é atingido quando o fornecimento de energia está no ponto mínimo e está excedido pelas exigências de mantença do organismo). O ECC possui relação direta com as taxas reprodutivas dos animais. Em bovinos um ECC ideal é entre 3,5 e 4,5 para o período reprodutivo. Com relação do ECC sobre o estro, estima-se que num rebanho de 100 vacas com ECC 2,5 cerca de 47 entram em cio, e dessas apenas 27 conseguem conceber. Por outro lado, no mesmo rebanho de 100 vacas, mas com ECC igual a 3, cerca de 62 vacas entram em cio normalmente e dessas 40 conseguem engravidar. Já com um ECC 3,5, 68 vacas entram em estro normalmente e dessas 46 conseguem engravidar. -/- Efeitos independentes de gonadotropinas -/- A importância das gonadotropinas no crescimento e maturação folicular já foi revisada neste trabalho; também deve ser mencionado que, além das gonadotropinas, existem outros fatores que podem intervir na regulação do desenvolvimento folicular e da ciclicidade. Um exemplo do anterior é o flushing: manejo nutricional que consiste na suplementação de uma fonte energética de rápida absorção, em que o aumento do número de folículos em desenvolvimento tem inicialmente um controle independente do eixo hipotálamo-hipófise-gonodal e é mediado por fatores que participam do controle do metabolismo energético do animal, que estão intimamente relacionados às mudanças nutricionais. Esses fatores incluem insulina, fator de crescimento semelhante à insulina I (IGF-I) e hormônio do crescimento (GH). O IGF-I é secretado principalmente pelo fígado em resposta à estimulação do GH e é creditado na regulação de muitas das ações do GH, portanto, quando o GH é administrado, as concentrações de insulina e IGF-I estão aumentadas e um aumento no número de folículos ovarianos é observado em suínos, bovinos, caprinos e ovinos. O IGF-I, da mesma forma, modula a secreção de GH por um efeito de feedback negativo, de modo que no início do pós-parto, quando o animal está em balanço energético negativo, as concentrações de insulina e IGF-I diminuem, enquanto as de GH aumentam. A insulina e o IGF-I estimulam a proliferação e esteroidogênese das células da granulosa e da teca no folículo. Outro fator que interfere na manifestação da atividade reprodutiva é a quantidade de gordura corporal. -/- Fatores sociais (sociabilidade) -/- Existem diferentes interações sociais que são capazes de modificar o início da atividade reprodutiva durante o período de transição para a puberdade ou para a estação reprodutiva, ou ainda de sincronização e manifestação dos ciclos estrais. Entre os fatores sociais o efeito fêmea-fêmea foi bem documentado em pequenos ruminantes, onde a introdução de fêmeas ciclando (em cio) a um grupo de fêmeas em anestro estacional adianta a estação reprodutiva induzindo e sincronizando a ovulação. Quando as porcas pré-púberes, por outro lado, são alojadas em pequenos grupos de dois ou três animais, o início da puberdade é retardado em comparação com indivíduos alojados em grupos maiores. A bioestimulação das fêmeas através do contato com um macho é conhecida como efeito macho (figura 20). Foi determinado que imediatamente após a introdução do macho se inicia o desenvolvimento e maturação folicular como uma resposta a um aumento na secreção de LH. Esse efeito será explicado em próximos trabalhos de minha autoria. -/- Estresse -/- Em vários estudos, foi demonstrado que o estresse pode bloquear a ciclicidade, devido ao aumento nas concentrações de corticosteroides ou opioides que causam redução na resposta da hipófise ao GnRH. Alojamentos inadequados, um ambiente social adverso e deficiências no manejo são considerados condições estressantes. -/- Figura 20: efeito do macho sobre as fêmeas (suínos). -/- REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS -/- AURICH, Christine. Reproductive cycles of horses. Animal reproduction science, v. 124, n. 3-4, p. 220-228, 2011. AISEN, Eduardo G. Reprodução ovina e caprina. MedVet, 2008. BARTLEWSKI, Pawel M.; BABY, Tanya E.; GIFFIN, Jennifer L. Reproductive cycles in sheep. Animal reproduction science, v. 124, n. 3-4, p. 259-268, 2011. BEARDEN, Henry Joe et al. Reproducción animal aplicada. México: Manual Moderno, 1982. CHRISTIANSEN, I. J. Reprodução no cão e no gato. São Paulo: Manole, 1988. CONCANNON, Patrick W. Reproductive cycles of the domestic bitch. Animal reproduction science, v. 124, n. 3-4, p. 200-210, 2011. COLAZO, Marcos Germán; MAPLETOFT, Reuben. Fisiología del ciclo estral bovino. Ciencia Veterinaria, v. 16, n. 2, p. 31-46, 2017. CUPPS, Perry T. (Ed.). Reproduction in domestic animals. Elsevier, 1991. . Fisiologia Clínica do Ciclo Estral de Vacas Leiteiras: Desenvolvimento Folicular, Corpo Lúteo e Etapas do Estro. . Fisiologia do Estro e do Serviço na Reprodução Bovina. DERIVAUX, Jules; BARNABÉ, Renato Campanarut. Reprodução dos animais domésticos. Acribia, 1980. DUKES, Henry Hugh; SWENSON, Melvin J.; REECE, William O. Dukes fisiologia dos animais domésticos. Editora Guanabara Koogan, 1996. FATET, Alice; PELLICER-RUBIO, Maria-Teresa; LEBOEUF, Bernard. Reproductive cycle of goats. Animal reproduction science, v. 124, n. 3-4, p. 211-219, 2011. FERREIRA, A. de M. Reprodução da fêmea bovina: fisiologia aplicada e problemas mais comuns (causas e tratamentos). Juiz de Fora: Minas Gerais–Brasil, p. 422, 2010. FORDE, N. et al. Oestrous cycles in Bos taurus cattle. Animal reproduction science, v. 124, n. 3-4, p. 163-169, 2011. HAFEZ, Elsayed Saad Eldin; HAFEZ, Bahaa. Reprodução animal. São Paulo: Manole, 2004. HIDALGO, Galina et al. Reproducción de animales domésticos. México: Limusa, 2008. HOPPER, Richard M. (Ed.). Bovine reproduction. John Wiley & Sons, 2014. MCKINNON, Angus O. et al. (Ed.). Equine reproduction. John Wiley & Sons, 2011. MEIDAN, R. et al. Intraovarian regulation of luteolysis. JOURNAL OF REPRODUCTION AND FERTILITY-SUPPLEMENT-, p. 217-228, 1999. NETT, T. M. et al. Pituitary receptors for GnRH and estradiol, and pituitary content of gonadotropins in beef cows. I. Changes during the estrous cycle. Domestic Animal Endocrinology, v. 4, n. 2, p. 123-132, 1987. NISWENDER, Gordon D. et al. Mechanisms controlling the function and life span of the corpus luteum. Physiological reviews, v. 80, n. 1, p. 1-29, 2000. NORMAN, Anthony W.; LITWACK, Gerald. Hormones. Academic Press, 1997. PATTERSON, David J. et al. Control of estrus and ovulation in beef heifers. Veterinary Clinics: Food Animal Practice, v. 29, n. 3, p. 591-617, 2013. PLANT, Tony M.; ZELEZNIK, Anthony J. (Ed.). Knobil and Neill's physiology of reproduction. New York: Academic Press, 2014. RANGEL, L. Ciclo estral. In. PORTA, L. R.; MEDRANO, J. H. H. Fisiología reproductiva de los animales domésticos. Cidade do México: FMVZ-UNAM, 2018. REKAWIECKI, R. et al. Regulation of progesterone synthesis and action in bovine corpus luteum. J Physiol Pharmacol, v. 59, n. suppl 9, p. 75-89, 2008. REYNOLDS, L. P.; REDMER, D. A. Growth and development of the corpus luteum. JOURNAL OF REPRODUCTION AND FERTILITY-SUPPLEMENT-, p. 181-191, 1999. RIPPE, Christian A. El ciclo estral. In: Dairy Cattle Reproduction Conference. 2009. p. 111-116. SANGHA, G. K.; SHARMA, R. K.; GURAYA, S. S. Biology of corpus luteum in small ruminants. Small Ruminant Research, v. 43, n. 1, p. 53-64, 2002. SARTORI, R.; BARROS, C. M. Reproductive cycles in Bos indicus cattle. Animal Reproduction Science, v. 124, n. 3-4, p. 244-250, 2011. SENGER, Phillip L. et al. Pathways to pregnancy and parturition. Current Conceptions, Inc., 1615 NE Eastgate Blvd., 1997. SMITH, Matthew J.; JENNES, Lothar. Neural signals that regulate GnRH neurones directly during the oestrous cycle. Reproduction (Cambridge, England), v. 122, n. 1, p. 1-10, 2001. SOEDE, N. M.; LANGENDIJK, P.; KEMP, B. Reproductive cycles in pigs. Animal reproduction science, v. 124, n. 3-4, p. 251-258, 2011. WEBB, R. et al. Mechanisms regulating follicular development and selection of the dominant follicle. REPRODUCTION-CAMBRIDGE-SUPPLEMENT-, p. 71-90, 2003. WHITTEMORE, Colin et al. The science and practice of pig production. Blackwell Science Ltd, 1998. -/- FIXAÇÃO DO ASSUNTO -/- 1. Disserte sobre o papel do eixo hipotálamo-hipófise-gonadal sobre o ciclo estral dos animais domésticos. -/- 2. Qual a importância do controle endócrino para a apresentação do estro? -/- 3. De acordo com a frequência do ciclo estral, como se classificam as vacas, porcas, éguas, gatas, cadelas, cabras e ovelhas? -/- 4. Defina e diferencia monoéstricas e poliéstricas. -/- 5. Um produtor possui fêmeas em primeiro cio, e deseja introduzi-las na vida reprodutiva. Explique por que não é ideal utilizar fêmeas em primeiro cio na vida reprodutiva? -/- 6. Quais são as etapas do ciclo estral? -/- 7. Defina e diferencia fase folicular e fase lútea. -/- 8. Defina e diferencie os tipos de ovulação e formação do corpo lúteo nas espécies domésticas? -/- 9. Quais os eventos ocorrem durante as fases proestro, estro, metaestro, diestro e inter-estro. -/- 10. Explique por que a égua possui ciclo diferente da vaca? -/- 11. Disserte e diferencie a endocrinologia do ciclo estral da cadela, da égua, da gata e da vaca? -/- 12. Fale sobre o desenvolvimento folicular durante o ciclo estral. -/- 13. Disserte sobre a ovulação das fêmeas domésticas. -/- 14. Defina e diferencie luteinização e luteólise. -/- 15. Disserte sobre os principais fatores que afetam a apresentação e manifestação do ciclo estral. -/- 16. Qual o papel da nutrição e do ECC sobre o ciclo estral? -/- 17. Defina e diferencie efeito fêmea-fêmea e efeito macho sobre a apresentação do estro nas fêmeas. -/- 18. Um produtor de ruminantes possui um rebanho de 10 bezerras, 10 cabritas e 10 cordeiras, todas com 1 mês de idade. Elabore um projeto reprodutivo para que essas fêmeas tenham seu primeiro parto após ciclos estrais normais e sem complicações. -/- Leve em consideração os fatores de idade ao primeiro cio ou a puberdade que é diferente entre as espécies, bem como aos fatores que podem afetar a manifestação do cio. (shrink)