As recently highlighted, despite a burgeoning field of sensory ethnography, the practices, production, and accountability of the senses in specific social interactional contexts remain sociologically under-explored. To contribute original insights to a literature on the sensuous body in physical–cultural contexts, here we adopt an ethnomethodologically sensitive perspective to focus on the accomplishment, social organization, and accountability of sensoriality in interaction. Exploring instances of the senses at work in social interaction, we utilize data from two ethnographic research projects to investigate the (...) production of running-together and swimming-together by skilled, experienced practitioners. We focus on two interlinked sensory modalities: auditory attunement, and vision and intercorporeality, identified as key dimensions of sensory embodiment and “togethering” in these particular domains. (shrink)

The Repugnant Conclusion served an important purpose in catalyzing and inspiring the pioneering stage of population ethics research. We believe, however, that the Repugnant Conclusion now receives too much focus. Avoiding the Repugnant Conclusion should no longer be the central goal driving population ethics research, despite its importance to the fundamental accomplishments of the existing literature.

In the Preface to Rationality, Steven Pinker remarks that “we are smart enough to have … articulated the rules of reason that we so often flout” (p. xiv). Unfortunately, Pinker does not get the rules of reason right in this book. Pinker defends a damagingly irrational conception of reason. But despite this rather drastic failure, there is much of interest in this book, even if at a rather elementary level.

Most scientists would hold that science has not established that the cosmos is physically comprehensible – i.e. such that there is some as-yet undiscovered true physical theory of everything that is unified. This is an empirically untestable, or metaphysical thesis. It thus lies beyond the scope of science. Only when physics has formulated a testable unified theory of everything which has been amply corroborated empirically will science be in a position to declare that it has established that the cosmos is (...) physically comprehensible. But this argument presupposes a widely accepted but untenable conception of science which I shall call standard empiricism. According to standard empiricism, in science theories are accepted solely on the basis of evidence. Choice of theory may be influenced for a time by considerations of simplicity, unity, or explanatory capacity, but not in such a way that the universe itself is permanently assumed to be simple, unified or physically comprehensible. In science, no thesis about the universe can be accepted permanently as a part of scientific knowledge independently of evidence. Granted this view, it is clear that science cannot have established that the universe is physically comprehensible. Standard empiricism is, however, as I have indicated, untenable. Any fundamental physical theory, in order to be accepted as a part of theoretical scientific knowledge, must satisfy two criteria. It must be (1) sufficiently empirically successful, and (2) sufficiently unified. Given any accepted theory of physics, endlessly many empirically more successful disunified rivals can always be concocted – disunified because they assert that different dynamical laws govern the diverse phenomena to which the theory applies. These disunified rivals are not considered for a moment in physics, despite their greater empirical success. This persistent rejection of empirically more successful but disunified rival theories means, I argue, that a big, highly problematic, implicit assumption is made by science about the cosmos, to the effect, at least, that the cosmos is such that all seriously disunified theories are false. Once this point is recognized, it becomes clear, I argue, that we need a new conception of science which makes explicit, and so criticizable and improvable the big, influential, and problematic assumption that is at present implicit in physics in the persistent preference for unified theories. This conception of science, which I call aim-oriented empiricism, represents the assumption of physics in the form of a hierarchy of assumptions. As one goes up the hierarchy, the assumptions become less and less substantial, and more and more nearly such that their truth is required for science, or the pursuit of knowledge, to be possible at all. At each level, that assumption is accepted which (a) best accords with the next one up, and (b) has, associated with it the most empirically progressive research programme in physics, or holds out the greatest hope of leading to such an empirically progressive research programme. In this way a framework of relatively insubstantial, unproblematic, fixed assumptions and associated methods is created, high up in the hierarchy, within which much more substantial and problematic assumptions and associated methods, low down in the hierarchy, can be changed, and indeed improved, as scientific knowledge improves. One assumption in this hierarchy of assumptions, I argue, is that the cosmos is physically comprehensible – that is, such that some yet-to-be-discovered unified theory of everything is true. Hence the conclusion: improve our ideas about the nature of science and it becomes apparent that science has already established that the cosmos is physically comprehensible – in so far as science can ever establish anything theoretical. (shrink)

Recently, I argued that human subjects in artificial wombs (AWs) “share the same moral status as newborns” and so, deserve the same treatment and protections as newborns. This thesis rests on two claims: (A) “Subjects of partial ectogenesis—those that develop in utero for at time before being transferred to AWs—are newborns,” and (B) “Subjects of complete ectogenesis—those who develop in AWs entirely—share the same moral status as newborns.” In response, Elizabeth Chloe Romanis argued that the subject in an AW is (...) “a unique human entity…rather than a fetus or a newborn.” She provides four lines of response to my essay. First, she argues that I have “misconstrued” what birth is. Once we correct that error, it becomes clear that subjects of partial ectogenesis have not been born. Second, she argues that my claims imply that non-implanted embryos (existing in vivo) “would also be ‘born.’” But that is absurd. Third, she claims I fail to “meaningfully respond” to distinctions she draws between subjects of ectogenesis and neonates. Finally, she criticizes my essay for focusing on subjects of AWs rather than focusing on pregnant persons (who should be at the “centre” of debates over AWs). I respond to each of these charges. In doing so, I reaffirm that (contra Romanis) some subjects of ectogenesis are newborns and all subjects of ectogenesis—even those that have not been born—share the same moral status as newborns. (shrink)

Many of us feel internally conflicted in the face of certain normative claims that make infeasible demands: say, normative claims that demand that agents do what, given deeply entrenched objectionable character traits, they cannot bring themselves to do. On the one hand, such claims may seem false on account of demanding the infeasible, and insisting otherwise may seem to amount to objectionable unworldliness – to chasing “pies in the sky.” On the other hand, such claims may seem true in spite (...) of making infeasible demands, and insisting otherwise may seem to amount to treating the agents in question with undue lenience – to mistakenly letting them “off the hook.” What is going on? One possibility is that we are making a mistake. I explore the alternative hypothesis that our ambivalent reactions, far from involving any mistake, are entirely consistent and appropriate. Rather than some single privileged ought such that the idea that “ought” implies “feasible” is either true or false, there are simply different oughts that are supposed to be capable of operating in the service of, and playing distinct roles associated with, what I shall call different core normative practices. In particular, there is a) some salient core practice-serving ought for which it’s true that “ought” implies “feasible” and b) some other salient core practice-serving ought for which it’s false that “ought” implies “feasible.” I sketch a framework for understanding different core practice-serving oughts in general and then use this framework to consider which particular core practice-serving oughts might be capable of vindicating our ambivalence. I begin by considering and rejecting a prevalent and prima facie promising account according to which the relevant oughts are the prescriptive ought and the evaluative ought. I then propose a different account that holds that the oughts we need are instead the deliberative ought and the hypological ought. (shrink)

Positions taken in the current debate over free will can be seen as responses to the following conditional: -/- If every action is caused solely by another event and a cause necessitates its effect, then there is no action to which there is an alternative (C). -/- The Libertarian, who believes that alternatives are a requirement of free will, responds by denying the right conjunct of C’s antecedent, maintaining that some actions are caused, either mediately or immediately, by events whose (...) effects could be different, even if they were to recur under identical circumstances. We have here a denial of Laplacian Determinism (LD), according to which the condition of the world at any instant makes only one state possible at any other instant. One prominent defender of this view, Robert Kane, holds that unless an agent’s neural mechanisms operated indeterministicly in forming her character she is not responsible for its manifestations. This requirement is entailed by the principle of “ultimate responsibility” (UR) according to which an act is freely willed only if (a) its agent is personally responsible for its performance in the sense of having caused it to occur by voluntarily doing something that was avoidable and (b) there is no sufficient condition for its performance for which its agent is not personally responsible. The orthodox Compatibilist, adducing counterexamples to UR, argues that even if C and its antecedent are true, free will is possible. Ned Markosian has provided the Compatibilist with yet another response to UR-based objections to her view, wedding it to the notion of agent causation: here the deterministic causing of an act by its agent is necessary and sufficient for its being “morally free.” I criticize this view as inconsistent with the agent causalist's belief that moral responsibility precludes causation of a choice by any power other than the maker thereof: he being its efficient cause. (shrink)

Neurosis can be interpreted as a methodological condition which any aim-pursuing entity can suffer from. If such an entity pursues a problematic aim B, represents to itself that it is pursuing a different aim C, and as a result fails to solve the problems associated with B which, if solved, would lead to the pursuit of aim A, then the entity may be said to be "rationalistically neurotic". Natural science is neurotic in this sense in so far as a basic (...) aim of science is represented to be to improve knowledge of factual truth as such (aim C), when actually the aim of science is to improve knowledge of explanatory truth (aim B). Science does not suffer too much from this neurosis, but philosophy of science does. Much more serious is the rationalistic neurosis of the social sciences, and of academic inquiry more generally. Freeing social science and academic inquiry from neurosis would have far reaching, beneficial, intellectual, institutional and cultural consequences. (shrink)

In both the Laches (191d-e) and the Laws (1.633c-d, 1.634a-b, and 1. 635d), Plato has his protagonist defend the claim that courage (andreia) is not simply a matter of resisting pain and fear but about overcoming pleasure and desire as well. In this paper, I argue that Plato took the expansive view of courage seriously and that there are several reasons why we should too.

Reflectance physicalists define reflectance as the intrinsic disposition of a surface to reflect finite-duration light pulses at a given efficiency per wavelength. I criticize the received view of dispositional reflectance (David R. Hilbert’s) for failing to account for what I call “harmonic dispersion,” the inverse relationship of a light pulse's duration to its bandwidth. I argue that harmonic dispersion renders reflectance defined in terms of light pulses an extrinsic disposition. Reflectance defined as the per-wavelength efficiency to reflect the superimposed, infinite-duration, (...) Fourier harmonics of pulses can be an intrinsic disposition of surfaces. This conclusion raises questions about mathematical realism, about which I nevertheless remain neutral. (shrink)

For over thirty years I have argued that all branches of science and scholarship would have both their intellectual and humanitarian value enhanced if pursued in accordance with the edicts of wisdom-inquiry rather than knowledge-inquiry. I argue that this is true of mathematics. Viewed from the perspective of knowledge-inquiry, mathematics confronts us with two fundamental problems. (1) How can mathematics be held to be a branch of knowledge, in view of the difficulties that view engenders? What could mathematics be knowledge (...) about? (2) How do we distinguish significant from insignificant mathematics? This is a fundamental philosophical problem concerning the nature of mathematics. But it is also a practical problem concerning mathematics itself. In the absence of the solution to the problem, there is the danger that genuinely significant mathematics will be lost among the unchecked growth of a mass of insignificant mathematics. This second problem cannot, it would seem, be solved granted knowledge-inquiry. For, in order to solve the problem, mathematics needs to be related to values, but this is, it seems, prohibited by knowledge-inquiry because it could only lead to the subversion of mathematical rigour. Both problems are solved, however, when mathematics is viewed from the perspective of wisdom-inquiry. (1) Mathematics is not a branch of knowledge. It is a body of systematized, unified and inter-connected problem-solving methods, a body of problematic possibilities. (2) A piece of mathematics is significant if (a) it links up to the interconnected body of existing mathematics, ideally in such a way that some problems difficult to solve in other branches become much easier to solve when translated into the piece of mathematics in question; (b) it has fruitful applications for (other) worthwhile human endeavours. If ever the revolution from knowledge to wisdom occurs, I would hope wisdom mathematics would flourish, the nature of mathematics would become much more transparent, more pupils and students would come to appreciate the fascination of mathematics, and it would be easier to discern what is genuinely significant in mathematics (something that baffled even Einstein). As a result of clarifying what should count as significant, the pursuit of wisdom mathematics might even lead to the development of significant new mathematics. (shrink)

For over 30 years I have argued that we need to construe science as accepting a metaphysical proposition concerning the comprehensibility of the universe. In a recent paper, Fred Muller criticizes this argument, and its implication that Bas van Fraassen’s constructive empiricism is untenable. In the present paper I argue that Muller’s criticisms are not valid. The issue is of some importance, for my argument that science accepts a metaphysical proposition is the first step in a broader argument intended to (...) demonstrate that we need to bring about a revolution in science, and ultimately in academic inquiry as a whole so that the basic aim becomes wisdom and not just knowledge. (shrink)

How should contractualists seek to accommodate and respond to the existence of radical pluralism within contemporary liberal states? Ryan Muldoon has recently argued that a) the dominant Kantian liberal model of contractualism is hopelessly ill equipped to do so but that b) there is a particular kind of Hobbesian contractualism that can do much better. I raise some problems concerning the capacity of Muldoonian contractualism to respond appropriately to the problem of radical pluralism. I then propose a very different kind (...) of solution that involves embracing an advice model of contractualism. Keywords: contractualism; contractarianism; pluralism; diversity; disagreement . (shrink)

In Part I (Philosophy of Science, Vol. 41 No.2, June, 1974) it was argued that in order to rebut Humean sceptical arguments, and thus show that it is possible for pure science to be rational, we need to reject standard empiricism and adopt in its stead aim oriented empiricism. Part II seeks to articulate in more detail a theory of rational scientific discovery within the general framework of aim oriented empiricism. It is argued that this theory (a) exhibits pure science (...) as a rational enterprise (b) enables us to resolve problems associated with the key notions of simplicity and intelligibility (c) has important implications both for philosophy of science and for scientific practice itself. (shrink)

Three big philosophical problems about consciousness are: Why does it exist? How do we explain and understand it? How can we explain brain-consciousness correlations? If functionalism were true, all three problems would be solved. But it is false, and that means all three problems remain unsolved (in that there is no other obvious candidate for a solution). Here, it is argued that the first problem cannot have a solution; this is inherent in the nature of explanation. The second problem is (...) solved by recognizing that (a) there is an explanation as to why science cannot explain consciousness, and (b) consciousness can be explained by a different kind of explanation, empathic or “personalistic” explanation, compatible with, but not reducible to, scientific explanation. The third problem is solved by exploiting David Chalmers“principle of structural coherence”, and involves postulating that sensations experienced by us–visual, auditory, tactile, and so on–amount to minute scattered regions in a vast, multi dimensional “space” of all possible sensations, which vary smoothly, and in a linear way, throughout the space. There is also the space of all possible sentient brain processes. There is just one, unique one-one mapping between these two spaces that preserves continuity and linearity. It is this which provides the explanation as to why brain processes and sensations are correlated as they are. I consider objections to this unique-matching theory, and consider how the theory might be empirically confirmed. (shrink)

In The Ethical Project, Kitcher has throe main aim: (1) to provide a naturalistic explanation of the rise of morality and of its subsequent development, (2) to supply an account of moral progress that explains progressive developments that have occurred so far and shows how further progress is possible, and (3) to propose a further progressive development the emergence of a cosmopolitan morality and make the case that it is a natural extension of the ethical project. I argue that Kitcher (...) does not succeed in achieving any of these aims and that he cannot do so given the meager resources of his explanatory model. The chief difficulty is that Kitcher equivocates in his characterization of the original (and still supposedly primary) function of ethics. Although he begins by characterizing it as (a) remedying altruism failures in order to avoid their social costs, he sometimes characterizes it instead as (b) remedying altruism failures simpliciter. Kitcher does not explain how a practice whose original function was (a) developed into one whose function is (b). Further, it appears that he cannot do so without significantly enriching his explanatory model to include a more robust account of how humans came to have the capacity to reflect on and revise norms. (shrink)

McTaggart distinguished two conceptions of time: the A-series, according to which events are either past, present or future; and the B-series, according to which events are merely earlier or later than other events. Elsewhere, I have argued that these two views, ostensibly about the nature of time, need to be reinterpreted as two views about the nature of the universe. According to the so-called A-theory, the universe is three dimensional, with a past and future; according to the B-theory, the universe (...) is four dimensional. Given special relativity (SR), we are obliged, it seems, to accept (a modified version of) the B-series, four dimensional view, and reject the A-series, three dimensional view, because SR denies that there is a privileged, instantaneous cosmic "now" which seems to be required by the A-theory. Whether this is correct or not, it is important to remember that the fundamental problem, here, is not "What does SR imply?", but rather "What is the best guess about the ultimate nature of the universe in the light of current theoretical knowledge in physics?". In order to know how to answer this question, we need to have some inkling as to how the correct theory of quantum gravity incorporates quantum theory, probability and time. This is, at present, an entirely open question. String theory, or M-theory, seems to evade the issue, and other approaches to quantum gravity seem equally evasive. However, if probabilism is a fundamental feature of ultimate physical reality, then it may well be that the A-theory, or rather a closely related doctrine I call “objectism”, is built into the ultimate constitution of things. (shrink)

Convergence research is driven by specific and compelling problems and requires deep integration across disciplines. The potential of convergence research is widely recognized, but questions remain about how to design, facilitate, and assess such research. Here we analyze a seven-year, twelve-million-dollar convergence project on sustainable climate risk management to answer two questions. First, what is the impact of a project-level emphasis on the values that motivate and tie convergence research to the compelling problems? Second, how does participation in convergence projects (...) shape the research of postdoctoral scholars who are still in the process of establishing themselves professionally? We use an interview-based approach to characterize what the project specifically enabled in each participant’s research. We find that (a) the project pushed participants’ research into better alignment with the motivating concept of convergence research and that this effect was stronger for postdoctoral scholars than for more senior faculty. (b) Postdocs’ self-assessed understanding of key project themes, however, appears unconnected to metrics of project participation, raising questions about training and integration. Regarding values, (c) the project enabled heightened attention to values in the research of a large minority of participants. (d) Participants strongly believe in the importance of explicitly reflecting on values that motivate and pervade scientific research, but they question their own understanding of how to put value-focused science into practice. This mismatch of perceived importance with poor understanding highlights an unmet need in the practice of convergence science. (shrink)

Book, 2005. B&W and colour digital print on paper. A4 format. Unbound. This project was developed during a stay in Broken Hill and the region, it was supported through the artist-in-residence program at the Faculty of Creative Arts at the University of Wollongong in August 2005 and it was edited during the following months. A full copy of the book is held in the collections of the Art Gallery of New South Wales Research Library and Archive; the Médiathèque, Musée du (...) Quai Branly, Collection des Récits de Voyageurs; the Bibliothèque Nationale, Département des Estampes et de la Photographie, Paris. (shrink)

This inquiry is addressed to two questions: (1) what if any logical relations might exist between the concepts of desire and action (as they and the distinctions to which they commit us are ensconced in ordinary parlance), and (2) what if any causal or significant non-causal (i.e., material) relations might ever exist between instances of desire and action? -/- It is held that any credible move to deal with such questions must initially, and at some length, specify the employment conditions (...) for the terms 'want' and 'desire'. This is accomplished in the first two chapters wherein a set of premises is generated for the argument of the inquiry which is presented in full and concluded in the third and final chapter. Premises generated devolve from treatment of the following major topics: (a) the grammar of 'want' and 'desire', (b) the ontological status of wants, (c) first-person and third-person want ascriptions, (d) the sorts of things which may be desired (desiderabilia), (e) wants and lacks, (f) wants and wishes, (g) the 'conflicts' of desires and reason and desire, (h) four major candidates for logical relations between wants and acts, (i) the issue of causation, and (j) the placement of Desire in an adequate ontology of persons. -/- It is argued that every major candidate for a logical relation between wants and acts (or our warrant for believing that such a connection exists) breaks down upon analysis; that little warrant exists for construing wants as causes of acts; that wants and acts are related in significant non-logical and non-causal (i.e., material) respects; and that any fully adequate theory of human action must undertake ontology, placing the category of Desire squarely in the foreground. This project represents neither a general theory of desire nor a general theory of human action. It is rather conceived as a propaedeutic to any such inquiry. It is essentially revisionist in intent, setting out on the one hand to challenge existing claims about wants and acts and, on the other hand, proposing a more satisfactory approach to the issue. In no sense is it suggested that recent Anglo-American contributions are without merit. It is rather argued that they are often inadequate contributions vis-a-vis the larger requirements for an adequate theory of human action. (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)

The term “deep history” refers to historical accounts framed temporally not by the advent of a written record but by evolutionary events (Smail 2008; Shryock and Smail 2011). The presumption of deep history is that the events of today have a history that traces back beyond written history to events in the evolutionary past. For human kinship, though, even forming a history of kinship, let alone a deep history, remains problematic, given limited, relevant data (Trautman et al. 2011). With regard (...) to a deep history, one conjecture is that human kinship evolved from primate social systems in a gradual, more-or-less continuous manner (see Chapais 2008); another conjecture is that kinship, in accordance with the incest account of Claude Lévi-Strauss (1969) or the fanciful, tetradic account of Nicholas J. Allen (1986), “comes into existence with a leap” (Trautman et al. 2011: 176); and yet another, the account to be developed in this paper, is that kinship, as it is understood and lived by culture bearers today, is the consequence of a profound and qualitative evolutionary transformation going from an ancestral primate-like social system predicated on extensive face-to-face interaction to the relation-based social systems that characterize human societies (Read 2012). (shrink)

Nicholas Agar, Jeff McMahan and Allen Buchanan have all expressed concerns about enhancing humans far outside the species-typical range. They argue radically enhanced beings will be entitled to greater and more beneficial treatment through an enhanced moral status, or a stronger claim to basic rights. I challenge these claims by first arguing that emerging technologies will likely give the enhanced direct control over their mental states. The lack of control we currently exhibit over our mental lives greatly contributes (...) to our sense of vulnerability. I then argue moral status should be viewed in terms of vulnerability. The enhanced will slowly gain the ability to command their mental states, reducing their vulnerability. These radically enhanced beings will have greater capacities, and possibly an inner life more valuable than our own. They will also be less vulnerable, and as a result, their moral status will be subordinate to our own. (shrink)

Professor Nicholas Ryder (see Appendix A for a list of his published works) and Dr Karen Harrison (see Appendix B for a list of her published works) have produced this second edition of The Law relating to financial crime in the United Kingdom (published by Routledge of Taylor & Francis Group) in order to bring the work up-to-date; to include recent legislation and government policy developments; and also to add the financial crime topics of tax evasion, market manipulation (including (...) insider trading) and cybercrime, making this work a complete and well-rounded university-level introduction to the criminal laws relating to financial crimes as they affect the United Kingdom. (shrink)

Mit den Fortschritten in Generativer Künstlicher Intelligenz, Large Language Models, Brain-Computer Interfaces und genetischen Eingriffen gewinnt auch der Transhumanismus an Relevanz. Der Transhumanismus ist ein beliebtes Thema der Medien und wird in Tages- und Wochenzeitungen sowie im Fernsehen gerne aufgegriffen. Außerdem gibt es inzwischen viele Filme, die den Transhumanismus thematisieren, z. B. die Dokumentation „Endlich unendlich“ (2021, Regie: Stephan Bergmann). Der Transhumanismus wurde in Österreich auch Gegenstand einer Verschwörungserzählung, über die der Bayrische Rundfunk aufgeklärt hat. Auf den Wahlplakaten der „Partei (...) für Gesundheitsforschung“ ist der Transhumanist Aubrey de Grey abgebildet, der ein in Cambridge lebender Brite ist, aber auf Plakaten in Deutschland dargestellt wird. Diese und weitere Entwicklungen machen es notwendig, sich mit dem Transhumanismus aus wissenschaftlicher Perspektive auseinanderzusetzen. Was ist der Transhumanismus? Alle sprechen von Transhumanismus, aber was der Transhumanismus letztlich ist, bleibt häufig unklar. Der Transhumanismus (TH) ist eine philosophisch-technologische Bewegung des 20. und 21. Jahrhunderts, die es sich zum Ziel setzt, mittels neuer Technologien den Menschen grundlegend zu transformieren. Wichtig ist dabei, dass sich der TH nicht mit den Optimierungsbestrebungen in der Gesellschaft oder technologischem Fortschritt gleichsetzen lässt. Vielmehr verstehe ich unter TH die Gruppe, die sich um die Organisation Humanity+ in Kalifornien versammelt und die Personen, die sich explizit alsVertreter*innen des TH verstehen. Der TH hat eine ganz eigene Agenda, eigene Institutionen, Organisationen und Publikationsorgane.4 Zu den Themen und Visionen gehören die Lebensverlängerung von mehreren Hundert Jahren bis zur Unsterblichkeit, Kryonik (das Einfrieren des Körpers, der wieder aufgetaut werden soll, wenn nach transhumanistischer Vorstellung Unsterblichkeit ermöglicht werden kann), umfassendes Enhancement und die Verschmelzung von Körper und Technik sowie Beseitigung allen Leids, aller Krankheiten und Aufhebung des Alterns. Der TH strebt danach, mittels Technik neue Sinnesfähigkeiten zu erlangen und neue (virtuelle) Erfahrungswelten zu erschließen. Außerdem wird von vielen Transhumanist*innen auch die hochspekulative Vision des Mind Uploading vertreten, die streng genommen dem Posthumanismus zugeordnet werden muss Gemäß dieser Vision soll durch das maschinelle Lesen des Gehirns der ganze Mensch auf ein externes Medium hochgeladen werden können. Die Vision des Mind Uploadings ist aus naturwissenschaftlicher Perspektive hochumstritten, ist aber ein sehr beliebtes Motiv, das auch außerhalb des TH Wirkung zeigt und in viele Science-Fiction- Filme Eingang gefunden hat (z.B. die Amazon Serie „Upload“, 2020, Regie: Greg Daniels). Das Bestreben des TH, den Menschen grundlegend zu transformieren, wirft zunächst die Frage auf, wie der TH den Menschen überhaupt versteht. Dieser Frage nach dem Menschenverständnis des TH habe ich mich in meinem Buch „Über-Menschen. Philosophische Auseinandersetzung mit der Anthropologie des Transhumanismus“ gewidmet. Philosophische Anthropologie bezeichnet die wissenschaftlichen, philosophischen Reflexionen auf den Menschen. Welches Menschenverständnis vertritt der TH und lässt sich unsere Anthropologie auf dieser Grundlage weiterentwickeln? Das Buch gliedert sich in drei Teile: Teil 1 führt zuerst in die Bewegung des TH ein, worauf Teil II aufbaut, der sich mit dem Menschenverständnis des TH beschäftigt. Teil III betrachtet schließlich heutige Optimierungsbestrebungen in der Gesellschaft sowie neue Ansätze für die Technikanthropologie (z. B. Kritischer Posthumanismus und Neuer Materialismus). Die nachfolgenden Kapitel dieses Aufsatzes sind ein Ausschnitt aus Teil II, der Untersuchung des transhumanistischen Menschenverständnisses. Dieser Aufsatz widmet sich dem „genetisch codierten Menschen“ im TH, also der transhumanistischen Sicht auf den Menschen als jemanden, die*der vollständig von ihren*seinen Genen bestimmt ist. Der genetische Diskurs ist nur einer von fünf im TH dominanten Diskursen, die das transhumanistische Menschenverständnis ausmachen. Zu den anderen Diskursen bzw. transhumanistischen Bestimmungen des Menschen gehören: der Diskurs um die „Natur des Menschen“, der Maschinendiskurs – die Bestimmung des Menschen als Maschine –, der neurowissenschaftliche Diskurs – die Gleichsetzung des Menschen mit dem Gehirn bzw. Neuronalem und zuletzt die metaphysischen Verhältnisbestimmungen von Geist und Körper (PUZIO, Über-Menschen, Kap. 4). Diese transhumanistischen Bestimmungen des Menschen werden am Ende ausgewertet. Ohne die Ergebnisse dieses Kapitels im Detail vorwegnehmen zu wollen, kann für die Gesamtuntersuchung des TH gesagt werden, dass das transhumanistische Menschenverständnis sich als hochproblematisch erweist. Die transhumanistischen Argumentationsstrukturen sind nicht tragfähig und der TH behauptet sich auf die Naturwissenschaften zu berufen, widerspricht allerdings den aktuellen Ergebnissen der Naturwissenschaften. Dies wird in den nachfolgenden Kapiteln gut deutlich werden. Der TH hat ein reduktionistisches Menschenverständnis und reduziert den Menschen beispielsweise auf „Information“. Viele Ausführungen sind diskriminierend z. B. gegenüber Kranken, Alternden und Menschen mit Behinderungen und letztendlich wird sogar jeder Mensch, auch der gesunde junge Mensch, gegenüber der Maschine abgewertet, die aus transhumanistischer Sicht den Menschen weit übertrifft. Im weiteren Verlauf der Arbeit werden sogar „ideologische Elemente“ im TH identifiziert. Daher wird in der Arbeit abgelehnt, den TH als Grundlage für die Weiterentwicklung der Anthropologie zu verwenden und stattdessen werden im letzten Teil der Arbeit alternative Ansätze für die Technikanthropologie präsentiert. Wie bereits erwähnt, richtet sich die Kritik am TH jedoch nicht gegen die heutige Optimierung in der Gesellschaft, die ebenfalls im letzten Teil der Arbeit diskutiert wird. Optimierungsbestrebungen hat es schon immer gegeben und sie werden nun durch neue Technologien weiter verändert, sie sind aber nicht mit der Bewegung des TH gleichzusetzen. Das Kapitel ist eingebettet zwischen dem Maschinendiskurs (Mensch als Maschine) mit seinen Ausführungen zu Information und Kybernetik und dem neurowissenschaftlichen Diskurs („Der Mensch ist ihr*sein Gehirn“). Es wird im Folgenden der genetische Diskurs im TH untersucht, also wie der TH den Menschen vollständig auf Gene zurückführt, und dies schließlich kritisch geprüft. Sind „gute Gene“ alles? Kann der Mensch vollständig über ihre*seine Gene bestimmt werden? Und was hat es mit der trügerischen „genetischen Information“ auf sich? Zunächst wird der genetische Diskurs im TH dargestellt, also die genetischen Ausführungen des TH präsentiert (Kap. 2), danach wird der Blick auf den Gebrauch der genetischen Metaphern im TH gerichtet (Kap. 3) und zuletzt werden die genetischen Vorstellungen des TH kritisiert (Kap. 4). Der Aufsatz schließt in Kap. 5mit einer (vorläufigen) Zusammenführung der Ergebnisse und einem Ausblick. (shrink)

Before he reached his mature metaphysical view of being as gradual in the Republic (Allen 1961), Plato claims that neither can negative facts explain positive facts, nor vice versa (Phaedo 103b) (this is very likely a corollary of his principle of opposites according to which if A and B are of opposite ontological categories, A cannot explain B (González-Varela and Barceló 2023). Yet, it seems obvious that we explain positive facts by appealing to negative facts and vice versa, all (...) the time. We say things like "Pat must be sick, because she would not have missed the party otherwise", "The Plant died because we forgot to water it", "The suitcase was so large, it did not fit in the trunk", etc. So this seems like a strange and obviously wrong take on the limits of metaphysical explanation. Yet here I will defend that this counter-intuitive metaphysical thesis has been unjustly dismissed and will argue that, instead, it is a plausible metaphysical principle. My defense of this metaphysical principle can also be seen as part of a larger defense of an under-explored metaphysical hypothesis, Ontological Manichesim, according to which positive and negative facts, if both belong in our ontology, are separate realms of being with no interaction whatsoever. (shrink)

Aristotle says that ὑπαρχειν has as many senses as ‘to be true’ (PrA. , A, 36, 48b2-9) and as many ways as there are different categories. (PrA., A, 37, 49a6-9) This may mean that for every ‘is’ there is a ὑπαρχειν. Τhe reason is that Aristotle uses ὑπαρχειν in converse direction of ‘is’. The equal statement of ‘A is B’ with ὑπαρχειν is ‘B ὑπαρχει to A.’ Allen Bāck points to the difference between the use of the verb with (...) dative case and its use with a subject alone in Greek language. When it is used with the dative, it retains its basic meaning, that is, ‘be already present’ or ‘exist really.’ ‘So to say that P belongs to S is to say that P exists in S, or, if you like, that P has its being in S.’ He believes that Aristotle uses this construction to insist that primary substances alone are the fundamental being and all other things only are ‘in’ substances. Thus, when the verb is used with the dative, it expresses dependent substance relation. But when it is used with a subject alone, e.g. in ‘S ὑπάρχει,’ it expresses that the subject really exists. (OI., 17a24 and 17b2) Thus, while it is the subject which is said to be the predicate, it is the predicate which ὑπάρχει to the subject. The formula of ‘τὸ Α ὑπάρχει τῷ Β’ is equivalent to ‘τὸ Β ἐστι Α.’ He uses the word for the predication of a category on substance (e.g. Met., α, 993b24-25; Met., Z, 1029a15-16; Cat., 5, 3b24-25), the predication of secondary substance on primary substance (e.g. Met., Z, 1038b21-23; Cat., 5, 2a14-19), the predication of primary substance on nothing else but itself (e.g. Met., Z, 1040b23-24), the belonging of a verb to the subject, the belonging of axioms to a single science (Met., 1005a22-23) , the belonging of PNC to all things that are (Met., IV, 3) , in the sense of really existing (Cael. 297b22, Met., 1041b4. Cf. B503, 125-126) or merely in the sense of the predication of a predicate on a subject (e.g. OI., I, 5, 17a22-24) and especially and much more repeatedly than anywhere else in his discussion of syllogism. (e.g. PrA., A, 36, 48a40-b2; PrA., B, 22, 67b28-30; PrA., A, 24a26-28) It is also used in some related senses like mere belonging (e.g. Met., A, 989a10-14; K, 1060a9-10) or to be there. (So., B, 5, 417b23-26) Some of its derived forms are also used by Aristotle. For example, ἐνυπαρχον in the sense of the thing that is ‘in’ something; (e.g. Met., A, 991a13-16; Met., Z, 1038b29-33 and 1039a3-5) ὑπερέχον in the sense of that which contains and ὑπερεχόμενον in the sense of that which is contained in something else. (e.g. Met., Δ, 1020b26-28) In a sense, the extent of the application of ὑπαρχειν is wider than ‘is’ since it is not restricted to the nominative form in which ‘is’ is used but is applicable to other cases as well: ‘For ‘That does not belong to this’ does not always mean that ‘This is not that’ but sometimes that ‘this is not of that’ or ‘for that.’ (PsA., A, 36, 48b28-33) Allen Bāck (B503, 124) points that in the Prior Analytics Aristotle uses ‘ὑπάρχει τῷ’ and ‘κατηγορεῖσθαι κατά’ interchangeably. (e.g. at 25b37-26a4) Referring to its converse construction in respect of μετέχει (if A belongs to B, then B participates in A) as a probable reason that it may have Platonist foundations. But the question is: why does Aristotle uses this construction (B belongs to A) instead of simply saying A is B? Alexander of Aphrodisias (Apr 54.21-29) wonders why Aristotle had to adhere to such artificial language, entirely unnatural for ordinary speakers of Greek. As Jonathan Barnes points out, all the three formulas of ‘τὸ Α ὑπάρχει τῷ Β,’ ‘τὸ Α κατηγορεῖται κατὰ τοῦ Β’ and ‘τὸ Α λέγεται κατὰ τοῦ Β’ are artificial in the sense that no Greek who wanted to say that pleasure was good would normally have expressed himself by way of any of them.’ Bāck thinks Aristotle may have used it ‘to stress the primacy of primary substances as the ultimate subjects.’ He also mentions the probability that it may be to emphasize that the terms are being coupled in predication without any existence condition, a suggestion he is not himself inclined with. Robin Smith notes for Aristotle that ‘belonging to’ construction is wider than ‘predicated of’ construction because it can be used for cases that cannot easily be treated as categorical sentences. While predication is restricted to cases in which the subject term is in the nominative case, belonging can indicate, as he quotes Mignucci (480-481), ‘any possible grammatical construction for a predicative relation’ . (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)

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

Das Anliegen der vorliegenden Studie ist der Entwurf eines wirklichkeitstreuen Modells der Kommunikation. Ebenfalls hat uns interessiert, die konstitutiven Regeln der Kommunikation zu bestimmen und einige Wirksamkeitsnormen und moralische Normen, die mit wünschenswerten sozialen Kommunikationsformen assoziierbar sein könnten, zu identifizieren. Die Kommunikation ist ein facettenreiches und zugleich interpretationsoffenes Phänomen, welches zahlreiche unterschiedliche theoretische Modelle erlaubt. Sie kann von den Psychologen als selbstständigen Verhaltenstyp, von den Soziologen als entscheidenden Sozialisierungsfaktor, von den Anthropologen als kulturhervorbringendes und -verbreitendes Mittel, von den Semiologen als (...) Prozess der (Um-)Konfiguration der verschiedenen Bedeutungen von Bedeutungsträgern usw. gedeutet werden. Das vorliegende Interpretationsmodell der Kommunikation ist allgemein, zum Teil auch hermeneutisch, indem es a) den Kommunikationsprozess als solchen und nicht etwa als eine gesonderte Instanz desselben berücksichtigt, b) eine einzige, nämlich die interaktive Perspektive auf die Kommunikation hervorhebt und c) zweckgemäß die Kommunikation in einen normativen, intelligiblen Rahmen überträgt, wobei sich eine empirische Beschreibung der Kommunikationsfakten zwecks Feststellung allgemeingültiger Gesetze von selbst erübrigt. Diesem theoretischen Modell entsprechend ist die Kommunikation eine Interaktion oder eine wechselseitige semiotische Interaktion, innerhalb derer die involvierten Personen mithilfe von Zeichen komplementäre Verhalten manifestieren, die bestimmten (sozialen) Regeln unterworfen sind. Demzufolge ist die Kommunikation kein individuelles Spiel, sondern ein Team-Spiel. Ihre Protagonisten spielen alle genauso wichtige Rollen, und von ihrer Teilnahme hängt beides, Gelingen und Misslingen der Kommunikation, gleichermaßen ab. Nachdem wir den Begriff der Kommunikation im allgemeinen erklärt hatten, galt unser Interesse der Definition und der Klassifizierung der exklusiven Ausführungsmittel des oben beschriebenen Prozesses, das heißt, der Zeichen. Die semiotische Literatur behandelt die Zeichen sowohl als (stoffliche, mentale oder gemischte) Objekte als auch als Funktionen. Für unsere Demarche haben wir es vorgezogen, die Zeichen als in Wirklichkeit existierende Reize zu beschreiben, die auf Grund von sozialen Konventionen stets auf „etwas Anderes” als auf sich selbst hinweisen. Dieses gemeinte „Andere“, die Bedeutung des Zeichens, ist nichts anderes als die Gesamtheit seiner Anwendungen. Die Natur des Verhältnisses von Zeichen und (willkürlicher, notwendiger, durch Analogie oder Ähnlichkeit begründeter) Bedeutung hat uns dann erlaubt, vier Zeichenkategorien auszumachen und zu beschreiben: Wörter, Indizien, Bilder und Sinnbilder. Was die Erläuterung der konstitutiven Faktoren der Kommunikation anbetrifft, haben wir im Einklang mit den Forschungen angesehener Semiotiker mit sechs grundlegenden Parametern gerechnet: Sender, Empfänger, Mitteilung, Code, Kommunikationssituation und Kommunikationskanal. Doch war das wirklich die einzige treffliche Option? Hätte der Kommunikationsprozess nicht ausgehend von anderen – wenigeren oder mehreren – Faktoren analysiert werden können? Gewiss kann die Kommunikation auch mittels weiterer Variablen verstanden werden – und die Fachliteratur ist nicht müde geworden, die Vorzüge anderer Beschreibungsmuster zu zeigen –; von den sechs semiotischen, von Roman Jakobson eingeführten Parametern kann man indes nicht wegsehen. Sie erlauben allemal eine ziemlich genaue Bestimmung der durch die Protragonisten der Kommunikation durchgeführten Handlungen. In Übereinstimmung mit der allgemeinen Methode der Handlungstheorie haben wir jeden konstitutiven Faktor der Kommunikation mit je einem Handlungspaar korreliert, zum einen beim Sender, zum anderen beim Empfänger. Die Berücksichtigung der Sprache und implizite der Kommunikation im Kontext der Handlungstheorie ist keine bahnbrechende Unternehmung, da sie unter anderem schon John Austin, John Searle und Jürgen Habermas als Ausgangspunkt ihrer Analyse der Sprechakte gedient hat. Auch die Korrelation der Kommunikationsparameter mit einer Handlung ist kein Novum, indem sie auf analoge Weise bereits durch die Versuche einiger Semiotiker wie Roman Jakobson und Karl Bühler, die Funktionen der Sprache bzw. des linguistischen Zeichens zu systematisieren, unternommen wurde. Unser origineller Beitrag besteht aus der Korrelation jedes Faktors der Kommunikation mit einer Interaktion, das heißt mit einem Paar von komplementären Handlungen, so dass jeder Handlung des Senders eine Handlung des Empfängers entspricht. In diesem Sinne haben wir Sender, Empfänger, Mitteilung, Code, Kommunikationssituation und Kommunikationskanal in spezifischen Interaktionstypen (Sichentlarven – Nachvollziehen, Einflussnahme – Antwort, Sendung – Empfang, syntaktische Informierung – syntaktisches Verständnis, Bezeichnung – „Mitbezeich-nung“ bzw. Anknüpfung einer soziale Beziehung – Beibehaltung einer soziale Beziehung) inszeniert. Nachdem wir den Kommunikationsprozess als Totalität von sechs Interaktionstypen beschrieben hatten, haben wir auf drei mögliche Ordnungen der Kommunikationsformen verwiesen, wobei die Einteilungskriterien jeweils die verschiedenen gebrauchten Zeichentypen, die Art der Beziehung zwischen Sender und Empfänger bzw. der sich spontan manifestierende soziale Abstand zwischen den Kommunizierenden waren. Indem unsere Demarche darauf abzielte, die Eigentümlichkeiten verbaler vs. nonverbaler, formaler vs. informaler, der individuell, gruppenweise oder öffentlich stattfindenden Kommunikation auszumachen, haben wir die Akzente auf die Pragmatik der Kommunikation gesetzt und somit einige Hinweise auf den Erwerb spezifischer Kommunikationsfähigkeiten geben können. Das von uns vorgeschlagene theoretische Modell hat also nicht nur ein besseres Verständnis der Kommunikation beabsichtigt, sondern auch die Feststellung eines vollständigen Regelwerks der Kommunikation. Diese Regeln wurden als Formen des zu erwartenden sozialen Verhaltens behandelt – sowohl im normativen als auch im antizipativen Sinne – und wurden im Gefolge von John Searle in zwei Hauptklassen eingeteilt: konstitutive und normative Regeln. Die konstitutiven Regeln bestimmen die von ihnen logisch-abhängigen Verhaltensweisen und legen die Bedingungen der Kommunikationsakte fest, während die normativen Regeln die vorgegebenen, unabhängigen Verhaltensweisen berücksichtigen und die wünschenswerten Bedingungen für ihre Vollziehung festlegen. Um die konstitutiven Regeln ausmachen zu können, sind wir davon ausgegangen, dass der Prozess der menschlichen Kommunikation kein naturhafter, sondern ein institutioneller ist. Mit anderen Worten ist die Kommunikation das Ergebnis einer sozialen Vereinbarung und eben kein unabhängiges Phänomen, das nur von außen zu beschreiben wäre. Je nachdem, wie die notwendigen Regeln, welche die soziale Vereinbarung definieren, respektiert oder verletzt werden, haben wir fünf mögliche Situationen identifiziert: die vollkommene Kommunikation, die teilweise geglückte Kommunikation, die Nonkommunikation, die relative und die absolute Antikommunikation, wobei man hinzufügen muss, dass die erste und die letzte Situation Grenzerfahrungen ohne jegliche Referenz darstellen. Die konstitutiven Regeln der Kommunikation wurden mit allen sechs spezifischen Interaktionstypen korreliert (Sichentlarven – Nachvollziehen, Einflussnahme – Antwort, Sendung – Empfang, syntaktische Informierung – syntaktisches Verständnis, Bezeich-nung – „Mitbezeichnung“ bzw. Anknüpfung einer soziale Beziehung – Beibehaltung einer soziale Beziehung), so dass sie wenigstens aus einem bestimmten Gesichtspunkt ein konsistentes und vollständiges System bilden können. Im Unterschied zum System der konstitutiven Regeln sind hier die Kommunikationsnormen nicht erschöpfend behandelt worden. So wurden aus der Vielfalt der Vorschriften, die zu erwünschten Ergebnissen in der Kommunikation führen könnten, nur einige im Rahmen der vorliegenden Studie angegangen. Diese betreffen die Wirksamkeit und die moralischen Aspekte der Kommunikation und wurden ihrerseits mit den oben angeführten sechs Interaktionstypen korreliert. Dabei waren nicht so sehr die unausweichlichen Lücken im Inventarisieren der Normen, welche die Genauigkeit und die Ökonomie der Kommunikation gewähren, am problematischsten, sondern vielmehr der Grad an moralischer Relevanz, den die Kommunikationsakte beanspruchen können. Wir sind fest davon überzeugt, dass die Handlungen der Kommunizierenden eher davon abhängen, inwiefern sie moralische Verpflichtungen eingehen, und eben nicht davon, was für einen Gewinn sie dadurch erzielen, da keine der berücksichtigten Handlungen sich der Moral gänzlich entziehen können. Ob „neutrale Metaregeln“ für den Fall, dass einige moralische Eingrenzungen mit den Wirksamkeitsnormen kollidieren, vonnöten sind, sei dahin gestellt. Ein theoretisches Modell kann nur dann als nützlich bezeichnet werden, wenn es neue Forschungsansätze bringt und neue Forschungswege ermöglicht. Unter diesem Blickwinkel hat die vorliegende Studie zwei mögliche Fortsetzungen: die Ergänzung der Gesamtheit der normativen Regeln der Kommunikation (im allgemeinen), bzw. das Unterteilen des allgemeinen Modells der Kommunikation in stereotypen Mustern wie der politischen oder didaktischen Kommunikation usw. Schließlich hängen Gelingen und Anwendbarkeit der vorliegenden Studie in pragmatischer Sicht eben davon ab, inwiefern sie dem Leser / Benutzer als Wekzeug zur Verbesserung seiner Kommunikationsleistungen dienen kann. (shrink)

This paper aims to suggest a new approach to Plato’s theory of being in Republic V and Sophist based on the notion of difference and the being of a copy. To understand Plato’s ontology in these two dialogues we are going to suggest a theory we call Pollachos Esti; a name we took from Aristotle’s pollachos legetai both to remind the similarities of the two structures and to reach a consistent view of Plato’s ontology. Based on this theory, when Plato (...) says that something both is and is not, he is applying difference on being which is interpreted here as saying, borrowing Aristotle’s terminology, 'is is (esti) in different senses'. I hope this paper can show how Pollachos Esti can bring forth not only a new approach to Plato’s ontology in Sophist and Republic but also a different approach to being in general. -/- Keywords Plato; being; difference; image; pollachos esti; pollachos legetai 1. Being, Not-Being and Difference The three dialogues where the notion of "difference" attaches to the notion of being, namely Parmenides II, Sophist and Timaeus,and specifically the first two we try to discuss here. In these dialogues, Plato is going to achieve a new and revolutionary understanding of being which is not anymore based on the notion of "same" as it was before in Greek ontology. It was his discovery, I think, that the notion of being in the Greek ontology is attached to the notion of the "same" and it is because of this attachment that there have always been many problems understanding being especially after Parmenides. That being has always been relying on the "same" can be found out from the way most of the Presocratics understood it. It was based on such a relationship between being and "same" that a later Ionian, Heraclitus of Ephesus, rejected Being by rejecting its sameness: unable to be the same, being cannot be being anymore but becoming. Heraclitus’ criticism of his predecessors’ understanding of being was due to his discovery that what they call being is not the same but different in every moment. The relation of being and sameness reaches to its highest point in Parmenides. What Plato does in using the "difference" is nothing but the establishment of a creative relation between being and "difference". In this new relation, although he is in agreement with Heraclitus that being is not the same but different, he does not do it by use of becoming. He disagrees, on the other hand, with Parmenides that such a relation between being and difference leads to not being. At Parmenides 142b5-6 it is said that if One is, it is not possible for it to be without partaking (μετέχειν) of being (οὐσίας), which leads to the distinction of being and one: -/- So there would be also the being of the one (ἡ οὐσία του̑ ἑνὸς) which is not the same (ταὐτὸν) as the one. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be its being, nor the one would partake of it. (142b7-c1) -/- The fact that what is (ἔστι) signifies (σημαῖνον) is other (ἀλλο) than what One signifies (c4-5), is being taken as a reason for their distinction. The conclusion is that when we say 'one is', we speak of two different things, one partaking of the other (c5-7). Having repeated these arguments of the otherness of being and one at 143a-b, Parmenides says that the cause of this otherness can be neither Being nor One but "difference": -/- So if being is something different (ἕτερον) and one something different (ἕτερον), it is not by being one that the one is different from being nor by its being being that being is other than one, but they are different from each other (ἕτερα ἀλλήλων) by difference (τῷ ἑτερῳ) and otherness (ἄλλῳ). (143b3-6) -/- The fifth hypothesis, 'one is not' (160b5ff.) is also linked with the notion of difference. When we say about two things, largeness and smallness, that they are not, it is clear that we are talking about not being of different (ἕτερον) things (160c2-4). When it is said that something is not, besides the fact that there must be knowledge of that thing, we can say that it entails also its difference: 'difference in kind pertains to it in addition to knowledge' (160d8). Parmenides explains the reason as such: -/- For someone doesn’t speak of the difference in kind of the others when he says that the one is different from the others, but of that thing’s own difference in kind. (160e1-2) -/- Although the theory of being as "difference" is not fulfilled yet, an exact look at what occurs in Sophist can make us sure that this was the launching step for "difference" to get its deserved role in Plato’s ontology. The notion of the "difference" is not yet well-functioned in Parmenides because we can see that being is still attached to the same: -/- For that which is the same is being (ὄν γὰρ ἐστι τὸ ταὐτόν) (162d2-3). -/- The notion of difference in Sophist is the key element based on which a new understanding of being is presented and the problem of not being is somehow resolved. The friends of Forms, the Stranger says, are those who distinguish between being and becoming (248a7-8) and believe that we deal with the latter with our body and through perception while with the former, the real being (ὄντως οὐσίαν) with our soul and through reasoning (a10-11). Being is then bound with the "same" by adding: -/- You say that being always stays the same and in the same state (ἣν ἀεὶ κατὰ ταὐτὰ ὡσαύτως ἔχειν) but becoming varies from one time to another (δὲ ἄλλοτε ἄλλως). (248a12-13) -/- That the theory of the relation of being and capacity (247d8f., 248c4-5) matches more with becoming than with being (248c7-9) must be rejected because being is also the subject of knowledge which is kind of doing something (248d-e). It does, however, confirm that 'both that which changes and also change have to be admitted as existing things (ὄντα) (249b2-3). I believe that this is what Socrates would incline to do at Theaetetus 180e-181a, that is, putting a fight between two parties of Parmenidean being and Heraclitean becoming and then escaping. The solution is that becoming is itself a kind of being and we ought to accept what changes as being. This is what must be done by a philosopher, namely, to refuse both the claim that 'everything is at rest' and that 'being changes in every way' and beg, like a child, for both and say being (τὸὄν) is both the unchanging and that which changes (249c10-d4). This kind of begging for both is obviously under the attack of contradiction (249e-250b). For both and each of rest and change similarly are (250a11-12) but it cannot be said either that both of them change or both of them rest, being must be considered as a third thing both of the rest and change associate with (250b7-10). The conclusion is that 'being is not both change and rest but different (ἕτερον) from them instead' (c3-4). The notion of difference helps Plato to take being departed from both rest and change because it was their sophisticated relation with being that made the opposition of being and becoming. Plato is now trying to separate being from rest and, thus, from "same" by "difference". Such a crucial change is great enough to need a 'fearless' decision (256d5-6). The possibility of being of not being is resulted (d11-12) comes as the answer to the question 'so it’s clear that change is not being and also is being (ἡ κίνησις ὄντως οὐκ ὄν ἐστι καὶ ὄν) since it partakes in being?' (d8-9). It is then by the notion of difference that becoming is considered as that which both is and is not. This coincidence of being and not being about change is apparently similar to Socrates’ paradoxical statement at Republic 477a about what both is and is not. -/- Introduction The Republic 476-477 has always been a matter of controversy mainly about two interwoven points. The first problem is the meaning of being here; that whether what he has in mind is a veridical, existential or propositional sense of being. The second problem is his distinction between the objects of knowledge and opinion which seems to lead, some believe, to the Two Worlds (TW) theory. The crucial point in Republic is that what is considered between knowledge (ἐπιστήμης) and ignorance (α͗γνοιας), namely opinion, must have a different object that leads Socrates to draw the distinction of knowledge and opinion between their objects. The problem of understanding being in the fifth book of the Republic is that when it is said that the Form of F is F but a particular participating in F, both is and is not F, it sounds too bizarre and unacceptable. It cannot be imaginable how a thing can be existent and non-existent at the same time. At the first sight, the only solution seems to be the degrees of existence which is called by Annas (1981, 197) a 'childish fallacy' and a 'silly argument'. Kirwan (1974, 118) thinks that Republic V does not attribute 'any doctrine about existence' to Plato and Kahn (1966, 250) claims that the most fundamental value of einai when used alone (without predicate) is not "to exist" but "to be so", "to be the case" or "to be true". The problems of understanding being in Republic and Sophist besides the difficulties of the existential reading led scholars to the other senses of being, mostly related to the well-known Aristotelian distinctions between different senses of being. In the predicative reading, Annas, for example, refers this difference to the qualified and unqualified application. Whereas the Form of F is unqualifiedly F, a particular instance of F can be F only qualifiedly (1981, 221). Vlastos’ well-known substitution of 'degrees of reality' for 'degrees of being/existence' must be categorized as a predicative reading. Kahn thinks that the basic sense of being for Plato is 'something like propositional structure, involving both predication and truth claims, together with existence for the subject of predication' (2013, 96). Believing that the complete-incomplete distinction terminology is misleading about Plato, he thinks that semantic functions are only second-order uses of the verb and it is the predicative or incomplete function which is fundamental. Suggesting a veridical reading, Fine (2003, 70 ff) thinks that while both existential and predicative readings separate the objects of knowledge and belief, it is only her reading which does not force such separation of the objects and thus does not imply TW. Stokes (1998, 266) thinks that though Fine is right saying that Plato does not endorse TW in book V, she is wrong in rejecting existential in favor of the veridical reading. The reception of existential reading can be seen more obviously in Calvert who thinks, in agreement with Runciman, that 'it would be safer to say that Plato’s gradational ontology is probably not entirely free from degrees of existence' (1970, 46). At Sophist 254d-e Plato singles out five most important kinds (or Forms!?) in which the same (ταὐτὸν) and difference (θάτερον) are regarded besides being, rest and change. They are, therefore, neither the same nor the difference but share in both (b3). Being (τὸ ὄν) cannot be the same also because if they 'do not signify distinct things' both change and rest will have the same label when we say they are (255b11-c1). We have then four distinct kinds, being, change, rest and same, none of them is the other. The case of difference is more complicated. When the stranger wants to assess the relation of being and difference, he can say simply neither that they are distinct nor that they are not. He has to make an important distinction inside being to get able to draw the relation of being and difference: -/- But I think you'll admit that some of the things that are (τῶν ὄντων) are said (λέγεσθαι) by themselves (αὐτὰ καθ’ αὑτά) but some [are said] always referring to (πρὸς) other things (ἄλλα) (255b12-13) -/- The difference is always said referring to other things (τὸδέγ’ ἕτερον ἀεὶ πρὸς ἕτερον) (255d1). It pervades all kinds because each of them should be different from the others and is so due to the difference and not its own nature (253e3f.) After asserting that change is different from being and therefore both is and is not (256d), the difference is described as what makes all the other kinds not be, by making each different from being. Given that all of them are by being, this association of being and difference is the cause of their being and not-being at the same time, the issue that its version at RepublicV made all those controversies we discussed above: -/- So in the case of change and all the kinds, not being necessarily is (Ἔστιν ἄρα ἐξ ἀναγκης τὸ μὴ ὄν). Τhat’s because as applied to all of them, the nature of the difference (ἡ θατέρον φύσις) makes each of them not be by making it different from being. And we’re going to be right if we say that all of them are not in the same way. And conversely [we’re also going to be right if we say] that they are because they partake in being. (Sophist 256d11-e3) -/- Plato’s new construction of five distinct kinds and the role he gives to thedifference among them is aimed to resolve the old problem of understanding being which has always been annoying from the time of Heraclitus and Parmenides. Both the ontological status of becoming and that of not being were, in Plato’s mind, based on the absolute domination of the notion of the Same over being. Now, not only becoming is understandable as being but also not being which is not the contrary of being anymore but only different (ἕτερον) (257b3-4). Though I agree partly with Frede that the account of not being which is needed for false statements is more complicated than just saying, as Cropsey (1995, 101) says, that Plato is substituting 'X is not Y' with 'X is different from Y', I totally disagree with him that when we say X is not beautiful, Plato could not have thought that it is not a matter of its being different from beautiful because 'it would be different from beauty even if it were beautiful by participation in beauty' (1992, 411). Conversely, as we will discuss, it is exactly the relation of the beautiful thing, X, and the beautiful itself, in which X shares that is to be solved by the notion of not being as difference. Though it is beautiful because of sharing in beauty, X is not beautiful because it is different from beautiful itself. What the difference is to do is to show how something can both be and not be the same thing. The difference is what makes one thing both be and not be a certain other thing. This equips the difference with the ability to explain a certain thing’s not-being when it is. Thanks to the notion of difference, it is now possible to explain not only not being but also the simultaneous being and not being of a thing: 'What we call "not-beautiful" is the thing that ἕτερόν ἐστιν from nothing other than του̑ καλου̑ φύσεως' (257d10-11). The result is that not beautiful happens to be (συμβέβηκεν εἶναι) one single thing among kinds of beings (τι τῶν ὄντων τινὸς ἑνὸς γένους) and at the same time set over against one of the beings (πρός τι τῶν ὄντων αὖ πάλιν ἀντιτεθὲν) (257e2-4) and thus be something that happens to be not beautiful (εἶναί τις συμβαίνει τὸ μὴ καλόν); a being set over against being (ὄντος δὴ πρὸς ὄν ἀντίθεσις) (e6-7). Neither the beautiful is more a being (μα̑λλον ... ἐστι τῶν ὄντων) nor not beautiful less (e9-10) and thus both the contraries similarly are (ὁμοίως εἶναι) (258a1). This conclusion, it is emphasized again (a7-9), owes to θατέρου φύσις now turned out as being. Therefore, each of the many things that are of the nature of the difference and set over each other in being (τῆς τοῦ ὄντος πρὸς ἄλληλα ἀντικειμένων ἀντίθεσις) is being as being itself is being (αὐτοῦ τοῦὄν τοςοὐσία ἐστιν) and not less. They are different from, and not the contrary of, each other (a11-b3). This is exactly τὸμὴὄν, the subject of the inquiry (b6-7). Hence, not being has its own nature (b10) and is one εἶδοςamong the many things that are (b9-c3). Such far departing from Parmenides’ ontological principle is done on the basis of the nature of the difference. It was the discovery of such a notion that made the stranger brave enough to say that not being is each part of the nature of the difference that is set over against being (258d7-e3, cf. 260b7-8). That the relation of being and difference is difference is the key element of the new ontology. The difference is, only because of its sharing in being, but it is not that which it shares in but different from it (259a6-8). Not being is exactly based on this difference: ἕτερον δὲ τοῦ ὄντος ὄν ἔστι σαφέστατα ἐξ ἀνάγκης εἶναι μὴ ὄν (a8-b1). 2. Difference and the Being of a Copy We discussed above that the sense of being of particulars in Republic V made so many debates that whether being is there used in an existential sense or not. Particulars in Republic are regarded as images in the allegories of Line and Cave. The being of an image/copy makes, thus, the same problem. Plato’s analogy of original -copy for the relation of Forms and their particulars in Republic has obviously a different attitude to being. The main question is that what is the ontological status of a copy in respect of its original? Are there two kinds of being, 'real being' versus 'being' as Ketchum says (1980, 140) or only one kind? What is the difference of being in an original and its copy? Is it a matter of degrees of being or reality as some commentators have suggested? Is it a matter of being relational? By reducing the ontological issue to an epistemological one, Vlastos’ suggestion of degrees of reality in an article with the same name does neither, I think, pay attention to the problem nor resolve it. He agrees that Plato never speaks of "degrees" or "grades" of reality (1998, 219). What allows him to entitle it as such are some of Plato’s words in Republic as well as Plato’s words in some other dialogues (1998, 219). When Plato states that the Forms only can completely, purely or perfectly be real he means, Vlastos says, they are cognitively reliable (1998, 229); an obvious reduction of the issue to an epistemological one. He thinks that when in Republic we are being said that a particular’s being F is less pure than its Form, it is because it is not exclusively F, but it is and is not F and this being adulterated by contrary characters is the reason of our confused and uncertain understanding of it (1998, 222). Ketchum rightly criticizes Vlastos’ doctrine in its disparting from ontology thinking that 'to understand Plato’s talk of being as talk of reality is to obscure the close relation that exists between "being" and the verb "to be"' (1980, 213). He thinks, therefore, that οὐσία must be understοοd as being rather than reality, τὸὄν as "that which is" and not "that which is real" and … (ibid). His conclusion is that degrees of reality cannot interpret Plato correctly and we must accept degrees of being. Allen believes that a 'purely epistemic' reading of the passage in Republic is patently at odds with Plato’s text (1961, 325). He thinks that not only degrees of reality but also degrees of reality must be maintained (1998, 67). What Cooper suggests gets close to this paper’s solution: -/- Plato does not I think wish to suggest that existence is a matter of degree in the way in which being pleasant or painful is a matter of degree. Rather there are different grades of ontological status. (1986, 241) -/- A more ontological solution for the problem of understanding the being of a copy and its relation with the being of its original is suggested by the theory of copy as a relational entity. Based on this interpretation, 'the very being of a reflection is relational, wholly dependent upon what is other than itself: the original…' (Allen, 1998, 62). As relational entities, particulars have no independent ontological status; they are purely relational entities which derive their whole character and existence from Forms (ibid, 67). Although these relational entities are and have a kind of existence, we must also say that 'they do not have existence in the way that Forms, things which are fully real, do' (ibid). Allen (1961, 331) extends his theory to Phaedo where it is said that particulars are deficient (74d5-7, 75a2-3, 75b4-8), 'wish' to be like (74d10) or desire to be of its nature (75a2); an extension that, like F.C. white (1977, 200), I cannot admit. He correctly states that Plato did not start out with a doctrine of particulars as images and semblances but come to such a view after Phaedo, or perhaps after Republic V (1977, 202). Though we may not agree with him about Republic V, if we have to consider its last pages also, we must agree with him that not only the ontology of Phaedo but also that of Republic II-V (except the last pages of the latter book) are somehow different from (but at the same time appealing to) the ontology of original-copy which should exclusively assign to Sophist, Timaeus and RepublicVI-VII besides the last pages of book V. The answer to the problem of Plato’s sense of being in RepublicV can be reached only if we read Republic V based on and as following Sophist. We can find out his meaning of that which both is and is not only by the ontological status he assigns to a copy in Sophist. The kind of being of a copy in Sophist reveals as Plato’s key for the lock of the problem of not being. Let’s see how the ontological status of a copy is the critical point of Plato’s ontology. In the earlier pages of Sophist, we are still in the same situation about not being. To think that that which is not is is called a rash assumption (237a3-4) and Parmenides’ principle of the impossibility of being of not being is still at work (a8-9). At 237c1-4, the problem of "not being" is noticed in a new way which shows some kinds of a more realistic position to the problem of not being. Nevertheless, not being is still unthinkable, unsayable, unutterable and unformulable in speech (238c10). Soon after mentioning that it is difficult even to refuse not being (238d), the solution to the problem appears: the being of a copy (εἴδωλον) (239d). A copy is, says Theaetetus, something that is made referring to a true thing (πρὸς τἀληθινὸν) but still is 'another such thing (ἕτεροντοιου̑τον)' (240a8). Nevertheless, this 'another such thing' cannot be another such real or true thing. In answer to the question of the Stranger that if this 'another such thing' is the true thing (240a9), Theaetetus answers: οὐδαμῶς ἀληθινόν γε, ἀλλ’ ἐοικὸςμὲν (240b2). A copy’s being 'another such thing' does not mean another true thing but only a resemblance of it. Not only is not a copy another true thing besides the original, but it is the opposite of the true thing (b5) because only its original is the thing genuinely and being a copy is being the thing only untruly. The word ἐοικὸς is opposed to ὄντως ὄν in the next line (240b7): 'So you are saying that that which is like (ἐοικὸς) is not really that which is (οὐκ ὄντως [οὐκ] ὄν)'. But still a copy 'is in a way (ἔστι γε μήν πως)' (b9). While it is not really what it is its resemblance, it has its own being and reality because it really is a likeness (εἰκων ὄντως) (b11). The Stranger asks: -/- So it is not really what is (οὐκ ὄν ἄρα [οὐκ] ὄντως ἐστὶν) but it really is what we call a likeness (ὄντως ἣν λέγομεν εἰκόνα)? (b12-13) -/- This is Plato’s innovative ontological solution to the problem of not being. Theaetetus’ answer confirms this: 'Maybe that which is not is woven together with that which is' (c1-2). Therefore, a copy neither is what really is nor is not-being but only is what in a way is. Thanks to the ontological status of a copy, the third status intermediate between being and not being is brought forth. The essence of an image, in Kohnke’s words, does not consist 'solely in the negation of what is genuine and has real being' because otherwise 'it would be an ὄντως οὐκ ὄν,essentially and really a not being' (1957, 37). The characteristics of a copy can be summed up as folows: i) A copy is a copy by referring to a true thing (πρὸς τἀληθινὸν). ii) A copy is different from that of which it is a copy (ἕτερον). iii) A copy is not itself a true thing (ἀληθινόν) as that of which it is a copy but only that which is like it (ἐοικὸς). iv) It is not really that which really is (ὄντως ὄν) but only really a likeness (εἰκων ὄντως). The conclusion is that: v) A copy in a way (πως) is that means it both is and in not, the product of interweaving being with not being. This leads to the refutation of father Parmenides’ principle, accepting that 'that which is not somehow is (τό τε μὴ ὄν ὡς ἔστι)' and 'that which is, somehow is not (τό ὄν ὡς οὐκ ἔστι) (241d5-7). Besides copies and likenesses (εἰκόνων), we have also imitations (μιμημάτων) and appearances (φαντασμάτων) as the subjects of this new kind of being and thus false belief (241e3). In Timaeus, the world of becoming which cannot correctly be called and thus we have to call it "what is such" (τὸ τοιου̑τον) (49e5) or "what is altogether such" (τὸ διἀ παντὸς τοιου̑τον) (e6-7), consists solely of imitations (μιμημάτα) (50c5) which are identifiable only by the things that they are their imitations. The word τοιου̑τον which had been used to determine the situation of a copy in respect of its original, now becomes the definition of the world of becoming in which everything is an image of another thing, a Being, that stays always the same and is different and separated from its image. Cherniss, in my view rightly, draws attention to the very important point about the ontological status of an image that can at the same time be considered a criticism of the relational theory. What we are being said in Timaeus, he thinks,cannot be explained by saying that an image is not self-related and making its being relational. What is crucial about an image is that it 'stands for something, refers to something, means something and this meaning the image has not independently as its own but only in reference to something else apart from it' (1998, 296). This function finds its best explanation in the theory we are to suggest in the following. 3. πολλαχῶς ἔστι The best way to understand the ontological status of an image in Plato is to see first how his most clever pupil, Aristotle, resolved the same problem that Plato brought his theory of image for its sake. Aristotle’s theory of pollachos legetai is a brilliant and, at the same time, deviated version of Plato’s theory that is able, however, to help us read Plato in a better way. We discuss Aristotle’s theory to reach to a full understanding of Plato’s theory because it is, firstly, constructed in Aristotle in a more clear way and, secondly, it can also be taken as an evidence that our reading of Plato is legitimate. The phrase τὸ ὄν πολλαχῶς λέγεται, a so much repeated phrase in Aristotle’s works, is his resolution for some of the ontological problems of his predecessors all treating being as if it has only one sense. Aristotle is right in his criticism of the philosophical tradition specially Heraclitus, Parmenides and Plato since all did presuppose only one sense for being and his theory is, thus, a creative and revolutionary solution for many problems that all the past philosophers were stuck in. But it is at the same time somehow a borrowed theory. As we will discuss, both the structure of the doctrine and the problems it tries to resolve are the same as Plato’s doctrine (and even is comparable in its phraseology) though it is in Aristotle, as can be expected, a more clear and better structured doctrine. 1) Associated with the theory of pros hen and the theory of substance, the theory of several senses of being provides a structure which, I insist, is the best guide to understand Plato’s theory of Being in Sophist, Timeaus and Republic. a) Although the theory of pollachos legetai is not necessarily based on the theory of pros hen, they become tightly interdependent about being: -/- Being is said in many ways/senses (τὸ δὲ ὄν λέγεται μὲν πολλαχῶς) but by reference to one (πρὸς ἕν) [way/sense] and one kind of nature (μίαν τινὰ φύσιν). (Metaphysics 1003a33-34) -/- The doctrine of pros hen which is Aristotle’s initiative third alternative besides the homonymous and synonymous application of words, is primarily a linguistic theory that tries to provide a new theory to explain the different implementations of the same word. The pros hen implementation of being is to provide an alternative for the theory of the synonymous (in Plato: homonymous) implementation of being which says being is said in one sense (kath hen) (1060b 32-33). That both the pros hen and the kath hen implementation of a word has one thing (hen) as what is common, makes them in opposition to the homonymous implementation which does not consider anything in common. Whereas both pros hen and kath hen assume a common nature, with which all the implementations of the word have some kind of relation, their difference is that while kath hen takes all the implementations of the word as the same with the common nature, pros hen makes them different. Substance is called πρῶτον ὄν because it is said to be primarily: -/- For as is (τὸ ἔστιν) is predicated of all things, not however in the same way (οὐχ ὁμοίως) but of one sort of thing primarily and of others in a secondary way. So too τὸτί ἐστιν belongs simply (ἁπλῶς) to substance but in a limited sense (πῶς) to the others [other categories] (1030a21-23). -/- The word ἁπλῶς standing against κατὰ συμβεβηκός tries to make substance different from the accidents. When we are being said that τὸ ὄν πολλαχῶς λέγεται, it means that only the substance that is simply (ἁπλῶς) the ἕν, the common nature, τὸὄν. When we use the word 'being' about a substance, the being is said differently from when we use 'being' about an accident. The distinction between the substance and the other categories is a distinction between what simply is said to be and what only with reference to (pros) the substance is said to be. The doctrine of pros hen, changing kath hen to pros hen in respect of to on, makes a distinction that wants to show that while there is a kind of implementing the word being that is simply being, there is another kind which is called being only by reference to that which is simply being. In the doctrine of pros hen it is not so that all the things that are said to be are only by reference to a common one thing, but that while one thing is called being because it is that thing itself, the other things are called so without being that thing itself but only by referring to it. At the very beginning of book Γ, it is said that: -/- Being is said in many senses but all refer to one arche. Some things are said to be because they are substances, others because they are affections of substances, others because they are a process towards substances or destructions or privations or qualities of substances … (1003b5-9, cf. 1028a18-20) -/- Substance is what really is said to be and all other things that are said to be are said only in favor of it. This difference of substance from all other senses of being is what is, I believe, primarily aimed in Aristotle’s interrelated theories of pollachos legetai,pros hen and the theory of substance. b) The difference of the implementation of being in the case of substance and the accidents goes so deep that while substance is considered as the real being, the accidents are almost not being. An accident is a mere name (Metaphysics 1026b13-14) and is obviously akin to not being (b21). Aristotle adds that Plato was 'in a sense not wrong' saying that sophists deal with not being (τὸ μὴ ὄν) because the arguments of sophists are, above all, about the accidental (1026b13-16). At the beginning of book , he says about quality and quantity (which look to be more of a being than other accidents) that they are not existent (οὐδ̕ ὄντα ὡς εἰπεῖν) in an unqualified sense (ἁπλῶς) (1069a21-22). The two above-mentioned points, Aristotle’s (a) interwoven theories of pollachos legetai, pros hen and the theory of substance and (b) taking accidents almost as not being, comparedwith substance, brings forth a structure that I shall call Pollachos Legetai (with capital first letters). What is of the highest importance in this structure for me is the difference of substance from accidents and the kind of relation which is settled between them. There is a substance that without any qualification is said to be and the accidents that are said to be only by reference (pros) to it. Adding Aristotle’s point about accidents that they are nearly not being to this relation and difference, we can obviously see how much this structure is close to Plato’s original-copy ontology. We spoke of the relation of being and difference in Plato’s model and the way Plato construes the being of a copy. A copy is a copy only by referring to (pros) a model; it is different from (ἕτερον) that of which it is a copy; it is not itself a true thing as its model and not really that which is (ὄντως ὄν) but only is in a way (πῶς). If we behold the difference of substance and accident in the context of the theory of pollachos legetai and pros hen, we can observe its fundamental similarity with Plato’s original-copy theory in its structure. Allen draws attention to the fact that the relation between Forms and particulars in Plato’s original-copy model is 'something intermediate between univocity and full equivocity' (1998, 70, n. 24) and the same as what Aristotle calls it pros hen (ibid). What made us compare the two structures was not, of course, the complete similarity of two structures (we have to agree with many possible differences of the two theories) but exactly the specific relation between an original and its copy on the one hand, and a substance and its accident on the other hand. As substance and accident do not share a common character and the substance -accident model hints that they stand in a certain relation, there is no common character between the original and copy in Plato’s model as well. Furthermore, their similarity is not confined to their structure only; they are also aimed to solve the same problem. The central point of the theory is that all the predecessors took being in one sense and this was their weakness point. Besides the mentioned above passages about the relation of pollachos legetai and presocratics’, as well as Plato’s, ontology, the relation of the theory with the problem of not being is clear in several passages. In Metaphysics, it is said: 'Being is then said in many senses… It is for this reason that we say even of not being that it is not being' (1003b5-10). Discussing the accidental sense of being, Aristotle points that it is in the accidental way that we say, for example, that not-white is because that of which it is an accident is (1017a18-19, cf. 1069a22-24). We mentioned that he thought Plato was right saying that sophistic deals with not being because sophistic deals with accidental, which is somehow not being (1026b14-16). Plato turned sophistic not-being to what both is and is not and Aristotle to what accidentally is said to be. What helps Aristotle to resolve the problem of not being is his distinction between ἁπλῶς and κατὰ σθμβεβηκός. Aristotle’s "qua" (ᾕ) which is directly linked with his distinction between καθ’ αὑτο λέγεται and κατὰ συμβεβηκός λέγεται, is used to resolve the old problem of coming to be out of not being (Physics 191b4-10). He strictly asserts that his predecessors could not solve the problem because they failed to observe the distinction of "qua itself" from "qua another thing" (b10-13). He then continues: -/- We ourselves are in agreement with them in holding that nothing can be said simply (ἁπλως) to come from not being (μὴὄντος). But nevertheless we maintain that a thing may come to be from not being in an accidental way (κατὰ συμβεβηκός). For from privation which ὅ ἐστι καθ’ αὑτο μὴ ὄν, nothing can become. (Phy. 191b13-16, cf. b19-25) . (shrink)

Es ist wahr, die frühe Neuzeit hatte nur einen Descartes. Aber sie hatte hunderte schreibende Gelehrte. Auch solche, die Descartes und allen anderen zeigten, wer was wo schon geschrieben hatte. Solche Universal-Gelehrten dachten an den einzelnen Schreiber, sie halfen ihm absichtlich nicht, die Quellen zu verbergen, sondern sie zu finden. Keine Träumereien an französischen oder schwäbischen Kaminen, sondern effiziente Arbeit am Jesuitenkolleg waren Ziel und Inhalt z.B. der Bibliotheca selecta , in der Antonio Possevino SJ das Bildungsprogramm der Jesuiten (...) mit einem Literaturkanon und allgemeinen Erörterungen zur Bildung und Ausbildung versah. Dieses Handbuch stellt, entgegen gewissen Anzeichen, kein System der Wissenschaften dar, sondern konstruiert deren Gemeinsamkeit mittels der direkten Zwecksetzung zum Seelenheil der Menschen, woraus einerseits die Notwendigkeit einer Psychologie des Lernens, andererseits eine größere Unabhängigkeit der Wissenschaften von einander resultiert. Mit seiner Mischung von humanistischer Gelehrsamkeit, frommer Finalität, Kultur des Individuums und allgemeiner Nützlichkeit ist die Bibliotheca selecta ein Schnittpunkt von Humanismus und Schulweisheit. (shrink)

For Aristotle, a verb (ῥῆμα) is that which a) besides a proper meaning b) carry with it the notion of time; c) its parts do not significate separately and d) is a sign of something said of something else (OI ., 2, 16b6-8). This comprehensive definition distinguishes verbs from both nouns (since they do not carry the notion of time with themselves) and sentences or co-positings of words (since they have parts with independent meanings). Based on this definition, a verb (...) signifies three things: i) A main or proper meaning which is the meaning of the verb, e.g. running or sleeping; ii) time and iii) co-positing (or positing away). Although it is not asserted that one part is responsible for prossignification of time, its responsibility is given to co-positing-is. This might seem to be in contradiction with (c). However, it seems that (c) cannot include prossignifications of time and co-positing. What Aristotle means in (c) is just that parts of a verb cannot separately signify a meaning. Therefore, it is better to distinguish between signification, which is about meaning and prossignification, which is generally about anything but meaning. Hence, while the parts of the verb cannot have separate signification, they can have separate prossignification. Aristotle distinguishes between different kinds of verbs: 1) Definite verbs: those verbs that have definite nouns as their verb-name. 2) Indefinite verbs: those verbs that do not have definite nouns as their verb-name (OI., I, 3, 16b12-14; 10, 19b10-11). Aristotle’s examples of an indefinite verb are ‘is not-healthy’ and ‘is not-ill’. 3) Tenses of verbs: ‘was healthy’ and ‘will be healthy’ are tenses of the verb ‘is healthy’ because a verb indicates only the present time (OI., I, 3, 16b16-18). For Aristotle, almost all verbs either are composed of or can be analyzed to parts. An example of the former is ‘is healthy’ and of the latter is ‘runs,’ which can be analyzed to two parts: ‘is running.’ (OI., I, 10, 20a3-5; II, 12, 21b5-8). Thus, for him a verb either includes or can be analyzed to two parts: a part that includes the meaning and is, or is shown, by a name we call ‘verb-name’ (a), and a part that includes the co-positing of that meaning with the subject of the verb, which is or is shown by ‘is’, which we call ‘co-positing-is’ (d). The verb ‘runs’, for example, can be analyzed to a verb-name, ‘running’ and a co-positing-is (Note: Aristotle distinguishes between the verb ‘is’ in the sense of ‘exists’ and the co-positing ‘is’. Whereas in the former ‘is’ is a verb, having a signification of its own, which is ‘existing’, besides signifying time (OI., I, 10, 19b12-19), the ‘is’ in the latter is not a verb (Aristotle calls it ‘incidental’ is (OI., II, 11, 21a25-28) and is not sure whether to call it a verb or a noun (OI., I, 10, 19b22-24)) because it does not signify existing and, thus, need something else to be added. This something else is the meaning we are discussing. Therefore, it is only after the addition of the meaning to this ‘is’ that we have a verb. This is, I believe, the sense of the so much controversial text of OI, I, 3, 16b22-25: ‘For being and not being signify the existence of a thing not τὸ ὄν εἴπῃς αὐτὸ καθ᾿ ἑαυτὸ ψιλόν. For it does not indicate anything but prossignifies some co-positing (σύνθεσίν). Aristotle’s words at 16b24 about co-positing-is that it ‘prossignifies some co-positing’ (προσσημαίνει δὲ σύνθεσίν τινα) is an explicit evidence that she cannot be right.) and is not a concept apart from the things co-posited (συγκειμένων).’ This text, however, is so controversial. Originating from Ammonius and Boethius after him, who used the verb ‘copular’ for ‘est’ and Abelard, some commentators like Weidemann, Oehler, Francisco Ademollo take ‘is’ as having a copulative function. Allen Bāck notes that Aristotle does not separate off ‘is’ from other verbs as a mere copula but takes it ‘as the basic, paradigmatic form of the verb.’ He believes that in his interpretation of Aristotle (in: OI., 55, 19-24) Ammonius also took it as the paradigm for all verbs. Francisco Ademollo criticizes the standard view of taking ‘is’ as copula here and is inclined to take it as essential. David Ross thinks that although Aristotle is aware of the distinction between the existential and the copulative is, he has as yet no very clear idea of their relation. Although Jonathan Barnes agrees that the copula is surely present in de Interpretation, he thinks that at 16b22-25 Aristotle ought to be talking of existential εἶναι. Marie De Rijk Lambartus believes that there is no copula in Aristotle’s philosophical analysis of the elementary sentences and it is a mere corpus alienum in Aristotle’s semantics. Allan Bȃck believes that the copulative theory is not Aristotle’s and ‘may have come to dominate as a result of the neoPlatonizing interpretations of Aristotle’s works by Proclus, Ammonius and Boethius, which is the sign of the relation of running with a subject, e.g. Socrates in ‘Socrates runs’. Nonetheless, none of these parts significate separately. This is supposed to mean that a verb is a single signification. However, it is evident that each of the parts can signify if we use them in a different context as both of ‘running’ and ‘is’ in ‘runs’ or both of ‘is’ and ‘healthy’ in ‘is healthy’ can do. It might seem now that the first mentioned definition of verb might be contradictory. While Aristotle asserts that the parts of verb do not signify separately (d), he considers two other significations for a verb: the signification of time and relation. As it is obvious, both of these significations are done by one part of the verb, that is the co-positing-is. Therefore, in a verb e.g. ‘is healthy’ we have three significations: the significations of meaning, time and co-positing. Aristotle uses prossignification both for time (προσσημαῖνον χρόνον, OI., 2, 16b4) and co-positing (προσσημαίνει δἑ σύνθεσὶν τινα, OI, I, 3, 16b23-24). Since the copula part of a verb has no signification and does not form any conception, a verb is indeed its verb-name. Thus we see Aristotle saying that ‘verbs are in and by themselves names and signify something’ and like names, he adds, they arrest the hearer’s mind and fix his attention (OI., I, 3, 16b19-22). We can conclude then that verbs are names said of something else and carrying time. In other words, verbs are words that though have one single signification, as names have, they also have two other prossignifications: time and relation. (shrink)

Die Frage, ob Karl Jaspers ein Kantianer ist, wird nicht nur kompetente Jasperskenner überraschen, sondern auch die meisten Philosophiehistoriker, die mit der Geschichte der Philosophie der Neuzeit und Moderne vertraut sind. Denn einerseits werden nicht nur die meisten Jasperskenner, sondern auch die meisten Philosophiehistoriker überhaupt, diese Frage zunächst einmal mit einem gewissen Recht verneinen. Denn der überlieferten Lehrmeinung zufolge, war Jaspers kein Kantianer, sondern ein Existenzphilosoph. Andererseits werden vermutlich die meisten Jasperskenner und Philosophiehistoriker zugestehen, dass Kant für Jaspers zumindest einer (...) der wichtigsten Philosophen war, wenn nicht sogar der wichtigste Philosoph überhaupt. Das alleine reicht aber kaum aus, um Jaspers als einen Kantianer aufzufassen. Denn wer Jaspers als einen Kantianer bezeichnet, wird damit nicht nur meinen, dass Jaspers unter allen großen Philosophen immer noch Kant am nächsten stand und ihn am meisten schätze, sondern auch dass er selbst philosophische Auffassungen und Überzeugungen vertreten hat, die dem überlieferten Idealtypus eines Kantianers entsprechen. In diesem idealtypischen Sinne können und dürfen wir zumindest aus heuristischen Gründen z.B. Augustinus, Plotin und Bonaventura als Platoniker sowie Thomas von Aquin, Trendelenburg und Brentano als Aristoteliker bezeichnen. In diesem idealtypischen Sinne können und dürfen wir auch fragen, in welchem Sinne man Jaspers eher als einen Platoniker oder als einen Aristoteliker verstehen kann. Und in diesem Sinne kann man dann auch mit gewissen Fug und Recht fragen, ob Jaspers den wesentlichen Grundzügen seines Philosophierens zufolge ein Kantianer ist. (shrink)

GAMETOGÊNESE -/- Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro da Silva Instituto Agronômico de Pernambuco Departamento de Zootecnia – UFRPE Embrapa Semiárido -/- • _____OBJETIVO -/- Os estudantes bem informados, estão a buscando conhecimento a todo momento. O estudante de Veterinária e Zootecnia, sabe que a Reprodução é uma área de primordial importância para sua carreira. Logo, o conhecimento da mesma torna-se indispensável. No primeiro trabalho da série fisiologia reprodutiva dos animais domésticos, foi abordado de forma clara, didática e objetiva os mecanismos de diferenciação (...) sexual dos embriões em desenvolvimento, quais os genes envolvidos nesse processo e tudo mais. Nesse segundo trabalho, a abordagem será teórica, mas também clara, sobre a formação primordial dos gametas femininos e masculinos, através da ovogênese nas fêmeas e a espermatogênese nos machos. Esse trabalho visa levar a importância do processo de formação dos gametas e a produção hormonal das gônadas, bem como o entendimento sobre as interações com o eixo hipotálamo-hipofisário. -/- •____INTRODUÇÃO -/- A reprodução sexual é um processo mediante a qual dois organismos da mesma espécie unem seu material genético para dar lugar a um organismo fixo com combinação única de genes; para isso, cada organismo produz células que contém a metade do material genético característico da espécie. Essas células haploides (1n) são denominadas gametas; ao combinar-se um gameta masculino com um feminino produz-se uma célula diploide (2n) (zigoto ou ovo) a partir da qual se forma o embrião. A grande maioria das espécies com reprodução sexual são anisogâmicas, o que significa que produzem dois tipos de gametas diferentes: os gametas masculinos são microscópios, móveis e produzem-se em grande quantidade, enquanto que os femininos são grandes, imóveis e produzem-se em menor quantidade. O tipo de gameta que um indivíduo produz é o que define seu sexo; sobre os animais o macho é o indivíduo que produz grandes quantidades de espermatozoides e a fêmea produz uma menor quantidade de óvulos, enquanto que nas plantas as gônadas masculinas são as produtoras pólen e as femininas produzem oosferas. Os gametas são diferentes do resto das células do organismo, as quais se chamam células somáticas; essas últimas são diploides porque contém dois pares de cromossomos, um par herdado do pai do indivíduo e o outro da mãe. As células somáticas, ademais, se dividem por mitose, ao qual os cromossomos se duplicam antes de cada divisão celular e cada uma das células filhas recebe um complemento diploide idêntico dos cromossomos, logo todas as células somáticas de um indivíduo possuem o mesmo material genético, embora cada tipo celular expresse diferentes combinações de genes. Em contraponto, os gametas são células haploides porque possuem somente um par de cromossomos e a metade do material genético característico da espécie. Cada um dos cromossomos em um gameta é resultado da recombinação dos genes contidos nos cromossomos paterno e materno do indivíduo que originam o gameta, e cada um destes possuem uma combinação única de genes. Os gametas se formam a partir das células germinais, que são células que em sua origem são diploides e elas de “comprometem” a manter-se como uma linha celular especial que em determinado momento sofrerá o processo de meiose para dar origem aos gametas haploides, sejam óvulos ou espermatozoides segundo o sexo do animal. Como descrito no trabalho sobre a diferenciação sexual, as células germinativas primordiais originam-se no epiblasto do embrião, e migram desde o saco vitelino até colonizar as cristas gonodais, onde, por sua vez, proliferam-se e se organizam junto com as células somáticas da gônada primitiva para formar o testículo ou o ovário. As células germinais masculinas e femininas tem a mesma origem embrionária. As gônadas indiferenciadas em um embrião possuem três tipos celulares: as células que dão origem aos gametas (ovogonia ou espermatogonia), as precursoras de células que nutrem os gametas em desenvolvimento (células da granulosa no ovário; células de Sertoli no testículo) e as precursoras de células que secretam hormônios sexuais (células da teca no ovário; células de Leydig no testículo). As células germinais são as únicas estruturas do organismo que têm a capacidade de dividir-se por meiose sofrendo uma redução no número de seus cromossomos, sendo responsável pela transmissão da carga genética aos descendentes. Em contraste, as células somáticas somente se dividem por mitose. A formação dos gametas compreende fases sequenciais de mitose, meiose e pós-meiose. Esses processos são altamente organizados e necessitam de um preciso e bem coordenado programa de expressão genética. Uma das características importantes da gametogênese é a redução cromossômica, que através da meiose, reduz pela metade o número de cromossomos e produz células distintas entre si, devido a trocas de material genético entre os pares de cromossomos provenientes do pai e da mãe, o que ocorre no processo de “crossing over” durante a primeira fase da meiose. A gametogênese é o processo mediante o qual as células germinais de cada sexo se multiplicam, dividem e diferenciam até formar os gametas. No caso da formação dos gametas masculinos o processo recebe o nome específico de espermatogênese, e para os gametas femininos é denominado como ovogênese. Embora os dois processos alcancem o objetivo comum de produção das células haploides, por onde compartilham algumas características, existem diferenças marcadas entre eles devido a necessidade de produzir um número muito distinto de gametas, de tamanho diferente, e com características de motilidade também distintas. -/- •___ESPERMATOGÊNESE -/- A espermatogênese é o processo mediante o qual se produz os gametas masculinos denominados espermatozoides. Durante a vida fetal as células germinais e as células somáticas do testículo em formação organizam-se em túbulos seminíferos que se derivam dos cordões sexuais primários e conformam a maior parte da medula do testículo. Na etapa fetal cada tubo seminífero é delimitado por uma membrana basal, recoberta na parte interior pelas células precursoras das células de Sertoli (um tipo de células somáticas). No exterior do túbulo localizam-se as células precursoras das células de Leydig ou intersticiais (figura 1), que também são células somáticas. Entre a membrana basal e as células de Sertoli encontram-se algumas células germinais denominadas espermatogonias de reserva A0 (denominadas gonócitos) que serão o único tipo de células germinais presentes no testículo enquanto o animal não alcançar a puberdade. As células de Sertoli estabelecem na região basal uniões oclusoras entre si, formando parte da barreira hemato-testicular. As espermatogonias A0 localizam-se por dentro da membrana basal do túbulo seminífero, embora fora da barreira hemato-testicular. Figura 1: fase neonatal. Nota-se a grande infiltração de tecido intersticial em quase 50% da seção originando que os túbulos sejam pequenos e redondos em sua maioria. O citoplasma e núcleo das células pré-Leydig são notadas claramente por essa ser uma espécie suína onde o tecido intersticial está claramente diferenciado. Hematoxilina-eosina (X 220.5). Fonte: Embrapa. -/- O número de células de Sertoli no testículo depende da influência do hormônio folículo estimulante (FSH) presente durante a vida fetal e as primeiras etapas de vida pós-natal. A população de células de Sertoli ao chegar a puberdade se manterá fixa durante o resto da vida do animal; existe uma relação positiva entre o tamanho e a população de células de Sertoli e a capacidade de produção de espermatozoides do testículo. As células de Sertoli são as únicas células somáticas que estão no epitélio seminífero, e sua função é a nutrição, sustentação e controle endócrino das células germinais. As células de Sertoli participam ativamente no processo de liberação dos espermatozoides para a luz do túbulo. Nesse momento, as células de Sertoli realizam a fagocitose de parte do citoplasma do espermatozoide dos chamados corpos residuais. As células de Sertoli também fagocitam as células germinais que se degeneram no curso normal da espermatogênese. Essas células ainda sintetizam grande quantidade de proteínas, como por exemplo as proteínas ABP (androgen hinding protein), que transportam andrógenos para todo o aparelho reprodutivo, transferrinas, que transportam ferro para a respiração celular das células germinais e também às inibinas, que regulam a liberação de FSH pela hipófise, através de um sistema de retroalimentação (feedback) negativa (figura 2). Figura 2: epitélio seminífero, células de Sertoli (flecha) (400 X). Fonte: Embrapa. -/- Antes da puberdade dos túbulos seminíferos observam-se ao corte como estruturas de diâmetro pequeno, sem luz, e conformados unicamente pelas células de Sertoli e espermatogonias de reserva e rodeados por abundante tecido intersticial, ao que estão presentes as células precursoras das células de Leydig. Ainda antes da puberdade, a diferenciação celular manifesta-se primeiro pela presença de espermatócitos primários, os quais se degeneram em geral na fase de paquíteno, por falta de estimulação hormonal. A partir de que o animal chega a puberdade inicia-se o processo de espermatogênese, que se manterá durante toda a vida do animal, exceto em espécies de animais silvestres muito estacionais, ao qual pode se suspender durante a época não reprodutiva para voltar e ser retomada na época ou estação reprodutiva. Depois da puberdade, os túbulos seminíferos possuem um diâmetro muito maior; em seu interior observa-se um grande número de células germinais de todos os tipos, diferentes estádios de divisão, e em seu lúmen contém líquido e espermatozoides. Ainda sobre o alcancei da puberdade, as espermatogonias começam a dividir-se aceleradamente por mitose, enquanto que no espaço intersticial as células mesenquimais também começam a se diferenciar e a dar origem as células de Leydig (figura 3). A partir dessa etapa as células de Leydig (totalmente diferenciadas) são também evidentes no exterior do túbulo, junto com as células mioides ou peritubulares que o rodeiam o que ao contrair-se são responsáveis por controlar o avanço dos fluidos e as células presentes no lúmen do túbulo. As células mioides estão situadas ao redor do túbulo, e é creditado a elas a promoção da contração e da integridade estrutural do túbulo. Esse tipo celular apenas se diferencia na puberdade pela ação dos andrógenos (figura 4). As interações entre as células de Sertoli e as mioides parecem ter um papel importante na manutenção das funções do testículo. Durante o processo de espermatogênese, as espermatogonias de reserva dividem-se periodicamente e enquanto algumas células fixas permanecem como espermatogonias de reserva, outras proliferam e sofrem uma seção de divisões mitóticas durante as quais se vão diferenciando até formarem espermatócitos primários (espermatocitogênese ou fase de mitose), logo sofrem divisões especiais mediante as quais reduzem seu número de cromossomos (fase de meiose), e ao final trocam de forma para converter-se em espermatozoides (espermatocitogênese) (figura 5). Cada uma dessas etapas da espermato- gênese será descrito detalhadamente adiante, antes é necessário a explicação de algumas características das células de Sertoli e de Leydig que ajudarão a entender seu papel durante a espermatogênese. Figura 3: células de Leydig no espaço intersticial do testículo bovino adulto PAS (400 X). Fonte: Embrapa. -/- Figura 4: o estabelecimento da puberdade pela presença de espermatozoides no túbulo. Hematoxilina-eosina (400 X). Fonte: Embrapa. Figura 5: fases mitóticas das espermatogonias (A0 e B) para formação de um espermatócito primário e as duas fases de meiose que se sucedem antes da espermatogênese. Fonte: ZARCO, 2018. -/- Ao início da espermatocitogênese as uniões oclusoras entre as células de Sertoli se abrem por etapas (como as comportas de um submarino) para permitir a passagem das espermatogonias em direção ao centro do túbulo seminífero sem que se estabeleça uma continuidade entre o exterior e o interior da barreira hemato-testicular. Uma vez ultrapassada essa barreira, as sucessivas gerações de espermatogonias, espermatócitos, espermátides e espermatozoides irão se localizar em direção ao interior do túbulo seminífero, em estreita associação com as células de Sertoli. Em consequência, as células de Sertoli dividem o túbulo seminífero em dois compartimentos; o compartimento basal (debaixo das uniões oclusoras das células de Sertoli), ao qual residem as espermatogonias de reserva, e o compartimento adluminal (em direção ao centro do túbulo), cujos espaços entre as células de Sertoli desenvolvem o resto do processo de espermatogênese (meiose e espermatocitogênese). Esse feito é importante porque durante a vida fetal as únicas células germinais existentes eram as espermatogonias de reserva, pelo que os antígenos expressados por gerações mais avançadas (espermatogonias intermediárias, secundárias, espermátides e espermatozoides) não são reconhecidos como próprios do corpo pelo sistema imunológico. Logo, o anterior implica que deve existir uma barreira entre eles e o sangue para evitar um ataque imunológico. Em todas as etapas da espermatogênese, as células de Sertoli atuam como células de suporte para as células germinais, que sempre permanecem recoberta pela membrana das células de Sertoli. Também atuam como células nutricionais já que proporcionam o meio em que as células germinais se desenvolvem e maturam, assim como as substâncias que regulam e sincronizam as sucessivas divisões e transformações das células germinais. As células de Sertoli produzem hormônios, como estrógenos e inibina que atuam sobre a hipófise para regular a secreção das gonadotropinas que controlam a espermatogênese. As células de Leydig que residem no exterior do túbulo seminífero também são importantes para a espermatogênese: produzem a testosterona que estimula e mantém a espermatogênese, bem como serve como substrato sobre o qual atua como aromatizador das células de Sertoli para transformá-las em estrógenos. Como supracitado, para seu estudo podemos dividir a espermatogênese em três fase: espermatocitogênese, meiose e espermiogênese (figura 6). Agora, serão descritas cada uma dessas etapas. Em algumas espécies, incluindo no homem, os macrófagos representam o segundo tipo celular intersticial mais numeroso no testículo, depois das células de Leydig. Os macrófagos e vários subtipos de linfócitos são identificados nós testículos de ovinos e ratos. Eles estão intimamente associados com as células de Leydig e atuam juntamente na regulação da esteroidogênese. Figura 6: fluxograma da espermatogênese. -/- Espermatocitogênese -/- A espermatocitogênese, também chamada de etapa proliferativa ou de mitose, consiste numa série de divisões mitóticas sofridas pelas células descendentes de uma espermatogonia de reserva. Uma vez que a célula se divide, abandona o estado de reserva e começa um processo de diferenciação. As espermatogonias de reserva (denominadas espermatogonias A0 na rata ou As nos humanos) são células que existem desde a vida fetal e que permanecem mitoticamente inativas durante a infância. Uma vez que alcançam a puberdade começam a dividir-se em intervalos regulares, e as células filhas podem permanecer como espermatogonias de reserva ou abandonar a reserva e ingressar na dita espermatocitogênese. Uma vez abandonada a reserva, as células filhas que vão se formando em cada divisão permanecem unidas por pontes citoplasmáticas, constituindo um clone que se divide sincronicamente. As células que se formam depois de cada divisão continuam sendo espermatogonias, porém cada geração é ligeiramente diferente da anterior. Na rata, por exemplo, as espermatogonias tipo A0 ao dividir-se originam espermatogonias do tipo A1, que em sucessivas divisões formam espermatogonias dos tipos A2, A3 e A4, as quais, por sua vez, sofrem outra mitose para formar espermatogonias intermediárias e uma mais para formar espermatogonias do tipo B. Essas últimas se diferenciam (sem se dividir) em espermatócitos primários, processo em que termina a fase de espermatocitogênese, que literalmente significa processo de geração de espermatócitos. As espermatogonias tipo A0 são a fonte para a contínua produção de gametas. A metade delas se dividem e formam células iguais (as chamadas células tronco) e a outra metade forma as espermatogonias A1, que sofre novas divisões mitóticas e formam os tipos 2, 3 e 4. O tipo A4 sofre mitose para formar a intermediária (A In), que por mitose, forma a tipo B (figura 6). Esses tipos de espermatogonias podem ser identificadas em evoluções histológicas de acordo com sua organização topográfica na membrana basal dos túbulos seminíferos ou mediante seu conteúdo de heterocromatina. Outra maneira de diferenciação se baseia em marcadores moleculares específicos que distinguem as espermatogonias tronco (A0) das demais, com os fins de isolamento, desenvolvimento in vitro e transplante. As tipo B passam por mitose para formarem os espermatócitos primários; estes iniciam a primeira etapa da meiose formando os espermatócitos secundários; na segunda etapa da divisão meiótica, cada espermatócito secundário se divide e formam as chamadas espermátides. Quando o testículo alcança seu desenvolvimento total, a meiose completa-se e as espermátides originadas se convertem em espermatozoides. Um dos maiores sinais característicos desse fenômeno é o alargamento das espermátides e sua migração em direção ao lúmen do túbulo seminífero (figuras 4, 7 e 8). Figura 7: espermatogonias marcadas por imuno-histoquímica, anticorpo monoclonal TGFa (400 x). Figura 8: fases de divisões meióticas (M), espermatócitos em paquíteno (PA) e espermatócitos secundários (ES). -/- Figura 9: estádio posterior a liberação dos espermatozoides na luz do túbulo. Hematoxilina-eosina (400 x). Mediante as seis divisões mitóticas que ocorrem durante a espermatocitogênese se forma potencialmente um clone de 64 espermatócitos primários a partir de cada espermatogonia A que ingressa sobre o processo. Não obstante, algumas células sofrem apoptose em cada uma das etapas do processo, ao qual o número real formado é menor. Em outras espécies produzem-se um transcurso similar de divisões mitóticas sucessivas durante a espermatocitogênese, embora a nomenclatura utilizada possa ser distinta, por exemplo nos bovinos as duas últimas divisões mitóticas dão origem as espermatogonias de tipo B1 e B2. -/- Meiose -/- Uma vez que as espermatogonias B se diferenciam em espermatócitos primários, esses iniciam a etapa de meiose, com uma nova divisão; desta vez a divisão é do tipo meiótica. Ao completar-se a primeira divisão meiótica (meiose I) se obtém os espermató-citos secundários, que ao sofrer a segunda divisão meiótica (meiose II) dão origem as espermátides. Vale salientar que a meiose é o processo mediante o qual reduz-se a metade do número de cromossomos, pelo que as espermátides que se obtém são células haploides (1n). Os espermatócitos secundários que se formam depois da primeira divisão meiótica contém a metade do número normal de cromossomos, porém a mesma quantidade de DNA já que cada cromossomo é duplo. As espermátides formadas na conclusão da segunda divisão meiótica (figura 7), por sua vez, contém a metade dos cromossomos, e esse já não são duplos, já que se trata de células 1n. Também deve-se enfatizar que durante a meiose é relevante o entrecruzamento dos cromossomos homólogos, pelo que cada espermátide possui uma combinação única e diferente de genes paternos e maternos. Outro ponto que deve ser levado em consideração é que cada espermátide somente possui um cromossomo sexual; a metade das espermátides contém o cromossomo X herdado da mãe do macho que está levando a cabo a espermatogênese e a outra metade contém o cromossomo Y herdado de seu pai. Para cada espermatócito primário que entra no processo de meiose obtém-se cerca de quatro espermátides, pelo qual ao ser completada a meiose potencialmente se poderiam formar até 256 espermátides por cada espermatogonia que abandona a reserva e ingressa na espermatocitogênese. -/- Espermiogênese -/- Durante a espermiogênese, também chamada de fase de diferenciação, as esper-mátides sofrem, sem se dividir, uma metamorfose que as transforma em espermatozoides, os quais finalmente são liberados das células de Sertoli em direção ao lúmen do túbulo seminífero. A espermiogênese é um processo complicado e longo já que a espermátide deve sofrer complexas trocas nucleares, citoplasmáticas e morfológicas que resultam na forma-ção dos espermatozoides. Algumas dessas mudanças incluem a condensação do material nuclear para formação de um núcleo plano e denso, a eliminação do citoplasma para a constituição de uma célula pequena, a formação de uma estrutura especializada denomi-nada acrossomo ou tampa cefálica, e a formação do pescoço e da cauda (flagelo) do esper-matozoide, do que depende a sua motilidade. Durante a maior parte da espermiogênese, as espermátides se mantém com uma estreita associação com as células de Sertoli; logo, chega-se a observar, então, flagelos que se projetam em direção a luz do túbulo que pare-cem sair das células de Sertoli, sendo na realidade os flagelos dos espermatozoides que ainda não tinham sido liberados pelo lúmen. Ao liberar os espermatozoides em direção a luz do túbulo, as células de Sertoli realizam a fagocitose de parte do citoplasma dos espermatozoides (corpos residuais). Também fagocitam os restos de todas as células germinais que sofrem apoptose ou degeneram-se durante a espermatogênese. Credita-se que ao realizar essas funções as células de Sertoli podem fazer uma monitoração eficiente da espermatogênese, o que lhes permitiria emitir sinais para colaborar na regulação desse processo em nível gonodal e a nível sistêmico através da secreção de hormônios como a inibina e o estradiol. Além da inibina e activina, as células de Sertoli sintetizam outras proteínas, como a ABP (proteína ligadora de andrógenos) que serve como uma molécula de transporte de andrógenos dentro dos túbulos seminíferos, ductos deferentes e epidídimo, ou a transfer-rina, que transporta o ferro necessário para a respiração celular. -/- Resultados da espermatogênese -/- O resultado da espermatogênese não significa apenas uma simples multiplicação das células germinais (até 256 espermatozoides a partir de cada espermatogonia A1), senão que através dela são produzidos gametas haploides pequenos, móveis e com grande diversidade genética entre eles, ao mesmo tempo que se mantêm uma reversa de células mãe (espermatogonias A0) a partir das quais se poderiam originar novos ciclos de esper-matogênese durante o resto da vida do animal. -/- Controle hormonal da espermatogênese -/- Como mencionado, o FSH reproduz um importante papel para o estabelecimento das células de Sertoli durante a vida fetal e início da vida pós-natal. O começo da esper-matogênese também é estimulado pelo FSH, que atua sobre as células de Sertoli para estimular sua função e a ativação de sinais dessas células em direção as células germinais, incluindo-as a abandonar a reserva e ingressar na espermatogênese. O FSH, assim mesmo, estimula a mitose durante o resto da espermatogênese e aumenta a eficiência do processo, já que reduz a apoptose e a degeneração de espermatogonias intermediárias e do tipo B. O FSH também estimula as células de Sertoli para produzirem inibina e ABP. Uma vez iniciada a espermatogênese somente requerem níveis baixos de FSH para se mantê-la. As células de Sertoli também devem ser estimuladas pela testosterona para funcio-nar de maneira adequada; se requer também do LH hipofisário: hormônio que estimula as células de Leydig para produzir testosterona. Por sua vez, a secreção de LH e FSH é regulada pelo GnRH hipotalâmico: esse neurohormônio também faz parte do mecanismo de regulação da espermatogênese. A espermatogênese também é modulada em nível local mediante a produção de determinados fatores e interações entre as células. Dentro dos fatores locais podemos mencionar o fator de crescimento parecido com a insulina 1 (IGF-1), o fator de crescimen-to transformante beta (TGF- β), activina, ocitocina e diversas citocinas. Entre as intera-ções celulares existem tanto uniões de comunicação entre as células de Sertoli e as células germinais, como pontes citoplasmáticas entre todas as células germinais que formam o clone de células descendentes de uma espermatogonia A1. Uma vez que as células de Sertoli iniciam sua função na puberdade é possível manter experimentalmente a espermatogênese somente com testosterona, sem ser requeri-dos nenhum outro hormônio. A quantidade de espermatozoides produzidos, no entanto, é maior quando há presença do FSH. Abaixo do estímulo do FSH as células de Sertoli produzem estradiol e inibina, hormônios que geram uma retroalimentação sobre o eixo hipotálamo-hipofisário para a regulação da secreção de gonadotropinas. Em particular, a inibina reduz a secreção de FSH, pelo qual é factível que sirva como um sinal que evite uma excessiva estimulação as células de Sertoli. -/- Ciclo do epitélio seminífero -/- Em cada espécie as espermatogonias de reserva iniciam um novo processo de divi-sões celulares em intervalos fixos: a casa 14 dias no touro; 12 dias no garanhão e a cada 9 dias no cachaço (reprodutor suíno). A nova geração de células que começam a proliferar sobre a base do tubo deslocam-se em direção ao centro do túbulo a geração anterior, que por sua vez deslocam-se as gerações anteriores. Devido as mudanças que vão sofrendo cada geração celular se ajustam a tempos característicos de cada etapa, já que rodas as células em uma determinada seção do túbulo estão sincronizadas entre si pelas células de Sertoli; em cada espécie somente é possível encontrar um certo número de combinações celulares: 14 diferentes combinações no caso da rata, 8 no touro e 6 no ser humano. A sucessão de possíveis combinações até regressar a primeira combinação se conhece como o ciclo do epitélio seminífero. Na maioria das espécies os espermatozoides que são libera-dos em direção a luz do túbulo provém das células que entraram no processo de esperma-togênese quatro gerações antes que a geração que está ingressando nesse momento, pelo que a espermatogênese no touro dura ao redor de 60 dias e um pouco menos em outras espécies domésticas. Significa que os efeitos negativos das alterações na espermatogêne-se podem estar presentes até dois meses depois de que se produziram essas alterações. Como supracitado, geralmente se observa a mesma combinação celular em toda a área de uma determinada secção transversal do túbulo seminífero. No entanto, se fizermos uma série de secções, observa-se que ao longo do túbulo há uma sucessão ordenada de combinações (a primeira em uma determinada secção; a segunda combinação na seguinte secção, e assim sucessivamente em secções subsequentes até regressar a primeira combi-nação. Teremos, então, que ao início da divisão das espermatogonias A1 se produz de forma sincronizada em uma secção do túbulo, e vai-se transmitindo como uma onda peristáltica as secções adjacentes. Esse processo é denominado como onda do epitélio seminífero e graças à esse túbulo seminífero sempre tem secções em todas as etapas da espermatogênese, com o que se alcança uma produção constante de espermatozoides. -/- Alterações da espermatogênese -/- Nas espécies estacionais a espermatogênese, como já mencionado, pode reduzir-se ou inclusive suspender sua atividade fisiológica durante a época não reprodutiva dessas espécimes, porém esse processo fisiológico não pode ser considerado como uma altera-ção. No entanto, a espermatogênese só pode ser alterada pelas enfermidades ou por fatores externos. A principal causa de alterações na espermatogênese é o aumento da temperatura testicular. Por isso, os testículos são localizados na saco escrotal e são “caídos” para fora do corpo como pode-se observar nos bovinos, caprinos, ovinos, caninos e no próprio homem. A temperatura testicular deve estar cerca de 2 a 6 °C abaixo da temperatura corporal normal. As células germinais masculinas são sensíveis ao calor, pelo qual na maioria dos mamíferos os testículos se encontram fora da cavidade abdominal e existe um sofisticado sistema de termorregulação para mantê-los a uma temperatura menor que a corporal. Se a temperatura corporal for elevada ou se os testículos permanecerem na cavidade abdominal, ou ainda se os sistemas termorreguladores do testículo sejam afetados por fatores inflamatórios como edema ou falta de mobilidade testicular dentro do escroto, a temperatura do tecido testicular aumentará e a espermatogênese sofrerá alterações proporcionais ao excesso de temperatura e a duração da elevação. A espermatogênese também pode ser afetada pela exposição a hormônios ou a outras substâncias. É possível que a causa mais comum (sobretudo no homem) seja o uso de esteroides anabólicos, que elevam a concentração de andrógenos na circulação, provo-cando um feedback negativo sobre a secreção de gonadotropinas. Ao deixar de estimular-se o testículo pelas gonadotropinas, este deixará de produzir testosterona, e as concentra-ções de andrógeno exógeno nunca alcançará as altíssimas concentrações de testosterona que normalmente estão presentes a nível do tecido testicular por ser o local onde se produz o hormônio. Também se supõe que diversas substâncias com propriedades estrogênicas derivadas de processos industriais (indústria dos plásticos, hidrocarbonetos etc.) e presentes no ambiente (fatores xenobióticos) podem ser responsáveis pelas alterações na espermatogênese em diversas espécies, entre as quais se inclui o ser humano. -/- • OVOGÊNESE E FOLICULOGÊNESE -/- A ovogênese é o processo seguido pelas células germinais da fêmea para a forma-ção dos óvulos, que são células haploides. Durante a vida fetal as células germinais proliferam-se no ovário por mitose, formando um grande número de ovogonias, algumas das quais se diferenciam em ovócitos primários que iniciam sua primeira divisão meiótica para deter-se na prófase da divisão. Somente alguns desses ovócitos primários retornarão e concluirão a primeira divisão meiótica em algum momento da vida adulta do animal, dando origem a um ovócito secundário e a um corpo polar. O ovócito secundário inicia a sua segunda divisão meiótica, a qual volta a ficar suspensa até receber um estímulo apropriado, já que somente os ovócitos secundários que são ovulados e penetrados por um espermatozoide retornam e concluem a segunda divisão meiótica, dando origem a um óvulo (figura 10). O processo de ovogênese é realizado dentro dos folículos ovarianos, que também tem que sofrer um longo transcurso de desenvolvimento e diferenciação denominado foliculogênese pelo que a ovogênese como tal realiza-se dentro do marco desse último processo. Por essa razão, na seguinte seção descreverei tanto a ovogênese como a folicu-logênese, e a relação que existe entre ambos. Figura 10: representação da ovogênese. Na etapa de proliferação, as células germinais se diferen-ciam por mitose. A meiose I se caracteriza por uma prófase prolongada, ocorrendo a duplicação do DNA. Nas duas divisões, que ocorrem antes da ovulação e depois da fertilização, a quantidade de DNA é reduzida a 1n, com o fim de que a fusão dos pronúcles (singamia) pós-fertilização, seja gerado um zigoto com um número de cromossomos de 2n (diploide). -/- Geração de ovócitos primários e folículos primordiais Tanto a ovogênese como a foliculogênese iniciam-se durante a vida fetal, quando as células germinais primordiais provenientes do saco vitelino colonizam a gônada primitiva e, junto com as células somáticas z organizam-se para a formação dos cordões sexuais secundários, que se desenvolvem principalmente no córtex do ovário. Nesse período, as células germinais que colonizaram o ovário sofrem até 30 divisões mitóticas, proliferando-se até formar milhares ou milhões de ovogonias, que inicialmente formam “ninhos” constituídos cada um deles por um clone de várias ovogonias que descendem da mesma célula precursora e que se mantêm unidas por pontes citoplasmáticas, sincronizan-do suas divisões mitóticas. Nessa etapa alcança-se a máxima população de células germinais no ovário, que antes de nascer se reduzirá drasticamente por apoptose. No ovário do feto humano chegam a haver até sete milhões de células germinais que ao nascimento se reduzem a dois milhões. Os ovários fetais do bovino, de maneira análoga, chegam a ter até 2.100.000 células germinais, que ao nascimento reduzem para 130.000 aproximadamente. A redução no número de ovogonias produz-se ao mesmo tempo que essas células, que vêm dividindo-se por mitose e estão agrupadas em ninhos, iniciam sua primeira divisão meiótica para se transformarem em ovócitos primários: células germinais que se encontram em uma etapa de suspensão (diplóteno) da prófase da primeira divisão meiótica. Nesse período produz-se uma grande proporção de células germinais; as células somáticas dos cordões sexuais, por sua vez, emitem projeções citoplasmáticas que separam a isolam os ovócitos primários sobreviventes, ficando cada um deles rodeados por uma capa de células aplanadas da (pré) granulosa. Ao mesmo tempo em que se forma uma membrana basal entre as células da granulosa e o tecido intersticial do ovário. Ao ovócito primário rodeado de uma capa de células da (pré) granulosa aplanadas e delimita-das por uma membrana basal denomina-se de folículo primordial (figura 11). Nas vacas os folículos primordiais bem formados já estão presentes nos ovários a partir do dia 90 da gestação. A maioria dos folículos primordiais com os que nasce uma fêmea se manterão inativos durante um longo tempo; muitos deles durante toda a vida do animal. Nos folículos primordiais inativos tanto os ovócitos primários como as células da granulosa conservam sua forma original e mantém um metabolismo reduzido estritamente ao mínimo necessário para manter-se viáveis. Por essa razão, ao realizar um corte histológico de qualquer ovário as estruturas mais numerosas que se observam serão os folículos primordiais. No entanto, cada dia da vida de um animal, inclusive desde a vida fetal, um certo número de folículos primordiais reiniciam seu desenvolvimento, e a partir desse momento um folículo exclusivamente pode ter dois destinos: o primeiro, prosseguir seu desenvolvi-mento até chegar a ovular, e o segundo (que é muito mais frequente) encontrar em algum momento condições inadequadas que fazem fronteira com ele para parar seu desenvolvi-mento, levando-o a sofrer atresia e degenerar até desaparecer do ovário. Figura 11: sequência da foliculogênese apresentando as diferentes estruturas que podemos encontrar em cada fase. Fonte: ZARCO, 2018. Culminação da ovogênese A ovogênese somente se completará quando um ovócito primário reinicia a meio-se; completa sua primeira divisão meiótica para formar um ovócito secundário e um primeiro corpo polar e, quando, finalmente sofrer uma segunda divisão meiótica para formar um óvulo e um segundo corpo polar. Os óvulos são as células 1n que constituem os gametas femininos, pouco numerosos, grandes e imóveis. A grande maioria dos ovóci-tos primários, como veremos mais adiante, nunca retomam a meiose e, em consequência, não chegam a formar ovócitos secundários, e muitos dos ovócitos secundários tampouco sofrem uma segunda divisão meiótica, pelo que não chegam a formar os óvulos. Ao longo da vida de uma fêmea, na maioria das espécies, menos de 0,1% dos ovócitos primários (um a cada mil) chega a terminar a ovogênese, dando origem a um óvulo. O supracitado deve-se a que a ovogênese somente pode retomar-se e ser completa-da em ovócitos primários que se encontram dentro dos folículos primordiais que (uma vez ativados) vão alcançando diversas etapas de seu desenvolvimento em momentos precisos aos que encontram as condições ideais de oxigenação, nutrição, vascularização e exposição a fatores parácrinos e a exposição a concentrações de hormônios que se requerem para que o folículo continue em cada etapa de seu desenvolvimento com o processo de foliculogênese até chegar a ovular. Qualquer folículo que não esteja nessas condições ao longo do desenvolvimento sofrerá degeneração e atresia, pelo que o ovócito primário em seu interior nunca chegará ao ponto em que pode retomar a primeira divisão meiótica. No que resta da presente seção revisaremos o processo de foliculogênese em cujo marco se desenvolve a ovogênese; havemos que tomar de conta que essa última se limita ao que ocorre nas células germinais (ovogonia, ovócito primário, secundário e óvulo), pelo qual depende intimamente do desenvolvimento do folículo de que essas células formam parte. Em um princípio a ativação do folículo primordial e o desenvolvimento folicular são independentes das gonadotropinas: não se conhecem os mecanismos precisos median-te os quais um folículo primordial se ativa e reinicia seu desenvolvimento, nem como se decide quais folículos, dentre as dezenas de milhares de ou centenas de milhares presentes em um ovário se reativarão em um dia em particular. A reativação trata-se de uma liberação de influência de fatores inibidores, já que os folículos primordiais se reativam espontaneamente quando cultivados in vitro, isolados do resto do tecido ovariano. Uma vez que um folículo primordial se ativa, inicia-se um longo processo de desenvolvimento que somente depois de vários meses (ao redor de cinco meses no caso dos bovinos) o levará a um estádio em que seu desenvolvimento posterior requer a presença das gonado-tropinas; daí que se diz que as primeiras etapas do desenvolvimento são independentes das gonadotropinas. Durante a fase independente de gonadotropinas, um folículo primordial que tenha sido ativado e tenha começado a crescer; passará primeiro para a etapa de folículo primá-rio, caracterizada por conter um ovócito primário que está rodeado, por sua vez, por uma capa de células da granulosa, que não são planas, e sim cúbicas. Depois, se o folículo continuar crescendo se transformará em um folículo secundário, ao qual as células da granulosa começam a proliferar (aumentando em número) e se organizam em duas ou mais capas que rodeiam o ovócito primário. Entre o ovócito e as células da granulosa que o rodeiam se forma nesta uma zona pelúcida; ainda assim o ovócito mantém contato direto com essas células, mediante o estabelecimento de pontes citoplasmáticas que atravessam a zona pelúcida. Através dessas pontes citoplasmáticas as células da granulosa podem passar nutrientes e informação ao ovócito primário. O volume e o diâmetro do ovócito primário aumentam ao mesmo tempo que as células da granulosa proliferam-se, para incrementar as capas ao redor do ovócito. De maneira gradual o citoplasma do ovócito primário aumenta até 50 vezes seu volume e a proliferação das células continua. Esses folículos que possuem cada vez mais células e portanto mais capas de células da granulosa se denominam folículos secundários. Para evitar confusões, há a necessidade de nomen-clatura ao qual o folículo vá mudando de nome de primordial a primário e logo, de secun-dário, a terciário, por sua vez, o ovócito que encontra-se em seu interior, a todo momento, segue sendo um ovócito primário. Durante a etapa dependente de gonadotropinas, os folículos secundários começam a formar um espaço cheio de líquido, o antro folicular, desse modo se convertem em folí-culos terciários. Com a utilização de outra nomenclatura, a formação do antro marca a transição entre folículos pré-antrais (sem antro) e folículos antrais (com antro). Em algum momento dessa transição entre folículo secundário e terciário, também aparece a depen-dência de folículos em direção as gonadotropinas, pelo qual somente podem seguir crescendo na presença do hormônio luteinizante (LH) e do hormônio folículo estimulante (FSH). Nos bovinos e em outras espécies (para seu estudo), os folículos antrais são dividi-dos em pequenos, médios e grandes. Embora todos eles possuam um antro folicular, dependendo do seu grau de desenvolvimento requerem diferentes concentrações de gona-dotropinas para continuar o crescimento. Os folículos antrais mais pequenos somente re-querem concentrações baixas de LH e FSH, pelo qual podem continuar crescendo em qualquer momento do ciclo estral inclusive em animais que não estão ciclando (fêmeas em anestro pré-puberal, gestacional, lactacional, estacional). Nas etapas posteriores os folículos antrais requerem primeiro concentrações elevadas de FSH, e nas etapas finais somente podem continuar crescendo na presença de pulsos frequentes de LH, pelo qual somente os folículos que encontram-se sob concentrações apropriadas desses hormônios podem seguir crescendo. Por essa razão, nos animais que se encontram em anestro de qualquer tipo somente é possível encontrar folículos antrais pequenos ou médios, segundo a espécie, e nos animais que se encontram ciclando (estro) o maior tamanho folicular encontrado em um determinado dia do ciclo dependerá das concentrações de FSH e LH presentes nesse momento e nos dias anteriores. Um folículo que chega ao estado máximo de desenvolvimento, conhecido como folículo pré-ovulatório, ao final, somente chegará a ovular se for exposto a um pico pré-ovulatório de LH. Como supracitado, cada dia na vida de uma fêmea inicia seu desenvolvimento um certo número de folículos; a grande maioria sofrem atresia, mas depois da puberdade em cada dia do ciclo estral um ou vários folículos vão encontrando ao longo do seu desenvol-vimento concentrações hormonais que lhes permite chegar na etapa de folículo pré-ovula-tório. Somente nestes folículos, e como consequência de um pico pré-ovulatório de LH, se reinicia e completa-se a primeira divisão meiótica do ovócito primário, produzindo duas células distintas. Uma delas é o ovócito secundário, que retém praticamente todo o citoplasma. Contém, assim mesmo, em seu núcleo um par de cromossomos duplos, a outra é o primeiro corpo polar, que é exclusivamente um núcleo com uma quantidade mínima de citoplasma. Na maioria das espécies ovula-se um ovócito secundário que se encontra, então, suspendido na segunda divisão meiótica. Esta segunda divisão meiótica somente reinicia-rá e completarar-se uma vez que o espermatozoide começa a penetrar sob o ovócito secundário. Ao concluir-se a divisão se forma o segundo corpo polar e completa-se a ovogênese com o qual se obtém o óvulo, célula 1n que constitui o gameta feminino. No entanto, o óvulo existe pouco tempo como tal, já que em poucos minutos/horas (depen-dendo da espécie) se produzirá a fusão do núcleo do mesmo (pró-núcleo feminino) com o do espermatozoide (pró-núcleo masculino), com o qual se completa a fertilização e se forma um novo indivíduo (o ovo ou zigoto). -/- Ondas foliculares -/- Como mencionado supra, todos os dias um determinado número de folículos pri-mordiais se ativam e começam a crescer, os quais crescem em um ritmo característico em cada espécie. Isso provoca que em qualquer momento existam nos ovários folículos pri-mordiais (que começam a crescer em alguns dias ou semanas), assim como folículos secundários em diversas etapas do desenvolvimento, os quais iniciaram seu desenvolvi-mento em semanas ou inclusive meses (segundo o grau de desenvolvimento atual). Também em qualquer momento poderá haver folículos antrais nas etapas iniciais de seu desenvolvimento (com antros que já se podem detectar em cortes histológicos mas não são visíveis macroscopicamente). Todos esses folículos chegaram até seu estado de de-senvolvimento atual (primário, secundário ou antral pequeno), independente da etapa do ciclo estral em que sejam observados ou encontrados. Nos bovinos, os folículos que chegam ao início da etapa antral iniciaram seu desenvolvimento cinco meses antes, e todavia requerem ao redor de 42 dias para chegar ao estado pré-ovulatório. Para continuar seu desenvolvimento, os folículos antrais pequenos devem encon-trar concentrações altas de FSH, que os estimulam para prosseguir o crescimento. Cada vez que se produz uma elevação nas concentrações de FSH, esse hormônio estimula o desenvolvimento de um grupo de folículos antrais pequenos, que começaram a crescer muito tempo antes e que o dia da elevação de FSH tenha alcançado o grau de desenvolvi-mento preciso para responder com eficiência a este hormônio, o qual atuará através de seus receptores nas células da granulosa para estimular a produção de estradiol, a secreção de inibina, a produção de líquido folicular e a proliferação das células da granulosa. Um grupo de folículos antrais pequenos é assim recrutado pelo FSH para acelerar seu cresci-mento e aumentar sua produção de estradiol e inibina (figura 12). Mediante um seguimento ultrassonográfico dos ovários é possível identificar pou-cos dias depois um certo número de folículos, que por haver sido recrutados começam um período de crescimento acelerado. Durante alguns dias vários folículos crescem juntos, porém depois um deles é selecionado para continuar crescendo, enquanto que o restante do grupo deixam de fazê-lo e terminam sofrendo atresia. Através da ultrassom é possível identificar o folículo selecionado, agora chamado folículo domi-nante, já que sua trajetória de crescimento sofre um desvio com respeito a seguida pelo restante do grupo. Os folículos que não foram selecionados deixam de crescer e sofrem atresia já que deixam de possuir o suporte gonadotrópico de FSH, uma vez que as concentrações desse hormônio são suprimidos pela inibina e o estradiol produzidos pelo conjunto de folículos que conformam a onda folicular (figura 12), porém o folículo mais desenvolvido do grupo se converterá em dominante. A inibina atua diretamente a nível hipofisário para reduzir a secreção de FSH. Figura 12: onda folicular e relação dos níveis de FSH, estradiol e LH. Fonte: ZARCO, 2018. -/- Figura 13: Recrutamento, seleção e dominação folicular na espécie ovina e influência do FSH e LH nas fases. Fonte: SILVA, E. I. C. da, 2019. -/- A razão pela qual o folículo dominante é capaz de continuar seu desenvolvimento apesar da baixa nas concentrações de FSH é que o folículo é o único que alcançou o grau de progresso necessário para que apareçam os receptores para LH em suas células da granulosa. Esse processo permite ao folículo dominante ser estimulado pela LH, e que requeira baixas concentrações de FSH para manter seu desenvolvimento. A secreção de LH em forma de pulsos de baixa frequência (um pulso a cada quatro a seis horas), característica da fase lútea do ciclo estral; é suficiente para permitir que um folículo dominante continue crescendo por mais dias depois da sua seleção e que mais tarde mantenha-se viável durante alguns dias embora não aumentem de tamanho. Contu-do, se durante o período viável desse folículo não seja finalizada a fase lútea e não diminuam as concentrações de progesterona, o folículo terminará sofrendo atresia devido a exigência de um padrão de secreção acelerada de LH (aproximadamente um pulso por hora) durante o desenvolvimento pré-ovulatório, que somente pode ser produzido com a ausência da progesterona. Uma vez que um folículo dominante sofre atresia deixa de produzir inibina, pelo qual as concentrações de FSH podem elevar-se novamente para iniciar o recrutamento de outro grupo de folículos a partir da qual se origina uma nova onda folicular. Durante o ciclo estral de uma vaca podem gerar-se dois ou três ondas foliculares; somente em raros casos quatro. A etapa de dominância folicular da primeira onda na grande maioria dos casos não coincide com a regressão do corpo lúteo, pelo qual o primei-ro folículo dominante quase invariavelmente termina em atresia. Em algumas vacas o fo-lículo dominante da segunda onda ainda está viável quando se produz a regressão do corpo lúteo e acelera-se a secreção de LH, pelo qual esse segundo folículo dominante se converte em folículo pré-ovulatório e, ao final ovula. Em outros animais o segundo folícu-lo dominante também perde a sua viabilidade antes da regressão do corpo lúteo, por onde nesses animais se inicia uma terceira onda folicular, da qual surge o folículo que finalmen-te ovulará depois de produzir-se a regressão do corpo lúteo. Sem importar a onda em que se origine, uma vez que um folículo dominante é ex-posto a alta frequência de secreção de LH que se produz depois da regressão do corpo lúteo, aumenta ainda mais sua secreção de estradiol até que as altas concentrações desse hormônio comecem a exercer um feedback positivo para a secreção do LH. Isso provoca-rá a aceleração da frequência de secreção do LH até que os pulsos são tão frequentes que começam a ficar por cima e produzir-se o pico pré-ovulatório de LH, que é responsável pela realização da ovulação e a maturação final do ovócito. -/- •___DIFERENÇAS ENTRE ESPERMATOGÊNESE E OVOGÊNESE -/- Enquanto que na fêmea a ovogênese inicia-se durante a vida fetal, no macho a es-permatogênese começa na puberdade. Na fêmea, a partir de um ovócito primário se origi-na um óvulo; no macho, de um espermatócito primário se produzem, teoricamente, quatro espermatozoides. Outra característica interessante é que enquanto a fêmea já conta desde o nasci-mento com todos os ovócitos que necessitará na vida adulta, o macho necessitará chegar a puberdade para iniciar o desenvolvimento das células sexuais, já que ao nascer somente possui gonócitos precursores das células germinais, células de Sertoli e intersticiais. Na vida adulta de uma fêmea, o número de células germinais desaparece paulati-namente. Uma vez iniciada a espermatogênese no macho, a cada ciclo do epitélio seminí-fero as células germinais são renovadas mantendo a provisão para toda a vida reprodutiva. Na fêmea, a meiose sofre duas interrupções em seu transcurso, e no macho é ininterrupta. Figura 14: representação em diagramação comparativa do desenvolvimento da gametogênese. -/- Principais pontos abordados sobre as diferenças entre a gametogênese masculina e feminina: ❙ Na ovogênese a meiose contêm-se em duas ocasiões esperando acontecimentos externos para prosseguir. Já na espermatogênese não existe a suspensão da meiose. ❙ A espermatogênese é um processo contínuo, enquanto que a ovogênese pode completar exclusivamente um óvulo em cada ciclo estral; já que só pode ser completada por mais de um nas espécies que ovulam vários ovócitos no caso das porcas, cadelas, gatas etc. ❙ Na espermatogênese existem células de reserva que permitem a continuação du-rante toda a vida, enquanto que na ovogênese o número de ovócitos primários é limitado. A fêmea somente conta com os que nasceu, e eles não se dividem. ❙ Na espermatogênese obtém-se até 256 espermatozoides para cada espermatogo-nia que inicia o processo, enquanto que na ovogênese somente se obtém um óvulo a partir de cada ovócito primário. ❙ Durante a espermatogênese se produz uma metamorfose que transforma as es-permátides em espermatozoides. Na ovogênese não ocorre um processo análogo. ❙ Na espermatogênese, durante a meiose produzem-se quatro espermátides a partir de cada espermatócito primário. Na ovogênese se produz somente um óvulo a partir de cada ovócito primário; produz, ademais, dois corpos polares. ❙ Todos os óvulos que se produzem durante a ovogênese contém um cromossomo X, enquanto que a metade dos espermatozoides possuem um cromossomo Y e a outra metade um cromossomo X. ❙ Na espermatogênese produzem-se centenas ou dezenas de milhões de esperma-tozoides por dia, enquanto que na ovogênese se produz um ou alguns óvulos a cada ciclo estral. ❙ A espermatogênese produz gametas macroscópicos e com motilidade própria, enquanto que a ovogênese produz gametas grandes e imóveis. -/- REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS -/- ABDEL-RAOUF, Mohammed et al. The postnatal development of the reproductive organs in bullswith special reference to puberty.(Including growth of the hypophysis and the adrenals). Acta endocrinologica, n. Suppl No. 49, 1960. ADONA, Paulo Roberto et al. Ovogênese e foliculogênese em mamíferos. Journal of Health Sciences, v. 15, n. 3, 2013. AERTS, J. M. J.; BOLS, P. E. J. Ovarian follicular dynamics: a review with emphasis on the bovine species. Part I: Folliculogenesis and pre‐antral follicle development. Reproduction in domestic animals, v. 45, n. 1, p. 171-179, 2010. AERTS, J. M. J.; BOLS, P. E. J. Ovarian follicular dynamics. A review with emphasis on the bovine species. Part II: Antral development, exogenous influence and future prospects. Reproduction in domestic animals, v. 45, n. 1, p. 180-187, 2010. ALBERTINI, David F.; CARABATSOS, Mary Jo. Comparative aspects of meiotic cell cycle control in mammals. Journal of molecular medicine, v. 76, n. 12, p. 795-799, 1998. AUSTIN, Colin Russell; SHORT, R. Reproduction in mammals. Cambridge, 1972. BAKER, T. G. Oogenesis and ovulation. In. Reproduction in Mammals I Germ Cells and Fertilization, p. 29-30, 1972. BEARDEN, Henry Joe et al. Reproducción animal aplicada. México: Manual Moderno, 1982. BIGGERS, John D.; SCHUETZ, Allen W. Oogenesis. University Park Press, 1972. BINELLI, Mario; MURPHY, Bruce D. Coordinated regulation of follicle development by germ and somatic cells. Reproduction, Fertility and Development, v. 22, n. 1, p. 1-12, 2009. CHIARINI-GARCIA, Helio; RUSSELL, Lonnie D. High-resolution light microscopic characterization of mouse spermatogonia. Biology of reproduction, v. 65, n. 4, p. 1170-1178, 2001. CHOUDARY, J. B.; GIER, H. T.; MARION, G. B. Cyclic changes in bovine vesicular follicles. Journal of animal science, v. 27, n. 2, p. 468-471, 1968. CLERMONT, Yves; PEREY, Bernard. Quantitative study of the cell population of the seminiferous tubules in immature rats. American Journal of Anatomy, v. 100, n. 2, p. 241-267, 1957. COSTA, DEILER SAMPAIO; PAULA, T. A. R. Espermatogênese em mamíferos. Scientia, v. 4, 2003. CUNNINGHAM, James. Tratado de fisiologia veterinária. Elsevier Health Sciences, 2011. CUPPS, Perry T. (Ed.). Reproduction in domestic animals. Elsevier, 1991. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Fisiologia Clínica do Ciclo Estral de Vacas Leiteiras: Desenvolvimento Folicular, Corpo Lúteo e Etapas do Estro. 2020. Acervo pessoal. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Fisiologia da Reprodução Animal: Ovulação, Controle e Sincronização do Cio. 2020. Acervo pessoal. DUKES, Henry Hugh; SWENSON, Melvin J.; REECE, William O. Dukes fisiologia dos animais domésticos. Editora Guanabara Koogan, 1996. EPIFANO, Olga; DEAN, Jurrien. Genetic control of early folliculogenesis in mice. Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism, v. 13, n. 4, p. 169-173, 2002. ERICKSON, B. H. Development and senescence of the postnatal bovine ovary. Journal of animal science, v. 25, n. 3, p. 800-805, 1966. REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS -/- FELDMAN, Edward C. et al. Canine and feline endocrinology-e-book. Elsevier health sciences, 2014. FUSCO, Giuseppe; MINELLI, Alessandro. The Biology of Reproduction. Cambridge University Press, 2019. GALINA-HIDALGO, Carlos Salvador. A study of the development of testicular function and an evaluation of testicular biopsy in farm animals. 1971. Tese de Doutorado. Royal Veterinary College (University of London). GALLICANO, G. Ian. Composition, regulation, and function of the cytoskeleton in mammalian eggs and embryos. Front Biosci, v. 6, p. D1089-1108, 2001. GILBERT, Scott F. Biología del desarrollo. Ed. Médica Panamericana, 2005. GNESSI, Lucio; FABBRI, Andrea; SPERA, Giovanni. Gonadal peptides as mediators of development and functional control of the testis: an integrated system with hormones and local environment. Endocrine reviews, v. 18, n. 4, p. 541-609, 1997. HAFEZ, Elsayed Saad Eldin; HAFEZ, Bahaa. Reprodução animal. São Paulo: Manole, 2004. HEDGER, Mark P. Testicular leukocytes: what are they doing?. Reviews of reproduction, v. 2, n. 1, p. 38-47, 1997. HUTSON, James C. Testicular macrophages. In: International review of cytology. Academic Press, 1994. p. 99-143. HYTTEL, P. Gametogênese. In. HYTTEL, Poul; SINOWATZ, Fred; VEJLSTED, Morten. Embriologia veterinária. São Paulo: Elsevier Brasil, 2012. JOHNSON, Martin H. Essential reproduction. Nova Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2018. JONES, Richard E.; LOPEZ, Kristin H. Human reproductive biology. Academic Press, 2013. KIERSZENBAUM, Abraham L.; TRES, Laura L. Primordial germ cell‐somatic cell partnership: A balancing cell signaling act. Molecular Reproduction and Development: Incorporating Gamete Research, v. 60, n. 3, p. 277-280, 2001. MATZUK, Martin M. et al. Intercellular communication in the mammalian ovary: oocytes carry the conversation. Science, v. 296, n. 5576, p. 2178-2180, 2002. MCLAREN, Anne. Germ and somatic cell lineages in the developing gonad. Molecular and cellular endocrinology, v. 163, n. 1-2, p. 3-9, 2000. MCKINNON, Angus O. et al. (Ed.). Equine reproduction. John Wiley & Sons, 2011. MERCHANT-LARIOS, Horacio; MORENO-MENDOZA, Norma. Onset of sex differentiation: dialog between genes and cells. Archives of medical research, v. 32, n. 6, p. 553-558, 2001. MINTZ, Beatrice et al. Embryological phases of mammalian gametogenesis. Embryological phases of mammalian gametogenesis., v. 56, n. Suppl. 1, p. 31-43, 1960. MORALES, M. E. et al. Gametogénesis. I. Revisión de la literatura, con enfoque en la ovogénesis. Medicina Universitaria, v. 8, n. 32, p. 183-9, 2006. NAKATSUJI, NORIO; CHUMA, SHINICHIRO. Differentiation of mouse primordial germ cells into female or male germ cells. International Journal of Developmental Biology, v. 45, n. 3, p. 541-548, 2002. NILSSON, Eric; PARROTT, Jeff A.; SKINNER, Michael K. Basic fibroblast growth factor induces primordial follicle development and initiates folliculogenesis. Molecular and cellular endocrinology, v. 175, n. 1-2, p. 123-130, 2001. REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS -/- NORRIS, David O.; LOPEZ, Kristin H. The endocrinology of the mammalian ovary. In: Hormones and reproduction of vertebrates. Academic Press, 2011. p. 59-72. PEDERSEN, Torben. Follicle growth in the immature mouse ovary. European Journal of Endocrinology, v. 62, n. 1, p. 117-132, 1969. PINEDA, Mauricio H. et al. McDonald's veterinary endocrinology and reproduction. Iowa state press, 2003. ROSER, J. F. Endocrine and paracrine control of sperm production in stallions. Animal Reproduction Science, v. 68, n. 3-4, p. 139-151, 2001. RUSSELL, Lonnie D. et al. Histological and histopathological evaluation of the testis. International journal of andrology, v. 16, n. 1, p. 83-83, 1993. RÜSSE, I.; SINOWATZ, F. Gametogenese. Lehrbuch der Embryologie der Haustiere, p. 42-92, 1991. SAITOU, Mitinori; BARTON, Sheila C.; SURANI, M. Azim. A molecular programme for the specification of germ cell fate in mice. Nature, v. 418, n. 6895, p. 293-300, 2002. SALISBURY, Glenn Wade et al. Physiology of reproduction and artificial insemination of cattle. WH Freeman and Company., 1978. SAWYER, Heywood R. et al. Formation of ovarian follicles during fetal development in sheep. Biology of reproduction, v. 66, n. 4, p. 1134-1150, 2002. SCARAMUZZI, R. J.; MARTENSZ, N. D.; VAN LOOK, P. F. A. Ovarian morphology and the concentration of steroids, and of gonadotrophins during the breeding season in ewes actively immunized against oestradiol-17β or oestrone. Reproduction, v. 59, n. 2, p. 303-310, 1980. SEIDEL JR, G. E. et al. Control of folliculogenesis and ovulation in domestic animals: puberal and adult function. In: 9th International Congress on Animal Reproduction and Artificial Insemination, 16th-20th June 1980. II. Round tables. Editorial Garsi., 1980. p. 11-16. SKINNER, Michael K. Cell-cell interactions in the testis. Endocrine Reviews, v. 12, n. 1, p. 45-77, 1991. SMITZ, J. E.; CORTVRINDT, Rita G. The earliest stages of folliculogenesis in vitro. Reproduction, v. 123, n. 2, p. 185-202, 2002. SORENSEN, Anton Marinus. Reproducción animal: principios y prácticas. México, 1982. SUTOVSKY, Peter; MANANDHAR, Gaurishankar. Mammalian spermatogenesis and sperm structure: anatomical and compartmental analysis. In. The sperm cell: Production, maturation, fertilization, regeneration, p. 1-30, 2006. TAZUKE, Salli I. et al. A germline-specific gap junction protein required for survival of differentiating early germ cells. Development, v. 129, n. 10, p. 2529-2539, 2002. VAN STRAATEN, H. W. M.; WENSING, C. J. G. Leydig cell development in the testis of the pig. Biology of Reproduction, v. 18, n. 1, p. 86-93, 1978. TURNBULL, K. E.; BRADEN, A. W. H.; MATTNER, P. E. The pattern of follicular growth and atresia in the ovine ovary. Australian Journal of Biological Sciences, v. 30, n. 3, p. 229-242, 1977. WASSARMAN, Paul M. Gametogenesis. Londres: Academic Press, 2012. WROBEL, K.-H.; SÜß, Franz. Identification and temporospatial distribution of bovine primordial germ cells prior to gonadal sexual differentiation. Anatomy and embryology, v. 197, n. 6, p. 451-467, 1998. REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS -/- ZARCO, L. Gametogénese. In. PORTA, L. R.; MEDRANO, J. H. H. Fisiología reproductiva de los animales domésticos. Cidade do México: FMVZ-UNAM, 2018. ZIRKIN, Barry R. et al. Endocrine and Paracrine Regulation of Mammalian Spermatogenesis. In: Hormones and Reproduction of Vertebrates. Academic Press, 2011. p. 45-57. -/- REALIZAÇÃO -/- . (shrink)

INTRODUÇÃO O anestro pós-parto é o período após o parto no qual a fêmea não apresenta ciclos estrais (atividade cíclica). Na vaca leiteira, o parto é seguido de um período de inatividade ovariana de duração variável, que é principalmente afetada pelo estado nutricional, produção leiteira, ganho ou perda de condição corporal antes e depois do parto, e por condições patológicas como hipoplasia dos ovários, cistos ovarianos, mumificação uterina, piometra entre outras, além, também, de condições ambientais como instalações que podem causar (...) estresse etc. 1. Controle neuroendócrino do anestro Entre os 12 e 15 dias pós-parto, as células gonadotróficas presentes na adenohipófise começam a produzir e secretar o FSH (hormônio folículo estimulante), o qual estimula a primeira onda folicular; entretanto, nenhum folículo dominante do(s) ovário(s) chega a completar seu desenvolvimento devido à carência de estímulo apropriado do LH (hormônio luteinizante) que também é produzido pelas mesmas células e que deve estar presente em altas concentrações. Nas 2 primeiras semanas pós-parto (primeiros 15 dias), as concentrações circulantes de LH são baixas, o que se deve à ausência de reservas do LH e à incapacidade temporal da hipófise para responder ao estímulo da GnRH (hormônio liberador de gonadotrofina). Entre os dias 15 e 20 pós-parto, a hipófise aumenta a sua capacidade para responder ao GnRH; entretanto, o estabelecimento do padrão de secreção do LH adequado para estimular a maturação e a ovulação do folículo dominante das primeiras ondas foliculares depende fundamentalmente do balanço energético. 2. Fatores que determinam o início da atividade ovariana pós-parto Na vaca leiteira, é frequente que algum dos primeiros folículos dominantes que se desenvolvem durante as primeiras duas ou três semanas complete a sua maturação e chegue à ovulação, isto é, madure e ovule. O fator limitante para o reinício da atividade ovariana é o balanço energético negativo (BEN). No gado leiteiro, o consumo de matéria seca (CMS), após o parto, deverá ser aumentado em até quatro vezes, para cobrir a demanda de nutrientes para a produção de leite e mantença; no entanto, a vaca é incapaz de consumir a exigência de matéria seca, por isso recorre a suas reservas de gordura e proteína, e cai em BEN. As vacas que consomem menos matéria seca, produzem menos leite, têm um BEN mais profundo e o período do parto à primeira ovulação é maior. O nível mais baixo do BEN é alcançado entre os 10 a 20 dias pós-parto e a vaca continua em BEN até os 70 a 80 dias pós-parto e, em alguns casos, até aos 100 dias pós-parto (vacas primíparas). Entretanto, mesmo com BEN, uma proporção elevada das vacas inicia sua atividade ovariana normal nas primeiras 8 semanas pós-parto. As vacas que alcançam um nível baixo de BEN rapidamente e saem deste ponto mínimo de forma rápida, iniciam sua atividade ovariana mais rápido também (20 a 30 dias pós-parto) do que aquelas que têm um BEN mais profundo e duradouro, essas muitas vezes permanecem em anestro aos 70 dias pós-parto (figura 1). As mudanças na condição corporal estão correlacionadas positivamente com as concentrações séricas de insulina, IGF-I e leptina; assim, a maior qualificação da condição corporal é maior mediante a concentração sérica desses hormônios, que atuam principalmente como sinais que chegam ao hipotálamo e modificam a frequência de secreção do GnRH e, consequentemente, de LH. A leptina é um hormônio que é produzido pelos adipócitos e tem sido proposto que sua concentração é o sinal mais importante de alterações de condição corporal. A transição do anestro para a ciclicidade coincide com um aumento das concentrações séricas de insulina, IGF-I e leptina. Além das mensagens dadas pelos hormônios supracitados, outras substâncias presentes no sangue fornecem informações sobre o estado metabólico do animal. Por exemplo, os ácidos graxos não esterificados e o β-hidroxibutirato são indicadores da mobilização e utilização da gordura corporal; assim, o aumento destas substâncias proporciona uma mensagem inibidora de reprodução. O intervalo médio entre o parto e a primeira ovulação, em vacas leiteiras em sistemas de produção não intensiva, é em torno de 30 dias; enquanto em vacas em sistemas de produção intensiva, é de 40 dias. Deve-se sinalar que é comum aos 70 dias pós-parto, que 20% das vacas ainda não ovulem. Verifica-se frequentemente que as vacas leiteiras desenvolvem folículos que crescem mais que os folículos ovulatórios, os quais convertem em cistos foliculares. Esta condição está associada com insensibilidade do hipotálamo ao retorno positivo do estradiol, o que não desencadeia o pico pré-ovulatório de LH (figura 2). 3. O corpo lúteo dos primeiros ciclos pós-parto Durante um ciclo estral o corpo lúteo tem uma meia-vida fisiológica de 12 a 14 dias; no entanto, na primeira ovulação pós-parto cerca de 25% das vacas desenvolvem corpos lúteos de vida curta (<10 dias), 30% de vida longa (21 a 50 dias) e 45% da vida normal (11 a 20 dias). A regressão prematura do corpo lúteo é uma condição frequente nos ruminantes no primeiro ciclo estral, da transição do anestro à ciclicidade. Ou seja, na vaca é frequente que no primeiro ciclo de pós-parto e da puberdade sejam ciclos curtos; isto deve-se à liberação antecipada da PGF2α. Por outro lado, a causa dos corpos lúteos de vida longa (corpos lúteos persistentes) não é clara, mas está relacionada com alterações na secreção da PGF2α devido a infecções uterinas (tabela 1). 4. Anestro patológico 4.1 Alterações do aparelho genital que causam anestro Na vaca foi calculado que as alterações do aparelho genital que afetam a atividade ovariana representam apenas 10% do total das causas de anestro. Entre as alterações do aparelho genital se encontram os cistos foliculares, cistos luteinizados, aplasia segmentar, piometra e mumificação fetal. . 4.2 Cistos foliculares Os cistos foliculares são a patologia ovariana mais comum nos bovinos leiteiros, causando perdas econômicas devido ao atraso do período do parto ao primeiro serviço, pelo custo dos tratamentos e pelo risco que têm as vacas de serem descartadas. A incidência aumentou à medida que a produção de leite se intensificou. Entre 5 e 30% das vacas desenvolvem cistos foliculares nos primeiros 60 dias do pós-parto; no entanto, cerca de 60% destas se recuperam espontaneamente. Sinais clínicos de vacas com cistos foliculares descritos na literatura são: ninfomania, ciclos curtos, masculinização e relaxamento dos ligamentos pélvicos. Atualmente uma alta proporção de vacas com cistos foliculares apresentam anestro. Por muitos anos um cisto folicular foi definido como um folículo com um diâmetro de 2,5 mm, presente em um ou em ambos os ovários durante um período mínimo de 10 dias, na ausência de um corpo lúteo. Os conhecimentos atuais modificaram o conceito clássico; assim, nem todos os cistos foliculares têm um diâmetro de 2,5 mm; além disso, alguns podem persistir mais de 10 dias. Outros são estruturas dinâmicas, que sofrem regressão e podem ser substituídas por novos cistos. Por esta razão, a definição mais precisa e técnica de um cisto folicular é: folículo de um diâmetro, de pelo menos 20 mm, que está presente em um ou ambos os ovários na ausência de tecido lúteo que interfere com o ciclo estral normal (figura 3). A patogênese dos cistos foliculares não é conhecida. Propõe-se que as vacas que desenvolvem esta patologia têm uma anomalia nos mecanismos de retroalimentação entre o hipotálamo e a hipófise, em conjunto com uma disfunção a nível folicular. É pesquisado e sugerido que em vacas com cistos foliculares, o pico pré-ovulatório de LH não ocorre ou é de menor amplitude, ou não tem uma relação síncrona com o amadurecimento do folículo, o que provoca a falha ovulatória. A alteração na secreção de LH pode obedecer a falta de sensibilidade do hipotálamo ao feedback positivo de estrogênio. Observa-se também que algumas anormalidades a nível folicular, tais como alterações na síntese de hormônios esteroides e uma menor sensibilidade à LH, podem contribuir com a patogenia. Uma vez que o cisto folicular foi estabelecido, observou-se um aumento na frequência de secreção pulsátil de LH, o que contribui com a persistência desta patologia. Existem fatores associados com a incidência de cistos foliculares que, de acordo com a patogenia proposta, podem influenciar ao nível do eixo hipotálamo-hipófise-ovário. Os cistos foliculares ocorrem principalmente durante a transição do anestro pós-parto para a ciclicidade. Neste período as vacas estão em BEN, e tem sido observado que as vacas que sofrem de um BEN mais profundo tendem a apresentar uma incidência maior de cistos foliculares. Por outra parte, há uma correlação positiva entre a produção de leite e a incidência de cistos, o que indica que as vacas que produzem mais leite têm maior risco de sofrer com esta patologia. Também existem outros fatores relacionados com a incidência de cistos foliculares tais como estresse, genéticos, infecções uterinas, estresse calórico e presença de fitoestrogênios na dieta (tabela 2). O tratamento indicado consiste na administração do GnRH, que provoca a luteinização do cisto. É recomendável a combinação com uma dose luteolítica de PGF2α, 7 a 10 dias depois da injeção de GnRH. Também é indicado o tratamento com hCG em vez de GnRH. Em alguns estudos foi possível integrar vacas com cistos foliculares em programas de sincronização da ovulação e inseminação em tempo fixo, com resultados aceitáveis de fertilidade (figura 4). 4.3 Cistos luteinizados Esse tipo de cisto pode se desenvolver a partir de um cisto folicular, também ocorre quando o saco libera um óvulo e, em seguida, se fecha novamente e enche-se de líquido. O tecido luteinizado produz progestágenos do qual os sinais incluem anestro persistente. São bastante mais raros e originam-se pelo contínuo aumento do espaço cavitário central normalmente existente nos corpos lúteos (figura 5). Normalmente, a parede do cisto contém células lúteogranulosas grandes e células tecaluteais pequenas. Se diferenciam com dificuldade de corpos lúteos recém-formados durante o período em que ainda possuem um antro. Os cistos luteínicos únicos, pelo menos os menores, necessitam de importância clínica. Se os cistos são funcionais, a sintomatologia mais destacada é o anestro ou pseudogestação. É preciso lembrar que esses cistos agem como uma fonte de secreção contínua de progesterona, diminuindo assim a resistência do útero a infecções, podendo desencadear-se uma endometrite (figura 6). Se eles forem diagnosticados é recomendável a administração de PGF2α. 4.4 Aplasia segmentar As vacas com esta condição podem gestar quando a ovulação ocorre do lado do corno uterino presente. Se a ovulação acontece do lado onde falta o corno uterino causa anestro. 4.5 Piometra A piometra, por definição, é a acumulação de material purulento no interior da luz uterina que ocorrem geralmente durante ou imediatamente após o período de domínio da progesterona. É uma condição que ocorre mais frequentemente nos primeiros 30 dias pós-parto; no entanto, algumas vacas em anestro que são revisadas no dia 50 pós-parto chegam a ter piometra. O tratamento indicado consiste na administração de PGF2α. 5. Anestro relacionado com o tempo de serviço O anestro em bovinos também é classificado como anestro pré-serviço e pós-serviço. 5.1 Anestro pré-serviço Inclui vacas e novilhas que não tenham mostrado estro, isto é, manifestado cio, no período em que devem ser servidas. Em alguns estudos observou-se que o anestro antes do serviço pode afetar até 50% das vacas elegíveis para apresentar estro. 5.1 Anestro pós-serviço Neste grupo incluem-se as vacas que não retornam ao estro, ou seja, que não retornaram ao cio, 21 dias depois da inseminação e não estão prenhes. Essas vacas são conhecidas como vacas fantasma (The Phantom Cow). A causa principal do atraso do retorno ao estro é a baixa eficiência na detecção de estros; mas também foram descritas outras causas como: inseminação em um estro anovulatório, inseminação em tempo fixo em vacas em anestro, suspensão da ciclicidade após o serviço, fases lúteas longas e morte embrionária. O diagnóstico precoce da gestação é de grande ajuda para conhecer oportunamente o número de fêmeas que não estão prenhes. A ecografia no trigésimo dia pós-inseminação adianta, pelo menos 10 dias, a ressincronização de vacas vazias. 6. Falso anestro ou anestro funcional Este causa as maiores perdas econômicas de caráter reprodutivo em rebanhos leiteiros, e refere-se às vacas que estão ciclando, mas não são observadas em estro pelos trabalhadores. É um dos maiores problemas dentro de um sistema de criação extensivo e, às vezes, semiintensivo, uma vez que é de suma importância a observação técnica e precisa do comportamento da vaca para observar o possível retorno ao cio ou não. 7. Manejo da vaca anéstrica A probabilidade de que a vaca seja inseminada oportunamente depende da eficiência da detecção de estros. É comum que a metade das vacas apresentem estro e não sejam observadas, por essa razão, muitas não são inseminadas uma vez que termina o período de espera voluntária. Por outro lado, há vacas que, por causas patológicas ou por seu estado metabólico, ainda estão em anestro depois que termina o período voluntário de espera. Para identificar as causas da ausência de estros, todas as vacas que não tenham sido inseminadas no dia 60 pós-parto, devem ser revisadas por via retal para aplicar o tratamento ou manejo pertinentes. Durante esta revisão é dada especial atenção às características do útero e nas estruturas ovarianas, já que daqui depende o manejo subsequente. A palpação começa no útero; neste é importante determinar se não há gestação. Posteriormente, avalia-se sua consistência que pode ser normal, edematosa ou turgente. Depois de avaliar o útero procede-se a palpação dos ovários, começando com o direito e, em seguida, esquerdo. Abaixo estão descritas as diferentes descobertas que podem ser encontradas na literatura e seu tratamento ou manejo. O registo dos resultados à palpação é feito através de chaves reprodutivas. 7.1 UN CLD2-3 FE10 Útero normal (UN) com um corpo lúteo 2 ou 3 no ovário direito (CLD2-3) e um folículo no ovário esquerdo de 10 mm de diâmetro (FE10). A consistência normal do útero (é normal quando não há edema ou turgescência) é encontrado em vacas não prenhes durante o diestro, ou em vacas que estão em anestro. O CL 2 ou 3 é uma estrutura bem desenvolvida que deforma o ovário e em alguns casos representa mais de 50% da massa ovariana. Classificá-los como CL 2 ou 3 é uma apreciação subjetiva do tamanho do corpo lúteo e não tem significado prático, pois em qualquer dos casos o manejo é o mesmo. O CL indica que a vaca está em qualquer dia do diestro e, obviamente, indica que está ciclando. Durante o diestro pode-se encontrar folículos de tamanho diferente em qualquer um dos dois ovários, já que este depende das ondas de desenvolvimento folicular. É importante frisar que as estruturas mencionadas podem estar em ovários diferentes ou no mesmo ovário. O achado mais importante nesta fase é a presença do corpo lúteo o que permite o tratamento com a PGF2α, o que resulta na apresentação do estro nas próximas 48 a 120 horas. A presença de um corpo lúteo é o estado fisiológico que é mais frequentemente encontrado neste grupo de vacas, primeiro porque paradoxalmente a maior proporção de vacas em “anestro” está ciclando (anestro funcional) e, em segundo lugar, porque o diestro ocupa 65% dos dias do ciclo estral. 7.2 UE CLD1 FE10-15 Útero edematoso (UE) com um corpo lúteo 1 no ovário direito (CLD1) e um folículo 10 ou 15 mm de diâmetro no ovário esquerdo. O útero edematoso pode ser encontrado no proestro e metaestro. A presença do CL1 e um folículo grande indica que se trata de uma vaca que muito provavelmente é encontrado em proestro. A diferença entre um CL1 e um CL 2 ou 3 é basicamente o seu tamanho; um CL1 é uma estrutura pequena com consistência dura. As vacas que têm estas características devem ser marcadas para que os trabalhadores prestem mais atenção, já que apresentarão o estro nas próximas 48 a 72 horas. Se a vaca não apresentar estro nesse período, deverá ser palpada na semana seguinte. 7.3 UT DE FE10-15 Útero túrgido ou tonificado, ovário direito estático e ovário esquerdo com um folículo de 10 ou 15 mm de diâmetro. Estes achados, além da presença de muco estral, correspondem a uma vaca em estro. Frequentemente, na palpação das vacas do grupo de anestro, há vacas em estro; estas vacas deverão ser programadas para inseminação. 7.4 UE DE EE Útero estático e ovários estáticos. Estas observações correspondem a uma vaca em metaestro; esta decisão tem uma alta margem de erro uma vez que também pode corresponder a um animal no proestro ou em anestro verdadeiro. Um achado que permite ser mais bem sucedido no diagnóstico é a presença de sangue no muco cervical; neste caso, a presença de sangue indica, com certeza, que a vaca está em metaestro; no entanto, nem todas as vacas apresentam este sangramento. As vacas com estes achados devem ser palpadas sete dias depois para confirmar ou corrigir um primeiro diagnóstico. Se a primeira palpação foi correta, na segunda se encontrará um CL2-3. 7.5 UE CHD FE10 Útero edematoso, com corpo hemorrágico no ovário direito (CHD) e com folículo de 10 mm de diâmetro no ovário esquerdo. Estas observações são de uma vaca em metaestro. O corpo hemorrágico é considerado como a fase de transição entre o folículo e o corpo lúteo; o CH é palpado como uma estrutura com uma saliência em forma de papila e é muito suave ao toque. Será necessário esperar 4 ou 5 dias para que se converta num corpo lúteo maduro e assim destruí-lo com PGF2α. Na rotina, estas vacas são palpadas na seguinte revisão (sete dias depois). 7.6 UN DE EE Útero normal e ovários estáticos. Este caracteriza as vacas que estão no anestro verdadeiro. As vacas caem no anestro principalmente por se encontrar em balanço negativo de energia; este problema é mais grave em vacas de primeiro parto. O único tratamento eficaz consiste em melhorar o seu estado metabólico. Tratamentos hormonais não funcionam caso não seja resolvido primeiro o seu estado nutricional. 7.7 UN CFD EE Útero normal, cisto folicular no ovário direito e ovário esquerdo estático. Embora as vacas com cistos foliculares sejam caracterizadas por apresentar estros recorrentes, também chegam a apresentar anestro. O tratamento consiste na administração do GnRH ou hCG. 7.8 UN CLD EE Útero normal, cisto luteinizado no ovário direito e ovário esquerdo estático. Este cisto também é causado por uma deficiência na secreção de LH, só que neste caso a deficiência foi parcial, o que provoca um certo grau de luteinização. O cisto luteinizado é uma estrutura com mais de 20 mm de diâmetro de paredes grossas. O tratamento indicado é a administração de PGF2α. Na prática, é difícil diferenciar um cisto folicular de um luteinizado, pelo que o tratamento recomendado é, primeiro, a administração de GnRH ou hCG e sete dias depois é injetado PGF2α (figura 7). 7.9 Piometra CLD2-3 FE A piometra é uma condição que ocorre principalmente nos primeiros 30 dias pós-parto; no entanto, na revisão das vacas anéstricas são encontradas vacas com esta patologia. O tratamento indicado consiste na administração de PGF2α. 8. Tratamentos hormonais para indução da atividade ovariana O estabelecimento precoce da ciclicidade pós-parto favorece a involução uterina e está positivamente correlacionado com a fertilidade; ou seja, quanto mais ciclos estrais a vaca tenha antes da primeira inseminação, a percentagem de concepção é maior. Um tratamento utilizado para induzir a primeira ovulação pós-parto em vacas anéstricas, consiste na administração de GnRH quando à palpação retal se encontra um folículo grande (> 10 mm). Com isso se pretende fazer o folículo ovular e depois injeta-se PGF2α para provocar a regressão lútea. Outras combinações consistem na administração de GnRH e na inserção de dispositivos de liberação de progesterona e, ao retirar o progestágeno, injeta-se PGF2α (figura 8). No entanto, os tratamentos mencionados são de uso comum, não funcionam em todos os casos. Um requisito para se obter êxito é que as vacas devem ter boa condição corporal ou que estejam ganhando condição corporal. Embora os tratamentos hormonais possam ajudar em alguns casos, não deve-se esquecer que as causas do anestro não são corrigidos apenas com a administração de hormônios, já que a vaca não cicla porque toda a informação do estado metabólico que recebe o cérebro, indica que não o deve fazer. 9. Gonadotropina coriônica equina (eCG) Na égua, por volta do dia 30 de gestação, células do córion migram para o endométrio e formam umas estruturas conhecidas como copas endometriais. Entre o dia 40 e o dia 130 de gestação nestas estruturas é produzido o eCG (anteriormente conhecida como gonadotropina sérica da égua prenha ou PMSG, pela sua abreviatura em inglês). Na égua esse hormônio tem atividade de LH pelo qual estimula a função do corpo lúteo e promove a formação de corpos lúteos acessórios. Nos ruminantes, o eCG se une aos receptores de LH e FSH do folículo, estimulando o desenvolvimento folicular, e no corpo lúteo estimula a secreção de progesterona. O eCG tem sido utilizado com a finalidade de superovulação e em vacas de corte sob anestro é incluído em programas com progestágenos para induzir ciclicidade. Nestes programas é injetado eCG no momento da remoção do progestágeno, o que favorece o desenvolvimento folicular e apresentação do estro. Em rebanhos leiteiros na Nova Zelândia tem sido incrementado a taxa de prenhez sem aumentar a proporção de partos gêmeos, através da injeção de eCG na remoção do dispositivo de libertação de progesterona em programas combinados com a injeção de benzoato de estradiol. RESUMO ➢ Transcorrem 15 dias pós-parto para que a hipófase responda ao hormônio GnRH. ➢ Entre os dias 12 e 15 pós-parto começa-se a secreção de FSH e iniciam as ondas foliculares. ➢ As vacas chegam ao ponto mais baixo de BEN entre os dias 15 e 20 pós-parto. ➢ As vacas iniciam a atividade ovariana normal, em média, após os 40 dias pós-parto. ➢ Aos 70 dias pós-parto é normal que 20% das vacas ainda estejam em anestro. ➢ Na primeira ovulação pós-parto 25% das vacas desenvolvem corpos lúteos de vida curta e 30% mostram corpos lúteos de vida longa (persistentes). ➢ As anormalidades do aparelho reprodutor são responsáveis por 10% das causas de anestro. ➢ 5 a 30% das vacas desenvolvem cistos foliculares nos primeiros 60 dias pós-parto e 60% destas se recuperam de forma espontânea. ➢ No dia 30 pós-inseminação é possível identificar vacas vazias mediante a ecografia e reservá-las para a ressincronização. ➢ A proteína B específica da gestação aparece no soro a partir do 15º dia de gestação. ➢ Para o diagnóstico precoce de gestação é recomendado medir a PSPB no dia 30 pósinseminação e em vacas com mais de 90 dias pós-parto. ➢ Entre os dias 50 e 60 pós-parto todas as vacas não servidas devem ser examinadas via retal para programar seu serviço. REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS AMBROSE, Divakar J. Postpartum anestrus and its management in dairy cattle. Bovine Reproduction, p. 408-430, 2021. BALL, P. J. H.; PETERS, A. R. Reprodução em bovinos. São Paulo: SP, 2006. Características Gerais dos Bovinos/General Characteristics of Cattle Bovine. 2020. Fisiologia da Reprodução Animal: Ovulação, Controle e Sincronização do Cio. 2020. Nutrição Sobre a Reprodução e Fertilidade dos Bovinos. DERIVAUX, Jules; BECKERS, Jean-François; ECTORS, Francis. L'anoestrus du postpartum. Vlaams Diergeneeskundig Tijdschrift, v. 53, p. 215-229, 1984. ELLI, Massimiliano. Manual de reproducción en ganado vacuno. Zaragoza, ES: Servet Edit., 2005. FERNÁNDEZ DE CÓRDOBA DE LA BARRERA, Luis. Reproducción aplicada en el ganado bovino lechero. 1993. 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. GARVERICK, H. Allen. Ovarian follicular cysts in dairy cows. Journal of dairy science, v. 80, n. 5, p. 995-1004, 1997. HAFEZ, Elsayed Saad Eldin; HAFEZ, Bahaa. Reprodução animal. 2004. HIDALGO, Galina et al. Reproducción de animales domésticos. 2008. PETER, A. T.; VOS, P. L. A. M.; AMBROSE, D. J. Postpartum anestrus in dairy cattle. Theriogenology, v. 71, n. 9, p. 1333-1342, 2009. PETERS, A. R. et al. Reproducción del ganado vacuno. 1991. SPAIN, JAMES N.; LUCY, MATTHEW C.; HARDIN, DAVID K. Effects of nutrition on reproduction in dairy cattle. In: Current Therapy in Large Animal Theriogenology. WB Saunders, 2007. p. 442-450. UNGERFELD, Rodolfo. Reproducción de los animales domésticos. Edizioni LSWR, 2020. VILLA-GODOY, A. et al. Association between energy balance and luteal function in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, v. 71, n. 4, p. 1063-1072, 1988. WATHES, D. C. et al. Influence of negative energy balance on cyclicity and fertility in the high producing dairy cow. Theriogenology, v. 68, p. S232-S241, 2007. (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)

This book is a collection of articles dealing with criticisms of Robert S. Hartman’s theory of formal axiology. During his lifetime, Hartman wrote responses to many of his critics. Some of these were previously published but many are published here for the first time. In particular, published here are Hartman’s replies to such critics as Hector Neri Castañeda, Charles Hartshorne, Rem B. Edwards, Robert E. Carter, G. R. Grice, Nicholas Rescher, Robert W. Mueller, Gordon Welty, Pete Gunter, George Kimball (...) Plochmann, William Eckhardt, and Robert S. Brumbaugh. Crticial essays and responses to them developed by Rem B. Edwards, Frank G. Forrest, and Mark A. Moore after Hartman’s untimely death in 1973 are also included. (shrink)

This paper proposes a semantics for free choice permission that explains both the non-classical behavior of modals and disjunction in sentences used to grant permission, and their classical behavior under negation. It also explains why permissions can expire when new information comes in and why free choice arises even when modals scope under disjunction. On the proposed approach, deontic modals update preference orderings, and connectives operate on these updates rather than propositions. The success of this approach stems from its capacity (...) to capture the difference between expressing the preferences that give rise to permissions and conveying propositions about those preferences. (shrink)

Obwohl dieser Band ein wenig datiert ist, gibt es nur wenige aktuelle populäre Bücher, die sich speziell mit der Psychologie des Mordes beschäftigen und es ist ein schneller Überblick für ein paar Dollar, also noch wert die Mühe. Es macht keinen Versuch, umfassend zu sein und ist stellenweise etwas oberflächlich, wobei der Leser erwartet, die Lücken aus seinen vielen anderen Büchern und der umfangreichen Literatur über Gewalt zu füllen. Für ein Update siehe z.B. Buss, The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology 2nd (...) ed. V1 (2016) S. 265, 266, 270–282, 388–389, 545–546, 547, 566 und Buss, Evolutionary Psychology 5th ed. (2015) P 26, 96–97,223, 293-4, 300, 309–312, 410 und Shackelford and Hansen, The Evolution of Violence (2014). Er gehört seit mehreren Jahrzehnten zu den beste Evolutions psychologen und deckt in seinen Arbeiten ein breites Spektrum an Verhaltensweisen ab, aber hier konzentriert er sich fast ausschließlich auf die psychologischen Mechanismen, die einzelne Menschen zum Mord führen, und ihre mögliche evolutionäre Funktion im EWR (Environment of Evolutionary Adaptation – d.h. die Ebenen Afrikas in den letzten Millionen Jahren oder so). -/- Buss beginnt mit der Erkenntnis, dass wie bei anderen Verhaltensweisen "alternative" Erklärungen wie Psychopathologie, Eifersucht, soziales Umfeld, Gruppendruck, Drogen und Alkohol usw. nicht wirklich erklären, da die Frage nach wie vor bleibt, warum diese mörderische Impulse erzeugen, d.h. sie sind die nahen Ursachen und nicht die ultimativen evolutionären (genetischen) Ursachen. Wie immer läuft es unweigerlich auf inklusive Fitness (genetische Fitness von Verwandten) und damit auf den Kampf um den Zugang zu Kumpels und Ressourcen hinaus, der die ultimative Erklärung für das gesamte Verhalten in allen Organismen ist. Soziologische Daten (und der gesunde Menschenverstand) machen deutlich, dass jüngere ärmere Männchen am ehesten töten. Er präsentiert seine eigenen und andere Morddaten aus Industrienationen und Stammeskulturen, konspeziertes Töten von Tieren, Archäologie, FBI-Daten und seine eigene Forschung über die Mordfantasien normaler Menschen. Viele archäologische Beweise häufen sich weiterhin von Morden, einschließlich der von ganzen Gruppen oder von Gruppen abzüglich junger Frauen, in prähistorischen Zeiten. -/- Nachdem ich Buss' Kommentare untersucht habe, präsentiere ich eine sehr kurze Zusammenfassung der absichtlichen Psychologie (die logische Struktur der Rationalität), die in meinen vielen anderen Artikeln und Büchern ausführlich behandelt wird. -/- Diejenigen, die viel Zeit haben, die eine detaillierte Geschichte mörderischer Gewalt aus evolutionärer Perspektive wollen, können Steven Pinkers "The Better Angels of Our Nature Why Violence Has Declined" (2012) und meineRezension, leicht im Netz und in zwei meiner jüngsten Bücher lesen. Kurz, Pinker stellt fest, dass Mord hat stetig und dramatisch um den Faktor etwa 30 seit unseren Tagen als Forager gesunken. Obwohl Waffen es jetzt für jeden extrem einfach machen, zu töten, ist Tötung viel seltener. Pinker glaubt, dass dies auf verschiedene soziale Mechanismen zurückzuführen ist, die unsere "besseren Engel" hervorbringen, aber ich denke, es ist hauptsächlich auf die vorübergehende Fülle von Ressourcen durch die gnadenlose Vergewaltigung unseres Planeten zurückzuführen, gepaart mit erhöhter Polizeipräsenz, mit Kommunikations- und Überwachungs- und Rechtssystemen, die es viel wahrscheinlicher machen, bestraft zu werden. Dies wird jedes Mal deutlich, wenn es sogar eine kurze und lokale Abwesenheit der Polizei gibt. -/- Wer aus der modernen zweisystems-Sichteinen umfassenden, aktuellen Rahmen für menschliches Verhalten wünscht, kann mein Buch "The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mindand Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle' 2nd ed (2019) konsultieren. Diejenigen,die sich für mehr meiner Schriften interessieren, können 'Talking Monkeys--Philosophie, Psychologie, Wissenschaft, Religion und Politik auf einem verdammten Planeten --Artikel und Rezensionen 2006-2019 3rd ed (2019) und Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 5th ed (2019) und andere sehen. (shrink)

We might suppose it is not only instrumentally valuable for beliefs to be true, but that it is intrinsically valuable – truth makes a non-derivative, positive contribution to a belief's overall value. Some intrinsic goods are better than others, though, and this article considers the question of how good truth is, compared to other intrinsic goods. I argue that truth is the worst of all intrinsic goods; every other intrinsic good is better than it. I also suggest the best explanation (...) for truth's inferiority is that it is not really an intrinsic good at all. It is intrinsically neutral. (shrink)

In Gorgias, Socrates stands accused of argumentative "foul play" involving manipulation by shame. Polus says that Socrates wins the fight with Gorgias by shaming him into the admission that "a rhetorician knows what is right . . . and would teach this to his pupils" . And later, when Polus himself has been "tied up" and "muzzled" , Callicles says that he was refuted only because he was ashamed to reveal his true convictions. These allegations, if justified, directly undermine Socrates' (...) claim to be improving his interlocutors by argument. For if Socrates' use of shame tends to produce insincere assertion, then elenchus cannot serve as a tool for moral reform. In an important recent paper, Jessica Moss presents a new apologia for Socrates on these old charges. According to Moss, although Socrates adopts a strategy of shaming rather than reasoning his interlocutors into agreement, this is legitimate because his appeals to shame function as appeals to a moral sense, which connect a person to his own "deep" convictions. Moreover, she claims that shame "can be a more effective tool of persuasion than reason," for it is capable, where reason is not, of dislodging a person's "intuitive" moral beliefs. This essay argues that each of these points is mistaken. (shrink)

Methodologically rigorous description, analysis, and critique of postmodern phenomena presuppose a rigorous theory of postmodernity, for which the philosophy of Martin Heidegger holds great untapped promise. This essay explicates the basic content of Heidegger’s “metametaphysics,” since for Heidegger a “metaphysics” is the epochally prevailing projection of the meaning of being in general, and he offers a theory of Western metaphysics. I begin with Heidegger’s analysis of the “regional ontologies” of the sciences in his 1927 magnum opus Being and Time, since (...) the metametaphysical works of the “late middle” Heidegger in the 1930s–1940s extend this analytical framework to metaphysics as global ontology. I then explicate Heidegger’s views on modern metaphysics, focusing on his analyses of modern science and the philosophy of Descartes, before turning to his theory of postmodernity, which I extract from his analyses of modern technology and the philosophy of Nietzsche. (shrink)

We need urgently to bring about a revolution in universities around the world, wherever possible, so that they take their fundamental task to be, not to acquire and apply knowledge, but rather to help humanity learn how to resolve conflicts and problems of living in increasingly cooperatively rational ways, so that we may make progress towards a good, genuinely civilized, wise world. The pursuit of knowledge would be a vital but subsidiary task. I have argued for the urgent need for (...) such an academic revolution for nearly 50 years, ever since the publication of two books: What’s Wrong With Science? Towards a People’s Rational Science of Delight and Compassion, 1976, and From Knowledge to Wisdom: A Revolution for Science and the Humanities, 1984, both available free online. This article, written in preparation for a talk given to Pittsburgh University on the 15th September 2023, gives an outline of my baffled struggles with problems of philosophy, science, literature and life that led up to the discovery of the urgent need for an intellectual and institutional revolution in universities around the world, needed in order to galvanize the social revolution required to enable us to make progress to a world in which peace, justice, democracy, individual freedom, sustainable prosperity, the possibility of a good life, are available to all, insofar as that is attainable. (shrink)

That Kant sees the faculties of imagination and judgment as closely related is not controversial. Yet precisely how they relate to each other, especially across his Critical philosophy, is less clear. In this paper, I consider the relationship between what Kant calls the ‘power of imagination’ [Einbildungskraft] and the ‘power of judgment’ [Urteilskraft]. I argue for the following claim: insofar as the power of judgment is the faculty of thinking particulars under universals, the power of imagination is the faculty of (...) producing and providing particulars for judgment—either to reflect on or to subsume under universals. Such an account reveals that our capacity for imagination is intimately bound up with our capacity to judge. (shrink)

In this article I clarify the concepts of ‘pain’, ‘suffering’. ‘pains of body’, ‘pains of soul’. I explore the relevance of an ethic to the clinical setting which gives patients a strong prima facie right to freedom from unnecessary and unwanted pain and which places upon medical professionals two concomitant moral obligations to patients. First, there is the duty not to inflict pain and suffering beyond what is necessary for effective diagnosis. treatment and research. Next, there is the duty to (...) do all that can be done to relieve all the pain and suffering which can be alleviated. I develop in some detail that individuality of pain sensitivity must be taken into account in fulfihing these obligations. I explore the issue of the relevance of informed consent and the right to refuse treatment to the matter of pain relief. And I raise the question of what conditions, if anv, should override the right to refuse treatment where pain relief is of paramount concern. (shrink)

In order to illustrate the difference between sensation and perception, Reid imagines a blind man that by ‘some strange distemper’ has lost all his notions of external objects, but has retained the power of sensation and reasoning. Reid argues that since sensations do not resemble external objects, the blind man could not possibly infer from them any notion of primary qualities. Condillac proposed a similar thought experiment in the Treatise on Sensations. I argue that Condillac can reach a conclusion opposite (...) to that of Reid only by assuming that some particular collections of sensations do indeed resemble the qualities of external objects. Reid had considered a similar case in a manuscript, but he again notices that such complex collections sensations do not resemble the qualities of external objects. (shrink)

This paper assesses the state of research ethics in low- and middle-income countries and the achievements of the Fogarty International Center's bioethics training program since 2000. The vision of FIC for the next decade of research ethics education is encapsulated in four proposed goals: (1) Ensure sufficient expertise in ethics review by having someone with long-term training on every high-workload REC; (2) Develop LMIC capacity to conduct original research on critical ethical issues by supporting doctoral and postdoctoral training and career (...) paths for research ethicists; (3) Make research training and review at LMIC institutions sustainable by identifying additional funding mechanisms and models; (4) Make institutional research systems more ethical and efficient through context-specific training integrated into all levels of scientific training. (shrink)

Modern bioethics is clearly dominated by deontologists who believe that we have some way of identifying morally correct and incorrect acts or rules besides taking account of their consequences. Robert M. Veatch is one of the most outspoken of those numerous modern medical ethicists who agree in rejecting all forms of teleological, utilitarian, or consequentialist ethical theories. This paper examines his critique of utilitarianism and shows that the utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill is either not touched at all by his (...) critique or can be defended against it. This article argues that the dominant deontological majority is mistaken and that a utilitarian theory of moral action very much like Mill’s is precisely what is needed by modern medical ethics and by those medical practitioners who are resolved to practice medicine in a reasonable and morally acceptable manner. (shrink)