Matthew Leisinger (2020) argues that previous interpretations of John Locke’s account of akrasia (or weakness of will) are mistaken and offers a new interpretation in their place. In this essay, we aim to recapitulate part of this debate, defend a previously articulated interpretation by responding to Leisinger’s criticisms of it, and explain why Leisinger’s own interpretation faces textual and philosophical problems that are serious enough to disqualify it as an accurate reconstruction of Locke’s views. In so doing, we aim to (...) shed further light on Locke’s views on the various ways in which humans are prone to err in their pursuit of happiness. (shrink)

Traditionally, logic has been the dominant formal method within philosophy. Are logical methods still dominant today, or have the types of formal methods used in philosophy changed in recent times? To address this question, we coded a sample of philosophy papers from the late 2000s and from the late 2010s for the formal methods they used. The results indicate that the proportion of papers using logical methods remained more or less constant over that time period but the proportion of papers (...) using probabilistic methods was approximately three times higher in the late 2010s than it was in the late 2000s. Further analyses explored this change by looking more closely at specific methods, specific levels of technical engagement, and specific subdisciplines within philosophy. These analyses indicate that the increasing proportion of papers using probabilistic methods was pervasive, not confined to particular probabilistic methods, levels of sophistication, or subdisciplines. (shrink)

This essay argues that reparations for wrongs by one's ancestors can be justified. Differential benefits to those descended from victims of one's ancestors is discrimination which can be justified by one's right to be partial to one's ancestors, doing what they, with clearer thinking, would have done--namely compensating their victims. So, while there is no obligation to discriminate, one has a right to, in virtue of one's partiality towards one's ancestors.

This paper argues that the Theaetetus establishes conditions on objects of knowledge which entail that only of Forms can there be knowledge. Plato's arguments for this are valid. The principles needed to make Plato's premises true will turn out to have deep connection with important parts of Plato's over-all theory, and to have consequences which Plato, in the middle dialogues, seems to welcome on other grounds as well.

The science of mind wandering has rapidly expanded over the past 20 years. During this boom, mind wandering researchers have relied on self-report methods, where participants rate whether their minds were wandering. This is not an historical quirk. Rather, we argue that self-report is indispensable for researchers who study passive phenomena like mind wandering. We consider purportedly “objective” methods that measure mind wandering with eye tracking and machine learning. These measures are validated in terms of how well they predict self-reports, (...) which means that purportedly objective measures of mind wandering retain a subjective core. Mind wandering science cannot break from the cycle of self-report. Skeptics about self-report might conclude that mind wandering science has methodological foundations of sand. We take a rather more optimistic view. We present empirical and philosophical reasons to be confident in self-reports about mind wandering. Empirically, these self-reports are remarkably consistent in their contents and behavioral and neural correlates. Philosophically, self-reports are consistent with our best theories about the function of mind wandering. We argue that this triangulation gives us reason to trust both theory and method. (shrink)

Attribution theorists assume that character information informs judgments of blame. But there is disagreement over why. One camp holds that character information is a fundamental determinant of blame. Another camp holds that character information merely provides evidence about the mental states and processes that determine responsibility. We argue for a two-channel view, where character simultaneously has fundamental and evidential effects on blame. In two large factorial studies (n = 495), participants rate whether someone is blameworthy when he makes a mistake (...) (burns a cake or misses a bus stop). Although mental state inferences predict blame judgments, character information does not. Using mediation analyses, we find that character information influences responsibility via two channels (Studies 3–4; n = 447), which are sensitive to different kinds of information (Study 5; n = 149). On the one hand, forgetfulness increases judgments of responsibility, because mental lapses manifest an objectionable character flaw. On the other hand, forgetfulness decreases judgments of state control, which in turn decreases responsibility judgments. These two channels cancel out, which is why we find no aggregate effect of forgetfulness on responsibility. Our results challenge several fundamental assumptions about the role of character information in moral judgment, including that good character typically mitigates blame. (shrink)

We argue that C. Darwin and more recently W. Hennig worked at times under the simplifying assumption of an eternal biosphere. So motivated, we explicitly consider the consequences which follow mathematically from this assumption, and the infinite graphs it leads to. This assumption admits certain clusters of organisms which have some ideal theoretical properties of species, shining some light onto the species problem. We prove a dualization of a law of T.A. Knight and C. Darwin, and sketch a decomposition result (...) involving the internodons of D. Kornet, J. Metz and H. Schellinx. A further goal of this paper is to respond to B. Sturmfels’ question, “Can biology lead to new theorems?”. (shrink)

In this paper, I answer the following question: suppose that two individuals, C and D, have been in a long-term committed relationship, and D now has dementia, while C is competent; if D agrees to have sex with C, is it permissible for C to have sex with D? Ultimately, I defend the view that, under certain conditions, D can give valid consent to sex with C, rendering sex between them permissible. Specifically, I argue there is compelling reason to endorse (...) the following thesis: -/- Prior Consent Thesis: D, when competent, can give valid prior consent to sex with her competent partner (C) that will take place after she has dementia, assuming that D is the same person as she was when she gave prior consent, meaning that, if D, when competent, gave prior consent to sex with C, then C may permissibly have sex with D. In section I, I explain both the background and the existing literature on this issue. In section II, I outline relevant stipulations about the kinds of cases I will be examining. In section III, I defend the Prior Consent Thesis. And, in section IV, I address objections to the Prior Consent Thesis. (shrink)

In the Laws, Plato argues that the legislator should attempt to persuade people to voluntarily obey the laws. This persuasion is accomplished through use of legislative preludes. Preludes (also called preambles) are short arguments written into the legal code, which precede laws and give reasons to follow them. In this paper, I argue that Plato’s use of persuasive preludes shows that he endorses the core features of a public reason theory of political justification. Many philosophers argue that Plato’s political philosophy (...) is deeply at odds with contemporary liberal political philosophy. While Plato certainly does not affirm (and even rejects) some of the main features of liberalism, if it could be shown that he endorses some account of public reason (which is a liberal idea to its core), this would suggest that there is more in common between Plato and liberalism than many philosophers think. Furthermore, if combined with the work of philosophers, like C.C.W. Taylor, this could form a cumulative case against those who argue that there is little in common between Plato’s political philosophy and liberalism. In short, by showing that Plato endorses the core features of public reason, I endeavor to show that there is more in common between Plato and liberalism than is often thought. (shrink)

Theories of free will are often measured against how well they capture everyday intuitions about free will. But what are these everyday intuitions, and what theoretical commitments do they express? Empirical methods have delivered mixed messages. In response, some free will theorists have developed error theories to undermine the credentials of countervailing intuitions. These efforts are predicated on the idea that people might misunderstand determinism in any of several ways. This paper sheds light on the comprehension problem. We first discuss (...) recent efforts to explain systematic errors in how people interpret determinism. Then, we present the alarming results of two new preregistered studies exploring three types of comprehension failure: (a) epiphenomenal bypassing, (b) fatalistic bypassing, and (c) indeterministic intrusion. Our findings suggest that misunderstanding runs deeper than others have supposed. This casts doubt on existing models of commonsense thinking about free will. Unless and until researchers properly control for the kinds of misunderstandings we identify, research on free will intuitions cannot shed light on whether ordinary thinking reflects commitments to compatibilism or incompatibilism. (shrink)

Creativity pervades human life. It is the mark of individuality, the vehicle of self-expression, and the engine of progress in every human endeavor. It also raises a wealth of neglected and yet evocative philosophical questions: What is the role of consciousness in the creative process? How does the audience for a work for art influence its creation? How can creativity emerge through childhood pretending? Do great works of literature give us insight into human nature? Can a computer program really be (...) creative? How do we define creativity in the first place? Is it a virtue? What is the difference between creativity in science and art? Can creativity be taught? The new essays that comprise The Philosophy of Creativity take up these and other key questions and, in doing so, illustrate the value of interdisciplinary exchange. Written by leading philosophers and psychologists involved in studying creativity, the essays integrate philosophical insights with empirical research. CONTENTS I. Introduction Introducing The Philosophy of Creativity Elliot Samuel Paul and Scott Barry Kaufman II. The Concept of Creativity 1. An Experiential Account of Creativity Bence Nanay III. Aesthetics & Philosophy of Art 2. Creativity and Insight Gregory Currie 3. The Creative Audience: Some Ways in which Readers, Viewers and/or Listeners Use their Imaginations to Engage Fictional Artworks Noël Carroll 4. The Products of Musical Creativity Christopher Peacocke IV. Ethics & Value Theory 5. Performing Oneself Owen Flanagan 6. Creativity as a Virtue of Character Matthew Kieran V. Philosophy of Mind & Cognitive Science 7. Creativity and Not So Dumb Luck Simon Blackburn 8. The Role of Imagination in Creativity Dustin Stokes 9. Creativity, Consciousness, and Free Will: Evidence from Psychology Experiments Roy F. Baumeister, Brandon J. Schmeichel, and C. Nathan DeWall 10. The Origins of Creativity Elizabeth Picciuto and Peter Carruthers 11. Creativity and Artificial Intelligence: a Contradiction in Terms? Margaret Boden VI. Philosophy of Science 12. Hierarchies of Creative Domains: Disciplinary Constraints on Blind-Variation and Selective-Retention Dean Keith Simonton VII. Philosophy of Education (& Education of Philosophy) 13. Educating for Creativity Berys Gaut 14. Philosophical Heuristics Alan Hájek. (shrink)

Carl Jung (1875–1961) was a pivotal figure in modern Western psychology. He understood the malaise of the modern world from its loss of religion, and the resulting mental health crisis it brought in its wake. He countered the dominant scientific reductionism pervasive in his time, and pursued a more holistic form of treatment when this was not popular. He treated his patients as real people rather than merely objects of diagnostic interest, and promoted a more expansive understanding of mental illness. (...) At the same time, Jung remains a controversial figure within and beyond the discipline. His purported alliance with religions, and his efforts to introduce a spiritual dimension into modern psychology, have arguably led to deleterious consequences. By attempting to construct a psychological system that spiritualizes the human soul without any reference to the transpersonal dimension of the psyche, Jung replaced sacred tradition with a secular psychology that offered a new—yet fundamentally misguided—path of salvation for seekers in a post-Christian world. -/- . (shrink)

In this paper I argue that Locke takes sensitive knowledge (i.e. knowledge from sensation) to be genuine knowledge that material objects exist. Samuel Rickless has recently argued that, for Locke, sensitive knowledge is merely an “assurance”, or a highly probable judgment that falls short of certainty. In reply, I show that Locke sometimes uses “assurance” to describe certain knowledge, and so the use of the term “assurance” to describe sensitive knowledge does not entail that it is less than (...) certain. Further, I show that sensitive knowledge includes the perception of a relation between ideas, and thus it satisfies Locke’s definition of knowledge. He also repeatedly claims that sensitive knowledge is certain. So, despite recent challenges to this interpretation raised in the secondary literature, Locke really does take sensitive knowledge to be certain knowledge. (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)

Le but de ce recueil est d’offrir des commentaires accessibles et introductifs aux textes classiques qu’ils accompagnent, en ouvrant des perspectives de discussion sur le thème du capitalisme. C’est en ce sens qu’Emmanuel Chaput lance le débat en commentant le texte de Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, « Qu’est-ce que la propriété ? ». Les textes de Karl Marx ne sont bien sûr pas laissés pour compte : Samuel-Élie Lesage s’engage fermement dans cette voie en discutant L’idéologie allemande de Karl Marx, Christiane (...) Bailey nous offre d’approcher différemment l’œuvre marxienne en abordant son traitement de la question animale dans des extraits du Manifeste du parti communiste et du Travail salarié et capital, et Mathieu Joffre-Lainé nous présente une analyse fine des questions proprement économiques du Capital. Abordant les alternatives au capitalisme dans la pensée de Léon Bourgeois, Éliot Litalien commente La Solidarité et Simon-Pierre Chevarie-Cossette s’attaque à l’analyse de l’Essai d’une philosophie de la solidarité. Enfin, en liant capitalisme, patriarcat et pouvoir politique, Tara Chanady propose une lecture du texte Du mariage et de l’amour de Emma Goldman. La conclusion de Marie-Eve Jalbert se situe dans une perspective contemporaine et critique en décortiquant la critique du socialisme avancée par Friedrich A. Hayek. (shrink)

HORMÔNIOS E SISTEMA ENDÓCRINO NA REPRODUÇÃO ANIMAL -/- OBJETIVO -/- As glândulas secretoras do corpo são estudadas pelo ramo da endocrinologia. O estudante de Veterinária e/ou Zootecnia que se preze, deverá entender os processos fisio-lógicos que interagem entre si para a estimulação das glândulas para a secreção de vários hormônios. -/- Os hormônios, dentro do animal, possuem inúmeras funções; sejam exercendo o papel sobre a nutrição, sobre a produção de leite e sobre a reprodução, os hormônios desempenham um primordial papel (...) quanto ao funcionamento do animal. -/- Nesse capítulo, o estudante identificará os hormônios relevantes para o controle reprodutivo, suas características e o uso clínico dos mesmos. -/- -/- INTRODUÇÃO -/- A endocrinologia é a ciência que se encarrega do estudo do sistema endócrino: um sistema de comunicação entre as células de um organismo; esse trabalho de comunicação é compartilhado com o sistema nervoso já que ambos sistemas possuem características distintas que lhes permite complementar-se para alcançar uma adequada coordenação das funções. Em algumas ocasiões o sistema nervoso e o sistema endócrino interagem direta-mente na transmissão de uma mensagem, pelo qual se conhece como sistema neuroendó-crino. -/- -/- OS HORMÔNIOS -/- A endocrinologia é a ciência que se encarrega do estudo dos hormônios e seus e-feitos. De maneira tradicional os hormônios são considerados como “substâncias secreta-das em direção a circulação pelas glândulas especializadas, e que exercem uma função sobre um órgão branco”. Essa definição, no entanto, é limitada e imprecisa. É necessário ser mais pontual, já que os hormônios não são produzidos em qualquer célula da glândula, senão nas células específicas. Por exemplo, o hormônio luteinizante (LH) é produzido pelos gonadotropos da adenohipófise e não por qualquer outro tipo de célula hipofisária. Da mesma maneira, falar de um “órgão branco” não é exato, já que os hormônios atuam somente nas células que tenham receptores específicos para esse hormônio, e não outras células do mesmo órgão; logo, falar de uma “célula branca” é mais apropriado que falar de um “órgão branco”. As células brancas do LH no testículo são as células de Leydig e as células brancas do hormônio folículo estimulante (FSH) no mesmo órgão são as células de Sertoli. -/- Mediante o supracitado, uma definição mais apropriada de hormônio é a seguinte: “Os hormônios são reguladores biológicos, produzidos e secretados em quantidades pe-quenas pelas células vivas, que depois de viajar pelo meio extracelular atuam sobre as cé-lulas brancas, onde exercem uma ação específica”. -/- É importante levar em conta que os hormônios somente regulam (estimulam ou inibem) funções que já existem na célula branca. Ademais, os hormônios são extraordina-riamente potentes, pelo qual se requerem quantidades muito pequenas para induzir uma resposta na célula. As concentrações circulantes da maioria dos hormônios estão na ordem de nanogramas (10-9 g) ou pictogramas (10-12 g) por mililitro. -/- Etimologicamente o termo “endócrino” significa “secretar em direção adentro”, já que os hormônios são secretados em direção ao interior do organismo (o sangue ou o espaço intracelular), em diferença das secreções exócrinas (em direção ao exterior), que são secretadas em direção a luz de um órgão, como o intestino no caso das enzimas pan-creáticas. -/- Algumas substâncias, sem deixar de ser hormônios, recebem uma classificação adicional em relação ao seu local de ação, ao tipo de células que lhes produzem, ou a al-guma outra característica. Agora, serão descritas algumas dessas características (figura 1). -/- -/- Parahormônio ou hormônio local -/- A maioria dos hormônios são transportados pela circulação desde seu local de se-creção até a célula branca. No entanto, alguns hormônios exercem seu efeito em células adjacentes aquelas que foram produzidos, ao qual não é necessário seu transporte através da circulação geral. Esse tipo de substâncias são chamadas de parahormônios ou hormô-nios locais, e sua liberação é denominada como secreção parácrina. Um exemplo é a pros-taglandina F2 alfa (PGF₂α), que é produzida no epitélio uterino (endométrio) e provoca as contrações nas células musculares do mesmo órgão (miométrio). Deve-se tomar em conta que a mesma substância poderia se comportar em outros casos como um hormônio clássico, atuando em um órgão distinto ao local de sua produção; é o caso da mesma PGF₂α de origem endometrial quando atua sobre as células do corpo lúteo do ovário, pro-vocando sua regressão. A classificação de uma substância como hormônio ou parahormô-nio não depende de sua estrutura química, senão da relação espacial existente entre a célu-la que o produz e a célula branca. -/- -/- Neurohormônio -/- A maioria dos hormônios são produzidos pelas células de origem epitelial, porém, muitos deles são produtos pelos neurônios, logo denominados como neurohormônios. To-dos os neurônios segregam alguma substância, porém tratam-se dos neurohormônios quando o neurônio que os produz despeja-os diretamente em direção a circulação geral, através da qual chegam aos órgãos para exercer seu efeito, sejam na indução, inibição ou estimulação do mesmo. -/- Esse processo é diferente dos neurotransmissores, os quais também são secretados por um neurônio, mas exercem seu efeito em uma célula adjacente com o qual o neurônio estabelece uma sinapse (neuroma com neurônio, neurônio com célula muscular, neurônio com célula glandular). A classificação de uma substância como hormônio ou como neuro-hormônio não depende de sua estrutura química, senão do tipo de célula que o produz. Uma mesma substância é um hormônio quando ele é produzido por uma célula epitelial e um neurohormônio se é produzido por um neurônio. A ocitocina, por exemplo, é secre-tada na neurohipófise por neurônios hipotalâmicos, nesse caso se trata de um neurohor-mônio, mas também é secretada por células do corpo lúteo dos ruminantes, e se trata nesse caso, de um hormônio. A distinção entre um neurohormônio e um hormônio é um neuro-transmissor, da mesma forma, não depende de sua estrutura química, e sim do local onde é secretado. Por exemplo, a dopamina atua como neurotransmissor quando se libera em sinapse da substância negra do mesencéfalo z mas atua como neurohormônio quando é liberada por neurônios hipotalâmicos em direção a circulação do eixo hipotálamo-hipofisário. -/- -/- Pré-hormônio -/- Em alguns casos, os hormônios são secretados em forma inativa (pré-hormônio), que requer uma transformação posterior para converter-se na forma ativa de hormônio. O angiotensinógeno circulante somente cobrará atividade biológica ao se transformar em angiotensina por ação da enzima renina. Algumas substâncias podem atuar como hormô-nios m alguns casos e como pré-hormônios em outros. A testosterona, por exemplo, atua como hormônio nas células musculares, aos quais possui um efeito anabólico direto. O certo é que para a testosterona induzir a masculinização dos órgãos genitais externos em um efeito macho é necessário que seja transformada previamente em 5α-di-hidrotes-tosterona pela enzima 5α-redutase presente nas células de tecido branco, por onde, nesse caso a testosterona é um pré-hormônio de di-hidrotestosterona. -/- -/- Feromônio -/- Os hormônios são mensagens químicas que comunicam a células distintas dentro do mesmo organismo, embora existam casos aos que requerem uma comunicação quími-ca entre organismos diferentes, em geral da mesma espécie. As substâncias empregadas para esse fim denominam-se feromônios. Essas substâncias devem possuir a capacidade de dispersão sobre o ambiente, pelo que nos organismos terrestres geralmente trata-se de substâncias voláteis, enquanto que os feromônios de organismos aquáticos geralmente são substâncias hidrossolúveis. Embora muitos feromônios possuam uma função sexual ou reprodutiva como é o caso de muitas espécies como a canina em que a fêmea em cio dispersa grandes quantidades de feromônios que são captados de longe pelos machos, todavia esse não é sempre o caso, e eles podem ser utilizados para outros tipos de comunicação, como é o caso dos feromônios utilizados pelas formigas para sinalização da rota em direção a fonte de alimentação. E como as abelhas no sentido de orientação da fonte de pólen até a colmeia. Muitos desses feromônios podem ser artificializados, isto é, elaborados pelo homem em laboratório para o estudo ou manipulação de algum animal. -/- -/- O SISTEMA ENDÓCRINO COMO UM SISTEMA DE COMUNICAÇÃO -/- O sistema endócrino é um sistema de comunicação que tem como objetivo coor-denar as funções das células de diferentes órgãos para mantença da homeostase do orga-nismo e promover seu desenvolvimento, crescimento e reprodução. Também ajuda os or-ganismos a adaptarem-se as mudanças de ambiente e ao habitat. O sistema endócrino representa um sistema de comunicação do tipo sem fio, diferentemente do sistema nervo-so que é um sistema de comunicação com fio. -/- Em todo o sistema de comunicação existe uma série de elementos que são necessá-rios para a realização da comunicação de forma efetiva. Esses elementos incluem o emis-sor, a mensagem, o sinal, o meio de transporte do sinal, o receptor, o efetor, a resposta e o feedback ou retroalimentação (figura 1). Todos os elementos são igualmente importan-tes e uma deficiência em qualquer deles pode interromper ou alterar a comunicação. -/- -/- Figura 1: componentes do sistema endócrino de comunicação. Fonte: ZARCO, 2018. -/- -/- Emissor ou transmissor -/- É o elemento responsável pela transmissão de uma mensagem; poderíamos com-pará-lo com a redação de notícias de um canal de televisão. Antes de decidir quais serão as notícias que serão transmitidas esse dia, em que ordem se apresentarão e que ênfase lhes darão, as pessoas da redação analisa rodas as informações disponíveis: provenientes de seus repórteres, de agências de notícias internacionais, publicada em jornais do dia, a existente na internet ou disponíveis através de redes sociais; isso significa que as mensa-gens transmitidas pelo emissor não são aleatórias, e sim respondem a uma análise respon-sável das necessidades de informação. -/- No sistema endócrino o emissor é a célula que produz e secreta um hormônio. Co-mo todo emissor responsável, a mesma célula analisa toda a informação relevante dispo-nível, tal como a concentração de diversos metabólitos no sangue, a concentração de ou-tros hormônios, e as mensagens que recebem por via nervosa, antes de decidir se secretará seu hormônio, em que quantidade o fará e com que frequência. Por essa razão, ao estudar o sistema endócrino não somente devemos conhecer a célula transmissora, e sim qual é a informação que a célula pode receber, e como a analisa e a prioriza para construir sua mensagem. -/- -/- Mensagem -/- É a informação transmitida pelo emissor. No caso de um sistema de notícias tele-visivas a mensagem é a notícia, por exemplo “Vaca dá a luz trigêmeos, um caso raro no Brasil”. No sistema endócrino a mensagem que se transmite é uma instrução para que em outra célula se realize determinadas ações. Por exemplo, os neurônios produtores de GnRH no hipotálamo de uma coelha, ao analisar as concentrações de estradiol circulantes e a informação nervosa procedente de neurônios sensoriais nós órgãos genitais da fêmea, podem “saber” que nos ovários existam folículos lisos para ovularem e que a coelha está copulando, pelo qual decidem transmitir a mensagem “Solicita-se os gonadotropos da adenohipófise a liberação de LH em quantidade suficiente para provocar a ovulação”. -/- -/- Sinal -/- É a forma a qual se codifica a mensagem para permitir sua difusão. No caso de um jornal, a mensagem (por exemplo a notícia da vaca que deu a luz trigêmeos) se codifi-ca em forma de ondas de rádio de uma determinada frequência, amplitude e intensidade; no caso do sistema endócrino a mensagem (a necessidade de realizar uma função celular) é codificada em forma de hormônio secretado em determinada quantidade, frequência e amplitude. Para o exemplo descrito supra, a mensagem se codifica na forma de uma grande elevação nas concentrações de GnRH no sangue do sistema porta hipotálamo-hipofisário. -/- É necessário tomar em conta que o emissor codifica a mensagem de forma tal que quando o receptor decifre o sinal obtenha a informação originalmente contida na mensa-gem. No entanto, o sinal pode ser interpretado de diferentes formas por receptores distintos, o que pode provocar respostas contrárias as esperadas. A notícia transmitida por um jornal de rádio, por exemplo, poderia estar codificada em forma de ondas de rádio que, casualmente, para o sistema eletrônico de um avião signifiquem “baixe a altitude e acelere”, razão pela qual é proibido utilizar aparelhos eletrônicos durante a decolagem e aterrissagem desses aparelhos. -/- Do mesmo modo, a mensagem codificada na forma de secreção de estradiol por parte dos ovários pode ser interpretado pelo sistema nervoso de uma ovelha como uma ordem para apresentar conduta de estro, pelas células do folículo ovariano como uma instrução para sofrer mitose e secretar o líquido folicular, pelos gonadotropos como uma ordem para a secreção de um pico pré-ovulatório de LH, e pelas células do endométrio como uma instrução para sintetizar receptores para a ocitocina. Dessa forma, o mesmo sinal (secreção de estradiol) pode conter diferentes mensagens para diferentes células do organismo. -/- Em alguns casos, pode-se apresentar uma resposta patológica devido as diversas formas de interpretação de uma mensagem, por exemplo, a repetição da secreção de adrenalina em um indivíduo estressado pode resultar no desenvolvimento de um proble-ma de hipertensão arterial. Por isso é necessário conhecer a maneira em que cada célula endócrina codifica suas mensagens, assim como a forma em que esses sinais podem ser interpretados em diferentes órgãos e tecidos, em diferentes momentos da vida do animal, em animais com diferentes antecedentes de espécies diferentes. -/- -/- Meio de transporte do sinal -/- O sinal tem que viajar ou difundir-se desde o emissor até o receptor, e em seu ca-minho pode ser modificado de diversas formas. Os sinais de rádio, por exemplo, viajam através da atmosfera e durante esse trajeto podem ser bloqueados por uma barreira física (como ocorre com as ondas de rádio AM em um túnel), ampliadas por uma estação repeti-dora, alteradas por um campo eletromagnético (uma aspiradora funcionando ao lado da sala de transmissão), entre outros. Da mesma forma, os sinais endócrinos que geralmente viajam no sangue, podem ser modificados ao longo do seu caminho. -/- A PGF₂α é inativada ao passar pelo pulmão, o angiotensinógeno é ativado pela re-nina na circulação, e a testosterona pode ser transformada em di-hidrotestosterona nas células da pele e na próstata, ou em estrógenos nos adipócitos e nos neurônios. Por tudo isso, o sinal que finalmente chega ao receptor pode ser diferente do transmitido pelo emissor. -/- Portanto, ao estudar qualquer sistema hormonal devemos conhecer as possíveis modificações que o hormônio pode sofrer desde o momento em que é secretado até que se uma ao seu receptor na célula branca. -/- -/- Receptor -/- É o elemento que recebe o sinal e interpreta a mensagem contida nele. No caso de um jornal de TV, o receptor é o canal correspondente (por exemplo o canal 2) em um aparelho de televisão. É importante ressaltar que um aparelho de TV possui muitos canais distintos, mas somente receberá mensagens se estiver ligado e sintonizado no canal que está transmitindo a mensagem de interesse. Ou seja, o receptor tem que estar ativo. -/- No caso das mensagens endócrinas os receptores são moléculas específicas nas células brancas. Essas moléculas são proteínas membranais ou citoplasmáticas (segundo o tipo de hormônio), que possui uma alta afinidade por seu hormônio, o que lhes permite registrar a mensagem apenas das baixíssimas concentrações em que os hormônios circu-lam. Os receptores possuem uma alta especificidade, o que significa que somente se unem a seu próprio hormônio, e não a outras substâncias. Em algumas ocasiões um receptor pode receber diversos hormônios do mesmo tipo; por exemplo o receptor de andrógenos pode unir testosterona, androstenediona, di-hidrotestosterona e diversos andrógenos sin-téticos. Apesar disso, cada um desses hormônios pode possuir uma afinidade diferente pelo receptor, pelo qual alguns serão mais potentes que outros para estimulação. -/- Em geral existe um número limitado de moléculas receptoras em cada célula, logo diz-se que os receptores são “saturáveis”, o qual significa que uma vez que todos sejam ocupados a célula não pode receber mais moléculas desse hormônio. Por essa razão a magnitude da resposta de um determinado hormônio vai aumentando conforme se aumen-tam suas concentrações, porém ao saturar-se os receptores alcançam um ponto em que a resposta já não aumenta embora sigam incrementando as concentrações hormonais já que os receptores não permanecem livres para unirem-se ao excesso de moléculas do hormô-nio. -/- As células, em contrapartida, podem regular tanto o número de receptores presen-tes como a afinidade destes por seu hormônio; isso significa que a magnitude da resposta antes um determinado sinal endócrino pode ser distinta em diferentes momentos da vida de um animal; depende do estado dos receptores presentes nos tecidos, pelo qual é impor-tante conhecer quais são os fatores que podem aumentar ou reduzir o número de recepto-res em uma célula, assim como aqueles que podem aumentar ou diminuir a afinidade des-ses receptores por seus hormônios. -/- -/- Efetor -/- É o elemento encarregado de responder a uma mensagem realizando uma ação, e é um elemento diferente do receptor. Vale ressaltar que no caso de uma transmissão de televisão o receptor é o aparelho sintonizado no canal de interesse, porém o efetor é o te-lespectador que está exposto as notícias. Esse telespectador sofrerá mudanças que podem resultar em uma ação. A mudança pode ser evidente (e auxiliar as vítimas de um desastre), ou simplesmente uma mudança potencial (ao se inteirar de uma notícia não se pode produ-zir nenhuma mudança aparente até que alguém lhe pergunte: já se interessou?, E nesse caso a resposta será: “sim” em lugar do “não”). Deve-se tomar em conta que o efetor pode estar ausente embora o receptor esteja presente (um televisor ligado em uma sala vazia). O efetor também pode estar inativado (o telespectador encontra-se dormindo); quando assim ocorre não irá produzir uma resposta embora o receptor esteja presente. -/- No sistema endócrino o efetor é, em geral, um sistema celular encarregado de rea-lizar uma determinada função. Na maioria dos casos trata-se de sistemas enzimáticos cuja função é estimulada pela união do hormônio ao seu receptor. Alguns hormônios, por exemplo, atuam através do sistema AMP cíclico (AMPc) logo, a união do hormônio ao seu receptor resulta na ativação de uma proteína chamada Proteína Gs, que ativa a enzima Adenil-ciclase (ou adenilato ciclase), a qual transforma ATP em AMPc. A presença de AMPc resulta na ativação de uma enzima cinese de proteínas que fosforiza outras enzi-mas, o que pode ativá-las ou inativá-las; nesses casos, é gerada uma cascata de eventos que resulta em uma mudança na atividade celular; por exemplo, a cadeia de eventos que produz-se em resposta ao AMPc quando a célula de Leydig do testículo é estimulada pela união do LH a seu receptor resulta na produção de testosterona, enquanto que a estimula-ção de um adipócito provocada pela união da adrenalina a seu receptor, que também atua através do sistema AMPc, resulta em uma série de eventos que provocam, finalmente, a liberação de ácidos graxos livres em direção a circulação. -/- Nos exemplos supra, o AMPc é considerado um mensageiro intracelular, já que o receptor capta o sinal (hormônio) no exterior da célula, o que resulta na produção de um novo sinal (mudança nas concentrações de AMPc) no interior da célula. Embora o sistema AMPc seja utilizado por muitos hormônios, não é um sistema universal; existem outros sistemas mensageiros intracelulares que também são utilizados para responder os hormô-nios que não entram nas células, por exemplo o sistema cálcio-calmodulina, ou os siste-mas baseados em receptores com atividade de cineses de tirosina. Nos casos que os hor-mônios possa atravessar livremente a membrana celular, como acontece com os hormôni-os esteroides, o hormônio se une a receptores presentes no citoplasma, que depois ingres-sam ao núcleo celular para intervir na regulação da transcrição do genoma. -/- De maneira independente ao mecanismo de ação de um determinado hormônio, sua presença finalmente desencadeará mudanças em um ou mais sistemas efetores da célula, o que permitirá que a mesma responda a mensagem que o emissor transmitiu originalmente. É evidente que para compreender a ação de qualquer hormônio é indispensável conhecer seu mecanismo de ação, o papel dos mensageiros intracelulares e as característi-cas dos sistemas efetores. Deve-se conhecer também quais são os fatores que afetam a transdução da mensagem já que uma célula pode regular seus sistemas efetores e dessa forma ter uma resposta maior, menor ou alterada ante a mesma mensagem. -/- -/- Resposta -/- Como mencionado, qualquer mensagem provoca uma resposta (embora somente seja potencial) sobre o efetor que a recebe. No sistema endócrino, as mensagens hormonais viajam constantemente pelo organismo e são captadas por todas as células que possuem receptores ativos para um determinado hormônio. Uma única célula pode ter receptores para diferentes hormônios, pelo qual pode estar recebendo diversas mensagens simultaneamente, e cada uma dessas mensagens pode afetar a resposta de outras mensagens. Por exemplo, a presença de progesterona pode alterar a resposta das células endometriais ao estradiol. Ademais, as células podem estar recebendo ao mesmo tempo uma informação não hormonal, como as concentrações de diversos metabólitos na circulação, ou a recebida pelo sistema nervoso. A célula analisa toda essa informação e com base nela decide se deve responder a mensagem hormonal que está recebendo como deve responder, com que intensidade e durante quanto tempo. A resposta final pode ser uma resposta física imediata (contração, secreção de um hormônio armazenado previa-mente), uma modificação bioquímica a curto prazo (síntese de um determinado hormônio ou outra substância), ou o início de uma série de mudanças que levam a uma mudança a longo prazo (divisão celular, diferenciação celular, crescimento, morte celular). -/- -/- Feedback ou retroalimentação -/- Quando em um sistema de comunicação se produz uma resposta, em muitos casos essa resposta engloba a geração de informação que vai retornar ao emissor, e que agora constituirá um ou mais dos elementos que o emissor tomará em conta antes de transmitir uma nova mensagem. Assim, se um jornal transmite uma mensagem “menina pobre necessita de doação de roupas”, a resposta de alguns efetores (telespectadores) que virão a doar roupas será conhecida pelo emissor, que assim saberá que já não será mais neces-sário voltar a transmitir a mensagem, o que o fará tomar a decisão de transmitir uma mensagem diferente como “menina pobre já não necessita de roupas, porém requer de ali-mentos para sua família”. Essa modificação da mensagem provocada pela resposta do efetor é conhecida como retroalimentação. -/- De forma análoga, no sistema endócrino a resposta da célula efetora geralmente é reconhecida pelo emissor, que em consequência modifica sua mensagem. Na maioria dos casos se produz uma retroalimentação negativa, que consiste em que a resposta do efetor provoca uma redução na intensidade da mensagem transmitida pelo emissor. Quando os gonadotropos de uma vaca secretam hormônio folículo estimulante (FSH), as células da granulosa de seus folículos ovarianos respondem realizando diversas funções, uma das quais é a secreção de inibina. A elevação nas concentrações circulantes de inibina é capta-da pelos gonadotropos, que logo sabem que o FSH já transmitiu sua mensagem, pelo que reduzem a secreção deste hormônio. A retroalimentação negativa é muito importante em qualquer sistema endócrino já que permite manter as concentrações hormonais dentro de limites aceitáveis. -/- A retroalimentação negativa pode ser de onda ultracurta, curta ou longa. A onda ultracurta é quando o hormônio produzido por uma célula pode inibir sua própria secre-ção. A retroalimentação negativa de onda curta é quando o hormônio produzido por uma célula pode inibir a de um órgão imediatamente superior na hierarquia (por exemplo, quando a progesterona produzida pelo corpo lúteo do ovário inibe a secreção de LH pelos gonadotropos da hipófise). O feedback negativo de onda longa sucede quando o hormônio produzido por uma célula inibe a uma célula de um órgão que está dois ou mais níveis por cima na escala hierárquica, por exemplo, quando a testosterona produzida pelas células de Leydig do testículo inibe diretamente os neurônios produtores de GnRH, saltando as células produtoras de LH e adenohipófise. -/- Existe também a retroalimentação positiva, da qual o primeiro hormônio estimula a secreção de um segundo hormônio, o que por sua vez estimula o primeiro, com o que se estabelece um círculo progressivo de estimulação. Um exemplo de retroalimentação positiva é a que se produz pouco antes da ovulação entre o LH hipofisário e o estradiol de origem folicular. Os dois hormônios se estimulam mutuamente até que alcancem níveis elevados de LH que provoca a ovulação. O círculo de feedback positivo termina quando o pico pré-ovulatório de LH mudanças sobre o folículo que incluem a perda da capacidade de produção de estrógenos. Todo o sistema de retroalimentação positiva deve ter um final abrupto sobre o qual se rompe o ciclo de estimulação mútua, já que não mais deverá ser produzida quantidades elevadas dos hormônios, até que todos os recursos do organismo sejam utilizados para esse fim. -/- -/- CLASSIFICAÇÃO QUÍMICA DOS HORMÔNIOS -/- Do ponto de vista químico e sobre o estudo da Fisiologia da Reprodução Animal, existem quatro grupos principais de hormônios: polipeptídios, esteroides, aminas e prostaglandinas; dentro de cada grupo, por sua vez, existem mais grupos de inúmeros outros hormônios dispostos em subdivisões. -/- -/- Hormônios polipeptídios -/- Os polipeptídios são cadeias de aminoácidos. Quando uma dessas cadeias está constituída por poucos aminoácidos é denominada simplesmente de polipeptídios, mas quando uma cadeia de aminoácidos é longa e adquire uma configuração espacial de três dimensões o polipeptídio é denominado proteína (figura 2). Muitos neurohormônios hipo-talâmicos são polipeptídios, como o liberador de gonadotropinas (GnRH), constituído por 10 aminoácidos, o hormônio liberador de tirotropina (TRH), formado por 3 aminoácidos, o somatostatina, constituído por 14 aminoácidos, a ocitocina que é formada por 8 aminoá-cidos etc. O sistema nervoso central e a hipófise produzem peptídeos opioides. -/- Entre os hormônios polipeptídios que por seu tamanho são considerados proteínas encontramos a prolactina, o hormônio do crescimento, os lactogênios placentários, a relaxina, a insulina e fatores de crescimento parecidos com a insulina (IGFs). Existe outro grupo de hormônios polipeptídios classificados como glicoproteínas. Trata-se de proteí-nas que possuem carboidratos unidos a alguns de seus aminoácidos. -/- -/- Figura 2: classificação dos hormônios polipeptídios. Fonte: ZARCO, 2018. -/- -/- Há um grupo de hormônios glicoproteicos que constituem uma família de molécu-las similares entre si, dentro das quais estão o hormônio luteinizante (LH), o hormônio folículo estimulante (FSH), o hormônio estimulante da tireoide (TSH), a gonadotropina coriônica humana (hCG) e a gonadotropina coriônica equina (eCG); todos estão formados pela subunidade alfa que é idêntica para os hormônios de uma determinada espécie animal, e por uma subunidade beta específica para cada hormônio. As duas subunidades mantém-se unidas através de ligações dissulfeto. Deve-se mencionar que os carboidratos associados as glicoproteínas podem ser distintos em diferentes idades, épocas do ano ou estados fisiológicos; esse processo é conhecido como microheterogenicidade, e recente-mente têm-se dado grande importância a seu estudo, já que é reconhecido fatores tais como a vida média de um hormônio ou sua atividade biológica podem ser modificados de acordo com o tipo de carboidratos presentes na molécula. -/- Existe outra família de hormônios glicoproteicos, que incluem a inibina A, a B, e a activina A, AB e B. Todos os hormônios polipeptídios possuem algumas características comuns. Em primeiro lugar, trata-se de moléculas hidrossolúveis que não conseguem atravessar as membranas celulares pelo qual se unem a receptores transmembranais que flutuam sobre a parede externa da membrana da célula branca e requerem de um segundo mensageiro intracelular, como o cálcio ou o AMPc, para levar sua mensagem ao interior da célula. -/- Os hormônios desse grupo, não podem ser administrados por via dérmica, oral, retal ou intravaginal, já que não podem atravessar a pela ou as mucosas intestinais, retais ou vaginais. Os polipeptídios são digeridos no estômago, o que também impede sua admi-nistração oral. Outra característica que deve-se tomar em conta é que as proteínas (embora não os polipeptídios pequenos) podem se desnaturalizar por fatores como o calor (são termolábeis), a congelação, ou mudanças de pH m a desnaturalização consiste em uma mudança na forma natural da proteína, o que leva a perda de sua função. Por essa razão, ao trabalhar com hormônios proteicos devem-se tomar cuidados especiais durante seu manejo para evitar a exposição a fatores desnaturalizantes. -/- -/- Hormônios esteroides -/- São moléculas derivadas do colesterol; a célula esteroidogênica pode sintetizar o colesterol, obtê-lo de reservas intracelulares ou da circulação. Na célula esteroidogênica existem diversas enzimas que atuam sequencialmente sobre a molécula de colesterol, provocando mudanças sucessivas até obter o hormônio final que será secretado, ao qual dependerá das enzimas que estão presentes e ativas na célula. -/- Existem cinco grupos principais de hormônios esteroides; os progestágenos, os estrógenos, os glicocorticoides e os mineralocorticoides (figura 3). -/- Os progestágenos são hormônios que favorecem o desenvolvimento da gestação; seus efeitos incluem, entre outros, a estimulação da secreção endometrial de substâncias nutritivas para o embrião, a estimulação do desenvolvimento embrionário e placentário, a inibição das contrações uterinas, bem como fazer com que a cérvix fique fechada. O principal hormônio natural desse grupo é a progesterona, mas existem uma grande quantidade de progestágenos sintéticos utilizados na medicina veterinária, tais como o acetato fluorogestona (FGA), o acetato de melengestrol (MGA), o altrenogest e o norgestomet. -/- Os estrógenos são os hormônios femininos responsáveis, entre outras funções, dos sinais do estro ou receptividade sexual nas fêmeas. A maior parte de seus efeitos estão no alcance da fertilização do ovócito. Os estrógenos, além de estimular a conduta sexual feminina, favorecem, entre outras coisas, a abertura da cérvix para permitir a passagem do espermatozoide, e as contrações uterinas para impulsionar o sêmen em direção aos ovidutos. O principal estrógeno natural é o estradiol 17β, outros membros naturais do grupo são a estrona, a equilina e a equilenina, esses dois últimos presentes exclusivamente em éguas gestantes. Também existem numerosos estrógenos sintéticos, tais como o valerato de estradiol, o benzoato de estradiol e o cipionato de estradiol. -/- Os andrógenos são hormônios masculinos. Possuem uma grande quantidade de efeitos encaminhados a alcançar o êxito reprodutivo do macho, como estimular a conduta sexual, estimular a produção de espermatozoides e estimular as secreções das glândulas sexuais acessórias. O andrógeno principal é a testosterona, outros andrógenos naturais incluem a androstenediona e a di-hidrotestosterona. Existe também inúmeros andrógenos sintéticos. -/- Os glicocorticoides ou corticosteroides possuem funções principalmente metabó-licas e de adaptação ao estresse. O principal corticosteroide na maioria das espécies é o cortisol, enquanto que nos ratos e outros roedores é a corticosterona. Na reprodução, os corticosteroides desempenham um papel relevante, em particular durante o parto e a lac-tação. -/- Os mineralocorticoides, como a aldotestosterona, se encarregam da regulação do balanço de líquidos e eletrólitos no organismo. -/- -/- Figura 3: subgrupos dos hormônios esteroides. Fonte: ZARCO, 2018. -/- -/- Os hormônios esteroides como grupos são hidrossolúveis, pelo qual podem atra-vessar livremente as membranas celulares, por essa razão utilizam receptores intracelula-res que se encontram no citoplasma da célula branca; também pode-se administrar por via oral, pela pele, e através das mucosas retal ou vaginal. São moléculas termoestáveis e não são digeridas no estômago, embora algumas possas sofrer modificações na pH ácido, alterando sua função. -/- -/- Aminas -/- São moléculas derivadas de um aminoácido que se modifica pela ação de enzimas específicas. Existem dois tipos de hormônios aminas: as catecolaminas e as indolaminas (figura 4). As catecolaminas derivam do aminoácido tirosina, e incluem a dopamina, a a-drenalina e a noradrenalina. As indolaminas derivam-se do triptofano, e incluem a seroto-nina e a melatonina. -/- As aminas são moléculas hidrossolúveis que não podem atravessar as membranas celulares e portanto atuam através de receptores membranais e segundos mensageiros intracelulares. -/- -/- Figura 4: classificação dos hormônios peptídicos. Fonte: ZARCO, 2018. -/- -/- Prostaglandinas -/- São substâncias derivadas do ácido araquidônico. A principal fonte desse ácido graxo são os fosfolipídios da membrana celular, a partir dos quais se podem liberar o ácido araquidônico mediante a ação da enzima fosfolipase A2. O ácido araquidônico se transforma em prostaglandina H mediante a ação da enzima ciclo-oxigenase (ou sintetase de prostaglandinas), que mais adiante se transforma em diferentes prostaglandinas especí-ficas pela ação de diversas enzimas. O tipo de prostaglandina produzido por cada célula dependerá do complemento de enzimas presentes. -/- A prostaglandina mais importante na reprodução é a PGF2α, a qual é responsável pela destruição do corpo lúteo na maioria das espécies; também provoca contrações uteri-nas, pelo qual é importante para o parto, e o transporte dos espermatozoides e a involução uterina depois do parto. Na prática veterinária a PGF2α natural (dinoprosr) ou seus seme-lhantes sintéticos (cloprostenol, luprostiol etc.) são utilizados para a sincronização do ciclo estral, para a indução do parto e para tratar diversas patologias. Outra prostaglandina com algumas ações relacionadas com a reprodução é a prostaglandina E2 (PGE2). -/- As prostaglandinas são substâncias anfipáticas (com propriedades hidrossolúveis e lipossolúveis), pelo qual podem atravessar as membranas celulares. -/- REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS -/- AUSTIN, Colin Russell; SHORT, R. Reproduction in mammals. Cambridge, 1972. -/- BEARDEN, Henry Joe et al. Reproducción animal aplicada. México: Manual Moderno, 1982. -/- BECKER, Jill B. et al. (Ed.). Behavioral endocrinology. Mit Press, 2002. -/- BITTAR, Edward (Ed.). Reproductive endocrinology and biology. Elsevier, 1998. -/- BURNSTEIN, Kerry L. (Ed.). Steroid hormones and cell cycle regulation. Kluwer Academic Pub., 2002. -/- CUNNINGHAM, James. Tratado de fisiologia veterinária. Elsevier Health Sciences, 2011. -/- CUPPS, Perry T. (Ed.). Reproduction in domestic animals. Elsevier, 1991. -/- DUKES, Henry Hugh; SWENSON, Melvin J.; REECE, William O. Dukes fisiologia dos animais domésticos. Editora Guanabara Koogan, 1996. -/- 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. -/- GILBERT, Scott F. Biologia del desarrollo. Ed. Médica Panamericana, 2005. -/- GORE, Andrea C. GnRH: the master molecule of reproduction. Springer Science & Business Media, 2002. -/- HAFEZ, Elsayed Saad Eldin; HAFEZ, Bahaa. Reprodução animal. São Paulo: Manole, 2004. -/- HERNÁNDEZ PARDO, Blanca. Endocrinología: Lo esencial de un vistazo. México: Panamericana, 2016. -/- HYTTEL, Poul; SINOWATZ, Fred; VEJLSTED, Morten. Embriologia veterinária. São Paulo: Elsevier Brasil, 2012. -/- ILLERA MARTIN, Mariano. Endocrinología veterinaria y fisiología de la reproducción. Madrid: COLIBAC, 1984. -/- JOHNSON, Martin H. Essential reproduction. Nova Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2018. -/- MANDOKI, Juan José et al. Hormone multifunctionalities: a theory of endocrine signaling, command and control. Progress in biophysics and molecular biology, v. 86, n. 3, p. 353-377, 2004. -/- MANDOKI, Juan José et al. Reflections on the mode of functioning of endocrine systems. Archives of medical research, v. 41, n. 8, p. 653-657, 2010. -/- MCKINNON, Angus O. et al. (Ed.). Equine reproduction. Nova Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2011. -/- MELMED, Shlomo (Ed.). The pituitary. Londres: Academic press, 2010. -/- NORRIS, David O.; LOPEZ, Kristin H. (Ed.). Hormones and reproduction of vertebrates. Academic Press, 2010. -/- PARHAR, Ishwar S. (Ed.). Gonadotropin-releasing hormone: molecules and receptors. Elsevier, 2002. -/- PIMENTEL, C. A. Fisiologia e endocrinologia da reprodução da fêmea bovina. I Simpósio de Reprodução de Bovinos, Porto Alegre, RS, 2002. -/- PINEDA, Mauricio H. et al. McDonald's veterinary endocrinology and reproduction. Iowa state press, 2003. -/- RAMOS DUEÑAS, J. I. Endocrinología de la reproducción animal. 2018. -/- SALISBURY, Glenn Wade et al. Physiology of reproduction and artificial insemination of cattle. WH Freeman and Company., 1978. -/- SANDERS, Stephan. Endocrine and reproductive systems. Elsevier Health Sciences, 2003. -/- SORENSEN, Anton Marinus. Reproducción animal: principios y prácticas. México, 1982. -/- SQUIRES, E. James. Applied animal endocrinology. Cambridge: Cabi, 2010. -/- YEN, Samuel SC; JAFFE, Robert B.; BARBIERI, Robert L. Endocrinología de la Reproducción. Fisiología, fisiopatología y manejo clínico. Madrid: Ed. Médica Panamericana, 2001. -/- ZARCO, L. Endocrinología. In. PORTA, L. R.; MEDRANO, J. H. H. Fisiología reproductiva de los animales domésticos. Cidade do México: FMVZ-UNAM, 2018. (shrink)

What should we make of claims by members of other groups to have moralities different from our own? Human Rights in Chinese Thought gives an extended answer to this question in the first study of its kind. It integrates a full account of the development of Chinese rights discourse - reaching back to important, though neglected, origins of that discourse in 17th and 18th century Confucianism - with philosophical consideration of how various communities should respond to contemporary Chinese claims about (...) the uniqueness of their human rights concepts. The book elaborates a plausible kind of moral pluralism and demonstrates that Chinese ideas of human rights do indeed have distinctive characteristics, but it nonetheless argues for the importance and promise of cross-cultural moral engagement. (shrink)

In her 2004 book Carol Gould addresses the fundamental issue of democratizing globalization, that is to say of finding ways to open transnational institutions and communities to democratic participation by those widely affected by their decisions. The book develops a framework for expanding participation in crossborder decisions, arguing for a broader understanding of human rights and introducing a new role for the ideas of care and solidarity at a distance. Reinterpreting the idea of universality to accommodate a multiplicity of cultural (...) perspectives, the author takes up a number of applied issues, including the persistence of racism, cultural rights, women's human rights, the democratic management of firms, the use of the Internet to enhance political participation, and the importance of empathy and genuine democracy in understanding terrorism and responding to it. Accessibly written with a minimum of technical jargon this is a major contribution to political philosophy. (shrink)

We sometimes fail unwittingly to do things that we ought to do. And we are, from time to time, culpable for these unwitting omissions. We provide an outline of a theory of responsibility for unwitting omissions. We emphasize two distinctive ideas: (i) many unwitting omissions can be understood as failures of appropriate vigilance, and; (ii) the sort of self-control implicated in these failures of appropriate vigilance is valuable. We argue that the norms that govern vigilance and the value of self-control (...) explain culpability for unwitting omissions. (shrink)

This book aims to develop certain aspects of Gottlob Frege’s theory of meaning, especially those relevant to intensional logic. It offers a new interpretation of the nature of senses, and attempts to devise a logical calculus for the theory of sense and reference that captures as closely as possible the views of the historical Frege. (The approach is contrasted with the less historically-minded Logic of Sense and Denotation of Alonzo Church.) Comparisons of Frege’s theory with those of Russell and others (...) are given. It is in the end shown that developing Frege’s theory in these ways reveals serious problems hitherto largely unnoticed, including those possibly rendering a Fregean intensional logic inconsistent even if his naïve class theory is excluded. (shrink)

Benefit/cost analysis is a technique for evaluating programs, procedures, and actions; it is not a moral theory. There is significant controversy over the moral justification of benefit/cost analysis. When a procedure for evaluating social policy is challenged on moral grounds, defenders frequently seek a justification by construing the procedure as the practical embodiment of a correct moral theory. This has the apparent advantage of avoiding difficult empirical questions concerning such matters as the consequences of using the procedure. So, for example, (...) defenders of benefit/cost analysis (BCA) are frequently tempted to argue that this procedurejust isthe calculation of moral Tightness – perhaps that what itmeansfor an action to be morally right is just for it to have the best benefit-to-cost ratio given the accounts of “benefit” and “cost” that BCA employs. They suggest, in defense of BCA, that they have found the moral calculus – Bentham's “unabashed arithmetic of morals.” To defend BCA in this manner is to commit oneself to one member of a family of moral theories (let us call thembenefit/cost moral theoriesorB/C moral theories) and, also, to the view that if a procedure is (so to speak) the direct implementation of a correct moral theory, then it is a justified procedure. Neither of these commitments is desirable, and so the temptation to justify BCA by direct appeal to a B/C moral theory should be resisted; it constitutes an unwarranted short cut to moral foundations – in this case, an unsound foundation. Critics of BCA are quick to point out the flaws of B/C moral theories, and to conclude that these undermine the justification of BCA. But the failure to justify BCA by a direct appeal to B/C moral theory does not show that the technique is unjustified. There is hope for BCA, even if it does not lie with B/C moral theory. (shrink)

Reading tough books to achieve excellent marks, perform well in class, and gain attention from teachers and parents is less likely to drive students. Students used to evaluate their language learning requirements, define the abilities they wished to develop, pick effective study techniques, and set aside gadgets when studying. They also used to read the question before looking for hints in the relevant content, extract the essential lines that convey the major ideas, concentrate on titles, names, numbers, quotations, or instances, (...) and comprehend the overall context to infer an option. The survey discovered that most of the time, students utilized it to determine the progress of their learning and create learning objectives. It was also found that there was a link between the exogenous variables and the academic performance of students. (shrink)

Edward Feser defends the ‘Aristotelian proof’ for the existence of God, which reasons that the only adequate explanation of the existence of change is in terms of an unchangeable, purely actual being. His argument, however, relies on the falsity of the Existential Inertia Thesis, according to which concrete objects tend to persist in existence without requiring an existential sustaining cause. In this article, I first characterize the dialectical context of Feser’s Aristotelian proof, paying special attention to EIT and its rival (...) thesis—the Existential Expiration Thesis. Next, I provide a more precise characterization of EIT, after which I outline two metaphysical accounts of existential inertia. I then develop new lines of reasoning in favor of EIT that appeal to the theoretical virtues of explanatory power and simplicity. Finally, I address the predominant criticisms of EIT in the literature. (shrink)

One of the attractions of the Humean instrumentalist theory of practical rationality is that it appears to offer a special connection between an agent's reasons and her motivation. The assumption that Humeanism is able to assert a strong connection between reason and motivation has been challenged, most notably by Christine Korsgaard. She argues that Humeanism is not special in the connection it allows to motivation. On the contrary, Humean theories of practical rationality do connect reasons and motivation in a unique (...) and attractive way, though the nature of this connection has sometimes been misunderstood by both defenders and detractors of the theory. (shrink)

In this paper, we focus on whether and to what extent we judge that people are responsible for the consequences of their forgetfulness. We ran a series of behavioral studies to measure judgments of responsibility for the consequences of forgetfulness. Our results show that we are disposed to hold others responsible for some of their forgetfulness. The level of stress that the forgetful agent is under modulates judgments of responsibility, though the level of care that the agent exhibits toward performing (...) the forgotten action does not. We argue that this result has important implications for a long-running debate about the nature of responsible agency. (shrink)

Many believe that the rational evaluation of actions depends on the rational evaluation of even basic desires. Hume, though, viewed desires as "original existences" which cannot be contrary to either truth or reason. Contemporary critics of Hume, including Norman, Brandt and Parfit, have sought a basis for the rational evaluation of desires that would deny some basic desires reason-giving force. I side with Hume against these modern critics. Hume's concept of rational evaluation is admittedly too narrow; even basic desires are, (...) despite their nonrepresentational nature, subject to rational evaluation. But this evaluation is not relevant to their tendency to generate reasons for action, and does not undermine the spirit of the Humean view of rational action. (shrink)

In this introduction, before summarizing the contents of the volume, the authors characterize materialism as it is understood within the philosophy of mind, and they identify three respects in which materialism is on the wane.

A series of papers on different aspects of practical knowledge by Roderick Chisholm, Rudolf Haller, J. C. Nyiri, Eva Picardi, Joachim Schulte Roger Scruton, Barry Smith and Johan Wrede.

In this chapter, I attempt to show that evil exists only if what I call Agent Causal Theism (ACT) is true. According to ACT, human beings are immaterial, conscious agents endued (by God) with a power of self-motion: the power to think, decide, and act for ends in light of reasons, but without being externally caused to do so (even by God himself). By contrast, I argue that there is no space for evil in the worldviews of naturalistic Darwinism or (...) theistic Calvinism. (shrink)

Cognitive agents, whether human or computer, that engage in natural-language discourse and that have beliefs about the beliefs of other cognitive agents must be able to represent objects the way they believe them to be and the way they believe others believe them to be. They must be able to represent other cognitive agents both as objects of beliefs and as agents of beliefs. They must be able to represent their own beliefs, and they must be able to represent beliefs (...) as objects of beliefs. These requirements raise questions about the number of tokens of the belief representation language needed to represent believers and propositions in their normal roles and in their roles as objects of beliefs. In this paper, we explicate the relations among nodes, mental tokens, concepts, actual objects, concepts in the belief spaces of an agent and the agent's model of other agents, concepts of other cognitive agents, and propositions. We extend, deepen, and clarify our theory of intensional knowledge representation for natural-language processing, as presented in previous papers and in light of objections raised by others. The essential claim is that tokens in a knowledge-representation system represent only intensions and not extensions. We are pursuing this investigation by building CASSIE, a computer model of a cognitive agent and, to the extent she works, a cognitive agent herself. CASSIE's mind is implemented in the SNePS knowledge-representation and reasoning system. (shrink)

The verb ‘to know’ can be used both in ascriptions of propositional knowledge and ascriptions of knowledge of acquaintance. In the formal epistemology literature, the former use of ‘know’ has attracted considerable attention, while the latter is typically regarded as derivative. This attitude may be unsatisfactory for those philosophers who, like Russell, are not willing to think of knowledge of acquaintance as a subsidiary or dependent kind of knowledge. In this paper we outline a logic of knowledge of acquaintance in (...) which ascriptions like ‘Mary knows Smith’ are regarded as formally interesting in their own right, remaining neutral on their relation to ascriptions of propositional knowledge. The resulting logical framework, which is based on Hintikka’s modal approach to epistemic logic, provides a fresh perspective on various issues and notions at play in the philosophical debate on acquaintance. (shrink)

The fundamental duty of information in elections by candidates using artificial intelligence (AI) represents a significant shift in political campaign strategies and voter engagement. In the digital age, AI's role in elections is multifaceted, encompassing data analysis, voter targeting, and communication. The integration of AI in political campaigns can enhance the dissemination of information, making it more tailored and efficient. Candidates are now able to leverage AI to analyse vast amounts of data, identify voter preferences, and craft personalized messages that (...) resonate with specific demographics. This capability can lead to more informed voters and potentially higher voter turnout, as individuals receive information that directly addresses their concerns and interests. The use of AI in elections also raises critical ethical and regulatory questions. One of the primary concerns is the transparency and accuracy of the information disseminated by AI systems. Candidates have a fundamental duty to ensure that the information shared is truthful, unbiased, and free from manipulation. The spread of misinformation and disinformation through AI-generated content poses a threat to the integrity of elections, as it can mislead voters and undermine democratic processes. The deployment of AI in elections must be accompanied by efforts to educate the public about AI technologies and their implications. Voters need to be aware of how their data is being used and the potential biases that AI systems might introduce. Transparency in AI algorithms and their decision-making processes is crucial to building trust between candidates and the electorate. Additionally, candidates must address concerns regarding data privacy and security, as the use of AI often involves the collection and analysis of personal data. While AI offers significant advantages in enhancing the flow of information during elections, it also brings forth challenges that require careful consideration and management. Candidates have a fundamental duty to ensure the responsible use of AI, prioritizing transparency, accuracy, and ethical standards. By doing so, they can harness the power of AI to create a more informed and engaged electorate, ultimately strengthening the democratic process. The future of elections will likely see an increasing reliance on AI, making it crucial for candidates, regulators, and the public to collaboratively navigate the complexities associated with this technology. (shrink)

There is widespread consensus that present patterns of consumption could lead to the permanent impossibility of maintaining those patterns and, perhaps, the existence of the human race. While many patterns of consumption qualify as ‘sustainable’ there is one in particular that deserves greater attention: virtual consumption. We argue that virtual consumption — the experience of authentic consumptive experiences replicated by alternative means — has the potential to reduce the deleterious consequences of real consumption by redirecting some consumptive behavior from shifting (...) material states to shifting information states. (shrink)

In his discussion of the duty of benevolence in §27 of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant argues that agents have no obligation to promote their own happiness, for ‘this happens unavoidably’ (MS, AA 6:451). In this paper I argue that Kant should not have said this. I argue that Kant should have conceded that agents do have an obligation to promote their own happiness.

Freud proposes that in unconscious processing, logical connections are also (heavily) based upon phonological similarities. Repressed concerns, for example, would also be expressed by way of phonologic ambiguity. In order to investigate a possible unconscious influence of phonological similarity, 31 participants were submitted to a tachistoscopic subliminal priming experiment, with prime and target presented at 1ms. In the experimental condition, the prime and one of the 2 targets were phonological reversed forms of each other, though graphemically dissimilar (e.g., “nice” and (...) “sign”); in the control condition the targets were pseudo-randomly attributed to primes to which they don’t belong. The experimental task was to “blindly” pick the choice most similar to the prime. ERPs were measured with a focus on the N320, which is known to react selectively to phonological mismatch in supraliminal visual word presentations. The N320 amplitude-effects at the electrodes on the midline and at the left of the brain significantly predicted the participants’ net behavioral choices more than half a second later, while their subjective experience is one of arbitrariness. Moreover, the social desirability score (SDS) significantly correlates with both the behavioral and the N320 brain responses of the participants. It is proposed that in participants with low SDS the phonological target induces an expected reduction of N320 and this increases their probability to pick this target. In contrast, high defensive participants have a perplexed brain reaction upon the phonological target, with a negatively peaking N320 as compared to control and this leads them to avoid this target more often. Social desirability, which is understood as reflecting defensiveness, might also manifest itself as a defense against the (energy-consuming) ambiguity of language. The specificity of this study is that all of this is happening totally out of awareness and at the level of very elementary linguistic distinctions. (shrink)

Reading Foucault’s work on power and subjectivity alongside “developmentalist” approaches to evolutionary biology, this article endorses poststructuralist critiques of political ideals grounded in the value of subjective agency. Many political theorists embrace such critiques, of course, but those who do are often skeptical of liberal democracy, and even of normative theory itself. By contrast, those who are left to theorize liberal democracy tend to reject or ignore poststructuralist insights, and have continued to employ dubious ontological assumptions regarding human agents. Against (...) both groups, I argue that Foucault’s poststructuralism must be taken seriously, but that it is ultimately consistent with normative theory and liberal democracy. Linking poststructuralist attempts to transcend the dichotomy between agency and structure with recent efforts by evolutionary theorists to dissolve a similarly stubborn opposition between nature and nurture, I develop an anti-essentialist account of human nature and agency that vindicates poststructuralist criticism while enabling a novel defense of liberal democracy. (shrink)

D O N A L D D AV I D S O N’S “ Meaning and Truth,” re vo l u t i o n i zed our conception of how truth and meaning are related (Davidson    ). In that famous art i c l e , Davidson put forw a rd the bold conjecture that meanings are satisfaction conditions, and that a Tarskian theory of truth for a language is a theory of meaning for that language. (...) In “Meaning and Truth,” Davidson proposed only that a Tarskian truth theory is a theory of meaning. But in “Theories of Me a n i n g and Learnable Languages,” he argued that the finite base of a Tarskian theory, together with the now familiar combinatorics, would explain how a language with unbounded expre s s i ve capacity could be learned with finite means ( Davidson    ). This certainly seems to imply that learning a language is, in p a rt at least, learning a Tarskian truth theory for it, or, at least, learning what is specified by such a theory. Davisdon was cagey about committing to the view that meanings actually a re satisfaction conditions, but subsequent followers had no such scru p l e s . We can sum this up in a trio of claims: Davidson’s Conjecture () A theory of meaning for L is a truth-conditional semantics for L. () To know the meaning of an expression in L is to know a satisfaction condition for that expression. () Meanings are satisfaction conditions. For the most part, it will not matter in what follows which of these claims is at stake. I will simply take the three to be different ways of formulating what I will call Davidson’s Conjecture (or sometimes just The Conjecture). Davidson’s Conjecture was a very bold conjecture. I think we are now in a.. (shrink)

In 1903, in _The Principles of Mathematics_ (_PoM_), Russell endorsed an account of classes whereupon a class fundamentally is to be considered many things, and not one, and used this thesis to explicate his first version of a theory of types, adding that it formed the logical justification for the grammatical distinction between singular and plural. The view, however, was short-lived; rejected before _PoM_ even appeared in print. However, aside from mentions of a few misgivings, there is little evidence about (...) why he abandoned this view. In this paper, I speculate as to what those reasons were, and evaluate them in light of recent work and interest in plural logic. (shrink)

This short article discusses the fact that the word ‘ancestor’ features in certain arguments that a) are apparently logically valid, b) contain infinitely many premises, and c) are such that none of their finite sub-arguments are logically valid. The article's aim is to motivate, within its brief compass, the study of infinitary logics.

Mind wandering is a pervasive feature of subjective experience. But why does the mind tend to wriggle about rather than always staying focused? To answer this question, this paper defends the claim that mind wandering consists in task-unrelated thought. Despite being the standard view of mind wandering in cognitive psychology, there has been no systematic elaboration or defense of the task-unrelated thought view of mind wandering. Here, I argue for the task-unrelated thought view by showing how mind wandering reflects a (...) distinctive form of non-vigilant thinking. When the relationship between mind wandering and vigilance is clarified, several objections to the task-unrelated thought view can be defused. Not only does this provide a novel defense of the task-unrelated thought view of mind wandering, but it also presents an account of mind wandering that is compatible with a naturalistic account of subjectivity. (shrink)

This paper concerns the grounds of nonground: what it is in virtue of that facts of the form [F1 does not ground F2] hold. While the literature on iterated ground is expansive, there is comparatively little written on the grounds of nonground. I argue that nonground is grounded in distinctness from ground. If F1 does not ground F2, then [F1 does not ground F2] is grounded in the fact that F1 is distinct from that which does ground F2. While this (...) proposal strikes me as natural, it faces puzzles involving conjunction, contingency, and cardinality. The bulk of this paper explores how the view might be precisified, and how these puzzles might be resolved. (shrink)

I trace changes to Frege's understanding of numbers, arguing in particular that the view of arithmetic based in geometry developed at the end of his life (1924–1925) was not as radical a deviation from his views during the logicist period as some have suggested. Indeed, by looking at his earlier views regarding the connection between numbers and second-level concepts, his understanding of extensions of concepts, and the changes to his views, firstly, in between Grundlagen and Grundgesetze, and, later, after learning (...) of Russell's paradox, this position is a natural position for him to have retreated to, when properly understood. (shrink)

In 'The Moral Problem', Michael Smith defends a conception of normative reasons that is nonrelative. Given his understanding of normative reasons, nonrelativity commits him to the convergence hypothesis: that, as a result of the process or correction of beliefs and rational deliberation, 'all' agents would converge on having the same set of desires. I develop several reasons for being pessimistic about the truth of this hypothesis. As a result, if normative reasons exist, we have a reason to be skeptical of (...) either Smith's understanding of what normative reasons are or of his insistence that they are nonrelative. (shrink)