According to what Jonathan Bennett calls the Kant–Frege view of existence, Frege gave solid logical foundations to Kant’s claim that existence is not a real predicate. In this article I will challenge Bennett’s claim by arguing that although Kant and Frege agree on what existence is not, they agree neither on what it is nor on the importance and justification of existential propositions. I identify three main differences: first, whereas for Frege existence is a property of a concept, for Kant (...) it is a relational property pertaining between the concept and intuition of an object. Second, whereas for Frege truth about individuals presupposes their existence, for Kant truth is in many cases independent of the existence of objects. Third, whereas Frege binds logic to existence and removes modalities from logic, for Kant existence is a modal category that is emphatically removed from the domain of logic and set in the core of metaphysics. Due to these differences in Kant’s and Frege’s theories of existence, Frege cannot be seen as giving logical clarity to Kant’s view. (shrink)

It has been debated whether the so-called attention economy, in which the attention of agents is measured and sold, jeopardizes something of value. One strand of this discussion has focused on so-called attention rights, asking: should attention be legally protected, either by introducing novel rights or by extending the scope of pre-existing rights? In this paper, however, in order to further this discussion, we ask: How is attention already protected legally? In what situations does a person have the right to (...) attention under current law? -/- Unlike (Chomanski, Neuroethics 16:1–11, 2023), who discusses an overall right to attention, or (Puri, Rutgers Law Record 48:206–221, 2021), who discusses an overall right to attentional privacy, in this paper we focus on two types of situations in which a person’s attention is already protected by legal regulation. Sustained attention-requiring tasks can be jeopardized by distractions whereas attentiveness to certain kind of stimuli can be jeopardized by immersive stimuli. That is why distractions are regulated in situations where an agent has what we call a concentration right and immersive stimuli are regulated in situations where an agent has what we call a duty to be attentive. The further analysis of these situations provides an understanding of the legal means by which attention is already regulated, which can be helpful when thinking about how it should be regulated in the future. (shrink)

In bioethics vaccine refusal is often discussed as an instance of free riding on the herd immunity of an infectious disease. However, the social science of vaccine refusal suggests that the reasoning behind refusal to vaccinate more often stems from previous negative experiences in healthcare practice as well as deeply felt distrust of healthcare institutions. Moreover, vaccine refusal often acts like an exit mechanism. Whilst free riding is often met with sanctions, exit, according to Albert Hirschman’s theory of exit and (...) voice is most efficiently met by addressing concerns and increasing the quality and number of feedback channels. If the legitimate grievances responsible for vaccine refusal are not heard or addressed by healthcare policy, further polarization of attitudes to vaccines is likely to ensue. Thus, there is a need in the bioethics of vaccine refusal to understand the diverse ethical questions of this inflammable issue in addition to those of individual responsibility to vaccinate. (shrink)

In the popular and academic literature on the problems of the so-called attention economy, the cost of attention grabbing, sustaining, and immersing digital medias has been addressed as if it touched all people equally. In this paper I ask whether everyone has the same resources to respond to the recent changes in their stimulus environments caused by the attention economy. I argue that there are not only differences but disparities between people in their responses to the recent, significant increase in (...) the degree and persuasiveness of digital distraction. I point toward individual variance in an agent’s top-down and bottom-up attention regulation, and to further inequality-exacerbating variance in active participation on the internet and in regulating reward-seeking behaviors on the internet. Individual differences in these areas amount to disparities because they have been found to be connected to socioeconomic background factors. I argue that disparities in responding to digital distraction threaten fair equality of opportunity when it comes to digital distraction in the classroom and that they may lead to an unequal contribution of achievements that require complex cognition by people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. (shrink)

There are two traditional ways to read Kant's claim that every event necessarily has a cause: the weaker every-event some-cause and the stronger same-cause same-effect causal principles. The focus of the debate about whether and where he subscribes to the SCP has been in the Analogies in the Critique of Pure Reason and in the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science. By analysing the arguments and conclusions of both the Analogies and the Postulates as well as the two Latin principles non (...) datur casus and non datur fatum that summarise their results, I will argue for the novel thesis that the SCP is actually demonstrated in the Postulates of the First Critique. (shrink)

: According to Kant, the arguments of rational psychology are formal fallacies that he calls transcendental paralogisms. It remains heavily debated whether there actually is any formal error in the inferences Kant presents: according to Grier and Allison, they are deductively invalid syllogisms, whereas Bennett, Ameriks, and Van Cleve deny that they are formal fallacies. I advance an interpretation that reconciles these extremes: transcendental paralogisms are sound in general logic but constitute formal fallacies in transcendental logic. By formalising the paralogistic (...) inference, I will pinpoint the error as an illegitimate existential presupposition. Since - unlike transcendental logic - general logic abstracts from all objects, this error can only be detected in transcendental logic. (shrink)

What does it mean to intentionally not perform an action? Is it possible to not perform an action out of resistant intention? Is there sufficient language for talking about this kind of behavior in the social sciences? In this article, a nonnormative vocabulary of not doings including resistant intentional omissions is developed. Unlike concepts that describe official, overt, and public resistance, James Scott’s everyday resistance and Albert Hirschman’s exit have made it possible to talk about the resistant inactions of agents (...) in the social sciences. But in order to grasp the ordinariness of this kind of oppositional behavior, philosophy of intentional omissions is used. (shrink)

In the presentation I will analyse Kant’s conception of modalities and consider its relevance to his critical metaphysics. With his Tables of Judgements and of Categories Kant makes an important division between two kinds of modality, of which the former is only logical and the latter transcendental, i.e., objective. Only judgements that are necessary in both ways are properly metaphysical. This distinction is important for Kant’s distinction between Transcendental Analytic and Transcendental Dialectic, i.e., between acceptable and unacceptable metaphysics. I submit (...) that not only is Kant’s theory of modality useful for properly understanding his arguments in the Dialectic, but that only by distinguishing between the two types of modality can one can make sense of his theory that the ideas of reason are simultaneously inevitable and erroneous. This modal analysis thus offers a new and important point of view to Kant’s metaphysics and its critique. (shrink)

In the course of his philosophy, in various contexts, Kant comes to reject three theses about existence: (i) that the thoroughgoing determination of a thing implies its existence, (ii) that existence is a real predicate or determination of a thing, and (iii) that existence is the complement of inner possibility or essence. Kant’s target here is Baumgarten, who advocates these theses as the criterion, classification, and definition of existence. In this article I seek to clarify Kant’s elusive theory of existence (...) through its opposition to Baumgarten. I will show that Kant’s refutation of (i)–(iii) does not stand alone but is grounded on his own definition of existence as (absolute) positing. Thus contrary to common practice, Kant’s negative claims about what existence is not cannot be understood in isolation but must be taken as jointly dependent on Kant’s positive claim of what existence is. I will show that the theses (i)–(iii) fail because they presuppose that existence contributes to the intension or content of a concept, whereas according to Kant existence in fact posits a (non-empty) extension to the concept. (shrink)

The debate on how to interpret Kant's transcendental idealism has been prominent for several decades now. In his book Kant's Transcendental Proof of Realism (2004) Kenneth R. Westphal introduces and defends his version of the metaphysical dual-aspect reading. But his real aim lies deeper: to provide a sound transcendental proof for (unqualified) realism, based on Kant's work, without resorting to transcendental idealism. In this sense his aim is similar to that of Peter F. Strawson – although Westphal's approach is far (...) more sophisticated. First he attempts to show that noumenal causation – on the reality of which his argument partly rests – is coherent in and necessary for Kant's transcendental idealism. Westphal then aims to undermine transcendental idealism by two major claims: Kant can neither account for transcendental affinity nor satisfactorily counter Hume's causal scepticism. Finally Westphal defends his alternative for transcendental idealism by showing that it solves these problems and thus offers a genuine transcendental proof for realism. In this paper I will show that all the three steps outlined above suffer from decisive shortcomings, and that consequently, regardless of its merits, Westphal's transcendental argument for realism remains undemonstrated. (shrink)

Kant’s view that freedom is a “kind of causality” seems to conflict with his claim that the categories of the understanding – including causality – can only be applied objectively to sensible phaenomena, never to supersensible noumena, as freedom is only possible for the latter. I argue that only Kant’s theory of symbolic presentation, according to which the category of cause is applied merely analogically to freedom, can dispel this threatening inconsistency. Unlike it is commonly thought, one cannot here use (...) the category of cause in its unschematised form to think freedom as causality, for its mere logical significance does not suffice for the practical reality of freedom. Symbolic cognition in turn is not unschematised but indirect schematized presentation. Ultimately I will show that symbolic cognition is a necessary condition of moral agency – but not of morality itself – for without it we could not cognize and hence self-consciously use our freedom to act from the moral law. (shrink)

What precisely does a distraction threaten? An agent who spends an inordinate amount of time attending to her smartphone – what precisely is she lacking? I argue that whereas agency of attention is the agent’s non-automatic decision-making on what she currently pays attention to, autonomy of attention is the agent, through her second-order desires, effectively interfering with her non-automatic decision-making on what she currently pays attention to. Freedom of attention is the agent’s possibility to hold or switch her focus of (...) attention without fixating on any specific focus against her will or without distraction from chosen foci. This conceptual work provides resources to track manipulations that diminish a person’s freedom of attention. (shrink)

Determining the human activity that social processes consist in is a central task for the philosophy of the social sciences. This paper asks: which conception of agency arising from contemporary action theory is the most suitable for social science explanation? It is argued that a movement-centered, Davidsonian picture of agency is not suitable for explaining certain social processes such as strikes and boycotts because, instead of intentional bodily movements, they are explained by the intentional omissions of agents. I propose that (...) instead of intentional bodily movements, social processes are better explained by phenomena in which an agent is taking an active relation both to her mental or bodily processes as well as to what is happening around her. Thus, to fully explain social processes, a comprehensive theory of agency that can account for intentional actions and intentional omissions and a conception of agency that includes both materialist and volitionalist aspects is needed. (shrink)

This study develops conceptual means in philosophy of agency to better and more systematically address intentional omissions of agents, including those that are about resisting the action not done. I argue that even though philosophy of agency has largely concentrated on the actions of agents, when applying philosophy of action to the social sciences, a full-blown theoretical account of what agents do not do and a non-normative conceptual language of the phenomena in question is needed. Chapter 2 aims to find (...) out what kind of things intentional omissions are. I argue that although intentional omissions are part of our intentional behavior, they are not actions in the sense that the standard account of action assumes. Instead, because intentional omissions are homogenous, continuous, unbounded, indefinite and directly uncountable, they should be thought of as activities instead of performances. This view links the ontology of intentional omissions to the ontology of processes instead of to that of events, and I argue that this kind of ontology accounts for the fluid nature of the agency of alive agents not only instigating but controlling and sustaining their intentional omissions as well. Chapter 3 aims to find out on what conditions is an omission intentional. The aim is to find a naturalized explanation of them that would make it possible to combine psychological perspectives with philosophical ones so that intentional omissions could be treated as something that exist in the world, not just in our philosophical intuitions. I argue that intentional omissions necessarily require the agent’s procedural metacognition concerning the action not done. Based on this metacognition view, a non-normative conceptual typology of not doings is presented. Chapter 4 aims to find out on what conditions is an intentional omissions resistance toward something. The necessary elements of resistance are clarified and I argue that resistant intentional omissions in which the agent does not perform an action out of resistance toward something are a normal part of our everyday agency. The implications of the findings are considered for theories of action, especially when it comes to the belief-desire model that may not be able to fully account for resistant intentional omissions. Chapter 5 aims to find out what conceptual means do we have for talking about not doing something as a form of resistance. I argue that in the social sciences, bioethics and military ethics to not do something out of resistance is taken as something that exists, and as something that has causes and effects. However, concepts such as civil disobedience, conscientious refusing, exit and everyday resistance do not account for the ordinariness of this kind of not doings. Thus, I argue that such concepts are not able to fully cover resistant inaction and philosophy of intentional omissions can be of use not just in the social sciences. Finally, Chapter 6 considers the implications of these findings. The main implication of this study is that our view of social and ethical agency would need to better include intentional not doings, not just the sum of the intentional actions of agents. Another major implication is that agents themselves should be heard when analyzing their intentional omissions in society, because intentional omissions are phenomena that can easily be mixed with the passivities of agents from the perspective of an outside observer. (shrink)

We are currently experiencing a planetary crisis that will lead, if worst comes to worst, to the end of the entire world as we know it. Several feminist scholars have suggested that if the Earth is to stay livable for humans and nonhumans alike, the ways in which many human beings – particularly in the wealthy parts of the world, infested with Eurocentrism, colonialism, neoliberalism, and capitalism – inhabit this planet requires radical, ethical, and political transformation. In this article, we (...) propose that feminist theory, particularly feminist posthumanities, and Black feminist and decolonial thought, together with creative practices such as writing, have much to contribute to transformative planetary activism that imagines different and other kinds of worlds and futures based on an ethical consideration of nonhuman others and collective caring for the planet. (shrink)

Ciência Política: Introdução à Sófocles*1 -/- Science Politics: Introduction to Sophocles -/- Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro da Silva*2 -/- Sófocles (496/4-406 a.C.) -/- 1 CONTEXTO HISTÓRICO: TEATRO E POLÍTICA -/- Na Grécia antiga, o teatro fazia parte das celebrações religiosas, especialmente nos rituais e representações dos festivais em homenagem ao deus Dionísio. A tragédia nasceu de tais circunstâncias, culminando seu apogeu no século V a.C., com as peças de Ésquilo*3 (525-456a.C.), SÓFOCLES*4 (496/4-406 a.C.) e Eurípedes*5 (480-406 a.C.). Pode-se dizer que, contrário (...) ao que ocorre normalmente, a arte não se deixou preceder pela filosofia, pois os poetas eram filósofos, pensando com sua própria mente e constituindo-se na vanguarda intelectual do seu tempo. -/- SÓFOCLES, em 468 a.C., ganhou do já consagrado Ésquilo, seu primeiro prêmio de tragédia, quando tinha vinte e sete anos. Ele nasceu em Colono, nas imediações de Atenas, filho de fabricante de espadas, que, com as guerras da Pérsia e do Peloponeso, aumentou seus serviços consideravelmente, enriquecendo a família. Não obstante, os demais atenienses empobreceram miseravelmente. SÓFOCLES era considerado bonito, inclusive sua estátua, que o representa na velhice, indica-lhe como um vigoroso homem. Era muito habilidoso em tudo o que fazia, tanto nas tragédias, como nas guerras e nos esportes. -/- Foi contemporâneo e amigo de Péricles*6 (495-429 a.C.), grande líder de Atenas, que lhe 6 ajudou a ocupar altos cargos, como o de tesoureiro e general, em 443 a.C. Em 440 a.C., encontrava-se entre os generais e comandantes das forças atenienses contra Pomos. Foi, ainda, membro do Comitê de Segurança Pública, votando a favor da Constituição oligárquica, em 411 a.C. Exerceu, também, funções de sacerdote. Era um homem alegre e amante dos prazeres, emanando encanto e simpatia, que lhes faziam perdoar os erros, envolvido com rapazes e cortesãs, inclusive teve um filho da célebre hetera Têoris.*7 Foi também contemporâneo de Eurípedes, ainda que nascido bem antes deste, mas ambos morreram no mesmo ano, em 406 a.C. -/- SÓFOCLES escreveu cento e treze peças, das quais só nos chegaram sete, nesta ordem de procedência, Ajax (c. 445 a.C.) As Traquínias (c. 445 a.C.), Antígona (c. 442), Édipo Rei (c. 425), Electra (c. 415), Filoteuto (409) e Édipo em Colono (401). Ganhou o primeiro prêmio de teatro, por dezenove vezes, tendo vinte e sete anos na primeira, e oitenta e cinco, na última. Governou o teatro ateniense por mais de trinta anos, da mesma maneira que seu amigo Péricles governava Atenas. -/- Escreveu uma trilogia não intencional, com as tragédias Édipo Rei (425 a.C.), Édipo em Colono (401 a.C.) e Antígona (442 a.C.). A primeira foi o mais famoso dos dramas gregos, tendo uma abertura impressionante, com a população diante do palácio real de Tebas. Havia uma peste que assolava a cidade, e isso os oráculos identificaram como decorrência de um grande crime. A clássica narrativa tratava de um filho, Édipo, que inadvertidamente matara o pai, Laio, e se casara com a mãe, Jocasta, com a qual teve quatro filhos: Antígona, Polinice, Etéocles e Ismênia. Quando tudo fora descoberto, Jocasta se enforcara e Édipo, enlouquecido, arrancara os próprios olhos e abandonara Tebas, partindo para o exílio em companhia apenas de Antígona. Já em Édipo em Colonos, este estava envelhecido a mendigar em Colono, perto de Atenas, apoiado apenas pela filha. -/- Antígona foi a última peça da trilogia, ainda que tenha sido a primeira a ser escrita. Ao tomar conhecimento de que seus irmãos Polinice e Etéocles estavam em guerra pelo trono de Tebas, regressou apressada para tentar apaziguá-los. Não obstante, eles lutaram até a morte. Creonte aliado de Etéocles, tomou o reino e puniu a rebeldia de Polinice, proibindo que fosse sepultado. Antígona, evocando a crença de que o espírito de um morto só se livrava das torturas da morte depois do corpo ser enterrado, violou o decreto de Creonte e sepultou seu irmão Polinice. Houve, então, o conflito entre as leis dos homens com as leis dos deuses, optando ela por esta, como esperavam as pessoas dignas de se comportarem. Antígona foi condenada pelo tio a ser enterrada viva, colocada em uma catacumba. Seu noivo, Hêmam, filho de Creonte, que desaparecera quando ela desobedecera o decreto real, voltou e encontrou sua prometida morta, suicidando-se em seguida.*8 O drama era denso em todos os seus elementos, mas se elevava quando discutia o comportamento que o cidadão devia ter frente às leis opressivas. -/- 2 DESOBEDIÊNCIA CIVIL: RECUSA DE ANTÍGONA -/- Antígona e sua irmã Ismênia representavam, respectivamente, os símbolos de resistência à tirania e de obediência à razão, colocando a lei de Creonte frente à lei da justiça. Diante do édito que impedia Antígona de sepultar Polinice, considerava a existência do direito natural de enterrá-lo, sendo este o seu drama político. Devia obedecer às leis da polis ou da consciência e dos princípios religiosos? Este drama é representado pelo magnífico texto de SÓFOCLES, quando Creonte perguntou se Antígona tripudiava sobre suas leis. Antígona lhe respondeu que: -/- “Essas leis não foram promulgadas por Zeus, nem mesmo a Justiça, que convive com os deuses do inferno, foi a que estabeleceu tais princípios para os homens. Ele ainda afirmou que os anúncios das leis de Creonte não tinham o poder que eles imaginavam que o tinha, e que um simples mortal pudesse suplantar os preceitos, não escritos e imutáveis dos deuses. Antígona ainda afirma que tais preceitos não foram de hora, como também não fora de ontem, mas que sempre vigoraram no mundo sensível, e que ninguém sabia ao certo de sua existência. Antígona afronta Creonte dizendo que por causa das leis do mesmo, não queria ser ela castigada perante os deuses por ter, de alguma forma, medo da ira e afronta de um reles mortal. Ainda diz que sua morte é algo inevitável, uma vez que é a única certeza dos homens, e que ela há de vir em um tempo, pois isso não se pode ignorar, todavia se sua morte não a tivesse sido anunciada antes, e que com isso morrera antes do tempo, o tomaria como vantagem, uma vez que, submetido as mais variadas intempéries da vida, como não iria considerar sua morte um benefício? E com isso, essa dor de nada vale no tocante de seu destino. Antígona continua dizendo que em nada o afeta ao ver o cadáver do filho morto de sua mãe na condição de insepulto, uma vez que isso não lhe causa dor . O mesmo conclui dizendo que se achara que ele cometera um ato de loucura após a proclamação de sua resposta, talvez o achasse louco aquele que viera a condená-lo.”*9 -/- O conflito entre a lei positiva, enunciava o drama grego, e a lei natural, significava que esta identificava-se com a Justiça dos deuses, que era superior à lei da terra.*10 Para Antígona, aquela deveria sempre prevalecer, mas a sua morte representou o triunfo, mesmo que trágico, da lei da polis.*11 SÓFOCLES foi quem primeiro falou do direito de resistência, inclusive com a possibilidade de se sofrer uma grave sanção, como ocorreu com Antígona, e ainda assim sabendo suportar a dor.*12 A teoria não logrou desenvolvimento na Grécia antiga, nem na teoria política antiga. Deixou, porém, uma indagação que só no século XVIII começou a ser respondida, pela forma clássica do direito de resistência. -/- NOTAS: *1: In. COSTA, N. N. Ciência Política. 3. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Forense, 2012. p. 61-67. *2: Tecnólogo em agropecuária pelo Instituto Federal de Pernambuco campus Belo Jardim. Normalista pela Escola Frei Cassiano Comacchio. Pesquisador assíduo de assuntos de cunho filosófico, com ênfase em política. *3: “Ésquilo, poeta grego (Elêusis, c. 525 – Gela, Sicília, 456 a.C.). Suas obras, As Suplicantes (c. 490), Os Persas (472), Os Sete contra Tebas (467), Prometeu Acorrentado (depois de 467) e a trilogia da Oréstia(Agamênom, Os Coéforos, As Eumênides) (458), fazem dele o verdadeiro criador da tragédia grega” (KOOGAN/HOUAISS. Enciclopédia e Dicionário Ilustrado, op. cit., p. 622). *4: “Sofócles, o poeta trágico grego (Colono, perto de Atenas, entre 496 e 494 a.C., Atenas 406 a.C.). Amigo de Péricles e Heródoto, cidadão completo, obteve, durante sua carreira excepcional, mais de 20 vitórias em concursos dramáticos. De sua obra, apenas sete tragédias, entre as mais de uma centena, e um drama satírico, do qual só restam longos fragmentos, Os Cães de Caça, chegaram até nós: Ajax (c. 445 a.C.), Trachiniani (c. 445?), Antígona(442), Édipo rei (c. 425), Electra (c. 415), Filotecto (409), Édipo em Colono (401). Deu à tragédia sua configuração definitiva: elevando de 12 para 15 o número de integrantes do coro,acrescentou um terceiro ator e substituiu atrilogia unida pela trilogia livre, onde cada drama forma um todo. Em Sófocles, a ação da tragédia é levada a termo pela vontade e pelas paixões do herói, indivíduo excepcional que, em luta contra um destino que o oprime, continua livre” (Grande Enciclopédia Larousse Cultural, op. cit., vol. 22, p. 5.441). *5: “Eurípedes, poeta trágico grego (Salamina, 480 – Macedônia, 406,a.C.), cujas obras mais célebres são: Alcestes (438), Medeia (431), Hipólito (428), Andrômaca (c. 426), Hécuba (c. 424), Íon (c. 418), Ifigênia em Áulida, As Bacantes. Eurípedes introduziu várias inovações na tragédia: ênfase na análise psicológica, preocupações científica e filosóficas, coros independentes da ação, introdução de personagens do povo” (KOOGAN/HOUAISS. Enciclopédia e Dicionário Ilustrado, op. cit., p. 642). *6: Vide nota 7 do capítulo II, Herôdotos. *7: “Más-línguas afirmam que Sófocles consumou sua velhice com a hetera Têoris, tendo um filho. Seu filho legítimo Iófas, talvez temendo que o poeta legasse ao filho de Têoris, levantou contra ele uma ação judicial,acusando-o de servil e incapaz da administração dos bens, Sófocles, para provar sua lucidez, fez perante os juízes a leitura de certos trechos da peça que na ocasião estava escrevendo, e que se julgou ser Édipo em Colono, ao término da leitura, os juízes não só o absolveram como o acompanharam até sua casa” (DURANT, Will. História da Civilização Mundial: nossa herança clássica, op. cit., vol. II, p. 314). *8: SÓFOCLES. Antígona. Brasília: Universidade de Brasília, 1997, p. 45. *9: Idem, op. cit., pp. 41-2. *10: “Aquela (Antígona), porém, prefere ficar com as ordens mais altas dos deuses, inacessíveis à maldade humana” (MACHADO PAUPÉRIO, A. O Direito Político de Resistência. 2ª ed. Rio de Janeiro: Forense, 1978, p. 38). *11: “Antígona, entretanto, rebelou-se contra o edital de Creonte, considerando o sepultamento um dever mais forte que as leis dos homens, principalmente em se tratando de parentes, e cumpriu, embora sumariamente, os ritos fúnebres de Polinice” (KURY, Mário da Gama. Dicionário de Mitologia Grega e Romana. Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Sales, 1990, p. 35). *12: “No século V a.C., os grandes trágicos gregos, Ésquilo, Sófocles e Eurípedes, empregavam os mitos antigos para explorar os mais profundos temas da condição humana” (TARNAS, Richard. A Epopeia do Pensamento Ocidental: para compreender as ideias que molduram nossa visão de mundo. 2ª ed. Rio de Janeiro: Bertrand Brasil, 2000, p. 33). -/- . (shrink)