Two main cognitive theories predict that people find refuting evidence that falsifies their theorising difficult, if not impossible to consider, even though such reasoning may be pivotal to grounding their everyday thoughts in reality (i.e., Poletiek, 1996; Klayman & Ha, 1987). In the classic 2-4-6 number sequence task devised by psychologists to test such reasoning skills in a simulated environment – people fail the test more often than not. In the 2-4-6 task participants try to discover what rule (...) the number triple 2-4-6 conforms to. The rule is ‘ascending numbers’, but it is tricky to discover this rule. Participants tend to generate hypotheses with the properties of the 2-4-6 triple, for example, ‘even numbers ascending in twos’. They must search for evidence to test whether their hypothesis is the rule. But experimental evidence has shown that they tend to generate confirming triples that they expect to be consistent with their hypothesis rather than inconsistent falsifying triples. Counter to the two main hypothesis testing theories this paper demonstrates that falsification is possible in five 2-4-6 task experiments when participants consider an Imaginary Participant’s hypothesis. Experiment 1 and 2 show that competition with an opponent hypothesis tester facilitates falsification. Experiments 3 to 5 show that the consideration of an alternative hypothesis helps this falsification of hypotheses lead to rule discovery. The implications of the results for theories of hypothesis testing and reasoning are discussed. (shrink)

Can people consistently attempt to falsify, that is, search for refuting evidence, when testing the truth of hypotheses? Experimental evidence indicates that people tend to search for confirming evidence. We report two novel experiments that show that people can consistently falsify when it is the only helpful strategy. Experiment 1 showed that participants readily falsified somebody else’s hypothesis. Their task was to test a hypothesis belonging to an ‘imaginary participant’ and they knew it was a low quality hypothesis. Experiment (...) 2 showed that participants were able to falsify a low quality hypothesis belonging to an imaginary participant more readily than their own low quality hypothesis. The results have important implications for theories of hypothesis testing and human rationality. (shrink)

I defend a theory of mental representation that satisfies naturalistic constraints. Briefly, we begin by distinguishing (i) what makes something a representation from (ii) given that a thing is a representation, what determines what it represents. Representations are states of biological organisms, so we should expect a unified theoretical framework for explaining both what it is to be a representation as well as what it is to be a heart or a kidney. I follow Millikan in explaining (i) in terms (...) of teleofunction, explicated in terms of natural selection. -/- To explain (ii), we begin by recognizing that representational states do not have content, that is, they are neither true nor false except insofar as they both “point to” or “refer” to something, as well as “say” something regarding whatever it is they are about. To distinguish veridical from false representations, there must be a way for these separate aspects to come apart; hence, we explain (ii) by providing independent theories of what I call f-reference and f-predication (the ‘f’ simply connotes ‘fundamental’, to distinguish these things from their natural language counterparts). -/- Causal theories of representation typically founder on error, or on what Fodor has called the disjunction problem. Resemblance or isomorphism theories typically founder on what I’ve called the non-uniqueness problem, which is that isomorphisms and resemblance are practically unconstrained and so representational content cannot be uniquely determined. These traditional problems provide the motivation for my theory, the structural preservation theory, as follows. F-reference, like reference, is a specific, asymmetric relation, as is causation. F-predication, like predication, is a non-specific relation, as predicates typically apply to many things, just as many relational systems can be isomorphic to any given relational system. Putting these observations together, a promising strategy is to explain f-reference via causal history and f-predication via something like isomorphism between relational systems. -/- This dissertation should be conceptualized as having three parts. After motivating and characterizing the problem in chapter 1, the first part is the negative project, where I review and critique Dretske’s, Fodor’s, and Millikan’s theories in chapters 2-4. Second, I construct my theory about the nature of representation in chapter 5 and defend it from objections in chapter 6. In chapters 7-8, which constitute the third and final part, I address the question of how representation is implemented in biological systems. In chapter 7 I argue that single-cell intracortical recordings taken from awake Macaque monkeys performing a cognitive task provide empirical evidence for structural preservation theory, and in chapter 8 I use the empirical results to illustrate, clarify, and refine the theory. (shrink)

Responding to critiques of Dilthey’s interpretive psychology, I revisit its relation with epistemology and the human sciences. Rather than reducing knowledge to psychology and psychology to subjective understanding, Dilthey articulated the epistemic worth of a psychology involving (1) an impure phenomenology of embodied, historically-situated, and worldly consciousness as individually lived yet complicit with its naturally and socially constituted contexts, (2) experience- and communication-oriented processes of interpreting others, (3) the use of third-person structural-functional analysis and causal explanation, and (4) a recognition (...) of the ungroundability, facticity, and conflict inherent in knowledge and life. (shrink)

False belief tasks have enjoyed a monopoly in the research on children’s development of a theory of mind. They have been granted this status because they promise to deliver an unambiguous assessment of children’s understanding of the representational nature of mental states. Their poor cousins, true belief tasks, have been relegated to occasional service as control tasks. That this is their only role has been due to the universal assumption that correct answers on true belief tasks are inherently ambiguous regarding (...) the level of the child’s understanding of mental states. It has also been due to the universal assumption that nothing in the child’s developing theory of mind would lead to systematically incorrect answers on true belief tasks. We review new findings that 4- and 5-year-olds do err, systematically and profoundly, on the true belief versions of all the extant belief tasks. This reveals an intermediate level of understanding in the development of children’s theory of mind. Researchers have been unaware of this intermediate level because it produces correct answers in false belief tasks. A simple two-task battery—one true belief task and one false belief task—is sufficient to remove the ambiguity from each task. The new findings show that children do not acquire an understanding of beliefs, and hence a representational theory of mind, until after 6 years of age, or 2 years later than most developmental psychologists have concluded. This raises the question of how to interpret other new findings that infants are able to pass false belief tasks. We review these new infant studies, as well as recent studies on chimpanzees, in light of older children’s failure on true belief tasks, and end with some speculation about how all of these new findings might be reconciled. (shrink)

Introduction Reza Davari Ardakni, the Iranian contemporary philosopher, distinguishes development from Western modernity; in that it considers modernity as natural and organic changes that Europe has gone through, but sees development as a planned design for implementing modernity in other countries. As a result, the closedness of development concerns only the developing countries, not Western modern ones. Davari emphasizes that the Western modernity has a universality that pertains to a unique reason and a unified world. The only way of thinking (...) in this world is a philosophical thought based on human self-centered reason, and given the pervasiveness of Western civilization. Therefore, Davari does not consider Westernization as mere imitation of Western customs and methods, but rather as a way of existence in the world. Westernization is a subjective view of the world and beings. Westernization is not optional, enabling non-Western people to avoid it. According to the Westernization scenario, the world today is entirely Westernized, and Davari considers Westernization as the inevitable fate of the people of this era, seeing two alternatives for them, both of which ultimately lead to the same destination, which is to embrace development; either they seize the power of science and technology and join the process of global modernization and participate in it, or they become subdued by this process and accept it without participation. Davari regards the first type of Westernization as active and the second type as passive. Problematique Therefore, underdevelopment is not a concept of the ancient world, nor even of a world between the ancient and the modern, or on the threshold of modernization. Underdevelopment is a condition of suspension and timelessness and being exposed to modernization. To escape the paradox of underdevelopment, which is the inevitable historical fate of non-modernized societies, Davari sees no way out other than embracing development. In other words, Westernized societies, which have become confused due to modernization, have no escape route other than turning to development. Therefore, some critics of Davari accuse the theory of Westernization of being a theoretical rupture. M. T. Tabatabaei, by rejecting the theoretical rupture in the theory of Westernization, believes that in the argument of Davari, we are only faced with a shift from a philosophical to an intellectual level. Tabatabaei, by avoiding providing a philosophical response to the critics of the theoretical rupture, believes that the introduction of active Westernization and collaboration in science and technology as a solution to escape from underdevelopment conditions, is only a shift from a philosophical level to an intellectual level and does not involve a rupture. Therefore, it seems that the philosophical issue of how or the possibility of escaping from underdevelopment conditions is still an open non answered problem. In this study, seeking a philosophical answer to this problem, an attempt has been made to summarize Davari's definitions of development, underdevelopment, participation in the world of science, and the role of humanities and social sciences in development, using his writings and speeches. It is proposed that a way to escape from the clesedness of development based on Davari's views, is to make use of analytical method with emphasizing on concepts and theories of the philosophy and metaphysics of science. Argument According to Davari, the social and human sciences that are responsible for development planning in underdeveloped societies must consider the characteristics of underdevelopment in order to facilitate the transition to more favorable conditions. Davari identifies the following conditions for successful development: 1) replacing tradition with science as the organizing and coordinating principle in society, 2) recognizing the universality of philosophy and science of the Western modernity and the impossibility of blindly imitation and adopting it, 3) inevitability of actively engaging and interacting with development, 4) recognizing the internal dynamics of scientific progress and avoiding authoritarian control, and 5) promoting free participation in the scientific paradigms. Therefore, Davari suggests the following steps towards development: 1) recognizing and understanding the problems of society and the local ecosystem, 2) understanding the philosophical and cultural foundations of Western civilization, 3) understanding the historical context and paradigms of science, 4) understanding the philosophical and metaphysical foundations of science, 5) recognizing the intellectual and philosophical capacities of our own community, and 6) reflecting our own philosophical and metaphysical assumptions in the scientific world in a way that is compatible with scientific methods. Given the motivations for change in science at both the global and national levels, including the emergence of heterodox or indigenous sciences, and the inevitable nature of development, Davari points to the possibility of a path between absolute rejecting or accepting the mainstream social and human sciences. However, this path is challenging and contingent upon the aforementioned conditions and steps of transition. Conclusion It is necessary to seek this path within the realm of the philosophy and metaphysics of science, particularly in the origins and foundations of the social and human sciences. Research in the metaphysics and philosophy of the social sciences provides the opportunity for active scientific engagement in the scientific paradigms and a reconsideration of the foundations of science, allowing for different philosophical foundations while are compatible with scientific methods. Successfully finding a path between absolute rejecting or accepting the existing social sciences will lead to an internal transformation within the field of science and, in fact, will advance the boundaries of knowledge. Therefore, it is possible, while adhering to the conditions of transition and actively participating in the world of science and technology, and accepting the unity of modernity and avoiding selectivity and imitation, to search for a way to overcome the closedness of development through a reconsideration of the philosophical and metaphysical foundations of science, while recognizing our own intellectual heritage and critically assessing Western science and technology. (shrink)

When you expect something bad to happen, you take action to avoid it. That is the principle of action that underlies J. Y. Lee’s recent paper (2021), which presents a new form of epistemic injustice that arises from anticipating negative consequences for testifying. In this brief reply article occasioned by Lee’s essay, I make two main contributions to the discussion of this idea. The first (§§2–3) is an intervention in the discussion between Lee and Eric Bayruns García regarding the relationship (...) between anticipatory epistemic injustice and Kristie Dotson’s concept of testimonial smothering. The second (§§4–5) is to expand the concept of anticipatory epistemic injustice into the educational context, and to illuminate yet another form of anticipatory epistemic injustice, which I call anticipatory zetetic injustice (§6). (shrink)

Techno-ethics is the area in the philosophy of technology which deals with emerging robotic and digital AI technologies. In the last decade, a new techno-ethical challenge has emerged: Autonomous Weapon Systems (AWS), defensive and offensive (the article deals only with the latter). Such AI-operated lethal machines of various forms (aerial, marine, continental) raise substantial ethical concerns. Interestingly, the topic of AWS was almost not treated in Jewish law and its research. This article thus proposes an introductory ethical-halakhic perspective on AWS, (...) in the Israeli context. The article has seven sections. Section 1 defines AWS and the main ethical concerns it evokes, while providing elementary definitions and distinctions. §2 locates AWS within the realm of Jewish laws of war (hilkhot-ẓava), which recognize the right for self-defense, as well as the status of universally accepted moral norms. §3 unfolds pragmatic ethical premises of a humane techno-ethics, which are required for the identifying AWS as a moral question: I. Relationality; II. Technology is not (completely) neutral; III. The fallaciousness of transhumanism. It is argued that these premises are compatible with halakhic tradition. §4 investigates the question of the morality of AWS, within the field of military AI ethics. It is clarified why the standard categories of war-ethics (ad bello, in bellum) do not capture the singular ethical problem of AWS, which pertains to the operation of military means, rather than their human targets. It is argued that reductive perception of the human mind is misleading about the feasibility of ‘ethical robots’, capable of independent moral discretion. To provide a thick examination of human agency from the perspective of Jewish tradition, §5 explores two stories from the biblical book of Samuel (the murder of Nob’s priests and of Uriah). The lessons about the significance of moral agency within the pubic-political military sphere are made explicit, as well as the possible costs resulting from the loss of human agency in the case of AWS. Given that realpolitik considerations are basic in halakhah, §6 considers some possible contemporary socio-political implications of the AWS, that may risk the sustainability of the democratic project. §7 concludes by pointing out humane contributions of Jewish law to contemporary techno-ethics. (shrink)

This essay examines Qoheleth’s Catalogue of the Times poem in Eccl 3:2–8. I argue that the two most common scholarly interpretations of the poem’s overall meaning fail to sufficiently account for its literary context and that an underdeveloped alternative reading is to be preferred. When we read the poem in light of two other closely related passages, 1:4–11 and 3:9–15, it becomes clear that a poem ostensibly about “time” is much less concerned with “timing” than is typically thought, but instead (...) signifies Qoheleth’s frustration with the inevitable equilibrating tendency embedded into every human task. (shrink)

This paper explores how transformative experience generates decision-making problems of particular seriousness in medical settings. Potentially transformative experiences are especially likely to be encountered in medicine, and the associated decisions are confronted jointly by patients and clinicians in the context of an imbalance of power and expertise. However in such scenarios the principle of informed consent, which plays a central role in guiding clinicians, is unequal to the task. We detail how the principle’s assumptions about autonomy, rationality and information (...) handle transformative experiences poorly, appealing to several difficult cases for medical decision-making to illustrate the resulting problem, and we consider how the existing literature on complications with consent fails to offer a resolution. We argue that recognition of the problem has a role to play in achieving a more effective response to transformative decisions. In Sect. 1 we introduce several representative cases of challenging patient decision-making that clinicians might face. In Sect. 2 we detail how transformative experience has been analysed in the recent literature, before outlining in Sect. 3 the theoretical basis of the principle of informed consent, which plays a central role in how clinicians are expected to support decision-making. In Sect. 4, having laid the groundwork for a clear description, we return to the cases given in Sect. 1 to confirm how their transformative nature presents a problem: either clinicians treat the decisions faced by these patients as ‘normal’, encouraging them to focus on information provision that patients may be unable to act on, or they treat them as transformative, in which case they lack the resources to recognise whether they are helping patients make (subjectively) good decisions. In Sect. 5 we argue that the existing literature does not offer any escape from this problem. We close in Sect. 6 by noting the significant impact that appreciating the problem of transformative experience could have on supporting transformative decisions in medicine and briefly suggesting how we might aim to develop new approaches to dealing with these. (shrink)

Os minerais possuem uma influência direta em diversos processos fisiológicos no organismo animal e, mesmo com tamanha importância, por vezes são negligenciados pelos produtores para seu fornecimento para os animais. Este estudo teve como objetivo avaliar o desempenho reprodutivo de rebanhos de bovinos, caprinos e ovinos em 8 propriedades rurais nas cidades de Sanharó, Pesqueira, Arcoverde, Belo Jardim e São Bento do Una através da adição de suplemento mineral e mistura múltipla aos animais de forma a atender suas necessidades básicas (...) para mantença e reprodução. Foram avaliados os desempenhos de 4 touros e 25 vacas, 3 bodes e 50 cabras e 4 carneiros e 48 ovelhas em diferentes propriedades, avaliando como a adição de um suplemento mineral específico da espécie impacta de forma positiva nos índices reprodutivos avaliados que foram taxa de cio, taxa de serviço, taxa de concepção, taxa de fertilidade, taxa de prenhez, taxa de perdas gestacionais, taxa de natalidade e taxa de mortalidade. O experimento teve duração de 2 anos e pôde-se avaliar cerca de 2 partos nas vacas e, mais ou menos, 3 partos em cabras e ovelhas. Os dados foram computados e avaliados estatisticamente no Excel para conferir se os índices reprodutivos melhoraram em função da adição de minerais na ração dos animais. Conferiu-se que houve diferença significativa entre todos os índices avaliados, ou seja, a adição de minerais na ração dos animais melhora a eficiência reprodutiva de machos e fêmeas de animais ruminantes, sendo de suma importância sua disponibilização de forma correta para alcançar bons índices reprodutivos na fazenda na busca pela obtenção de neonatos que poderão ser comercializados. -/- REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS ASTRO, G. B. A importância da adição de minerais na dieta de caprinos e ovinos no Agreste de Pernambuco. Trabalho de Conclusão de Curso (Técnico Subsequente em Agropecuária) - IFPE Campus Belo Jardim. Belo Jardim, 2023. 44 p. BALAMURUGAN, B. et al. Mineral an important nutrient for efficient reproductive health in dairy cattle. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol, v. 6, n. 1, p. 694-701, 2017. Barros NN, Bomfim MAD. Mistura múltipla para caprinos e ovinos. In: Anais VIII PECNORDESTE – Seminário Nordestino de Pecuária, 8; 2004; Fortaleza, Brasil. Fortaleza: FAEC, 2004. p. 50-57. BERCHIELLI, T. T.; PIRES, A. V.; OLIVEIRA, S. G. (Eds.). Nutrição de ruminantes. Jaboticabal: Funep, 2011. COTTA, T. Minerais e vitaminas para bovinos, ovinos e caprinos. Viçosa: Aprenda Fácil, 2001. DANTAS, C. C. O.; DE MATTOS NEGRÃO, F. Funções e sintomas de deficiência dos minerais essenciais utilizados para suplementação dos bovinos de corte. UNICiências, v. 14, n. 2, 2010. DA SILVA EIC. A água na nutrição animal. 1ª ed. Recife, PE: Instituto Agronômico de Pernambuco, 2023. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Cálculos de consumo e digestibilidade de alimentos e nutrientes para ruminantes. Revista Universitária Brasileira, v. 1, n. 3, 2023. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Concentrados e Rações Para Cabras em Lactação. 2022. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Efeitos da raça e do manejo nutricional sobre as características de qualidade da carcaça e da carne em ovinos. Revista Universitária Brasileira, v. 2, n. 1, 2024. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Fisiologia da Reprodução de Bovinos Leiteiros: Aspectos Básicos e Clínicos. Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro da Silva, 2022. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Formulação de ração para caprinos. Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro da Silva, 2021. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Formulação de ração para ovinos. 2021. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Formulação e Avaliação de Suplemento Mineral Para Caprinos. Instrução Técnica Para o Produtor Rural de Pernambuco, v. 3, n. 1, p. 1-4, 2023. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Formulação e fabricação de rações para ruminantes. 1ª ed. Belo Jardim: Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro da Silva, 2021. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Formulação e Fabricação de Rações Para Ruminantes: Bovinos, Caprinos e Ovinos. 2021. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Manejo Reprodutivo e Índices Zootécnicos em Gado de Leite. 2023. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Métodos de Formulação e Balanceamento de Rações para Bovinos. Belo Jardim: Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro da Silva, 2021. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Nutrição e Suplementação Mineral de Bovinos de Corte. Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro da Silva, 2021. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Nutrição Sobre a Reprodução e Fertilidade dos Bovinos. Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro da Silva, 2021. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Opções de concentrados para vacas em lactação no Semiárido. 2022. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Relação e Efeitos Bioquímico-nutricionais Sobre os Cistos Ovarianos em Vacas. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Relação e Efeitos Bioquímico-nutricionais Sobre os Transtornos do Ciclo Estral em Vacas. DA SILVA, E. I. C. Suplementação e formulação de sal mineral e mistura múltipla para bovinos. Revista Universitária Brasileira, v. 2, n. 1, 2024. DE MENDONÇA JÚNIOR, A. F. et al. Minerais: importância de uso na dieta de ruminantes. Agropecuária Científica no Semiárido, v. 7, n. 1, p. 01-13, 2011. DE PAULA SILVEIRA, L. Suplementação mineral para bovinos. Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia, v. 11, n. 5, p. 489-500, 2017. FADLALLA, I. M. T. The Interactions of Some Minerals Elements in Health and Reproductive Performance of Dairy Cows. New Advances in the Dairy Industry, 2022. FERGUSON, J. D. Nutrition and reproduction in dairy cows. Veterinary clinics of North America: Food animal practice, v. 7, n. 2, p. 483-507, 1991. GALVANI, D. B.; BOMFIM, MAD. Mistura múltipla para caprinos e ovinos: nova fórmula dispensa adaptação. 2015. HAENLEIN, G. F. W.; ANKE, M. Mineral and trace element research in goats: A review. Small Ruminant Research, v. 95, n. 1, p. 2-19, 2011. KAWAS, J. R.; ANDRADE-MONTEMAYOR, H.; LU, C. D. Strategic nutrient supplementation of free-ranging goats. Small Ruminant Research, v. 89, n. 2-3, p. 234-243, 2010. KESSLER, J. Mineral nutrition of goats. In: Goat nutrition, v. 46, p. 104-119, 1991. LOPES, H. O. S. Suplementação de baixo custo para bovinos: mineral e alimentar. 1998. MANERA, D. B. et al. Mineral mixtures from solid salt residues for lambs. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, v. 43, p. 485-491, 2014. MASTERS, D. G. Practical implications of mineral and vitamin imbalance in grazing sheep. Animal Production Science, v. 58, n. 8, p. 1438-1450, 2018. MORAES, S. da S. Importância da suplementação mineral para bovinos de corte. Campo Grande, MS: Embrapa Gado de Corte, 2001., 2001. NICODEMO, M. L. F. et al. Minerais na eficiência reprodutiva de bovinos. 1ª ed. São Carlos: Embrapa Pecuária Sudeste, 2008. 50 p. NIX, J.. Trace minerals important for goat reproduction. Sweetlix Livestock Supplement System, 2002. NOGUEIRA, É. et al. Nutrição aplicada à reprodução de bovinos de corte. In: MEDEIROS, S. R. et al. (Eds.). Nutrição de bovinos de corte: fundamentos e aplicações. 1ª ed. Brasília: Embrapa, 2015. p. 143-156. PASA, C.. Relação reprodução animal e os minerais. Biodiversidade, v. 9, n. 1, 2010. PEIXOTO, P. V. et al. Eficiência reprodutiva de matrizes bovinas de corte submetidas a três diferentes tipos de suplementação mineral. Pesquisa Veterinária Brasileira, v. 23, p. 125-130, 2003. PRADA, F. Influência da nutrição animal na reprodução de touros: revisão. Revista de Educação Continuada do CRMV-SP, v. 8, n. 1, p. 68-76, 2005. ROGÉRIO, M. C. P. et al. Manejo alimentar de caprinos e ovinos nos trópicos. Veterinária e Zootecnia, v. 23, n. 3, p. 326-346, 2016. SARTORI, R.; GUARDIEIRO, M. M. Fatores nutricionais associados à reprodução da fêmea bovina. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, v. 39, p. 422-432, 2010. SHARMA, M. C. et al. Mineral nutrition and reproductive performance of the dairy animals: a review. The Indian Journal of Animal Sciences, v. 77, n. 7, 2007. SILVA, D. C. et al. Importância do uso de minerais na dieta de bovinos reprodutores. Vet. zootec, p. 38-52, 2018. SOUZA, G. V. Suplementação de minerais na reprodução de bovinos. Trabalho de Conclusão de Curso (Graduação em Zootecnia) - UFG. Jataí, 2014. 32 p. TEIXEIRA, J. C. Nutrição de ruminantes. Lavras: FAEPE, 1992. UNDERWOOD, E. J.; SUTTLE, N. F. Los minerales en la nutrición del ganado. 3ª ed. Zaragoza: Acribia, 2003. VALADARES FILHO, S. C. et al. (Eds.). Tabelas brasileiras de composição de alimentos para ruminantes. 1ª ed. Viçosa: UFV, 2015. VALENTIM, J. K. et al. Fatores nutricionais aplicados à reprodução de ruminantes. UNICIÊNCIAS, v. 23, n. 2, p. 77-82, 2019. VASCONCELOS, F. F. Suplementação mineral no manejo reprodutivo ovino. Dissertação (Mestrado em Medicina Veterinária) - Centro de Ciências Rurais, UFSM. Santa Maria, 2012. 50 p. VÁZQUEZ-ARMIJO, J. F. et al. Trace elements in sheep and goats reproduction: a review. Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems, v. 14, n. 1, p. 1-13, 2011. VELLADURAI, C.; SELVARAJU, M.; NAPOLEAN, R. E. Effects of macro and micro minerals on reproduction in dairy cattle a review. International Journal of Scientific Research in Science and Technology, v. 2, n. 1, p. 68-70, 2016. YASOTHAI, R. Importance of minerals on reproduction in dairy cattle. International Journal of Science, Environment and Technology, v. 3, n. 6, p. 2051-2057, 2014. (shrink)

O Brasil possui um efeito significativo de caprinos, sendo o Nordeste a região com maior expressão deste rebanho. Por mais que a caprinocultura nordestina enfrente inúmeros desafios como a alta mortalidade dos cabritos, escassez de recursos alimentares, abates clandestinos etc., a atividade vem ganhando notoriedade, oferecendo aos consumidores produtos de qualidade para consumo. Diante deste cenário, separou-se 20 caprinos das raças Boer e SPRD, distribuídos em dois grupos, 10 animais recebendo dieta à base de feno padrão de capim Tifton-85 e (...) suplementação concentrada de 25 g/cabeça/dia e o suplemento de palma forrageira cv. Miúda juntamente com farelo da vagem da algaroba e grãos de feijão guandu, misturados e fornecidos em duas refeições diárias (8h e 16h) e um grupo de 10 animais, o grupo controle, recebendo apenas feno padrão e o concentrado na mesma proporção que o grupo experimental. Os animais foram separados preconizando-se a homogeneização do peso corporal e a idade. Foram avaliados os padrões de ganho de peso diário, o consumo de matéria seca e de nutrientes e a idade de abate destes animais conforme o desempenho. Os animais iniciaram o experimento com 25,6±1,6 kg e foram abatidos com 35±2,5 kg. O grupo experimental apresentou maior ganho de peso diário em comparação com o grupo controle (128±6 g vs. 106±9 g), consequentemente o grupo experimental apresentou uma idade de abate menor do que o grupo controle (73±4 vs. 89±8 dias). O rendimento de carcaça do grupo experimental foi maior que o do grupo controle (54,2±0,8 vs. 52,7±0,7%). Diante desses resultados, pôde-se afirmar que uma dieta com palma miúda, farelo da vagem de algaroba e grãos de feijão guandu favorece um maior ganho de peso e um encurtamento na idade de abate de caprinos de corte e SPRD. REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS ABEBE, H.; TAMIR, B.. Effects of supplementation with pigeon pea (Cajanus cajun), cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) and lablab (Lablab purpureus) on feed intake, body weight gain and carcass characteristics in Wollo sheep fed grass hay. International Journal of Advanced Research in Biological Sciences, v. 3, n. 2, p. 280-295, 2016. ALMEIDA, M. A. D. et al. (Orgs.). Criando caprinos e ovinos no Semiárido: manejo e doenças 1ª ed. Salvador: EDUFBA, 2023. ARAÚJO, G. G. L. Alternativas alimentares para caprinos e ovinos no Semiárido. In: VII Seminário Nordestino Pecuário - PECNORDESTE 2003. Anais. Fortaleza - CE, 2003. p. 61-80. BARROS, J. R. L; CRUZ, G. R. B.; MELO, D. A. Caracterização do manejo alimentar de caprinos e ovinos na microrregião do cariri ocidental do estado da Paraíba. Revista Brasileira de Agroecologia, v. 13, n. 4, 2018. BELMONT, A. R. B. et al. Algaroba na alimentação animal. 1ª ed. Natal: SEBRAE/RN, 2016. CONTRERAS-VILLARREAL, V. et al. Complementación alimenticia con mezquite y naranja en cabras: efecto sobre el calostro, leche y cabritos. Abanico veterinario, v. 12, 2022. DA SILVA EIC. A água na nutrição animal. 1ª ed. Recife, PE: Instituto Agronômico de Pernambuco, 2023. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Cálculos de consumo e digestibilidade de alimentos e nutrientes para ruminantes. Revista Universitária Brasileira, v. 1, n. 3, p. 71-88, 2023. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Concentrados e Rações Para Cabras em Lactação. 2022. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Efeitos da raça e do manejo nutricional sobre as características de qualidade da carcaça e da carne em ovinos. Revista Universitária Brasileira, v. 2, n. 1, p. 61-81, 2024. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Fisiologia da Reprodução de Bovinos Leiteiros: Aspectos Básicos e Clínicos. Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro da Silva, 2022. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Formulação de ração para caprinos. Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro da Silva, 2021. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Formulação e Avaliação de Suplemento Mineral Para Caprinos. Instrução Técnica Para o Produtor Rural de Pernambuco, v. 3, n. 1, p. 1-4, 2023. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Formulação e fabricação de rações para ruminantes. 1ª ed. Belo Jardim: Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro da Silva, 2021. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Formulação e Fabricação de Rações Para Ruminantes: Bovinos, Caprinos e Ovinos. 2021. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Manejo Reprodutivo e Índices Zootécnicos em Gado de Leite. 2023. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Métodos de Formulação e Balanceamento de Rações para Bovinos. Belo Jardim: Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro da Silva, 2021. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Nutrição Sobre a Reprodução e Fertilidade dos Bovinos. Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro da Silva, 2021. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Opções de concentrados para vacas em lactação no Semiárido. 2022. DA SILVA, E. I. C. Suplementação e formulação de sal mineral e mistura múltipla para bovinos. Revista Universitária Brasileira, v. 2, n. 1, 2024. 27-52. DA SILVA, K. B. Utilização de palma forrageira (Nopalea cochenillifera) como fonte exclusiva de forragem na dieta de ovinos. Tese (Doutorado Integrado em Zootecnia) - Centro de Ciências Agrárias, Campus II - UFPB. Areia, 2021. 83 p. GARCÍA-LÓPEZ, J. C. et al. Producción y contenido nutrimental de vainas de tres variantes de mezquite (Prosopis laevigata) en el altiplano potosino, México. Agrociencia, v. 53, n. 6, p. 821-831, 2019. LUCENA, R. B. Utilização da palma forrageira (nopalea cochenillifera) nas formas in natura e desidratada sobre: consumo, digestibilidade, balanço hídrico e absorção de minerais em ovinos. Dissertação (Mestrado em Nutrição de Ruminantes) - Departamento de Zootecnia, UFRPE. Recife, 2011. 77 p. MEDEIROS, L. P.; SAMPAIO, C. F. Desempenho de caprinos SRD em regime de confinamento. In: V Seminário de Pesquisa Agropecuária do Piauí. Anais. Teresina: Embrapa, 1988. p. 183-185. OLIVEIRA, A. P. D. Mandioca e farelo da vagem de algaroba na alimentação de caprinos mestiços. Dissertação (Mestrado em Ciência Animal) - Centro de Ciências Agrárias, Ambientais e Biológicas, UFRB. Cruz das Almas, 2012. 57 p. OLIVEIRA, L. L. et al. Native legumes and spineless cactus in supplementation of goats grazing in Caatinga rangeland: intake, performance, carcass characteristics, and meat quality. Acta Scientiarum. Animal Sciences, v. 44, p. e56445, 2022. OLIVEIRA, L. L. Suplementação com leguminosas sobre o desempenho e característica da carcaça de caprinos em crescimento no Semiárido. Dissertação (Mestrado em Ciência Animal e Pastagens) - UFRPE. Garanhuns, 2014. 90 p. OLIVEIRA, R. L. et al. Alimentos alternativos na dieta de ruminantes. Revista Científica de Produção Animal, v. 15, n. 2, p. 141-160, 2013. ROGÉRIO, M. C. P. et al. Manejo alimentar de caprinos e ovinos nos trópicos. Veterinária e Zootecnia, v. 23, n. 3, p. 326-346, 2016. SILVA, J. G. M. et al. Cactáceas nativas na alimentação de ruminantes. Revista Científica de Produção Animal. v. 15, n. 1. p. 53-62. 2013. SOUSA, F. A. Desempenho de cabritos alimentados com variedades de palma forrageira resistente a cochonilha do carmim. Dissertação (Mestrado em Zootecnia) - Centro de Ciências Agrárias, UFPB. Areia, 2015. 71 p. VALADARES FILHO, S. C. et al. (Eds.). Tabelas brasileiras de composição de alimentos para ruminantes. 1ª ed. Viçosa: UFV, 2015. (shrink)

According to the extended cognition thesis, an agent’s cognitive system can sometimes include extracerebral components amongst its physical constituents. Here, we show that such a view of cognition has an unjustifiably anthropocentric focus, for it tends to depict cognitive extensions as a human-only affair. In contrast, we will argue that if human cognition extends, then the cognition of many non-human animals extends too, for many non-human animals rely on the same cognition-extending strategies humans rely on. To substantiate this claim, we (...) will proceed as follows. First (Sect. 1), we will introduce the extended cognition thesis, exposing its anthropocentric bias. Then, we will show that humans and many non-human animals rely on the same cognition-extending strategies. To do so, we will discuss a variety of case studies, including “intrabodily” cognitive extensions such as the spinal cord (Sect. 2), the widespread reliance on epistemic actions to solve cognitive tasks (Sect. 3) and cases of animal cognitive offloading (Sect. 4). We’ll then allay some worries our claim might raise (Sect. 5) to then conclude the paper (Sect. 6). (shrink)

It may come as a surprise to readers familiar with the life and work of the Arts Master that he discusses the Eucharist at all. As he likes to remind us, theological topics are generally out of his wheelhouse. Even so, in his Questions on the “Metaphysics” of Aristotle (QM) 4.6, Buridan takes the sacrament of the Eucharist as a key data point in his discussion of Aristotle’s Categories. In the Eucharist, the accidents of the bread and wine—their color, texture, (...) and so on—remain intact, but the underlying substance is transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ. Accordingly, God can preserve accidents independent of their underlying substance. Therefore, for our part we can use accidental terms, like whiteness, without connoting any substances, like communion bread. Moreover, it follows that, contrary to Aristotle, substance and the accidental categories are not the most general genera. Instead, being (ens) is, as Buridan concludes. Here, I trace Buridan’s thought on the metaphysical and semantic matters of substance in light of the Eucharist. The Eucharist is for him not only a theological truth, but a metaphysical and semantic datum as well. I conclude by asking why Buridan did not take any and all questions about the Eucharist to be out of his ken. What does this tell us about his attitude toward theology? This paper also includes, as an appendix, the first ever English translation of the question under discussion (QM 4.6): “Does the term being (ens) signify substances and accidents by one single concept or notion?”. (shrink)

Introduction -/- 1 Précis -/- 2 Methodology: Introducing digital humanities to the history of philosophy 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Core constructs 2.3 Operationalizing the constructs 2.4 Querying the Nietzsche Source 2.5 Cleaning the data 2.6 Visualizations and preliminary analysis 2.6.1 Visualization of the whole corpus 2.6.2 Book visualizations 2.7 Summary -/- Nietzsche’s Socio-Moral Framework -/- 3 From instincts and drives to types 3.1 Introduction 3.2 The state of the art on drives, instincts, and types 3.2.1 Drives 3.2.2 Instincts 3.2.3 Types 3.3 (...) The semantic neighborhood of drive, instinct, and type 3.4 A theory of (the relations among) instincts, drives, and types 3.4.1 Drives are act-directed rather than outcome-directed dispositions 3.4.2 The reflexive turn in Nietzsche’s drive psychology 3.4.3 Triggers of drive-displacement 3.4.4 Instincts are innate drives 3.4.5 Types are constellations of instincts and other drives 3.4.6 To what extent are types, instincts, and drives fixed? 3.5 Summary -/- 4 From types to virtues 4.1 Introduction 4.2 The state of the art on virtues and values 4.2.1 Virtues 4.2.2 Values 4.3 The semantic neighborhood of virtue and value 4.4 On (the relations among) instincts, drives, types, values, virtues, and values 4.4.1 Virtues are well-calibrated drives 4.4.2 Nietzsche’s type-relative unity of virtue thesis 4.4.3 The type of the criminal 4.4.4 Nietzschean exemplarism and his ad hominem attacks 4.5 Summary -/- 5 Socializing Nietzschean virtues 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Higher-order types 5.2.1 Social character construction 5.2.2 Reflexive character construction 5.3 Eponymous trait terms and Nietzschean summoning 5.3.1 Eponymous trait terms 5.3.2 Nietzschean summoning 5.4 Summary -/- Nietzschean virtues -/- 6 Curiosity 6.1 Introduction 6.2 Curiosity in virtue epistemology 6.3 Curiosity and its affiliated emotions 6.4 Curiosity, perspectivism, and inquiry 6.5 Curiosity as a virtue 6.5.1 A preliminary characterization 6.5.2 Curiosity in the middle through late works 6.6 Summary -/- 7 Courage 7.1 Introduction 7.2 Intellectual courage in contemporary virtue epistemology 7.3 Courage as a virtue 7.3.1 A preliminary characterization 7.3.2 Courage in the middle through late works 7.4 Summary -/- 8 Pathos of distance 8.1 Introduction 8.2 Contempt and disgust in contemporary moral psychology 8.3 The semantic neighborhood of contempt, disgust, and the pathos of distance 8.4 Nietzsche on contempt 8.4.1 Spernere mundum 8.4.2 Spernere neminem 8.4.3 Spernere se ipsum 8.4.4 Spernere se sperni 8.4.5 Nietzsche aims to induce what he considers fitting contempt in receptive readers 8.5 Nietzsche on disgust 8.5.1 The use of disgust: detaching from an ideal 8.5.2 The danger of disgust 8.6 The pathos of distance 8.7 Prospects for a Nietzschean democratic ethos 8.8 Summary -/- 9 Sense of humor 9.1 Introduction 9.2 The semantic neighborhood of laughter, humor, and comedy 9.3 The Nietzschean sense of humor and its functions 9.3.1 From episodic laughter to the sense of humor 9.3.2 Affirmation and inquiry 9.3.3 Negation and inquiry 9.3.4 Affiliation with like-minded inquirers 9.4 Summary -/- 10 Solitude 10.1 Introduction 10.2 Solitude in virtue theory and Nietzsche scholarship 10.3 The semantic neighborhood of solitude 10.4 An account of Nietzschean solitude 10.5 Summary -/- Conclusion -/- 11 Conscience & integrity 11.1 Introduction 11.2 Conscience and integrity in contemporary moral psychology and Nietzsche scholarship 11.2.1 Conscience and integrity in contemporary moral psychology 11.2.2 Conscience and integrity in Nietzsche commentary 11.3 The semantic neighborhood of conscience and integrity 11.4 Distinguishing conscience, good conscience, bad conscience, and intellectual conscience 11.4.1 Conscience 11.4.2 Good conscience 11.4.3 Bad conscience 11.4.4 Intellectual conscience and integrity 11.5 Summary -/- 12 Prospectus 12.1 Future directions in moral psychology 12.2 Future directions in Nietzsche scholarship 12.3 Future directions in digital humanities and the history of philosophy . (shrink)

Purpose Prescription stimulant use as “cognitive enhancers” has been described among undergraduate college students. However, the use of prescription stimulants among future health care professionals is not well characterized. This study was designed to determine the prevalence of prescription stimulant misuse among students at an academic health sciences center. -/- Method Electronic surveys were e-mailed to 621 medical, pharmacy, and respiratory therapy students at East Tennessee State University for four consecutive weeks in fall 2011. Completing the survey was voluntary and (...) anonymous. Surveys asked about reasons for, frequency of, and side effects of nonprescription misuse of prescription stimulants. Given the sensitive material, an opportunity to win one of ten $50 gift cards was used as an incentive. -/- Results Three hundred seventy-two (59.9%) students completed the survey from three disciplines (47.6% medical, 70.5% pharmacy, and 57.6% respiratory therapy). Overall, 11.3% of responders admitted to misusing prescription stimulants. There was more misuse by respiratory therapy students, although this was not statistically significant (10.9% medicine, 9.7% pharmacy, 26.3% respiratory therapy; P = .087). Reasons for prescription stimulant misuse included to enhance alertness/ energy (65.9%), to improve academic performance (56.7%), to experiment (18.2%), and to use recreationally/get high (4.5%). -/- Conclusions Prescription stimulant misuse was prevalent among participating students, but further research is needed to describe prevalence among future health care workers more generally. The implications and consequences of such misuse require further study across professions with emphasis on investigating issues of academic dishonesty (e.g., “cognitive enhancement”), educational quality, and patient safety or health care quality. (shrink)

A serendipitious event in everyday life is common: it means unexpected information that yields some unintended information and potential value later on. Serendipity as a word has been around for hundreds of years. As a studied concept it is rather recent. Serendipity is not just the unexpected information or experience but rather the ability to recognize and do something with it. Serendipitious discovery of information is different from purposive or known item search as it is more complicated and lasts much (...) longer. The discovery of information by chance or accident is still looking it’s explicit place in models and frameworks of information behaviour. It is still not clear what constitutes the core of the research area of serendipity in information behaviour. The qualities of interaction among people, information, and objects differ in physical vs. digital environments. The bisociation, a creative association between different peaces of information may be computer supported. This article presents an overview of the research study of serendipity in information seeking behaviour. We explore serendipity mainly in the digital information environment. As a setting for our study we use six main drivers of serendipity research relating to digital enviroments presented in McCay-Peet and Toms (2017). The drivers are: 1. Theoretical understanding of the phenomena of serendipity, 2) physical vs digital, 3) information overload, 4) filter bubbles, 5) user experience, and 6) user strategies. A new refined temporal model of information encountering by Erdelez and Makri (2020) is also presented in this article. The model presents a framework for better understanding of the temporal dimension of the information acqusition. At a macro level the model positions information encountering within contextual factors related for user, information, task and environment related characteristics. (shrink)

Will I die? As a hypothesis, in my natural scientific understanding, the psyche, is nothing more than, and exclusively just some states of my living brain – I will die as a result of his death. -/- In presented answer, psyche – itself own immediate reality itself, that is – undoubted. -/- This work was performed in reality “in the first person” (“subjective reality”, “phenomenal consciousness”). To realize, how, what it is the reality of the “in the first person” let’s (...) imagine ourselves as an experimenter, who does not replace reality with reasoning about it. – Now for us, as experimenters, how (what it is) psychic is an immediate and undoubted reality. And the awareness of “I am” is a direct reality, and not knowledge about it, which is always doubtful. That is, in psychic reality, nothing prevents us from answering undoubtedly and definitively the question, asked by this psychic reality itself about itself. The author acts from the position of “being in reality – not going beyond its limits, for example, into philosophy” (philosophy, including methodology, is the replacement of reality itself with always dubious reasoning about reality) – explores phenomenal consciousness (“psychic”) directly and as an immediate reality. That is, this work is the mastery of psychic reality through subjective-psychical experimentation – don’t philosophize, but experiment! -/- For example, Descartes, introspectively experimenting in his own psyche reality with his own psyche, informed us about the immutability of the “mind” and proposed to understand this immutability as our own immortality: “the mind does not represent any combination of accidents, it is a pure substance, and although all its accidents are subject to change, it understands some things, it desires others or feels others, etc. – nevertheless, in itself it does not change; and as for the human body, it changes, if only because they are subject to a change in the shape of some of its parts. It follows from this that the body perishes very easily, while the mind, by its very nature, is immortal” (Декарт Р., p. 13). Note that, Descartes did not realize that he was immortal, but logically deduced his own immortality from the immutability of the mind. However, Descartes’ unchanging “mind” itself is such that there is something to die. And in my natural scientific understanding, the immutability of the mind does not imply its immortality – it will die without changing in its subjective self-perception, while instantly fading away as a result of brain death. Psyche (psychical) – a designation of the fact that this is one’s own immediate reality (that is, undoubtedly) – how (what) I myself am immediately, undoubtedly, and that immediate reality of mine, how and through which I myself and everything in general for me there is, and which is exclusively the only one for me. It should be noted that while I am unconscious (brain injury or dreamless sleep), there is nothing at all. -/- But this does not mean that “I”, having completely gone into oblivion, I'll die. This does not exclude that, I will disappear completely into oblivion and does not exist, but (at the same time) “I” – am. So, let’s define immortality as the impossibility of dying because there is nothing to die (psychic, but is such that there is nothing to die – is immortal) and will make a conclusion important for this work: if I am, as psyche, exclusively only is such that there is something to die and nothing else, then, therefore, my death is not excluded. But am I like that? The idea of this work is that I, as a psyche can to manifest (reveal) and realize myself as such (I such), that there is nothing to die, but (at the same time) I – am. I will realize of myself as immortal – such that to die (to decease) nothing. In other words, if I will approach with a bias and, acting purposefully, will reveal the subjective reality “I (psyche) such is that to die (to decease) nothing, but I – am”, that is – I am immortal, that the hypothesis “I will die” will falsified and excluded. -/- To realize this in the work, it is proposed to use the subject-object model, shift the boundary of “I” to the pole of the subject and become objectless, manifesting (revealing) oneself as such that there is nothing to die. Therefore, the aim (goal) of the work – to realize: I – am, but such that there is to die (decease) nothing. To become objectless and wondering about the possibility to dying, as a result, or I will exclude the immortality of the manifested state, or I will manifest (will reveal) immortal undoubtedly and definitively. -/- At the same time, I, as a subject, am “a necessary pole of subject-object relations. … An object is what the activity of … a subject is directed at. … In fact, everything that exists can become an object. … it is important to keep in mind the fundamental fact that the object is always outside the subject, does not merge with it. This externality also takes place when the subject deals with the states of his own consciousness, his Self ... it is important to emphasize that the relation of the subject and the object is not the relation of two different worlds, but only two poles as part of some unity” (Лекторский В.А., p. 6-7). That is, everything that I find existing in myself, this (such) is as an object. “The subject always refers to all “objects”, but it can never become an object for itself” (Титлин Л.И., p. 23). “… you will not be able to see the seeing vision ...” (Титлин Л.И., p. 40), and in this model this implies the “limit” of the subject. As the limit of the subject, I am “objectless”. And, therefore, in its own pole the subject is “ideal” – in its (own) limit (as its own limit, its own limit), I do not exist for myself (non-existent). -/- Using the “fact of the mobility of the boundaries of the subject” (for example, Тхостов А.Ш., p. 16), I have the opportunity to “pull” the boundary of the “I” into myself and become my own limit. At the same time, it is necessary to realize and accept that “inside” the limit of the subject and behind – “beyond of the subject”, and in general the very “inside” and “behind” in this version – unreality. In such a subject limit, the required paradoxical subjective state is assumed – I exist and see, but at the same time I am such that I do not exist for myself, that is, I am, but (subjectively such that) there is nothing to die (“immortality”). -/- Accordingly, the following tasks are indicated in the experiment: 1. In the object-subject sphere of visual perception, shift (and shift) the boundary of “I” into oneself –» to run into one’s own limit and become one’s own limit (without thickness: without depth, without “from within” and without reverse side) –» 2. Having become your own limit, which in its own limit is, but for myself I do not exist (non-existent), realize: • Myself – I am and this is real; • Will I die? – or there is nothing to die, which of the options is to me, as a psyche (as itself the psychic “I”), is applicable: • or I am such that it is not impossible that I will die, and the realized state is not immortal; • or “I” am such that “I” – am (is reality), but such that myself “I” to die nothing, that is, my own immortality – I am immortal; • Is this real? -/- Instruction for reproducing the target result: sequence of actions and results in a subjective-psychic experiment (hereinafter referred to as SPE) -/- At a distance of 25-40 cm from the wall (so that the wall occupies the entire field of view or its overwhelming part), • Here and now, focus on your face: “I am” – reality (and not is the knowing about it). • In yourself step back and look out of yourself at this wall. • Without moving your head, cover the field of vision with your attention as wide as possible and at the same time perceive everything at once (all this) as a single whole. • Perceive a high and wide wall (option: look up at an angle of 135-150 degrees in front of you) in such a way that the space (volume) surveyed by you without turning your head is a closed asymmetrical “lens” • limited in a circle in the periphery of the field of view, • convex in you; You – the beholder, rearwards concave in self (“subject”) – which one of you are watching? • Without moving your head, perceive the field of view as a single whole –» • Into yourself “draw in” –» “backing away” –» step back from everything –» • lean back into yourself –» up to dead-end limit –» • become a dead end itself – a concave (reflector-like) limit-plane. • You – into yourself – backward concave – a perceiving visual screen (limit-dead end), plane –» • lean back and press –» • something in general somehow inside the dead-end plane and behind the dead-end plane, as well as “inside” and “behind”, “behind the dead-end plane” – unreality; • myself – a dead-end plane without thickness (depth), without “inside”, without a reverse side for oneself. • –» That is, as a psychic reality (what is it psychically) will I die? –» or • Something there is, and that is I will die (it is possible); or • I am such that there is nothing to die, but I – am. or • Subjective-psychic experiment is incomplete… • –» Realize that this is reality (realize the reality of it) and emphasize (answer). -/- As a result, “I” am, but there is nothing to die/not to die, that is, the hypothesis “I will die” is unrealistic. -/- Remarks -/- • Each completed SPE is completed with the target result: “I am such that there is nothing to die, but I – am”. And the that what I will die (not excluded) does not correspond to this, that is unreality and is excluded by this. • But I am not such that I will not die. The concepts “I will die/ I will not die” to me, as a psyche are not applicable. That is, I, as a psyche, is immortal, but I am not eternal (not eternal – endlessly lasting, such that there is something to last) – to last, to be eternal and to end there is nothing. This is “immortality”. • In the target result of this work, I – am, but such that there is nothing to die/not die (“immortality”). And such a “I” is not the Atman of the Hindu schools of Nyaya, Vaisheshika and Purva Mimamsa, which E.A. Torchinov. Since the “I” – psychic, and not a substance with the psyche as an attributes. • According to illusionism, what I am as a result of the experiment given in the work is an illusion. And the impression of immortality is a product of the brain. But in reality I am such that I will die (it is not excluded). However, it is necessary to realize that illusionism is a detached reasoning about the “I”, but not is the self itself. And to what I am (as psiche), reasoning and questions about the reality of the “I” (for example, question: am I really like this, what am I like as psyche?) and other expressing illusionism do not correspond. That is, subjectively (psychic, in the psychic reality of the “first person”, in first person perspective), the illusionism of the “I” is unreality. Subjectively (psychic, in the psychic reality of the “first person”, in first person perspective), this is undeniable and final. • Reasoning about what such a “I” is in this (mine) or not in this brain, as well as (for example, holding a real skull in my hands), questions like “how (or, but now where is it here) such “I” – how is it after brain death?” – To the fact that is such an “I” these questions do not correspond and is falsified by this. • After being unconscious, the impression remains that I'm is not and that there is nothing at all. That is, my “unconsciousness” is psychic indistinguishable from my non-existence. However, science has not shown, but and it is not excluded that before and after I exist physically (there is something to die), I still or I no longer exist, there is still or nothing to die as a soul, substance, or otherwise. But what I am in the target result of this work is what I – am, and not “died and already now or still unreality” and I am such that there is nothing to die, this is – reality. That is, I will die? – there is nothing (to die), but I – am (reality), even if I am not (don’t exist). Or I do not exist as something. • I am such that there is nothing to be and die, but I am. And subjectively (psychic, in the psychic reality of the “first person”, in first person perspective), this immortality is – reality. But this reality eludes my rational explanation. -/- Conclusion -/- Will I die? – In the target result the I am, but at the same time I am such that there is nothing to die. That is, I am immortal, but at the same time, I am not eternal (“I” not something eternal (endlessly continuing)) – I am such that to be eternal there is nothing. And, if we accept the subjective (psychic, “first person”, in first person perspective) reality without trying to understand it rationally, then I am exactly like that – I realize that this is my undoubted nature. That is, “I will die / I will not die” is an unreality. Subjectively (psychic, in the psychic reality of the “first person”, in first person perspective), it is undoubted and final. Despite the unscientific nature, this work is a way of mastering reality. The author would be grateful for the identified and shown unreality of the fact that the “I” – am, but such that there is nothing to die, and ideally, the awareness: “I will die (not excluded).” -/- Bibliography -/- Декарт Р., Размышления о первой философии //Декарт Р. Соч.: В 2 т. Т. 2. М., 1994. Лекторский В.А. Субъект в истории философии: проблемы и достижения // Методология и история психологии. 2010. Том 5. Выпуск 1. С. 5-18. Титлин Л.И. Проблема субъекта в индийской философии («Пудгалавинишчая» Васубандху) [Текст] / [Л. И. Титлин]; Федеральное государственное бюджетное учреждение науки Институт философии Российской академии наук. – Москва: ОнтоПринт: Сделано-Сказано, 2018. – 361, [1] с. Тхостов A. Ш. Культурно-историческая патопсихология: монография, – М.: Канон+ РООИ «Реабилитация», 2020. – 320 с. Торчинов Е.А. «Словарик индуизма» (Дата написания: 2003; дата файла: 15.06.2007). Торчинов Е.А. Пути философии Востока и Запада: познание запредельного — СПб.: «Азбука-классика», «Петербургское Востоковедение», 2005. — 480 с. ISBN 5-352-01371-5 (Азбука-классика) ISBN 5-85803-258-3 (Петербургское Востоковедение). -/- Скончаюсь? – я бессмертен (как осознать бессмертие «от первого лица») -/- Скончаюсь? В качестве гипотезы в моем естественно-научном понимании психическое (каково психически), это не более чем, и исключительно только всего лишь некоторые состояния моего живого мозга – скончаюсь в результате его смерти. -/- В представленном ответе психическое – сама собственная непосредственная реальность, то есть, то, каково психически, это – несомненно. -/- Данная работа выполнена в реальности «первого лица» («субъективная реальность», «феноменальное сознание»). Чтобы осознать то, как, каково это, представим себя экспериментатором, который не подменяет реальность рассуждениями о ней. – Теперь для нас, как экспериментаторов, то, как (каково) психически, это непосредственная и несомненная реальность. И осознание «я есть», это непосредственная реальность, а не знание об этом, которое всегда сомнительно. То есть, в психической реальности, на вопрос, заданный самой этой психической реальностью самой себе о себе самой, нам ничто не запрещает ответить несомненно и окончательно. Автор действует с позиции «быть в реальности – не выходить за ее пределы, например, в философию» (философия, включая методологию, это подмена самой реальности всегда сомнительными рассуждениями о реальности) – исследует феноменальное сознание («психическое») непосредственно и в качестве непосредственной реальности. То есть, данная работа, это овладение психической реальностью посредством субъективно-психического экспериментирования – не философствуй, а экспериментируй! -/- Например Декарт, интроспективно экспериментируя в собственной психической реальности с собственным психическим, сообщил нам о неизменности «ума» и предложил эту неизменность понять в качестве нашего собственного бессмертия: «ум не представляет какого-то соединения акциденций, являет собой чистую субстанцию и, хотя все его акциденции подвержены изменению — он то понимает какие-то вещи, то желает другие или чувствует третьи и т.д.,— тем не менее сам по себе он не изменяется; а что касается тела человека, то оно изменяется хотя бы уже потому, что подвержены изменению формы некоторых его частей. Из этого следует, что тело весьма легко погибает, ум же по самой природе своей бессмертен» /Декарт Р., стр. 13. Заметим, Декарт не осознавал себя бессмертным, а логически вывел собственное бессмертие из неизменности ума. Однако, неизменный «ум» Декарта таков, что скончаться есть чему. А в моем естественно-научном понимании из неизменности ума не следует его бессмертие – он, не изменяясь в своем субъективном само-восприятии, при этом мгновенно угаснув в результате смерти мозга, скончается. Психически (психическое) – обозначение того, что это сама собственная непосредственная реальность (то есть – несомненно) – то, как (каково) я сам непосредственно, несомненно, и та моя непосредственная реальность, как и посредством чего я сам и всё вообще для меня есть, и которое для меня исключительно единственное. Следует заметить, что пока бываю без сознания (травма мозга или сон без сновидений), ничего и никак нет вообще. -/- Но это не значит, что «я» ушедши в небытие окончательно – скончаюсь. Этим не исключено, что таковой ушедший в небытие «я» не существую, но (при этом) есть. Итак, определим бессмертие, как невозможность скончаться потому, что скончаться нечему (например, если «умерший» психически есть, но уже таков, что скончаться больше нечему, то теперь он бессмертен) и сделаем важный для данной работы вывод: если психически я исключительно только таков, что скончаться есть чему и ни каков иначе, то, следовательно, то, что скончаюсь, это не исключено. Но таков ли я? Идея данной работы в том, что мне удастся проявить (выявить) и осознать себя таковым (я таков), что скончаться нечему, но (при этом) я есть. Иначе выражаясь, если я подойду предвзято и действуя целеустремленно, выявлю субъективную реальность «я есть, но таков, что скончаться нечему» – то смерть мне, как психическому несвойственна, то есть, я бессмертен – гипотеза возможности субъективно скончаться («я скончаюсь») будет фальсифицирована и исключена. -/- Чтобы это реализовать в работе предлагается воспользоваться субъект-объектной моделью, сдвинуть границу «я» в полюс субъекта и стать безобъектным, проявившись (выявившись) собой таковым, что скончаться нечему. Следовательно, цель работы – осознать: я таков, что есть, но скончаться нечему. Стать безобъектным и задаваясь вопросом о возможности скончаться, или исключу бессмертие проявленного состояния, или проявлюсь (выявлюсь) бессмертным несомненно и окончательно. -/- При этом, я, как субъект, являюсь «необходимым полюсом субъектно-объектных отношений. … Объект – то, на что направлена активность … субъекта. … В действительности объектом может стать все, что существует. … важно иметь в виду тот принципиальный факт, что объект всегда внеположен субъекту, не сливается с ним. Эта внеположность имеет место и тогда, когда субъект имеет дело с состояниями собственного сознания, своим Я … важно подчеркнуть, что отношение субъекта и объекта – это не отношение двух разных миров, а лишь двух полюсов в составе некоторого единства» /Лекторский В.А., стр. 6-7. То есть, всё, что нахожу в себе существующим, это (таковое) есть в качестве объекта. «Субъект – всегда относится ко всем «объектам», но он никогда не может стать объектом для самого себя» /Титлин Л.И., стр. 23. Иначе это выражая – «ты не сможешь увидеть видящего видение…» /Титлин Л.И., стр. 40, и в данной модели таковое предполагает «предел» субъекта. Как предел субъекта я «безобъектен». То есть, «идеален» – своим (собственным) пределом (в качестве собственного предела) самим для себя не существую (несуществующий). -/- Используя «факт подвижности границ субъекта» /например, Тхостов А.Ш., стр. 16, я имею возможность границу «я» в себя-назад «втянуть» и стать собственным пределом. При этом необходимо осознать и принять, что внутри предела субъекта и сзади – «за пределом субъекта», и вообще само «внутри» и «сзади» в этой модели – нереальность. Таким субъектным пределом предполагается требуемое парадоксальное субъективное состояние – я есть и вижу, но при этом я таков, что для себя не существую, то есть, я есть, но (психически таков, что) умереть нечему («бессмертие»). -/- Соответственно, в эксперименте обозначаются следующие задачи: 1. В объект-субъектной сфере зрительного восприятия сдвинуть (и сдвинув) границу «я» в себя-назад –» упереться в собственный предел и стать самим собственным пределом (без толщены: без глубины, без «внутри» и без обратной стороны) –» 2. Став собственным пределом, которым есть, но для себя не существую (несуществующий), осознать: • Себя – я есть и это реально; • Скончаюсь? – есть ли чему скончаться или скончаться нечему, какой из вариантов мне (как психическому «я») свойственен: • или я таков, что то, что скончаюсь не исключено, и реализованное состояние не бессмертно; • или я есть, но таков, что скончаться нечему, то есть, собственное бессмертие – я бессмертен; • Реальность ли это. -/- Инструкция воспроизведения целевого результата: последовательность действий и результатов в субъективно-психическом эксперименте (далее СПЭ) -/- На расстоянии 25-40 см от стены (так, чтобы стена занимала всё поле зрения или его подавляющую часть), • Здесь и сейчас сосредоточьтесь на своём лице: «я есть» – реальность (а не знание об этом). • В себе отстранитесь назад и смотрите из себя на эту стену. • Не двигая головой, охватите поле зрения вниманием предельно широко и одновременно всё сразу (всё это) воспримите единым целым. • Высокую и широкую стену (вариант: смотрите вверх под углом 135-150 градусов перед собой) воспримите так, что обозреваемое вами без поворота головы пространство (объем), это – ограниченная по окружности в периферии поля зрения замкнутая несимметричная «линза» • плоская с противоположной вам стороны • и выпуклая в вас; Вы – вогнутый в себя-назад смотрящий («субъект») – каков? – кто из вас сейчас на всё это смотрит? • Не двигая головой, поле зрения воспримите единым целым –» • В себя-назад «втянитесь» –» и «пятьтесь» –» «за мысли» и за всё вообще –» из этого всего назад вытесняясь –» от всего вообще взад отстранитесь –» • собой в себя-назад подайтесь и упершись в собственный (себя) задний к объектному обращённый (развернутый) тупиковый предел –» • станьте самим пределом-тупиком – в себя-назад вогнутой (рефлектор-подобной) пределом-плоскостью смотрящей – воспринимающим зрительным экраном –» станьте плоскостью-тупиком –» • «проскользните» по себе – плоскости-тупику и охватите вниманием целиком –» • собой – самим плоскостью-тупиком назад надавить, нажать –» • осознать: что-то как-то внутри плоскости-тупика и сзади за плоскостью-тупиком, и там вообще «что-то как-то», а также само «внутри» и «сзади», «за плоскостью-тупиком» и вообще «там» – нереальность; • самого себя – плоскости-тупика без толщины (глубины), без «внутри», без обратной стороны для себя нет. • –» То есть – в качестве психической реальности (каково психически) я скончаюсь? –» или • скончаться есть чему – скончаюсь (не исключено). или • я таков, что скончаться нечему, но я есть. или • субъективно-психический эксперимент не завершён. • –» Осознайте, что это – реальность (осознать реальность этого) и подчеркните (ответ). -/- В результате я есть, но скончаться/не скончаться нечему, то есть гипотеза «скончаюсь» – нереальность. -/- Замечания -/- • Каждый завершённый СПЭ завершён целевым результатом: «я таков, что скончаться нечему, но я есть». И тому, каков я в результате СПЭ, то, что скончаться есть чему – скончаюсь (не исключено) не соответствует, то есть нереальность и этим исключено. • То есть, я и не таков, что не скончаюсь. «Я скончаюсь/не скончаюсь» ко мне, как к психике, неприменимо. Иначе это выражая, тому, каков я, смерть несвойственна. То есть, я, как психика (психическое), бессмертен, но я не вечен (не вечный – бесконечно длящийся, таковой, что есть чему длиться) – длиться, быть вечным и не скончаться нечему. Таково «бессмертие». • В целевом результате данной работы я есть, но таков, что скончаться/не скончаться нечему («бессмертие»). И таковой «я» не Атман индуистских школ ньяя, вайшешика и пурва-миманса, о котором сообщает Е.А. Торчинов. Так как «я» психичен, а не субстанция с психическим в качестве атрибута. • Согласно иллюзионизму, то, каков я в результате данного в работе эксперимента, это иллюзия. И впечатление бессмертия, это порождение мозга. А реально я таков, что скончаюсь (не исключено). Однако, необходимо осознать, что иллюзионизм, это отстраненные рассуждения о «я», но не сам я непосредственно. И тому, каков я психически (каково психически), рассуждения и вопросы о реальности «я» (например, таков ли я реально, каков психически?) и другие выражающие иллюзионизм «я» не соответствуют. То есть, каково психически, иллюзионизм «я» – нереальность. Психически, это несомненно и окончательно. • Рассуждения о том, что таковой «я» в этом (моем) или не в этом мозге, а также (например, держа в руках реальный череп), вопросы, типа «а как же (или, но теперь где же здесь) таковой «я» – как это после смерти мозга?» тому, каков таковой «я» эти вопросы не соответствуют. • После пребывания без сознания остается впечатление, что без сознания меня нет и ничего никак нет вообще. То есть, моё «бессознание» психически неотличимо от моего несуществования (небытия). Однако, наукой не показано и не исключено то, что до и после того, как я есть физически (скончаться есть чему), меня ещё или уже нет, скончаться ещё или уже нечему в качестве души, субстанции или как-то иначе. Но, то, каков я в целевом результате данной работы, таковой я есть, а не «скончался и уже теперь или ещё нереальность» и я таков, что скончаться нечему – реален (реалия). То есть, скончаюсь? – нечему (скончаться), но я есть, даже если меня нет (не существую). • Я таков, что быть и скончаться нечему, но я есть. И то, как (каково) психически, это бессмертие – реальность. Но эта реальность ускользает от моего рационального её объяснения. -/- Заключение -/- Скончаюсь? – в целевом результате я есть и вижу, но при этом я таков, что умереть (скончаться) нечему. То есть, я бессмертен, но при этом я не вечен (не нечто вечное (бесконечно длящееся)) – быть вечным нечему. И, если принять психическое реальностью не пытаясь понять это рационально, то я именно таков – осознаю, что такова моя несомненная для меня природа. То есть, «скончаюсь/не скончаюсь» – нереальность. Психически, это несомненно и окончательно. Несмотря на ненаучность, данная работа – способ овладения реальностью. Автор был бы признателен за выявленную и показанную нереальность целевого результата данной работы, а в идеале, за осознание: «скончаюсь (не исключено)». -/- Annex 2. The key essence of this work (only in Russian to convey the nuances without distortion) -/- Performed, expressed and transmitted initially by means of Russian, the native language of the author, and, in order to avoid distortions in the correspondence of the linguistic nuances of the reproduced subjective reality, it assumes an independent translation into the language of the experimenter by the experimenter himself in the process of reproducing the target result of this work. -/- «Я» скончаюсь? – нечему (скончаться), но «Я» есть. Will “I” die (decease)? – to die (decease) nothing, but “I” am. -/- Заметить: • Выполнено, выражено и передано изначально посредством русского – родного для автора языка и, чтобы избежать искажений соответствия языковых нюансов воспроизводимой психической реальности, предполагается самостоятельный перевод на язык экспериментатора самим экспериментатором в процессе воспроизведения целевого результата данной работы. • В «кавычки» взяты слова и выражения, требующие «субъективного» приведения в соответствие психическому содержанию. Подготовка: • Вам потребуется уединённое место (там, где вас не отвлекут). • На первоначальном этапе понадобится некоторое (возможно длительное) время для того, чтобы усвоить предложенный алгоритм действий в психической реальности в процессе реализации и воспроизвести целевой результат впервые. • Возможно, результату поспособствует отклонение от предложенного алгоритма «психических действий», импровизация в направлении целевого результата. • В процессе эксперимента количество попыток не ограничено и затраченное на это время не имеет значения. Необходим исключительно только именно целевой результат. Реализация: • В уединении встать перед плоской широкой и высокой (достаточно большой, чтобы её границы были на периферии вашего поля зрения) стеной, например, покрытой однородной светлой (но не белой) керамической, не глянцевой (не отражающей на вас свет или отвлекающих внимание изображений, не дающей бликов) плиткой с лёгким текстурным рисунком (позволяющим глазам «зацепиться» за стену и отчётливо воспринимать перед собой поверхность, а не «утонуть» в однородном (монотонном) пространстве), на расстоянии 25-40 см от неё (так, чтобы стена занимала всё поле зрения или его подавляющую часть) –» • Скончаюсь (1)? – каково психически (психическое), в моем естественно-научном понимании – это (я) не более чем и исключительно только некоторые состояния функционирующего (живого) мозга – скончаюсь, как и уже скончался каждый умерший мозг – того каждого, кто скончался, как реальности (реального, реалии) (2) уже теперь нет окончательно. Теоретически, если психически я исключительно только таков, что скончаться есть чему и ни каков иначе, то, следовательно, что (я) скончаюсь, это не исключено. • Глядя на стену, здесь и сейчас сосредоточиться на своём лице (и осознать): «я есть» – реальность (а не знание об этом) –» • В себе «отстраниться» назад – смотрю из себя на эту стену –» • Не двигая головой, охватить поле зрения вниманием предельно широко (поднять (вздернуть) брови, если это расширит поле зрения) и одновременно всё сразу (всё это) воспринять единым целым –» • Высокую и широкую стену (вариант: смотреть вверх под углом 135-150 градусов перед собой) воспринять так, что обозреваемое без поворота головы пространство (объем), это – ограниченная по окружности в периферии поля зрения замкнутая несимметричная «линза» • плоская (ограниченная стеной) с противоположной мне стороны • и «выпуклая в меня» –» • Я – «вогнутый» в «себя-назад» смотрящий, каков? – кто из меня сейчас на всё это смотрит? –» • Не двигая головой, поле зрения воспринять единым целым –» • в себя-назад «втянуться» –» и «пятиться» –» «за мысли» и за всё вообще –» из этого всего назад «вытесняясь» –» от всего вообще «взад отстраниться» –» • «собой» в себя-назад «податься» и «упершись» в «собственный (себя) задний к объектному обращённый (развернутый)» «предел тупиковый» («тупо-уперто») –» • «стать» самим «пределом-тупиком» – «в себя-назад вогнутой (рефлектор-подобной)» «пределом-плоскостью» смотрящей – воспринимающим «зрительным экраном» –» стать «плоскостью-тупиком» –» • «проскользнуть» по себе – плоскости-тупику и охватить вниманием целиком –» • собой — самим плоскостью-тупиком «назад надавить, нажать»: • осознать: «что-то как-то внутри плоскости-тупика» и «сзади – за плоскостью-тупиком», и «там вообще» «что-то как-то», а также само «внутри» и «сзади», «за плоскостью-тупиком» и вообще «там» – нереальность; • самого себя – плоскости-тупика без толщины (глубины), без «внутри», без обратной стороны для себя нет –» Собой – плоскостью-тупиком: • без глубины (толщины), без «внутри», без обратной стороны таков, что скончаться есть чему – скончаюсь (не исключено) –» • смотрю –» смотря –» «Непосредственно-психически» -/- Заметить: • Специфику используемых в данной работе слов (терминов), названий и выражений необходимо осознать в соответствии с (4.1.) (данный пункт смотрите ниже). • Необходимо от себя – (как) «смотрящего плоскости-тупика», такового, что скончаться есть чему, оттождествиться собой — «самим психическим» (каково психически) (3) –» • –» «отличить (4)» «Я» –» «Я-лик». • Отличив, и себя такового обозначая, но не имея в языке отличающего местоимения, именую «Я» (5). • «Соединённое-через-дефис-в-кавычках» реализовать и/или воспринять «одним-единым-целостным»; • Последовательность слов и знаков предполагает последовательность психических действий (алгоритм действий в собственном психическом); • Вопросительность слова, фразы или отдельной её, именно вопросительной части задаётся знаком «?» расположенным перед и после них. Требование к действию задаётся знаком «!» расположенным перед и после слова (фразы); • Субъективно-психический эксперимент завершён, если воспроизведен (4.1.), иначе субъективно-психический эксперимент не завершён. -/- Собой – плоскостью-тупиком … смотрю –» смотря –» -/- «Психически» (6) 1. ?кто? видит –» !отличить «Я»! –» 2. –» !«Я-видящий-лик»! –» 3. –» !«Я-лик»! –» 4. –» !«Я-ликом» всем «психически-назад-надавить(нажать)»: «Я» ?скончаюсь?! –» !«Я-ликом» всем «психически-назад-давить(жать)»: (4.1.) – нечему (7), но «Я» есть.! -/- Признательность: Согласно иллюзионизму, то, каков «Я» (как (каково) «скончаться нечему, но «Я» есть.»), реально, это не так (не таково). То есть, таковой «Я» нереален (нереальность), а реально – таков, что скончаюсь (не исключено). Однако, необходимо осознать, что это «отстраненные» от «Я» рассуждения о «Я», но не сам «Я» непосредственно. И тому, каков «Я» (как (каково) скончаться нечему, но «Я» есть.) таковое (рассуждения) не соответствует. То есть, эти рассуждения о «Я» – заблуждение. Это (как осознание) несомненно и окончательно. Не так? – за выявленную и показанную нереальность (того, что) «Скончаюсь? – нечему (скончаться), но «Я» есть.», за показанную реальность того, что скончаться не исключено, а в идеале, за осознание: «скончаюсь (не исключено)» я был бы признателен. -/- (Сноски) (1) Именно «скончаюсь, скончался», то есть – как реальности (реального, реалии) нет окончательно. (2) Реалия, реально, реален, реальность, реальное – само то, что (каково это) непосредственно, как само таковое – само то, каково познаваемое и как-либо моделируемое вне его познания и иного (вообще) моделирования. То есть, само само-осознание себя реальностью, например, «я-реалия», «я есть» или «скончаться – нечему, но «Я» есть.» – реальность. То есть – нам ничто не запрещает ответить на вопрос «скончаюсь?» несомненно и окончательно. (3) Психически (психическое) – то, как (каково) я сам непосредственно, несомненно, и та моя непосредственная реальность, как и посредством чего я сам и всё вообще для меня есть, и которое для меня исключительно единственное. Следует заметить, что пока бываю без сознания (травма мозга или сон без сновидений), ничего и никак нет вообще. Также само обозначение того, что это сама собственная непосредственная реальность (то есть – несомненно). И чтобы её осознать, представьте себя экспериментатором, который не подменяет реальность рассуждениями о ней. – Теперь для вас, как экспериментатора, то, как (каково) психически, это – несомненно (непосредственная несомненная реальность). Не философствуй (не рассуждай, не моделируй её), а экспериментируй! (4) «Я-Лик» – специфическое выражение, соответствующее психическому в данный момент СПЭ. (5) «Я» – целевой (конечный, «предельный») и «ключевой» результат данной работы. «Я» в данной работе не склоняется, выделено полужирным подчеркнутым шрифтом и заключено в кавычки. (6) «Каково психически» – то, как (каково) «Я» сам непосредственно, несомненно – само «первое лицо» (субъект психического), а также обозначение принятия позиции «первого лица» и сообщения «от первого лица». (7) Пока я бываю без сознания («бессознание», например, сплю без сновидений), моего сознания нет (оно сведено на нет, угасло) – ничего и никак нет вообще (это моё абсолютное небытие) – (каково) психически, мне скончаться нечем. А в целевом результате данной работы, психически (то есть – непосредственно), «Я» таков, что скончаться не нечем, а именно нечему, но при этом «Я» есть. (shrink)

TWENTIETH-CENTURY ETHICS. AFTER NIETZSCHE -/- Preface This book tells the story of twentieth-century ethics or, in more detail, it reconstructs the history of a discussion on the foundations of ethics which had a start with Nietzsche and Sidgwick, the leading proponents of late-nineteenth-century moral scepticism. During the first half of the century, the prevailing trends tended to exclude the possibility of normative ethics. On the Continent, the trend was to transform ethics into a philosophy of existence whose self-appointed task (...) was that of describing the human condition as consisting of choices, as unavoidable as arbitrary, without any attempt at providing criteria for making such choices. In the Anglo-Saxon countries, the heir of ethics was a philosophy of morality, that is, an analysis of the language of morality that intended to clarify valuations without trying to justify them. 1958 was the year of the normative turn that led to the Rehabilitation of practical philosophy, a turn followed by decades of controversies between distinct kinds of normative ethics: utilitarian, Kantian, virtue ethics. While the controversy was raging, a quiet revolution took place, that of applied ethics which surprisingly dissolved the controversy's very subject matter by providing methods for making convergence possible on intermediate principles even when no agreement was available about first principles. The normative turn and the revolution of applied ethics have led us, at the turn of the century, to a goal that was quite far from the starting point. Instead of scepticism and relativism that was the fashion at the beginning of the century, at the beginning of the third millennium impartial and universal moral arguments seem to hold the spot being supported, if not by a final rational foundation, at least by reasonableness, the most precious legacy of the Enlightenment. -/- ● TABLE OF CONTENTS -/- ● I Anglo-Saxon philosophy: naturalism 1. Dewey beyond evolutionism and utilitarianism 2. Dewey and anti-essentialist moral epistemology 3. Dewey and naturalist moral ontology 4. Dewey and normative ethics of conduct and function 5. Perry and semantic naturalism -/- ● II Anglo-Saxon philosophy: ideal utilitarianism and neo-intuitionism 1. Moore's critique of utilitarian empiricism 2. Moore on the naturalistic fallacy 3. Moore on the nature of intrinsic value 4. Moore on ideal utilitarianism 5. Prichard on the priority of the right over the good 6. Ross's coherentist moral epistemology 7. Ross's moral ontology: realism, pluralism, and non-naturalism 8. Ross's normative ethics of prima facie duties -/- The chapter reconstructs the background of ideas, concerns and intentions out of which Moore's early essays, the preliminary version, and then the final version of Principia Ethica originated. It stresses the role of religious concerns, as well as that of the Idealist legacy. It argues that PE is more a patchwork of somewhat diverging contributions than a unitary work, not to say the paradigm of a new school in Ethics. -/- ●III Anglo-Saxon philosophy: non-cognitivism 1. The Scandinavian School, the Vienna circle and proto-emotivism 2. Wittgenstein and the ineffability of ethics 3. Russell's and Ayer's radical emotivism 4. Stevenson and moderate emotivism 5. Stevenson and the pragmatics of moral language 6. Stevenson and the methods for solving ethical disagreement 7. Hare and prescriptivism The chapter reconstructs first the discussion after Moore. The naturalistic-fallacy argument was widely accepted but twisted to prove instead that the intuitive character of the definition of 'good', its non-cognitive meaning, in a first phase identified with 'emotive' meaning. Alfred Julius Ayer is indicated as a typical proponent of such non-cognitivist meta-ethics. More detailed discussion is dedicated to Bertrand Russell's ethics, a more nuanced and sophisticated doctrine, arguing that non-cognitivism does not condemn morality to arbitrariness and that the project of rational normative ethics is still possible, heading finally to the justification of a kind of non-hedonist utilitarianism. Stevenson's theory, another moderate version of emotivism is discussed at some length, showing how the author comes close to the discovery of the role of a pragmatic dimension of language as a basis for ethical argument. A section reconstructs the discussion from the Forties about Hume's law, mentioning Karl Popper's argument and Richard Hare's early non-cognitivist but non-emotivist doctrine named prescriptivism. -/- ●IV Anglo-Saxon philosophy: critics of non-cognitivism 1. Neo-naturalism and its objections to the naturalistic fallacy argument 2. Objections to Hume's law 3. Clarence Lewis and the pragmatic contradiction 4. Toulmin and the good reasons approach 5. Baier and moral reasons 5. Baier, social moralities and the absolute morality 6. Baier and the moral point of view 7. Baier and the contents of absolute ethics -/- ● V Continental philosophy: the philosophy of values 1. Max Weber and the polytheism of values 2. Phenomenology against psychologism and rationalism 3. Reinach and the theory of social acts 4. Scheler and the material ethics of values 5. Hartmann and the ontology of values 6. Plessner, Gehlen and the Philosophische Anthropologie -/- The chapter illustrates first the idea of phenomenology and the Husserl's project of a phenomenological ethic as illustrated in his 1908-1914 lectures. The key idea is dismissing psychology and trying to ground a new science of the apriori of action, within which a more restricted field of inquiry will be the science of right actions. Then the chapter illustrates the criticism of modern moral philosophy conducted in the 1920 lectures, where the main target is naturalism, understood in the Kantian meaning of primacy of common sense. The third point illustrate is Adolph Reinach's theory of social acts as a key the grounding of norms, a view that sketches the ideas 'discovered' later by Clarence I. Lewis, John Searle, Karl-Otto Apel and Jürgen Habermas. A final section discusses Nicolai Hartman, who always refused to define himself a phenomenologist and yet developed a more articulated and detailed theory of 'values' – with surprising affinities with George E. Moore - than philosophers such as Max Scheler, who claimed to be Husserl's legitimate heirs. -/- ● VI Continental philosophy: the critics of the philosophy of values 1. Freud, the Superego and Civilization 2. Heidegger on original ethos against ethics 3. Sartre and de Beauvoir on authenticity and ambiguity 4. Adorno and Horkheimer on emancipation and immoralism -/- ●VII Post-liberal theologians and religious thinkers 1. Barth on the autonomy of faith from ethics 2. Developments of Reformed moral theology after Barth 3. Bonhoeffer on the concrete divine command and ethics of penultimate realities 4. Developments of Reformed and Catholic moral theology after world war II 5. Baeck and the transformation of liberal Judaism 6. Rosenzweig against liberal Judaism 7. Buber and religion as the vital lymph of morality 8. Heschel and Judaism as a science of actions -/- The chapter examines the main protagonists of Christian theology and Jewish religious thinking in the twentieth century. It stresses how the main dilemmas of contemporary philosophical ethics lie at the root of the various path of inquiry taken by these thinkers. -/- ● VIII Normative ethics: neo-Utilitarianism 1. The discussion on act and rule utilitarianism 2. Hare on two-tiered preference utilitarianism 3. Harsanyi, Gauthier and rational choice ethics 4. Parfit, utilitarianism and the idea of a person 5. Brandt and indirect conscience utilitarianism -/- The chapter addresses the issue of the complex process of self-transformation Utilitarianism underwent after Sidgwick's and Moore's fatal criticism and the unexpected Phoenix-like process of rebirth of a doctrine refuted. Two examples give the reader a glimpse at this uproarious process. The first is Roy Harrod Wittgensteinian transformation of utilitarianism in pure normative ethics depurated from hedonism as well as from whatsoever theory of the good. This transformation results in preference utilitarianism combined with a 'Kantian' version of rule utilitarianism. The second is Richard Hare's two-level preference utilitarianism, where act utilitarianism plays the function of the eventual rational justification of moral judgments and rule-utilitarianism that of an action-guiding practical device. -/- ● IX Normative ethics: neo-Aristotelianism and virtue ethics 1. Hannah Arendt, action and judgement 2. Hans-Georg Gadamer and phronesis 3. Alasdair MacIntyre on practices, virtues, and traditions 5. Stuart Hampshire on deliberation 6. Bernard Williams and moral complexity 7. Feminist ethics -/- Sect 1 reconstructs the post-war rediscovery of ethics by many German thinkers and its culmination in the Sixties in the movement named 'Rehabilitation of practical philosophy' is described. Heidegger's most brilliant disciples were the promoters of this Rehabilitation. Hans-Georg Gadamer is a paradigmatic example. His reading of Aristotle's lesson I reconstructed, starting with Heidegger's lesson but then subtly subverting its outcome thanks to the recovery of the significant role of the notion of phronesis. Sect 3 discusses the three theses defended by Anscombe in 'Modern Moral Philosophy'. It argues that: a) her answer to the question "why should I be moral?" requires a solution of the problem of theodicy, and ignores any attempts to save the moral point of view without recourse to divine retribution; b) her notion of divine law is an odd one more neo-Augustinian than Biblical or Scholastic; c) her image of Kantian ethics and intuitionism is the impoverished image manufactured by consequentialist opponents for polemical purposes and that she seems strangely accept it; d) the difficulty of identifying the "relevant descriptions" of acts is not an argument in favour of an ethics of virtue and against consequentialism or Kantian ethics, and indeed the role of judgment in the latter is a response to the difficulties raised by the case of judgment concerning future action. The chapter gives a short look at further developments in the neo-naturalist current trough a reconstruction of Philippa Foot's and Peter Geach's critiques to the naturalist-fallacy argument and Alasdair MacIntyre's grand reconstruction of the origins and allegedly inevitable failure of the Enlightenment project of an autonomous ethic. -/- ● X Normative ethics: Kantian and rights-based ethics 1. Dialogical constructivism 2. Apel, Habermas and discourse ethics 3. Gewirth and rights-based ethics 4. Nagel on agent-relative reasons 5. Donagan and persons as ends in themselves Parallel to the neo-Aristotelian trend, there was in the Rehabilitation of practical philosophy a Kantian current. This current started with the discovery of the pragmatic dimension of language carried out by Charles Peirce and the Oxford linguistic philosophy. On this basis, Karl-Otto Apel singled out as the decisive proponent of the linguistic and Kantian turn in German-speaking ethics, worked out the performative-contradiction argument while claiming that this was able to provide a new rational and universal basis for normative ethics. The chapter offers an examination of his argument in some detail, followed by a more cursory reconstruction of Jürgen Habermas's elaboration on Apel's theory. -/- ● XI The applied ethics renaissance 1. Elisabeth Anscombe on the atom bomb 2. From medical ethics to bioethics 3. Rawls and public ethics 3. Nozick, Dworkin and further developments of public ethics 5. Sen and the revival of economic ethics -/- The chapter presents the revolution of applied ethics while stressing its methodological novelty, exemplified primarily by Beauchamp and Childress principles approach and then by Jonsen and Toulmin's new casuistry. The chapter argues that Rawls's distinction between a "political" and a "metaphysical" approach to the theory of justice, one central part of ethical theory, is a formulation of the same basic idea at the root of both the principles approach and the new casuistry, both discussed in the following chapter. The idea is that it is possible to reach an agreement concerning positive moral judgments even though the discussion is still open – and in Rawls' view never will be close – on the essential criteria for judgment. -/- ● XII Fin-de-siècle metaethics 1. Deontic logics 2. Anti-realism 3. External realism 4. Internal realism 5. Kantian constructivism -/- The chapter illustrates the fresh start of meta-ethical discussion in the Eighties and Nineties and the resulting new alignments: metaphysical naturalism, internal realism, anti-realism, and constructivism. (shrink)

⦿ In my dissertation I introduce, motivate and take the first steps in the implementation of, the project of naturalising modal metaphysics: the transformation of the field into a chapter of the philosophy of science rather than speculative, autonomous metaphysics. -/- ⦿ In the introduction, I explain the concept of naturalisation that I apply throughout the dissertation, which I argue to be an improvement on Ladyman and Ross' proposal for naturalised metaphysics. I also object to Williamson's proposal that modal metaphysics (...) --- or some view in the area --- is already a quasi-scientific discipline. -/- ⦿ Recently, some philosophers have argued that the notion of metaphysical modality is as ill defined as to be of little theoretical utility. In the second chapter I intend to contribute to such skepticism. First, I observe that each of the proposed marks of the concept, except for factivity, is highly controversial; thus, its logical structure is deeply obscure. With the failure of the "first principles" approach, I examine the paradigmatic intended applications of the concept, and argue that each makes it a device for a very specific and controversial project: a device, therefore, for which a naturalist will find no use for. I conclude that there is no well-defined or theoretically useful notion of objective necessity other than logical or physical necessity, and I suggest that naturalising modal metaphysics can provide more stable methodological foundations. -/- ⦿ In the third chapter I answer a possible objection against the in-principle viability of the project: that the concept of metaphysical modality cannot be understood through the philosophical analysis of any scientific theory, since metaphysical necessity "transcends'' natural necessity, and science only deals with the latter. I argue that the most important arguments for this transcendence thesis fail or face problems that, as of today, remain unsolved. -/- ⦿ Call the idea that science doesn't need modality, "demodalism''. Demodalism is a first step in a naturalistic argument for modal antirealism. In the fourth chapter I examine six versions of demodalism to explain why a family of formalisms, that I call "spaces of possibility'', are (i) used in a quasi-ubiquitous way in mathematised sciences (I provide examples from theoretical computer science to microeconomics), (ii) scientifically interpreted in modal terms, and (iii) used for at least six important tasks: (1) defining laws and theories; (2) defining important concepts from different sciences (I give several examples); (3) making essential classifications; (4) providing different types of explanations; (5) providing the connection between theory and statistics, and (6) understanding the transition between a theory and its successor (as is the case with quantisation). -/- ⦿ In fifth chapter I propose and defend a naturalised modal ontology. This is a realism about modal structure: my realism about constraints. The modal structure of a system are the relationships between its possible states and between its possible states and those of other systems. It is given by the plurality of restrictions to which said system is subject. A constraint is a factor that explains the impossibility of a class of states; I explain this concept further. First, I defend my point of view by rejecting some of its main rivals: constructive empiricism, Humean conventionalism, and wave function realism, as they fail to make sense of quantum chaos. This is because the field requires the notion of objective modal structure, and the mentioned views have trouble explaining the modal facts of quantum dynamics. Then, I argue that constraint realism supersedes these views in the context of Bohm's standard theory and mechanics, and underpins the study of quantum chaos. Finally, I consider and reject two possible problems for my point of view. -/- ⦿ A central concern of modal metaphysicians has been to understand the logical system that best characterises necessity. In the sixth chapter I intend to recover the logical project applied to my naturalistic modal metaphysics. Scientists and philosophers of science accept different degrees of physical necessity, ranging from purely mathematically necessary facts that restrict physical behaviour, to kinetic principles, to particular dynamical constraints. I argue that this motivates a multimodal approach to modal logic, and that the time dependence of dynamics motivates a logic of historical necessity. I propose multimodal propositional (classical) logics for Bohmian mechanics and the Everettian theory of many divergent worlds, and I close with a criticism of Williamson's approach to the logic of state spaces of dynamic systems. (shrink)

The verifiability principle was the characteristic claim of a group of thinkers who called themselves the Vienna Circle and who formed the philosophical movement now known as logical positivism. The verifiability principle is an empiricist criterion of meaning which declares that only statements that are verifiable by —i.e., logically deducible from— observational statements are cognitively meaningful. -/- This essay is a short introduction to the philosophical movement of logical positivism and its formulation of the verifiability principle. Its primary aim is (...) to provide students of philosophy with an accessible first overview of this philosophical movement. -/- After pointing out some aspects of the philosophical background of logical positivism (section 1), I will comment on the reasoning that lead these authors to formulate the verifiability principle (section 2), and I will analyse the debate about how to understand observational language and how observational statements (the so-called ‘protocol statements’) are verified (section 3). I will also comment on the two main consequences of accepting the verifiability principle: the conception of philosophy as the task of logical analysis and the project of unified science (section 4), and I will explain the different views on ethical language defended by logical positivists (section 5). I will end this essay by identifying the main problems of the verifiability principle and I will explain the core ideas of Carnap’s confirmability criterion, which attempts to resolve these problems (section 6 and 7). (shrink)

I discuss how Aristotle’s formulation of the problem of moral luck relates to his natural philosophy. I review well-known passages from Nicomachean Ethics I/X and Eudemian Ethics I/VII and Physics II, but in the main focus on EE VII 14 (= VIII 2). I argue that Aristotle’s position there (rejecting the elimination of luck, but reducing luck so far as possible to incidental natural and intelligent causes) is not only consistent with his treatment of luck in Physics II, but is (...) to be expected, given that the dialectical path of EE VII 14 runs exactly parallel to that of Physics II 4-6. Although Aristotle resolves some issues that he raises, he cannot avoid the problem of constitutive moral luck that, as Thomas Nagel puts it, pertains to ‘the kind of person you are, where this is not just a question of what you deliberately do, but of your inclinations, capacities, and temperament’. The problem for Aristotle follows not only from his ethical positions, but also directly from his more general physical and political principles and assumptions. Furthermore, the problem touches the very essence of Aristotle’s moral theory. (shrink)

Nietzsche’s Ecce homo, Notebooks and Letters: 1888-1889 / Translation by Daniel Fidel Ferrer. ©2023 Daniel Fidel Ferrer. All rights reserved. -/- Ecce homo: How One Becomes What One Is (Ecce homo: Wie man wird, was man ist). -/- Who should read Nietzsche? You can disagree with everything Nietzsche wrote and re-read Nietzsche to sharpen your attack. Philosophy. Not for use without adult supervision (required). Philosophy is a designated area for adults only. Read at your own risk. You have the pleasure (...) of reading and of course disagree with all philosophy. Warning philosophical ideas are present. Reading Nietzsche does not mean you will gain anything, in fact, you might lose your previous ideas. -/- Nietzsche does not call this book an autobiography (he has written many short autobiographical sketches before); but rather, uses the expression “I tell myself my life”. -/- Nietzsche was the past philosopher who wrote about our future, “The time is coming when the struggle for the domination of the earth will be waged - it will be waged in the name of basic philosophical doctrines.” KGWB/NF-1881, 11[273]. The world has seen plenty of wars and death, since 1881. The process of the domination of the earth and world is still on-going. -/- What is Nietzsche’s overall project with Ecce homo? -/- Main Leitmotifs in Ecce homo. -/- Christianity as the denial of the will to life, revaluation of all values (Umwerthung aller Werthe), Amor fati, Dionysus as a god and his philosophy (future project for Nietzsche), overthrowing idols, two worlds (“true world" finally became a fable) against Plato eternal world and forms, eternal recurrence or the eternal return of the same (Nietzsche heaviest thought, also his most abysmal thought “abgründlichsten Gedanken”), opposite and counterpart to type of person decadent (décadent), “I count the overcoming of pity among the noble virtues”, against the concept of God (Christian), overman or superman (Übermensch), Will to Power (Wille zur Macht), great politics, immoralist, morality of the Christian church, and Declaration of war (“Kriegserklärung”). -/- Table of Contents -/- Motto [page 3]. Epigraph [pages 4-6]. -/- Preface to the Translation of Ecce homo [pages 7-16] -/- Major Leitmotifs in Nietzsche [pages 17-24]. -/- Translations from Nietzsche’s German to English include. -/- 1). Ecce homo: How One Becomes What One Is (Ecce homo: Wie man wird, was man ist. [pages 25-113]. -/- 2). This poem was included in the first publications of Ecce homo (1908). Glory and Eternity (Ruhm und Ewigkeit). [pages 114-124]. -/- 3). These are all of Nietzsche’s last notebooks (complete) they are numbered 21, 22, 23, and 24. There are a total of 82 notes. Final notes by Nietzsche from the Nachlass (Nachlaß). Sometime in German called the Notizheft. Nietzsche’s notebooks that include some drafts for Ecce homo and other topics he was thinking during his last writings. Dating from October 1888 until early Janurary 1889. [pages 125-191]. -/- 4). Nietzsche’s Letters Regarding Ecce homo. Nietzsche’s letters starting at the end of October 1888 discussing Ecce homo. These are not always the complete letters but include all of the passages of Nietzsche discussing Ecce homo. Complete translation of the last letter Nietzsche wrote. Dated until BVN-1889. #1256. Letter to Jacob Burckhardt in Basel. Turin, about 6 January 1889. [pages 192-223]. -/- Bibliographies [pages 224-254]. -/- Nietzsche’s Philosophy Final Thoughts [pages 255-259]. -/- Enjoy reading Nietzsche's last book. (shrink)

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

Since antiquity, scholars have observed a structural tension within Plato’s Phaedrus. The dialogue demands order in every linguistic composition, yet it presents itself as a disordered composition. Accordingly, one of the key problems of the Phaedrus is determining which—if any—aspect of the dialogue can supply a unifying thread for the dialogue’s major themes (love, rhetoric, writing, myth, philosophy, etc.). My dissertation argues that “soul-leading” (psuchagōgia)—a rare and ambiguous term used to define the innate power of words—resolves the dialogue’s structural tension. (...) I clarify the conceptual and dramatic features of soul-leading by focusing on the dialogue’s uniquely prevalent use of the semantic network of “leading” and “following.” By continuing to foreground the language and drama of leading and following, I offer a new interpretation of the dialogue as a whole: the Phaedrus is Plato’s articulation of how the soul can be led into communion with reality. Chapter 1 discusses scholarly disputes about the unity of the Phaedrus and proposes that soul-leading adequately satisfies the criteria put forward for what would count as a unifying element. I argue that soul-leading unifies the dialogue both thematically and non-thematically; moreover, soul-leading is a theme capacious enough to account for the other principal contenders for unity put forward. Chapter 2 develops the ambiguous character of soul-leading by examining how the dialogue showcases dangerous forms thereof. Love and language are dangerous when they lead the soul toward goods which can never truly fulfill it. In order to clarify how love and language can mislead the soul, Socrates develops a set of accounts of how the soul is led, both internally and externally, in the three speeches on love. If the soul is to be led into communion with reality (the proper end of soul-leading), it must be led internally by the right part of the soul and externally by the right object of desire. Chapter 3 argues that all souls can, in principle, be harmonized and directed in the way that Chapter 2 requires. I show that Plato’s view of philosophy is neither elitist (i.e., some are intrinsically incapable of philosophy) nor naively essentialist. All can come into communion with reality because all are by nature equipped to do so. While Plato recognizes that there are forces which tend to prohibit one from exercising one’s capability of being rightly led, none of them are intrinsic to human nature. Chapter 4 argues that successful soul-leading require neither the leader nor the follower to be already well-disposed to what’s ultimate in order for the pair to come to a communion with what’s ultimate. Plato’s depiction of soul-leading love shows that love can itself promote the formation needed for both leader and follower to come into contact with reality. Love can do so because it is always already bound up reality in its responsiveness to beauty. Beauty itself calls the lover to itself by shining through the beautiful beloved, who acts as a reminder of transcendent Beauty. The lover mediates this same experience for the beloved. Each comes to desire the other as well as Beauty itself. Chapter 5 argues that the drama of the lovers’ formation mythically depicted in the Palinode (Chapter 4) is written into the drama of the dialogue as a whole. In the relationship between Socrates and Phaedrus, we see an enactment of love’s formative role. Likewise, in the relationship between Phaedrus and Lysias, we see an enactment of the dangerous soul-leading discussed in Chapter 2. My focus on leading and following also allows me to show the thematic significance of the drama’s setting. Chapter 6 articulates the metaphysical conditions under which one can be led into communion with reality. Transcendent Beauty invites us into communion with itself and makes possible our ascent by providing us with divine guides and images which can transport us from our ordinary experiences to the true beings. Beauty accomplishes its work—leading us in a “divine dance” where we follow the gods up to Beauty and back down to each other—through images. When we handle images of reality rightly, they lead our souls into communion with reality. Further, when we have come into communion, we’ll be inspired to be co-workers of Beauty’s soul-leading work. When we articulate reality in language, we create new images that can serve to lead others toward reality. (shrink)

David Friedman posed a number of libertarian philosophical problems (Friedman 1989). This essay criticizes Walter Block’s Rothbardian responses (Block 2011) and compares them with J C Lester’s critical-rationalist, libertarian-theory responses (Lester [2000] 2012). The main issues are as follows. 1. Critical rationalism and how it applies to libertarianism. 2.1. How libertarianism is not inherently about law and is inherently about morals. 2.2. How liberty relates to property and can be maximized: carbon dioxide and radio waves. 2.3. Applying the theory to (...) flashlights. 2.4. Applying the theory to the probability of imposed risks. 2.5. “Homesteading” or initial acquisition. 2.6 What is “essential” for a “true libertarian.” 2.7. Crime and punishment. 2.8. Extent of punishment. 2.9. The libertarian response to a madman with a gun. 2.10. How contradictions in rights are possible. 2.11. The draft. 3.1. Utilitarian libertarianism and “nose counting”. 3.2. How interpersonal comparisons of utility are possible and utility monsters are not a threat. 3.3. Why it is not utilitarian in practice to kill an innocent prisoner to prevent a riot. 3.4. Why David Friedman should not be forced to give up one of his eyes. 3.5. How utilitarians can be libertarians. Conclusion: a proper theory of liberty combined with critical rationalism offers superior solutions to Friedman’s problems. Appendix: replies to two commentators. (shrink)

Four experiments examined children's ability to reason about the causal significance of the order in which 2 events occurred (the pressing of buttons on a mechanically operated box). In Study 1, 4-year-olds were unable to make the relevant inferences, whereas 5-year-olds were successful on one version of the task. In Study 2, 3-year-olds were successful on a simplified version of the task in which they were able to observe the events although not their consequences. Study 3 found that (...) older children had difficulties with the original task even when provided with cues to attend to order information. However, 5-year-olds performed successfully in Study 4, in which the causally relevant event was made more salient. (shrink)

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

FISIOLOGIA DO PARTO E DA LACTAÇÃO ANIMAL -/- ANIMAL REPRODUCTION: PHISIOLOGY OF PARTURITION AND ANIMAL LACTATION -/- Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro da Silva Departamento de Zootecnia da UFRPE WhatsApp: (82)98143-8399 -/- 1. INTRODUÇÃO O sucesso biológico do processo de reprodução culmina com a sobrevivência das crias. Durante a gestação, o feto desenvolve-se no útero materno protegido das influências externas, e obtendo os nutrientes e o oxigênio através da mãe. O parto é o processo biológico que marca o fim da gestação e (...) o início da vida extrauterina do animal. Para garantir a sobrevivência do recém-nascido o parto deve ser um processo controlado para que se inicie unicamente quando o feto tiver alcançado desenvolvimento suficiente que lhe permita enfrentar a vida extrauterina. Após o nascimento, a secreção de leite pela glândula mamária proporciona ao neonato tanto os nutrientes necessários para seu desenvolvimento como as defesas (imunoglobulinas) que lhe protegerão contra as possíveis infecções durante as primeiras fases de sua vida. Parto e lactação constituem a última etapa de um ciclo reprodutivo completo nas fêmeas dos animais domésticos, estando ambos os processos regulados e sincronizados por complexas mudanças hormonais na mãe. Estas mudanças são, em última análise, provocadas e governadas pelo próprio feto ou recém-nascido, o qual acomoda as respostas maternas às suas necessidades garantindo a sua sobrevivência. 2. O PARTO O parto é definido como o processo fisiológico pelo qual ocorre a expulsão de um ou mais fetos maduros, bem como das membranas fetais existentes no útero materno. Este processo é desencadeado por uma interação complexa entre as hormonas maternas (fatores maternos) e fetais (fatores fetais). Para que se realize a expulsão do feto é necessário que o útero deixe de ser um órgão quiescente, essencial para a manutenção da gestação, para ser um órgão contrátil. Ao mesmo tempo, o cérvix ou colo uterino, que durante a gestação permanece firmemente fechado para impedir a expulsão prematura do feto e evitar a entrada de agentes infecciosos, relaxa e dilata para facilitar a passagem do feto na hora do parto. Esta modificação na atividade do útero e do colo uterino, ocorrem como consequência das mudanças hormonais que o organismo materno experimenta à medida que a data do parto se aproxima. 2.1 Fatores maternos A gestação dos animais domésticos ocorre com elevada concentração de progesterona que, dependendo da espécie animal, é secretada seja pelo corpo lúteo do ovário (vaca, porca e cabra) ou pela placenta (ovelha e égua). A progesterona desempenha um papel fundamental durante a gestação, inibindo as contrações da musculatura lisa do útero (miométrio), permitindo assim a acomodação do feto durante o seu crescimento. Os estrogênios, estimulantes da atividade contrátil do miométrio, mantêm-se a baixas concentrações durante a maior parte da gestação. À medida que se aproxima o momento do parto, os níveis destes hormônios esteroides modificam-se, produzindo-se a diminuição nos níveis circulantes da progesterona ao mesmo tempo que se incrementam os valores sanguíneos dos estrogênios (figura 1). A redução dos níveis de progesterona suprime a sua ação inibitória sobre a atividade contrátil do miométrio, permitindo que se manifestem os efeitos estimulantes dos estrogênios sobre este órgão. A concentração de estrogênios começa a aumentar geralmente no final da gestação, atingindo os seus valores máximos no momento do parto (figura 1). O aumento da concentração de estrogênios favorece a atividade contrátil espontânea do útero ao: a) estimular a síntese de proteínas contráteis; b) aumentar, sob medida, a sensibilidade do miométrio uterino à ação estimulante das prostaglandinas; c) induzir a formação de receptores de oxitocina no útero. -/- Figura 1. Níveis de progesterona e estrógenos durante a gestação e parto das espécies ovina, caprina, suína e bovina. Fonte: HAFEZ, 2013. Os estrogênios estimulam a síntese e secreção de prostaglandina (PGF2a), que constitui o elemento essencial para o início do parto devido aos efeitos que esta substância provoca. Assim, nas fêmeas, cujos níveis de progesterona gestacional dependem da presença do corpo lúteo, a secreção de PGF, origina a regressão deste (luteólise), com a consequente diminuição da progesterona a níveis basais. Além disso, a PGF2a origina contrações de crescente intensidade no útero sensibilizado pela ação dos estrogênios. Esta ação contrátil da PGF2a deve-se a um aumento da concentração de cálcio intracelular das fibras musculares uterinas. A PGF2a também está envolvida no relaxamento do colo do útero, inibindo a formação de colágeno cervical ao mesmo tempo que estimula a síntese de enzimas (colagenase) que degradam a matriz de colágeno formado no início da gestação. A dilatação do colo do útero está também associada à pressão que o feto exerce sobre o mesmo e, no caso da porca, a relaxina pode também estar envolvida. Esta hormona é também de grande importância para a preparação do parto em todas as espécies animais, uma vez que é responsável pelo relaxamento dos ligamentos e músculos que rodeiam o canal pélvico para favorecer a separação da sínfise púbica durante a expulsão do feto. Nos grandes animais (vaca, égua) as mudanças que ocorrem nos tecidos e ligamentos pélvicos são muito evidentes e constituem um sintoma de parto iminente. O início do parto, ou primeira fase do parto, caracteriza-se pelo aumento das contrações uterinas provocadas pela PGF2a coincidindo com a dilatação do colo uterino para permitir a passagem do feto para o canal do parto, momento em que começa a segunda fase do parto. A distensão vaginal que produz-se para a passagem do feto pelo canal do parto origina um estímulo nervoso que viaja através da medula espinal para o hipotálamo, onde se encontram os neurônios responsáveis pela síntese de oxitocina. As terminações nervosas destes neurónios são projetadas para o lobo posterior da hipófise (neurohipófise), onde a oxitocina é secretada para ser, posteriormente , transportada pela circulação sanguínea. Este reflexo neuroendócrino chamado reflexo de Ferguson determina a secreção súbita de oxitocina, provocando o aumento tanto na intensidade como na frequência das contrações uterinas necessárias para a expulsão final do feto. O papel da oxitocina é ativar a conclusão do processo de expulsão, uma vez que esta hormona não está envolvida no início do parto. A alteração mais significativa entre a gestação e o parto é a alteração na atividade contrátil do miométrio uterino. Esta mudança é devido às alterações hormonais que ocorrem na mãe quando a gestação chegou a fim. No entanto, para que estes mecanismos maternos sejam acionados, é necessário que o feto indique de alguma forma à mãe o seu estado de desenvolvimento, de modo que o nascimento realize-se quando o feto estiver preparado para enfrentar a vida extrauterina. 2.2 Fatores fetais A destruição experimental da hipófise e/ou das glândulas adrenais do feto origina o prolongamento da gestação nos animais domésticos. Pelo contrário, a administração exógena de cortisol (corticosteroides adrenais), ou do seu precursor hipofisário (ACTH), à circulação fetal provoca, em poucas horas, o início do parto. Estes fatos evidenciam a importância do eixo hipófise-adrenal do feto para desencadear o início do parto (figura 2). Figura 2. Mecanismos fetais que controlam o parto em ovelhas. Fonte: LIGGINS et al, 1972. No final da gestação, o feto maduro apresenta um aumento da concentração de corticosteroides plasmáticos devido ao efeito estimulante da hormona adrenocorticotróide (ACVH) secretada pela hipófise fetal sobre as glândulas adrenais do feto. Os corticosteroides fetais por sua vez estimulam as enzimas placentárias para transformar a progesterona em estrogênio. O resultado final é a diminuição dos níveis de progesterona ao mesmo tempo que se eleva a concentração de estrogênios que, por sua vez, estimulam a libertação de PGF2a responsável pelas contrações uterinas. Este raciocínio explica algumas doenças caracterizadas por gestação prolongada em ovelhas, como ocorre na África do Sul, onde estes animais são obrigados, durante as épocas de seca, a ingerir as folhas de um arbusto chamado Salsola tuberculate. O prolongamento da gestação ocorre quando estas folhas são ingeridas durante o último terço da gestação cujos efeitos estão relacionados com a supressão do eixo hipotálamo-hipófise, com o qual as adrenais não recebem o estímulo necessário (ACTH) para a síntese e liberação de corticoides. O efeito contrário é observado nas cabras da raça Angorá, nas quais se produzem, com relativa frequência, partos prematuros que podem estar relacionados com um desenvolvimento precoce das glândulas adrenais. Isto significa que, nos animais domésticos, o feto determina a data do parto. O sinal hormonal que indica à mãe o grau de maturidade do feto é o desenvolvimento do eixo hipotálamo-hipófise-adrenal que origina o aumento na secreção de corticoides fetais que são os responsáveis por desencadear as alterações hormonais no organismo materno necessárias para iniciar o parto. A figura 2 mostra como a remoção da hipófise e as adrenais do feto prolongam a gestação, enquanto a administração exógena de ACTH ou corticoides (cortisol) ao feto originam um parto prematuro. O momento em que ocorre o aumento da concentração plasmática de corticoides no feto varia de acordo com a espécie: de 25 a 30 dias antes do parto na vaca, de 7 a 10 dias na porca e de 2 a 3 dias na ovelha. 2.3 Desenvolvimento e fases do parto O parto inicia-se com o início das contrações peristálticas e regulares do miométrio uterino ao mesmo tempo que o colo do útero se dilata progressivamente. Nas fêmeas que gestam um único feto (monotecas), as contrações começam na extremidade anterior do córneo uterino, enquanto que nas espécies que gestam vários fetos (politocas) as contrações começam pela extremidade cervical para começar a expulsar o feto que se encontra mais próximo do cérvix. Durante o parto são reconhecidas três fases: 1. Fase preparatória - Na qual as contrações uterinas estimulam a rotação do feto (fêmeas monotecas) para adotar a posição dorsal (extremidades anteriores e cabeça forçadas contra o cérvix) que lhe permite oferecer a menor resistência para sua expulsão. A PGF2a provoca as contrações miometriais e a dilatação do cérvix, deslocando o feto contra e através desta estrutura. 2. Fase de expulsão - A passagem do feto através do colo uterino e da vagina causam a completa dilatação destas estruturas, originando a secreção de oxitocina (reflexo de Ferguson), que provoca contrações de maior frequência e intensidade. Por sua vez, estas contrações uterinas são reforçadas pela pressão e contração dos músculos abdominais, chegando estes últimos a ser a força principal (forças de expulsão) envolvida no processo de expulsão do feto. O cordão umbilical rompe-se bem ao levantar-se a mãe ou pelos movimentos do recém-nascido. 3. Fase de expulsão da placenta - Após o parto, as contrações rítmicas do útero continuam a facilitar a expulsão da(s) placenta(s). O tempo necessário para este processo varia de acordo com a espécie animal. Este processo é rápido na égua, já que a separação do corion (membrana fetal) de sua inserção uterina ocorre durante a expulsão do feto, com o qual o parto deve ser concluído rapidamente ou, caso contrário, o potro se asfixiaria. Nos ruminantes, a expulsão da placenta cotiledonaria é um processo mais lento que exige a separação dos cotilédones (membrana fetal) das carúnculas do útero. Por conseguinte, a troca de nutrientes e oxigênio entre a mãe e o feto continua até que este tenha sido totalmente expelido, devido ao cordão umbilical destes animais ser bastante longo. Nas fêmeas politocas, como a porca, geralmente as placentas de vários leitões são expulsadas no final, quando os leitões já foram expelidos, se bem que o último leitão poderá ser expelido durante a expulsão da massa placentária. 3. LACTAÇÃO A lactação constitui o processo que define os mamíferos como classe biológica. O desenvolvimento pós-natal dos mamíferos vai depender, em grande medida, dos nutrientes e defesas fornecidos pela mãe através da secreção de leite (imunoglobulinas). Assim, uma vez concluído o desenvolvimento gestacional do feto, a glândula mamária irá substituir, de certa forma, a função nutritiva e protetora da placenta durante a gestação. 3.1 Anatomia funcional da glândula mamária A estrutura funcional da glândula mamária é muito semelhante em todos os mamíferos, embora o tamanho, forma e número de glândulas varia dependendo da espécie animal. As glândulas mamárias desenvolvem-se como estruturas pares cujo número varia de um par (égua, cabra e ovelha), dois pares (vaca) até sete ou nove (porca). A localização das glândulas também difere sendo inguinal em vaca, égua, cabra e ovelha, enquanto que na porca, cadela e gata se estendem por todo o comprimento do tórax e abdômen. Nos animais domésticos em geral as glândulas mamárias recebem o nome de úberes. Tomando como modelo a vaca, a glândula mamária se organiza em duas estruturas: o estroma, formado por tecido conjuntivo procedente dos ligamentos suspensório medial, localizado entre os dois pares de glândulas, dando suporte à segunda estrutura que é o tecido secretor. Este é formado por acúmulos de células secretoras formando estruturas ocas chamadas alvéolos, que são as unidades fundamentais secretoras de leite. Os alvéolos estão circulados internamente por células epiteliais (secretoras) e rodeados externamente por células mioepiteliais contráteis, cuja contração origina a ejeção do leite (figura 3). O agrupamento de vários alvéolos adjacentes formam um lobo secretor. Figura 3. Diagrama de um agregado de alvéolos na glândula mamária de uma cabra. Fonte: COWIE et al, 1980. Os lobos expelem a secreção através de ductos que, por sua vez, drenam os ductos galactóforas (ductos lácteos) de maior diâmetro, para desembocar em áreas especializadas em armazenar o leite chamadas cisternas (vaca, cabra). Finalmente, a cisterna abre-se para o exterior através do canal papilar da teta. A presença do músculo liso na teta permite-lhe agir como esfíncter para impedir que o leite seja expelido passivamente do interior da glândula. O mamilo/teta é provido de numerosos receptores sensitivos cuja excitação durante a ordenha ou amamentação vai desencadear estímulos nervosos de grande importância para a manutenção da lactação. 3.2 Desenvolvimento da glândula mamária (mamogênese) A glândula mamária difere das demais glândulas do organismo no escasso desenvolvimento que apresenta no nascimento da fêmea, o qual não se inicia até que esta não atinja a puberdade. O início da atividade cíclica do ovário (puberdade) dá origem à síntese de estrogênios (fase folicular do ciclo estral) e progesterona (fase lútea). Os estrogênios originam o alongamento e ramificação dos ductos e a formação de pequenas massas esféricas de células (os futuros alvéolos). Embora este desenvolvimento seja dependente do estrogênio, é também necessária a ação sinérgica da prolactina, hormona do crescimento (GH) e corticoides adrenais, como demonstrado pelos estudos realizados em ratos aos quais foi removida a hipófise, glândulas suprarrenais e ovários (figura 4). A função da progesterona no desenvolvimento da glândula mamária é estimular o crescimento do lobo-alveolar, mas como no caso anterior também requer a ação conjunta dos hormônios acima mencionados. Figura 4. Hormonas relacionadas com o crescimento da glândula mamária e início da secreção de leite na rata hipofisectomizada-adrenoectomizada-ovariectomizada. Fonte: COWIE, 1980. O desenvolvimento da glândula, durante cada ciclo estral, vai depender da duração da fase folicular (níveis elevados de estrogênio), já que nas restantes fases do ciclo, quando os níveis de estrogênio são baixos, os ductos sofrem uma ligeira regressão. Nas espécies com ciclos curtos (rata), em que a fase folicular do ciclo é predominante, enquanto a fase lútea é quase inexistente, verifica-se um grande desenvolvimento dos ductos; enquanto que aquelas que apresentam um corpo lúteo funcional de longa duração (cadela e primatas), além do crescimento dos ductos, mostram um grande desenvolvimento lóbulo-alveolar semelhante ao que ocorre na gestação. É durante a gestação que o sistema alveolar sofre uma hipertrofia considerável, resultando em lobos proeminentes e no desenvolvimento da luz interna dos alvéolos, fato que é evidente na maioria dos animais domésticos por volta da metade do período gestacional. Em algumas espécies, as células que circundam interiormente os alvéolos contêm produtos secretores, indicando que a glândula mamária já está preparada para a fase da lactação. O desenvolvimento glandular durante a gestação deve-se ao efeito conjunto da progesterona e dos estrogênios com as hormonas hipofisárias acima mencionadas: prolactina, hormona do crescimento (GH) e adrenocorticotropina (ACTH). A proporção entre estrogênios e progesterona varia de acordo com a espécie, mas geralmente é necessária uma maior concentração de progesterona (proveniente do corpo lúteo ou da placenta). Quanto às hormonas hipofisárias, a prolactina desempenha um papel fundamental na diferenciação da glândula mamária (mesmo a baixas concentrações) ao estimular o desenvolvimento do epitélio secretor dos alvéolos. A GH favorece o crescimento dos ductos e a ACTH estimula a secreção de corticoides nas adrenais que, por sua vez, favorecem de forma generalizada o crescimento das glândulas. 3.3 Secreção da glândula mamária (lactogênese) A lactogênese, ou o processo pelo qual se produz a síntese e secreção do leite pela glândula mamária, começa no final da gestação coincidindo com o desencadeamento do parto. O primeiro leite formado imediatamente antes ou depois do parto é denominado colostro. No entanto, a lactação não pode desenvolver- se completamente até que se inicie o processo de parto. Isto deve-se ao fato de que o processo de lactação resulta de uma interação complexa de hormonas que preparam a glândula mamária para a secreção do leite. Os requisitos hormonais mínimos para o início da lactogênese são: aumento da secreção de estrogênios, prolactina e corticoides, juntamente com a diminuição da concentração de progesterona, perfis hormonais que estão intimamente relacionados com o desencadeamento do parto. Isto deve-se ao fato de que a progesterona inibe a atividade lactogênica da prolactina bloqueando a formação dos seus receptores na glândula mamária durante a gestação impedindo, assim, a prolactina de sintetizar os componentes fundamentais do leite. Pelo contrário, o aumento da concentração de estrogênios no final da gestação (figura 1, na seção do parto) estimula a síntese, o armazenamento e a secreção hipofisária de prolactina. Assim, apesar da glândula mamária estar preparada para iniciar a secreção de leite, muito antes da data prevista para o parto, a elevada concentração de progesterona (existente durante esse período de gestação) impede a fase láctea (saída do leite pelas tetas) de ocorrer antes da expulsão do feto. Desta forma, o feto poderá beneficiar das vantagens que o fornecimento do colostro materno irá trazer para a sua sobrevivência (imunização, nutrição e favorecimento da exoneração do mecônio). O aumento da concentração de estrogênios nos dias que antecederem o parto resulta num rápido aumento das concentrações plasmáticas de prolactina e corticoides. A prolactina é a hormona lactogênica mais importante na síntese dos componentes do leite. No entanto, para que esta hormona possa exercer a sua função, é necessária a participação dos corticoides, já que os mesmos são os responsáveis pelo desenvolvimento das organelas citoplasmáticas (retículo endoplasmático rugoso e aparelho de Golgi) onde se realiza a síntese do leite. No desenvolvimento da lactogênese, para além da prolactina e dos corticoides, participam também outras hormonas como a insulina, a tiroxina e o hormônio do crescimento. A insulina estimula a proliferação de novas células epiteliais na glândula mamária, enquanto a tiroxina, embora não seja essencial para a lactação, pode influenciar no volume de leite produzido pela fêmea (alta produção leiteira). Por último, a hormona do crescimento favorece, em geral, a lactação, existindo atualmente um interesse considerável no uso desta hormona para promover a produção adicional de leite em vacas através da sua administração exógena (trabalho e projeto desenvolvido pela professora titular e médica-veterinária do IFPB Campus Sousa Marianne Christina Velaqua). 3.3.1 Síntese e secreção dos componentes do leite Os principais constituintes do leite são: proteínas (caseína, alfa-lactalbumina, albumina sérica e imunoglobulinas), açúcares (lactose), gorduras (principalmente sob a forma de triglicerídeos), vitaminas, minerais e citrato (no caso dos ruminantes). As proteínas (caseína e alfa-lactalbumina) são sintetizadas no retículo endoplasmático rugoso e posteriormente embaladas em vesículas secretoras do aparelho de Golgi para serem liberadas da célula para a luz alveolar mediante um processo de exocitose. A lactose é o principal açúcar do leite que, além disso, atua regulando a pressão osmótica do mesmo de modo que o volume de leite que a glândula mamária segrega está diretamente relacionado com a quantidade de lactose presente. A síntese da lactose ocorre no aparelho de Golgi pela condensação de glicose e galactose; esta reação é catalisada por uma enzima (lactose sintetase) presente na membrana do aparelho de Golgi que, por sua vez, é ativada pela proteína alfa-lactalbumina. Esta proteína só aparece na glândula mamária e é essencial para a síntese da lactose, o que demonstra que este açúcar é exclusivamente formado no leite. A lactose é também embalada junto com o cálcio, o fosfato e as proteínas nas vesículas secretoras para ser expulsada ao lúmen alveolar por exocitose. As imunoglobulinas (anticorpos IgA) são formadas pelas células plasmáticas, derivadas dos linfócitos B do sangue, como consequência da exposição da mãe a diferentes microrganismos. Estes anticorpos passam para a glândula mamária por migração dessas células a partir dos tecidos adjacentes. Os triglicerídeos são sintetizados no citoplasma e no retículo endoplasmático liso a partir de ácidos graxos provenientes da circulação sanguínea; em seguida, unem-se formando glóbulos de gordura que se dirigem até o vértice da membrana plasmática para serem finalmente expelidos para a luz do alvéolo, rodeados pela membrana, formando assim uma dispersão de glóbulos de gordura (figura 5). Figura 5. Estrutura de três células alveolares durante a síntese do leite. Fonte: COWIE, 1980. Do ponto de vista quantitativo, a caseína e os triglicerídeos constituem as proteínas e as fontes de energia, respectivamente, mais importantes do leite. Por último, o citrato é um intermediário do metabolismo da glicose que ocorre em grande concentração no leite dos ruminantes. Este composto é também englobado no interior das vesículas secretoras, junto com os outros compostos, para sua expulsão à luz alveolar. A composição do leite varia dependendo da espécie animal, e difere também até entre a mesma espécie. Estas variações estão relacionadas com a raça, idade, estágio de lactação e estado nutricional do animal. O teor de gordura no leite de ovelhas, porcas, cadelas e gatas varia entre 7 e 10%. No gado leiteiro estes valores variam de 3,5 a 5,5%, dependendo da raça. Em relação às cabras, os valores de gordura são muito semelhantes aos das vacas, enquanto o leite das éguas é o que tem menor teor de gordura (tabela 1). Espécie Gordura Proteína Lactosa Cinzas/Cálcio Gata 7,1 10,1 4,2 0,5 Vaca holandesa 3,5 3,1 4,9 0,7 Cadela 9,5 9,3 3,1 1,2 Cabra 3,5 3,1 4,6 0,8 Égua 1,6 2,4 6,1 0,5 Tabela 1. Composição do leite em várias espécies (%). Fonte: JACOBISON, 1984. 3.4 Manutenção da lactação (galactopoiese) A capacidade da glândula mamária de secretar um grande volume de leite começa em/ou imediatamente antes do parto, para aumentar no período pós-parto durante um tempo variável e, posteriormente, diminuir de forma gradual. Em geral, existe um paralelismo entre a atividade secretora da glândula e a procura de leite por parte do lactente. Isto deve-se ao fato de sucção pelo lactente, ou a extração por ordenha, que constituem o fator fundamental para a manutenção da lactação. A sucção estimula a lactação de duas formas: a) reduzindo os efeitos inibitórios da pressão intramamária produzida pela acumulação de leite, e b) estimulando intensamente a secreção de hormonas necessárias para manter a síntese e secreção de leite nos alvéolos. As hormonas que desempenham um papel fundamental na manutenção da lactação são: I) a prolactina, que é responsável pela estimulação da síntese e secreção de leite nas células epiteliais nos alvéolos, e 2) a oxitocina, que provoca a contração das células musculares que circundam externamente os alvéolos e os ductos (células mioepiteliais). A libertação de ambos os hormônios ocorre como resultado de um reflexo neuroendócrino originado pela estimulação do mamilo. 3.4.1 Secreção reflexa de prolactina A secreção de prolactina é regulada por dois fatores hipotalâmicos: a dopamina, que inibe a secreção de prolactina e um fator cuja identidade não está bem definida, conhecido como fator liberador de prolactina (PRF)que estimula a liberação deste hormônio. O estímulo sensorial originado como sequência da estimulação do mamilo, pela sucção do lactente, é transportado através da medula espinhal para o hipotálamo, onde atua na inibição da dopamina ou estimulando a secreção do PRF para desencadear a secreção de prolactina da adenohipófise para a circulação sanguínea (figura 6). Figura 6. Reflexos neuroendócrinos secretores de prolactina e oxitocina. Fonte: HAFEZ, 2000. A prolactina estimula a secreção dos componentes do leite para a luz dos alvéolos, afim de repor o volume de leite extraído durante a última ordenha ou sucção. Ao mesmo tempo, a prolactina induz a síntese das proteínas, incluindo a alfa-lactalbumina para estimular novamente a síntese da lactosa, bem como as enzimas necessárias para a produção dos triglicerídeos. Desta forma, a secreção de prolactina originada pelo lactente durante o aleitamento proporciona um mecanismo simples para combinar o volume de produção de leite com as necessidades do lactente. A quantidade de prolactina liberada durante cada período de sucção depende do número de crias, da duração do estímulo e dos intervalos de tempo decorridos entre os períodos de sucção (ou ordenha). No caso das vacas leiteiras, as ordenhas são geralmente realizadas de doze em doze horas, intervalo de tempo suficiente para manter a lactogênese. Os valores plasmáticos de prolactina aumentam imediatamente após o início da ordenha, mas os valores mais elevados são obtidos cerca de meia hora após o início do estímulo (ordenha ou sucção). A secreção de prolactina e a produção de leite são influenciadas de alguma forma pelo fotoperíodo, uma vez que, em alguns animais se comprovou como o aumento do número de horas de exposição à luz dá origem a um aumento da concentração de prolactina circulante, bem como uma maior produção de leite (entre 6 e 10%) (trabalho e projeto elaborado pelos estudantes do curso técnico em agropecuária e da graduação em Medicina Veterinária do IFPB Campus Sousa sob a coordenação e orientação da profa. Me. Esp. Marianne C. Velaqua). 3.4.2 Reflexo da ejeção do leite A sucção do mamilo pelo lactente estimula os receptores sensoriais presentes nesta estrutura, originando a geração de impulsos nervosos que são transmitidos pelas vias nervosas ascendentes da medula espinhal para os corpos celulares produtores de oxitocina no hipotálamo. O estímulo desencadeia a síntese e liberação de um bolo de oxitocina através das terminações nervosas dos núcleos hipotalâmicos para a neurohipófise, da qual é transmitida, através do sangue, para a glândula mamária, provocando a contração das células mioepiteliais que rodeiam os alvéolos (figura 6). Além da estimulação direta do mamilo provocada pela sucção, qualquer estímulo relacionado à ordenha é capaz de gerar o reflexo da ejeção, por exemplo: os estímulos sensoriais auditivos (ruído dos cubos na hora da ordenha), visuais (ambiente da sala de ordenha), táteis (lavagem manual dos mamilos antes da ordenha) e os estímulos olfatórios que se produzem em torno do animal. O desencadeamento do reflexo de ejeção pelos estímulos sensoriais, que não estão diretamente relacionados com a sucção ou ordenha, indica a possível participação de centros superiores do sistema nervoso central para controlar a secreção de oxitocina. Esta teoria é baseada em que os estímulos relacionados com situações de estresse em animais de estimação (medo, ansiedade, frio, etc.) inibem a ejeção do leite. A contração das células mioepiteliais gera um aumento da pressão intra-alveolar mamária, provocando o deslocamento do leite para os ductos maiores da glândula. Este efeito é popularmente conhecido como diminuição do leite e constitui um mecanismo fisiológico muito eficaz para controlar a expulsão do leite para o mamilo, assegurando que a ejeção do leite se realize unicamente quando o lactente o demanda. O efeito estimulante da oxitocina é de grande importância já que a maior parte do leite se encontra nos alvéolos e nos ductos, com o qual, a ausência deste hormônio provocaria um lento movimento do leite para a cisterna do úbere e, portanto, uma menor quantidade de leite. Assim, quando os alvéolos e ductos menores são contraídos, ocorre o relaxamento dos ductos principais, bem como da cisterna (ruminantes) e do mamilo, o que dá origem a um aumento destas estruturas para alojar o volume de leite expelido. Como resultado da volumosa ejeção do leite dos alvéolos e ductos menores, ocorre um aumento da pressão intramamária de modo que o lactente terá que vencer a resistência do esfíncter do mamilo para poder extrair o leite. A produção de leite pela glândula mamária diminui gradualmente à medida que os intervalos de tempo entre os dois períodos de amamentação do lactente diminuem e os estímulos necessários para manter as concentrações de prolactina e oxitocina na circulação sanguínea. A diminuição ou cessação da secreção de leite, geralmente coincide com a mudança na alimentação das crias (desmame) para passar à dieta característica da espécie. 3.5 Colostro O colostro é o primeiro leite que se forma na glândula mamária coincidindo com o parto. A ingestão de colostro por recém-nascidos é de grande importância para a sua sobrevivência, não só pelo seu elevado valor nutritivo, mas também pelo seu teor em imunoglobulinas (IgA) que lhe confere a imunização passiva necessária para o proteger contra patologias. Em algumas espécies (homem, coelho e cobaia) grande parte dos anticorpos passam para a circulação do feto através da placenta durante a gestação. Nos animais domésticos (vaca, égua, ovelha, cabra, porco) as características da placenta (número de camadas entre a circulação materna e fetal) não permitem a passagem destas proteínas. Como resultado, a imunização das crias nestas espécies animais vai depender da transferência das imunoglobulinas através do colostro. O epitélio intestinal dos recém-nascidos permite a passagem destas imunoglobulinas durante as primeiras 24 a 48 horas de vida. Passado este tempo, o epitélio torna-se impermeável à passagem dos anticorpos, fato que põe em evidência a importância que tem para os animais recém-nascidos e desprovidos de defesas a ingestão do colostro durante os primeiros dias. A composição do colostro caracteriza-se (em relação ao leite normal) por um teor mais elevado de proteínas, vitaminas, minerais e uma menor concentração de lactose. A composição do colostro muda gradualmente durante os primeiros três dias após o parto para se transformar em leite normal. 4. RESUMO E PRIMEIRAS CONCLUSÕES O parto, ou processo fisiológico pelo qual se expulsa o feto, é o resultado da maturação sequencial de um sistema de comunicação hormonal. A sequência inicia-se no sistema nervoso central do feto de onde os sinais são transmitidos e amplificados, através da hipófise, para as glândulas adrenais fetais, as quais respondem ao estímulo mediante a secreção de cortisol. O aumento da concentração de cortisol por parte do feto indica que este conseguiu o desenvolvimento necessário para enfrentar a vida extrauterina e, portanto, é hora de interromper a gestação. O cortisol atua sobre a placenta para aumentar a secreção de estrogênios que, por sua vez, estimulam a síntese e a liberação de prostaglandinas. O resultado é a diminuição da progesterona, que é a hormona encarregada de manter a gestação ao inibir as contrações espontâneas do útero, impedindo assim a expulsão prematura do feto. O útero, sob os efeitos da prostaglandina, começa a contrair-se ao mesmo tempo que o colo uterino amolece e dilata progressivamente (fase preparatória do parto). A passagem do feto ao canal do parto origina a secreção reflexa de oxitocina (fase de expulsão), causando contrações de maior frequência e intensidade que culminam com a expulsão do feto. Finalmente, as contrações uterinas continuam durante algum tempo até que finalmente é expulsa a placenta (fase de expulsão da placenta). O desenvolvimento da glândula mamária durante a gestação e a subsequente capacidade desta estrutura para secretar leite, coincidindo com o parto, oferece aos animais pertencentes à classe biológica dos mamíferos a vantagem de alimentar as suas crias para assegurar a sua sobrevivência durante as primeiras fases do seu desenvolvimento e, portanto, a continuidade da espécie. A lactação constitui um dos processos fisiológicos mais complexos em consequência do grande número de hormonas que, segregadas de forma coordenada, controlam as diferentes fases pelo que atravessa este processo: I) mamogênese ou desenvolvimento dos dutos e estruturas lóbulo-alveolares durante a gestação; 2) lactogênese ou síntese láctea por células epiteliais e sua secreção para a luz alveolar coincidindo com o parto, e 3) galactopoiese ou manutenção da síntese e secreção do leite como consequência da sua extração da glândula mamária seja pela sucção da cria ou pela ordenha. -/- Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro da Silva – Departamento de Zootecnia da UFRPE. Recife, 2020. -/- REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS -/- BEIGHLE, D. E. The effect of gestation and lactation on bone calcium, phosphorus and magnesium in dairy cows. Journal of the South African Veterinary Association, v. 70, n. 4, p. 142-146, 1999. BRACKELL, B. G.; JR SEIDEL, G. E.; SEIDEL, S. Avances en zootecnia nuevas técnicas de reproducción animal. Zaragoza: Acribia, 1988. COLE, H. H.; CUPPS, P. T. Reproduction in domestic animals. 1ª ed. Londres: Academic Press, 1977. COWIE, Alfred T.; FORSYTH, Isabel A.; HART, Ian C. Lactation. In: Hormonal control of lactation. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1980. p. 146-229. CUNNINGHAM, James G. Fisiología veterinaria. São Paulo: Elsevier, 2003. DERIVAUX, Jules; BARNABÉ, Renato Campanarut. Reprodução dos animais domésticos. Zaragoza: Acribia, 1980. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Definição de Conceitos Básicos na Reprodução Animal: Fertilidade, Fecundidade e Prolificidade-Suínos. Philarchive. Disponível em: -----. Acesso em: Fevereiro de 2020. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Características Gerais dos Bovinos/General Characteristics of Cattle Bovine. Philarchive. Disponível em: -----. Acesso em: Fevereiro de 2020. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Reprodução Animal: Fecundação e Gestação. Disponível em: Acervo IFPE. Acesso em: Março de 2020. FERNÁNDEZ ABELLA, Daniel Héctor. Principios de fisiología reproductiva ovina. Montevidéu: Hemisferio Sur1993. GONZÁLEZ, Félix HD. Introdução a endocrinologia reprodutiva veterinária. Porto Alegre: UFRGS, v. 83, 2002. HAFEZ, E. S. E.; HAFEZ, B. Reprodução animal. São Paulo: Manole, 2004. HAFEZ, Elsayed Saad Eldin; HAFEZ, B. (Ed.). Reproduction in farm animals. Nova Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2013. HUNTER, R. H. F. Reproducción de los animales de granja. Zaragoza: Acribia, 1987. HUNTER, Ronald Henry Fraser et al. Physiology and technology of reproduction in female domestic animals. Londres: Academic Press, 1980. ILLERA, M. Endocrinología Veterinaria y Fisiología de la Reproducción. Zaragoza: Fareso, 1994. JACOBSON, N. L.; MCGILLIARD, A. D. The mammary gland and lactation. Duke’s Physiology of Domestic Animals. 10th edition. Comstock Publishing Associates, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, USA, p. 863-880, 1984. JAINUDEEN, M. R.; HAFEZ, E. S. E. Gestação, fisiologia pré-natal e parto. Revista Brasileira de Reprodução animal, v. 7, p. 141-142, 2004. LIGGINS, G. C. et al. physiological roles of progesterone, oestradiol-17beta and prostaglandin F2alpha in the control of ovine parturition. J Reprod and Fert Suppl, 1972. PÉREZ PÉREZ, F.; PÉREZ GUTIÉRREZ, F. Reproducción animal, inseminación animal y transplante de embriones. Barcelona: Cientifico-medica, 1985. ROBERTS, Stephen J. Obstetricia veterinaria y patología de la reproducción. Montevidéu: Hemiferio Sur, 1979. SALISBURY, G. W.; VANDERMARK, N. L. Phisiology of the reproduction and artificial insemination of cattle. San Francisco : Freeman e Company, 1961, 630 p. SHILLE, V. M. Fisiologia reprodutiva e endocrinologia da fêmea e do macho. Tratado de medicina interna veterinária. São Paulo: Manole, p. 1857-68, 1992. RUTTER, Bruno; RUSSO, Angel F. Fundamentos de la fisiología de la gestación y el parto de los animales domésticos. Buenos Aires: Eudeba, 2002. UNGERFELD, Rodolfo. Reproducción en los animales domésticos. Montevidéu: Melibea, 2002. (shrink)

This article is an effort to understand how the Peirce's Arrow (Logical NOR), as a logical operation, can act within the concept of Ludwig Wittgenstein's language-game, considering that the language game is a satzsystem, i.e., a system of propositions. To accomplish this task, we will cover four steps: (1) understand the possible relationship of the thought of C. S. Peirce with the founding trio of analytic philosophy, namely Frege-RussellWittgenstein, looking for similarities between the logic of Peirce and his students (...) (notably Christine Ladd and O.H. Mitchell) with a New Wittgenstein’s approach, which sees Early Wittgenstein (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus),Middle Wittgenstein and Last Wittgenstein (Philosophical Investigations) while a coherent way of thinking and not a theoretical break; (2) describe the operation of the Peirce’s Arrow (Logical NOR) as a logical connective; (3)understand the notion of satzsystem (Middle Wittgenstein) and the possibility of applying the concept of language-game (Last Wittgenstein) on it; and (4) understand how the Logical NOR can operate within a satzsystem. The goal here is a search for the logic of the language-game and how the logical ideas of C. S. Peirce can help in this construction. And this construction might be interesting for a better understanding of the analytic philosophy of language. (shrink)

In 1866 J.C. Maxwell thought he had discovered a Maxwellian demon—though not under that description, of course [1]. He thought that the temperature of a gas under gravity would vary inversely with the height of the column. From this he saw that it would then be possible to obtain energy for work from a cooling gas, a clear violation of Thompson’s statement of the second law of thermodynamics. This upsetting conclusion made him worry that “there remains as far as I (...) can see a collision between Dynamics and thermodynamics.” Later, he derived the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution law that made the temperature the same throughout the column. However, he continued to think about the relationship between dynamics and thermodynamics, and in 1867, he sent Tait a note with a puzzle for him to ponder. The puzzle was his famous “neat-fingered being” who could make a hot system hotter and a cold system colder without any work being done. Thompson in 1874 christened this being a “demon”; Maxwell unsuccessfully tried to rename it “valve.” However named, the demon’s point was to “show that the second law of thermodynamics has only a statistical validity.” Since that time a large physics literature has arisen that asks a question similar to that asked in theology, namely, does the devil exist? Beginning with Popper, philosophers examining the literature on Maxwell’s demon are typically surprised—even horrified [2,3,4,5,6,7]. As a philosopher speaking at a physics conference exactly 100 yrs after Popper’s birth, I want to explain why this is so. The organizers of this conference instructed me to offend everyone, believers and non-believers in demons. Thus my talk, apart from an agnostic middle section, contains a section offending those who believe they have exorcized the demon and a section offending those who summon demons. Throughout the central idea will be to clearly distinguish the various second laws and the various demons.. (shrink)

Formulação de Ração para Ovinos -/- Belo Jardim 2021 Formulação de Ração para Ovinos Copyright © 2021 -/- Todos os direitos reservados -/- Impresso no Brasil / Printed in Brazil -/- Departamento de Nutrição Animal do IPA – Instituto Agronômico de Pernambuco Av. Gen. San Martin, 1371 - Bongi, Recife - PE -/- Presidente do Comitê Editorial Múcio de Barros Wanderley Membros do Comitê Editorial Antônio Raimundo de Sousa Editor-chefe Josimar Gurgel Fernandes Editores de Seção Antonio Felix da Costa Supervisão (...) editorial Almira Almeida de Souza Galdino -/- Dados de Catalogação E81 Formulação de Ração para Ovinos [recurso eletrônico] / – Belo Jardim: IPA, 2021. Il. Color. PDF (estudos técnico e graduação) -/- ISSN 2446-8053 (online) -/- 1. Formulação. 2. Ração. 3. Dietas. 4. Alimentos. 5. Ovinos. I. . II. Título. CDD 221-1 -/- APRESENTAÇÃO -/- O material Formulação de Ração para Ovinos é um material de apoio para os estudantes técnicos da área pecuária ou agropecuária e para os acadêmicos da área da ciência animal que necessitam de uma base teórico-científica para a formulação de dietas para ovinos das mais diferentes categorias, idades, estados fisiológicos etc. A abordagem desse material é a apresentação das exigências nutricionais dos ovinos mediante as bases científicas como o NRC (2007); e, através de equações de predileções, apresentar as exigências nutricionais sob as condições brasileiras. Posteriormente, apresentar exemplos práticos de formulação de dietas mediante as técnicas matemáticas empregadas para a mesma. Será abordada situações reais onde um profissional pode se deparar no cotidiano de propriedades ovinocultoras. O texto estruturado de forma sistêmica, dividido em três capítulos com as exigências nutricionais, composição dos principais alimentos e a formulação prática de dietas, possibilita que os conceitos e as etapas de elaboração de dietas que supram as necessidades dos animais sejam abordados de forma clara e objetiva, com a finalidade de servir de ferramenta para que os produtores rurais, técnicos, zootecnistas, nutricionistas etc. possam conseguir elaborar dietas para fornecer uma ração que supra os requerimentos dos ovinos e que possam, também, atuar como agentes multiplicadores dessas técnicas de elaboração e planejamento alimentar nas suas regiões de origem/atuação. -/- SUMÁRIO -/- EXIGÊNCIAS NUTRICIONAIS DOS OVINOS 1 Equações de predição do consumo de matéria seca (CMS) 1 Equações de predição das formas de energia para ganho de peso 2 Equações de predição das formas de proteína para ovinos 3 Equações de predição de energia para ovinos leiteiros 5 Equações de predição de proteína metabolizável para ovinos leiteiros 6 Tabelas de requerimentos nutricionais dos ovinos 7 ALIMENTOS PARA OVINOS 19 FORMULAÇÃO DE RAÇÃO PARA OVINOS 29 RAÇÕES PRONTAS PARA OVINOS 65 CONCLUSÕES 71 REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS 72 -/- -/- EXIGÊNCIAS NUTRICIONAIS DOS OVINOS -/- Para a formulação de dietas, tanto para a espécie ovina quanto para outras espécies de interesse zootécnico, deve seguir um padrão, este que é estabelecido com o objetivo de facilitar o processo de elaboração de uma dieta. Um dos passos da elaboração é a determinação das exigências nutritivas do animal para que sirva de base para a ração final obter as mesmas quantidades da exigência, por exemplo, um animal que exige 0,25 kg de proteína, então balanceia-se uma dieta que contenha a mesma quantidade exigida. As exigências nutricionais dos animais mudam em decorrência de diversos fatores, sendo os mais relevantes a raça, peso, idade, estado produtivo do animal, ambiente, disponibilidade de forragem etc. Das exigências nutricionais dos animais, as de maior destaque são os requisitos proteicos, energéticos, vitamínicos e minerais. Existem diferentes fontes teóricas e científicas que dispõem de tabelas de requerimentos nutricionais da espécie ovina de acordo com diferentes fatores, sendo eles os de peso vivo; ganho ou perda de peso; estado produtivo ou improdutivo de carne, leite ou lã; animal em início, meio ou fim da gestação com um ou dois fetos; fêmeas paridas em lactação com uma ou duas crias ao pé etc. Apresentarei aqui algumas equações para predizer as exigências líquidas nutricionais dos ovinos e as principais tabelas de requerimentos dos ovinos que servirão de base teórica para a formulação prática de rações para animais em diferentes situações. Equações de predição do consumo de matéria seca (CMS) Na tabela 1, são apresentadas as estimativas para o consumo diário de matéria seca para cordeiros em função da variação do peso vivo (PV) e do ganho de peso diário (GPD), considerando-se a seguinte equação: CMS (kg/animal/dia) = 0,311 + [(0,0197 x PV) + (0,682 x GPD)] -/- Utilizando essa equação para diferentes pesos e médias de ganho de peso diário montamos a tabela de CMS dos cordeiros: Tabela 1: Estimativas do consumo diário de matéria seca em função do peso vivo e do ganho médio diário de peso de cordeiros Fonte: CABRAL, et al., 2008. Equações de predição das formas de energia para ganho de peso Para a estimativa das exigências de energia líquida para ganho de peso dos animais, pode-se utilizar a seguinte fórmula: Y = (2,0411 + (0,0472 x PV)) x GPD -/- Onde: Y = energia líquida (Mcal) necessária para ganho de 1kg de peso vivo PV= peso vivo dos animais GPD = ganho médio diário em kg Para a transformação das exigências em energia líquida para ganho de peso (ELg), foi considerada a eficiência de uso da energia para ganho de peso de 0,47. De posse dos valores de energia metabolizável de mantença (EMm) e energia metabolizável para ganho (EMg), foram obtidos a exigência em energia digestível (ED) e nutrientes digestíveis totais (NDT), dividindo-se o total de EM por 0,82 e a ED por 4,409 (tabela 2): Tabela 2: Estimativas das exigencias de diferentes formas de energia em função do peso vivo e do ganho médio diário de peso de cordeiros Fonte: CABRAL, et al., 2008. Equações de predição das formas de proteína para ovinos Para estimar as necessidades líquidas em proteína em função do ganho de peso, pode-se utilizar a seguinte equação: Y = 189,21 – (0,7652 x PV) x GPD Onde: Y = quantidade (g) de proteína líquida necessária para o ganho de 1 kg de peso vivo PV = peso vivo do animal, que dividido pela eficiência de 0,59 resultou na estimativa da proteína metabolizável para ganho GPD = ganho médio diário em kg Para estimar a proteína para cada kg de peso vivo de ganho é usada a fórmula: Y = 189,21 – (0,7652 x PV) -/- Por sua vez, essa equação foi convertida em proteína metabolizável (PMg) para ganho considerando-se a eficiência de 0,59. Uma vez obtida a quantidade total de proteína metabolizável (PMm + PMg), a mesma foi convertida a proteína bruta (g/animal/dia), a partir das seguintes equações: PMic (g) = 120 x NDT (kg) x 0,64 PDR (g) = 1,11 x PMic PNDR (g) = (PM – PDR)/0,8 PB (g) = PDR + PNDR -/- Onde: PMic = quantidade de proteína bruta microbiana que flui para o duodeno por dia PDR = exigência em proteína degradada no rúmen PNDR = exigência em proteína não degradada no rúmen PB = exigência em proteína bruta Através desse sistema de equações determinamos as estimativas das exigências proteicas dos cordeiros em função do peso vivo e do ganho de peso diário (tabela 3). Lembrando-se que essas equações de predição são para ovinos produtores de carne, isto é, para ovinos de corte. As estimativas e algumas equações de predição para ovinos produtores de leite serão apresentadas posteriormente. Tabela 3: Estimativas das exigencias de diferentes formas de proteína em função do peso vivo e do ganho médio diário de peso de cordeiros Fonte: CABRAL, et al., 2008. Equações de predição de energia para ovinos leiteiros De forma geral, os ovinos necessitam de energia para diversas funções, dentre elas para mantença, para movimentação ou trabalho (mudança de posição, por exemplo), para crescimento, gestação e lactação. As equações de predileção para estimar essas exigências são apresentadas abaixo e foram compiladas do AFRC (1993): Mantença: Metabolismo em Jejum F (MJ/dia) = C1 {0,25(PV/1,08)0,67} para animais de até 1 ano F (MJ/dia) = C1 {0,23(PV/1,08)0,67} para animais acima de 1 ano C1 = 1,15 para machos inteiros; 1,00 para fêmeas e machos castrados Estimativas de custo adicional de energia de atividade: Atividade Custo energético Movimento horizontal 0,7 cal/kg/movim. Movimento vertical 6,7 cal/kg/movim. Em estação 2,4 kcal/kg/dia Uma muda de posição 0,06 kcal/kg -/- Crescimento: Valor de energia do ganho VE (MJ/kg) = 2,5 + 0,35PV (Machos não Merino) VE (MJ/dia) = 4,4+ 0,32PV (Castrados) VE (MJ/dia) = 2,1+ 0,45PV (Fêmeas) VE (MJ/kg) = 5,7 Mcal/kg de ganho (Fêmeas em lactação) Gestação (últimos 3 meses): Retenção diária de energia (EC) Ec = 0,25 PVo (Et x 0,07372e-0,00643), onde: t – número de dias para a composição PVo – total de peso dos cordeiros ao nascimento (kg) Lactação: Valor de energia do leite VEg (MJ/dia) = 0,0328G x 0,0025P + 2,2033, onde G - conteúdo de gordura do leite (g/kg) P – conteúdo de proteína do leite (g/kg) Equações de predição de proteína metabolizável para ovinos leiteiros Mantença: PMm (g/dia) = 2,1875g/kgPV0,75 + 20,4 (Ovelhas) PMm (g/dia) = 2,1875g/kgPV0,75 (Cordeiros (as) em crescimento) Ganho de peso: Valor de proteína do ganho NPf (g/dia) = ∆PV (160,4 – 1,22PV + 0,0105PV2) para machos e castrados NPf (g/dia) = ∆PV (156,01 – 1,94PV + 0,0173PV2) para fêmeas Gestação: Valor de retenção de proteína líquida no feto e envoltórios fetais (PLc) PLc (g/dia) = TPt x 0,06744e-0,00601t, onde t = número de dias para a concepção e: Log10(TPt) = 4,928 – 4,873e-0,00601t Lactação: Valor de proteína líquida do leite (Pll) Pll = 71,9 g/kg de leite Tabelas de requerimentos nutricionais dos ovinos Resumidamente, a composição do concentrado dos ovinos, de acordo com a categoria, e as quantidades a serem fornecidas/animal/dia é a seguinte: Tabela 4: Composição do concentrado e quantidades fornecidas Fonte: CODEVASF, 2011. Agora, vamos dividir os requerimentos dos ovinos de acordo com a categoria, conforme os dados obtidos no NRC (2007). Tabela 5: Cordeiros desmamados precocemente, potencial de crescimento moderado3 PV (kg) GPD (g) CMS (kg/animal¹) CMS (% PV) PB (g) NDT² (g) Ca (g) P (g) 10 200 0,5 5 180 410 3,5 1,8 20 250 1 5 170 815 5,5 2,3 30 300 1,3 4,3 190 1000 6,8 3,2 40 350 1,5 3,8 200 1180 7,8 3,7 50 300 1,5 3 190 1180 6,8 3,7 -/- 1 – para converter matéria seca em matéria natural, divida o valor em MS pela porcentagem de MS do ingrediente. Por exemplo, em uma ração encontrou-se 100 g MS de milho, sabendo-se que a % de MS do milho é 90%, então: 100/0,9 = 112 g de milho com base na matéria natural. 2 – 453,6 g de NDT equivale a 0,91 Mcal de energia digestível (ED). Tabela 6: Cordeiros desmamados precocemente, potencial de crescimento rápido3 PV (kg) GPD (g) CMS (kg/animal) CMS (% PV) PB (g) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 10 250 0,6 6 160 500 5 2,3 20 300 1,2 6 210 910 6,5 2,8 30 350 1,4 4,7 220 1100 7,5 3,2 40 400 1,5 3,8 230 1150 8,5 4,1 50 430 1,7 3,4 240 1270 9,5 6,8 60 350 1,7 2,8 240 1270 8,2 4,5 -/- Tabela 7: Terminação de cordeiros (idade entre 4 e 7 meses)3 PV (kg) GPD (g) CMS (kg/animal) CMS (% PV) PB (g) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 30 300 1,3 4,3 190 950 6,5 3,5 40 270 1,6 4 185 1230 6,5 3,5 50 200 1,6 3,2 160 1230 5,5 3,5 -/- 3 – ganhos de peso máximos esperados. -/- Tabela 8: Borregas de reposição (para reprodução)4 PV (kg) GPD (g) CMS (kg/animal) CMS (% PV) PB (g) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 30 230 1,2 4 185 770 6,5 3 40 180 1,4 3,5 175 910 5,9 3 50 120 1,5 3 140 860 5 2,5 60 100 1,5 2,5 140 860 4,5 2,5 70 100 1,5 2,1 150 860 4,5 3 -/- Tabela 9: Borregos de reposição (para reprodução)4 PV (kg) GPD (g) CMS (kg/animal) CMS (% PV) PB (g) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 40 330 1,8 4,5 250 1130 7,7 3,6 60 320 2,4 4 270 1550 8,2 4,1 80 290 2,8 3,5 270 1770 8,6 4,5 100 250 3 3 270 1770 8,2 4,5 -/- 4 – esses cordeiros são destinados para a reprodução, portanto, o ganho máximo de peso e o acabamento são de importância secundária. Tabela 10: Mantença de ovinos PV (kg) GPD (g) CMS (kg/animal) CMS (% PV) PB (g) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 50 10 1 2 100 550 2 2 60 10 1,1 1,8 110 590 2,5 2,5 70 10 1,2 1,7 120 680 2,5 2,5 80 10 1,3 1,6 130 730 3 3 90 10 1,4 1,5 140 770 3 3 -/- Tabela 11: Flushing para ovinos (2 semanas pré-reprodução e primeiras 3 semanas de reprodução) PV (kg) GPD (g) CMS (kg/animal) CMS (% PV) PB (g) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 50 100 1,6 3,2 150 950 5,5 3 60 100 1,7 2,8 155 1000 5,5 3 70 100 1,8 2,6 165 1050 5,5 3,5 80 100 1,9 2,4 175 1140 6 3,5 90 100 2 2,2 180 1180 6 4 -/- Tabela 12: Primeiras 15 semanas de gestação (não-lactantes) PV (kg) GPD (g) CMS (kg/animal) CMS (% PV) PB (g) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 50 30 1,2 2,4 115 680 3 2,5 60 30 1,3 2,2 125 730 3,5 2,5 70 30 1,4 2 135 770 4 3 80 30 1,5 1,9 140 820 4 3,5 90 30 1,6 1,8 150 870 4,2 4 -/- Tabela 13: Últimas 4 semanas de gestação (taxa de parição entre 130 e 150%) PV (kg) GPD (g) CMS (kg/animal) CMS (% PV) PB (g) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 50 180 1,6 3,2 175 950 6 4,5 60 180 1,7 2,8 185 1000 6 5 70 180 1,8 2,6 190 1050 6,5 5,5 80 180 1,9 2,4 200 1100 6,5 6,5 90 180 2 2,2 215 1150 6,5 6,5 -/- Tabela 14: Últimas 4 semanas de gestação (taxa de parição entre 180 e 225%) PV (kg) GPD (g) CMS (kg/animal) CMS (% PV) PB (g) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 50 220 1,7 3,4 195 1100 6,5 3,5 60 220 1,8 3 205 1180 6,8 4 70 220 1,9 2,7 215 1270 7,7 4,5 80 220 2 2,5 225 1320 8,2 6 90 220 2,1 2,3 235 1360 9,1 6,5 -/- Tabela 15: Primeiras 6 a 8 semanas de lactação (com uma cria) PV (kg) GPD (g) CMS (kg/animal) CMS (% PV) PB (g) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 50 -30 2,1 4,2 300 1360 9 6 60 -30 2,3 3,9 320 1500 9 6,5 70 -30 2,5 3,6 330 1650 9 6,8 80 -30 2,6 3,2 345 1680 9,5 7,3 90 -30 2,7 3 355 1730 9,5 7,7 -/- Valores negativos de GPD indicam queda do consumo e, consequentemente, queda no ganho de peso. Tabela 16: Primeiras 6 a 8 semanas de lactação (com duas crias) PV (kg) GPD (g) CMS (kg/animal) CMS (% PV) PB (g) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 50 -60 2,4 4,8 390 1540 10,5 7,3 60 -60 2,6 4,3 405 1680 10,5 7,7 70 -60 2,8 4 420 1815 11 8,2 80 -60 3 3,8 435 1950 11,5 8,7 90 -60 3,2 3,6 450 2100 11,5 9,1 -/- Tabela 17: Últimas 4 a 6 semanas de lactação (com uma cria) PV (kg) GPD (g) CMS (kg/animal) CMS (% PV) PB (g) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 50 50 1,6 3,2 170 950 6 4,5 60 50 1,7 2,8 180 1000 6 5 70 50 1,8 2,6 190 1050 6,5 5,5 80 50 1,9 2,4 200 1100 6,5 6 90 50 2 2,2 215 1150 6,5 6,5 -/- Tabela 18: Últimas 4 a 6 semanas de lactação (com duas crias) PV (kg) GPD (g) CMS (kg/animal) CMS (% PV) PB (g) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 50 90 2,1 4,2 300 1360 9 6 60 90 2,3 3,8 320 1500 9 6,5 70 90 2,5 3,6 330 1630 9 7 80 90 2,6 3,2 350 1680 9,5 7,5 90 90 2,7 3 360 1730 9,5 8 -/- Ovinos raças leves Tabela 19: Primeiras 15 semanas de gestação (não lactantes) PV (kg) GPD (g) CMS (kg/animal) CMS (% PV) PB (g) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 40 160 1,4 3,5 155 820 6,5 3,5 50 140 1,5 3 160 860 6,5 3,5 60 140 1,6 2,7 160 910 6,5 3,5 70 130 1,7 2,4 165 1000 6,5 3,5 -/- Tabela 20: Últimas 4 semanas de gestação (taxa de parto esperada de 100 a 120%) PV (kg) GPD (g) CMS (kg/animal) CMS (% PV) PB (g) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 40 180 1,5 3,8 185 950 6,5 3,5 50 160 1,6 3,2 190 1000 6,5 3,5 60 160 1,7 2,8 190 1100 6,5 3,5 70 150 1,8 2,6 195 1150 7 4 -/- Tabela 21: Últimas 4 semanas de gestação (taxa de parto esperada de 130 a 175%) PV (kg) GPD (g) CMS (kg/animal) CMS (% PV) PB (g) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 40 230 1,5 3,8 200 1000 7,5 3,5 50 230 1,6 3,2 210 1050 8 3,5 60 230 1,7 2,8 215 1150 8,5 4 70 230 1,8 2,6 215 1150 8,5 4,5 -/- Tabela 22: Primeiras 6 a 8 semanas de lactação com uma cria (desmame em 8 semanas) PV (kg) GPD (g) CMS (kg/animal) CMS (% PV) PB (g) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 40 -50 1,7 4,2 260 1150 6 4 50 -50 2,1 4,2 280 1410 6,5 4,5 60 -50 2,3 3,8 295 1550 7 5 70 -50 2,5 3,6 310 1640 7,5 5,5 -/- Tabela 23: Primeiras 6 a 8 semanas de lactação com duas crias (desmame em 8 semanas) PV (kg) GPD (g) CMS (kg/animal) CMS (% PV) PB (g) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 40 -90 2,1 5,2 310 1450 8,5 5,5 50 -90 2,3 4,6 325 1590 9 6 60 -90 2,5 4,2 340 1730 9,5 6,5 70 -90 2,7 3,9 350 1860 9,5 7 -/- Concentrações de nutrientes necessárias em rações de ovinos (% da MS) Tabela 24: Concentrações de nutrientes para rações de ovinos com base na % da MS Mantença CMS 1,2 kg – PB 9,5% - NDT 55% - EM (Mcal/kg) 2,0 - Ca 0,4 g/kg – P 0,2 g/kg Flushing CMS 1,8 kg – PB 9% - NDT 60% - EM (Mcal/kg) 2,1 - Ca 0,5 g/kg – P 0,2 g/kg Gestantes primeiras 15 semanas CMS 1,4 kg – PB 9,5% - NDT 55% - EM (Mcal/kg) 2,0 - Ca 0,5 g/kg – P 0,2 g/kg Gestantes últimas semanas (queda de 40% no CMS) CMS 1,8 kg – PB 11% - NDT 60% - EM (Mcal/kg) 2,1 - Ca 0,6 g/kg – P 0,25 g/kg Gestantes últimas semanas (queda de 60% no CMS) CMS 2,0 kg – PB 11,5% - NDT 65% - EM (Mcal/kg) 2,3 - Ca 0,65 g/kg – P 0,3 g/kg Início da gestação (1 feto) CMS 1,3 kg – PB 8% - NDT 55% - EM (Mcal/kg) 1,9 - Ca 0,45 g/kg – P 0,32 g/kg Final da gestação (1 feto) CMS 1,5 kg – PB 7% - NDT 65% - EM (Mcal/kg) 2,0 - Ca 0,55 g/kg – P 0,4 g/kg Início da gestação (dois fetos) CMS 1,5 kg – PB 8,5% - NDT 55% - EM (Mcal/kg) 1,9 - Ca 0,4 g/kg – P 0,28 g/kg Final da gestação (dois fetos) CMS 1,5 kg – PB 11% - NDT 75% - EM (Mcal/kg) 2,6 - Ca 0,55 g/kg – P 0,35 g/kg Lactação (uma cria) CMS 2,5 kg – PB 13,5% - NDT 65% - EM (Mcal/kg) 2,3 - Ca 0,65 g/kg – P 0,3 g/kg Lactação (duas crias) CMS 2,8 kg – PB 15% - NDT 65% - EM (Mcal/kg) 2,5 - Ca 0,75 g/kg – P 0,35 g/kg Creep-feeding para cordeiros CMS 0,6 kg – PB 26,5% - NDT 80% - EM (Mcal/kg) 2,9 - Ca 0,95 g/kg – P 0,4 g/kg Cordeiros crescimento (GPD 270 g/dia) CMS 1,18 kg – PB 16,5% - NDT 78% - EM (Mcal/kg) 2,8 - Ca 0,6 g/kg – P 0,25 g/kg Cordeiros terminação (GPD 360 g/dia) CMS 1,5 kg – PB 14,5% - NDT 78% - EM (Mcal/kg) 2,7 - Ca 0,7 g/kg – P 0,3 g/kg Cordeiros terminação (GPD 270 g/dia) CMS 1,6 kg – PB 12% - NDT 75% - EM (Mcal/kg) 2,7 - Ca 0,55 g/kg – P 0,22 g/kg Borregas reposição CMS 1,4 kg – PB 10% - NDT 65% - EM (Mcal/kg) 2,4 - Ca 0,45 g/kg – P 0,18 g/kg Borregos reposição CMS 2,4 kg – PB 11% - NDT 65% - EM (Mcal/kg) 2,3 - Ca 0,45 g/kg – P 0,18 g/kg Reprodutores serviço CMS 3,0 kg – PB 10% - NDT 65% - EM (Mcal/kg) 2,3 - Ca 0,4 g/kg – P 0,15 g/kg Confinamento de ovinos PB 14% - NDT 65% - Ca 0,8 % – P 0,4% Adaptação de BELLUZO et al., 2001; BORGES & GONÇALVES, 2011 e NRC, 2007. As exigências minerais dos ovinos, segundo autores, são apresentadas na tabela 25. Tabela 25: Exigências minerais de ovinos MACROMINERAIS CHURCH (2002) (%) ZANETTI (2019) (%) Ca 0,2 – 0,82 0,3 – 0,5 P 0,16 – 0,38 0,17 – 0,48 Mg 0,12 – 0,18 0,09 – 0,11 K 0,5 – 0,8 0,46 S 0,14 – 0,26 0,15 – 0,25 Na 0,09 – 0,18 0,1 Cl 0,09 – 0,18 0,1 MICROMINERAIS CHURCH (2002) mg/kg ZANETTI (2019) mg/kg Co 0,1 – 0,2 0,1 Cu 7 – 11 4 – 7 Fe 30 – 50 7 – 90 I 0,1 – 0,8 0,5 Mn 20 – 40 8 – 24 Mo 0,5 5 Se 0,1 – 0,2 0,04 – 0,52 Zn 20 – 33 25 – 29 -/- Energia metabolizável para ovinos A energia metabolizável é a parte da energia bruta que não aparece em fezes, urinas e nos gases produtos da fermentação (principalmente metano). É determinada pela subtração das perdas de energia na urina e gases combustíveis da energia digestível (ED) consumida; para isso, deve-se coletar fezes, urinas e perdas gasosas. É um pouco mais precisa que a ED em termos de estimativa da energia disponível, porém mais caro para determiná-la. Compara-se com a energia proveniente do NDT menos a energia dos gases da fermentação. Determinamos através da fórmula: EM = EB (energia bruta) – (energia perdida em fezes + energia perdida em gases da fermentação + energia perdida na urina) -/- Em muitos cálculos da formulação de dietas para animais de produção é utilizada a energia metabolizável no lugar do NDT. Logo, apresentamos as exigências de energia metabolizável dos ovinos em função do peso e da categoria fisiológica do animal. Tabela 26: Exigências de energia metabolizável para ovinos PV (kg) EM (Mcal/dia) Mantença EM (Mcal/dia) Flushing EM (Mcal/dia) Início gestação 1 cria EM (Mcal/dia) Início gestação 2 crias 40 1,48 1,63 1,89 2,20 50 1,75 1,92 2,21 2,51 60 2,00 2,21 2,51 2,89 70 2,25 2,48 2,80 3,22 80 2,49 2,74 3,08 3,52 PV (kg) EM (Mcal/dia) Final gestação 1 cria EM (Mcal/dia) Final gestação 2 crias EM (Mcal/dia) Lactação 1 cria EM (Mcal/dia) Lactação 2 crias 40 2,38 3,05 2,61 3,35 50 2,76 3,50 3,00 3,85 60 3,11 3,94 3,39 4,31 70 3,45 4,37 3,75 4,73 80 3,78 4,75 4,08 5,15 -/- As exigências nutricionais dos ovinos servem de alicerce para a elaboração de uma dieta, uma vez que, diante os cálculos, é necessário estimar uma quantidade x de um dado alimento para suprir uma exigência final seja proteica, energética ou qualquer outra. Essas tabelas de exigências dos ovinos servem de base após a caracterização do lote para que deve ser elaborada uma mistura. Por exemplo, um lote de cordeiros com 30 kg de peso vivo, quais são as exigências de cada animal? Basta consultar a tabela 7 deste manual para depois ser levantado os alimentos e a composição destes e começar a elaborar a dieta. Agora que conhecemos os animais e suas exigências, vamos discorrer sobre o grupo e os principais ingredientes com potencial nutricional para alimentar os ovinos. -/- Relação volumoso:concentrado (v:c) para ovinos Além do balanceamento dos nutrientes necessários, a relação v:c da dieta depende, basicamente, da qualidade do volumoso e da ração concentrada. Se o volumoso possuir boa qualidade, consequentemente seu valor nutricional será melhor e, para ovinos em mantença por exemplo, pode ser empregado em 100% da ração; por sua vez, se o volumoso possuir péssima qualidade nutricional será necessária a adição de concentrado na dieta diária do animal, não esquecendo de que essa ração concentrada deverá atender os requisitos do animal, logo a ração deverá ser de boa qualidade. Além da qualidade do volumoso e/ou concentrado, a relação v:c depende também do objetivo final de criação, isto é, se é necessário engordar os animais em menos tempo para abate, ou em pastagem etc., portanto, também depende da necessidade de ganho de peso diário para os animais, uma vez que a finalidade é um GPD maior é utilizada uma relação concentrada maior que a volumosa. O NRC, 2007 sugere as proporções de v:c para ovinos em diferentes situações. Exemplos de proporções de volumoso e concentrado na dieta de ovinos PV Kg VOLUMOSO % CONCENTRADO % Mantença 70 100 0 Flushing 70 85 15 Fêmeas secas – primeiras 15 semanas de gestação 70 100 0 Últimas 4 semanas de gestação (TP¹ 130-150%) 70 85 15 Últimas 4-6 semanas de lactação 1 cria 70 85 15 Últimas 4 semanas de gestação (TP 180-225%) 70 65 35 Primeiras 6-8 semanas de lactação com 1 cria 70 65 35 Últimas 4-6 semanas de lactação com 2 crias 70 65 35 Primeiras 6-8 semanas de lactação com 2 crias 70 65 35 Borregas secas – primeiras 15 semanas de gestação 55 85 15 Borregas – últimas 4 semanas de gestação (TP 100-120%) 55 70 30 Borregas – últimas 4 semanas de gestação (TP 130-175%) 55 60 40 Borregas – primeiras 6-8 semanas de lactação com 1 cria (desmame aos 8 meses) 55 60 40 Borregas – primeiras 6-8 semanas de lactação com 2 crias (desmame aos 8 meses) 55 50 50 Borregas de reposição 30 65 35 40 65 35 50-70 85 15 Borregos de reposição 40 70 30 60 70 30 80-100 70 30 Terminação de cordeiros 4-7 meses 30 40 60 40 25 75 50 20 80 Cordeiros recém-desmamados 10 10 90 20 15 85 30 15 85 40-60 15 85 Fonte: NRC, 2007. -/- ALIMENTOS PARA OVINOS -/- De forma geral, sabemos que os alimentos dividem-se em dois grupos os alimentos volumosos e os concentrados. Os volumosos são aqueles que possuem carga nutritiva menor e que o animal deve consumir em maior quantidade para suprir suas exigências nutricionais, o teor de proteína desses alimentos é variável, mas, na maior parte, não ultrapassa os 20%; por sua vez, a quantidade de fibra é grande já que esse grupo engloba as forragens, pastagens, fenos, palhas, silagens, raízes, tubérculos etc. Os concentrados são aqueles com alta carga nutricional e que o animal, mesmo consumindo poucas quantidades (em torno de 1 kg), supre todas suas exigências nutricionais; estes são divididos em alimentos que fornecem mais energia do que proteína (energéticos) como o milho, e nos que fornecem mais proteína que energia (proteicos) como o farelo de soja. Existem uma série de alimentos que podem ser utilizados na alimentação dos ovinos como as gramíneas forrageiras como o capim-andropogon, capim-braquiária, capim-buffel, capim tifton, estrela-africana, capim-massai, capim-mombaça, capim-colonião e capim-elefante; as leguminosas que são, muitas vezes, fontes alternativas de alimentos como o amendoim forrageiro, guandu, feijão andu, leucena, estilosantes, algaroba, gliricídia, sabiá etc.; os alimentos concentrados energéticos como a aveia, trigo, cevada, centeio, milho, sorgo, arroz e os subprodutos desses ingredientes; os alimentos concentrados proteicos como farelo de linhaça, farelo de girassol, farelo de amendoim, farelo de soja etc. Existem ainda, os alimentos provenientes da caatinga com alto potencial para a alimentação dos ovinos; a composição proteica desses alimentos e a parte comestível que pode ser fornecida aos ovinos é apresentada na tabela 27. -/- Tabela 27: Forragens nativas do nordeste brasileiro usadas como alimento Fonte: CODEVASF, 2011. A composição bromatológica dos ingredientes utilizados na alimentação dos ovinos, que é indispensável para a elaboração de dietas que supram os requisitos é apresentada na tabela 28. É importante frisar que existem outros ingredientes com alto potencial nutricional para os ovinos. Tabela 28: Composição bromatológica dos alimentos utilizados na alimentação de ovinos Alimento MS% PB% EE% EM (Mcal/kg) NDT% Ca% P% Concentrados energéticos Arroz farelo desengordurado 88,2 16,8 1,66 2,1 24,9 0,09 1,8 Arroz farelo desfinitizado 90,8 18 1,65 - - 0,31 2,04 Arroz farelo integral 88,9 13,4 16,4 3,3 87,5 0,11 1,73 Arroz farelo parboilizado 91,2 16,2 24,25 - - - 0,09 Arroz grão c/casca 89,1 8,2 3,9 2,0 56,1 0,09 0,08 Arroz grão s/casca 86,2 8,5 1,2 - - 0,04 0,16 Continuação MS% PB% EE% EM (Mcal/kg) NDT% Ca% P% Aveia grão 90,4 14,6 3,8 3,2 83,3 0,13 0,35 Batata 29,1 3,1 0,3 3,1 84,6 0,33 0,08 Batata doce - 6 0,6 - - 0,05 0,11 Beterraba 14 2 0,4 - - 0,18 0,12 Cacau farelo 88,8 15,9 4,5 2,4 64,5 0,74 0,5 Centeio grão 88,4 18,1 1,9 - - 0,68 0,42 Cevada grão 89,9 12,4 1,5 2,8 76,8 0,05 0,37 Dendê torta 91 15,4 9,3 3,1 82,3 0,2 0,75 Faveira vagem 77,3 11,2 1,25 - 72,5 - - Mandioca raspa 87,7 2,8 0,5 3,0 82,2 0,21 0,07 Milheto grão 88,1 12,1 3,2 - - - - Milho grão/fubá 88 9 4 3,3 87,7 0,03 0,26 MDPS 87,9 7,1 3,15 2,8 75,9 0,04 0,22 Milho espiga silagem 55,2 8,1 3,7 3,2 85,9 0,05 0,27 Milho gérmen farelo 89,9 11 22,9 3,9 103,8 0,03 0,42 Milho grão reidratado silagem 65,8 9,3 4,7 3,75 99,6 - - Milho silagem grão úmido 66,7 9,2 4,6 3,3 88,2 0,03 0,25 Polpa cítrica 88,4 6,9 3,1 2,9 78,3 1,8 0,13 Soja casca 90,1 12,6 2,2 2,7 72,5 0,52 0,16 Sorgo grão 88 9,3 2,9 3,1 84,4 0,07 0,29 Sorgo grão reidratado silagem 65,3 9,15 3,4 3,0 79,9 - - Trigo farelo 87,6 16,7 3,6 2,95 77,3 0,17 1,01 Trigo grão 89,1 14,2 1,45 - - - - Concentrados proteicos Algodão caroço 90,6 23,1 19,2 3,45 88,2 0,27 0,75 Algodão farelo 28 89,8 28 2,0 2,8 68,1 0,26 0,77 Algodão farelo 38 89,7 38 1,5 2,7 65,6 0,24 0,97 Algodão farelo 42 90,5 42 1,6 3,0 69,8 0,22 0,96 Algodão torta 90,4 29,6 9,5 3,0 75,6 0,28 0,58 Amendoim farelo 89,4 56 1,3 3,9 89,5 0,18 0,62 Continuação MS% PB% EE% EM (Mcal/kg) NDT% Ca% P% Amiréia 90,6 200 5,0 - 22 0,12 0,08 Babaçu farelo 90 20,6 1,6 2,75 71,9 0,13 0,36 Babaçu torta 90,8 19,3 8,0 3,0 78 0,15 0,69 Crambe farelo 89,1 35,9 1,2 3,1 73,9 0,29 0,47 Canola farelo 89,4 40,1 2,5 3,5 83,4 0,62 0,82 Colza farelo 91,2 40 5,2 - - 0,65 1,34 Colza grão 93,3 23,6 43,7 - - 0,24 0,81 Farinha de ostras 95,7 33,7 - - - 36,2 5,3 Feijão moído 89,6 24,2 1,5 3,2 80,8 0,54 0,43 Girassol farelo 90,2 31,4 1,9 2,9 71,1 0,3 0,9 Linhaça integral 90 21 34 - - 0,25 0,5 Linhaça torta - 32 3,5 - 75 0,4 0,8 Linhaça farelo 92 34 1,0 - - 0,6 0,6 Mamona farelo 89,6 38 2,7 2,95 70,9 0,7 0,77 Mamona farelo detoxificado 89,2 38,1 1,5 2,9 69,3 1,46 0,65 Mamona torta 89,2 31,8 7,0 3,3 81,6 0,72 0,84 Mamona torta detoxificada 86,3 34 5,5 3,0 73,9 2,14 0,8 Milho glúten 60 90,6 60 2,8 3,8 83,9 0,05 0,44 Milho glúten farelo 21 88,8 21 2,8 3,0 76,7 0,16 0,7 Nabo forrageiro torta 91,9 37,3 18,1 3,7 91,2 0,36 1,71 Milho (DDGS) 91,2 31,8 8,2 - 89 0,05 0,86 Resíduo de cervejaria 22,3 25,6 6,3 3,6 92,2 0,33 0,78 Milho – (DDG) 87,5 23,6 12,7 3,4 86,2 0,05 0,32 Milho (WDG) 31,8 32 6,7 - 93 0,05 0,35 Soja farelo 87 45 2,0 3,4 73 0,3 0,61 Soja farelo extrusado 96,7 41 10,6 3,7 89,7 0,07 0,57 Soja grão 92,8 37 18,8 4,1 87 0,25 0,58 Soja grão tostado 91,7 39,1 21 3,9 94,2 0,25 0,49 Ureia 97,9 280 - - - - - Coprodutos e/ou subprodutos Arroz palha 89 4,4 - - - - - Continuação MS% PB% EE% EM (Mcal/kg) NDT% Ca% P% Abacaxi desidratado 87,1 8,8 1,5 2,1 58,8 0,41 0,18 Acerola subproduto 84,2 11,7 2,4 1,85 51,2 0,41 0,18 Aveia palha 88,8 4,6 2,3 - - - - Batata doce folha - 26,8 - - - - - Batata doce rama 17,4 11,5 2,3 2,4 66,8 1,44 0,32 Cana-de-açúcar bagaço 91 2,0 0,69 1,7 46,6 0,21 0,07 Café casca 84,8 10,1 1,6 1,8 49,7 0,33 0,13 Capim elefante colmo 22 5,8 - 2,0 55,9 - - Caju subproduto suco 88,7 13,9 3,1 - 47,2 0,43 0,1 Maça bagaço 9,9 9,8 - - - - - Mandioca casca 88,6 4,5 1,15 2,7 74,5 0,48 0,06 Maracujá subproduto 85,8 11,9 2,4 1,85 50,8 0,53 0,13 Trigo palha 90 3,9 - - - - - Uva bagaço 35,2 15,9 - - - - - Forragens secas Alfafa feno 85,8 18,7 2,0 2,1 66,4 1,17 0,33 Alfafa feno peletizado 90 25 - - - - - Aveia feno 90 10 2,3 2,0 54 0,4 0,27 Aveia preta feno 87,7 9,9 1,75 - - - - Azevém feno 93 13,5 1,4 - - - - Brachiaria B. feno 88 4,2 1,2 1,9 54 0,33 0,11 Brachiaria D. feno 89 7 1,35 1,9 54,5 0,27 0,14 Cevada feno 90 9 2,1 2,1 57 0,3 0,28 Coast-cross feno 87 10,5 1,75 1,9 53 0,27 0,38 Capim elefante feno 87,3 6 1,8 1,8 52 0,24 0,18 Capim tifton 85 feno 88 9,9 1,45 2,2 57,7 0,33 0,27 Jureminha feno 88 15,9 2,0 1,9 51,7 - - Maniçoba feno 86 12 4,2 2,1 56,2 - - Trevo feno 89 16 2,2 2,1 57 1,73 0,24 Trigo feno 90 9 2,0 2,1 57 0,21 0,22 Triticale feno 90 10 - 2,0 56 0,3 0,26 Continuação MS% PB% EE% EM (Mcal/kg) NDT% Ca% P% Silagens (pré-secado) Alfafa silagem 30 18 3,0 2,0 55 1,4 0,29 Arroz silagem planta 37 8,5 - - - - - Aveia preta silagem 23,4 11 2,9 - - - - Aveia silagem 35 12 3,2 2,2 60 0,34 0,3 Azevém silagem 22,4 10,6 1,9 - - - - Cana-de-açúcar silagem 25,7 3,5 1,7 1,9 54,8 0,3 0,05 Cana silagem 0-0,5% CAO 28,9 2,8 1,1 2,2 62 - - Cana silagem 0,5% ureia 28,6 10 - - - - - Cana silagem 1% ureia 31 15 - - - - - Cana silagem 1,5% ureia 29 18 - - - - - Capim elefante silagem 27,5 5,5 2,2 1,7 50 0,31 0,2 Capim mombaça silagem 24,4 7,4 1,7 1,7 49,4 0,44 0,12 Cevada silagem 30 18 3,0 2,0 55 1,4 0,29 Estilosantes silagem 29,3 11,8 1,8 1,8 49 - - Girassol silagem 24,7 9,6 12,4 2,0 56,1 1,02 0,24 Milho silagem 31,1 7,2 2,9 2,3 63,8 0,28 0,19 Milheto silagem 19 15 3,8 2,3 62,7 - - Milho silagem sem espiga 21,3 6,4 1,4 1,9 53,6 - - Soja silagem 25,8 17,8 9,5 2,3 60 - - Sorgo silagem 32 9 2,7 2,1 59 0,48 0,21 Sorgo forrageiro silagem 28,1 6,3 3,4 2,3 63,9 0,14 0,14 Sorgo silagem com tanino 27,6 7,1 2,1 2,2 61,7 - - Sorgo silagem sem tanino 28 7,4 2,2 2,2 61 - - Triticale silagem 26,3 14 1,4 2,1 58 0,66 0,4 Trigo silagem 33 12 3,2 2,1 59 0,4 0,28 Forragens verdes Amendoim forrageiro 22,8 18,4 1,9 2,1 54,5 2,1 0,22 Cana-de-açúcar 28,9 2,8 1,5 2,3 64,5 0,24 0,08 Capim braquiária brizantha 34 6,9 2,0 1,8 52 0,31 0,11 Capim bb (46-60 dias) 20,8 9,5 4,0 2,0 55,7 0,71 0,47 Continuação MS% PB% EE% EM (Mcal/kg) NDT% Ca% P% Capim bb (61-90 dias) 24,9 6,5 4,0 2,1 58 0,46 0,38 Capim bb (91-120 dias) 27,7 4,8 1,2 1,9 54 0,58 0,17 Capim braquiária marandu 33,2 7,7 2,0 1,8 51,5 0,28 0,09 Capim bm (61-90 dias) 37,8 5,5 1,8 1,8 53 0,08 0,05 Capim braq. marandu outono 31 11,8 1,4 2,0 55 - - Capim bm primavera 27 11,3 2,0 2,1 58,7 - - Capim bm verão 29 12,3 1,8 2,0 54 - - Capim bb MG4 23 9,2 1,9 1,9 52,6 - - Capim bb MG4 (61-90 dias) 29 6,4 1,5 1,9 53 - - Capim bb piatã (61-90 dias) 34 4,7 1,7 1,9 55,8 - - Capim bb xaraés 23 9,3 1,5 2,0 56 0,6 0,09 Capim braquiária decumbens 28,5 6,7 1,8 1,8 51,5 0,4 0,1 Capim bd (61-90 dias) 27,8 7,2 2,1 1,7 49,3 0,3 0,19 Capim bb (91-120 dias) 30 5,7 2,1 1,9 55,2 0,3 0,2 Capim bd (121-150 dias) 43,7 5,1 2,1 2,0 56,7 0,72 0,28 Capim braquiária humidícola 28 7,4 2,5 1,9 54,8 0,38 0,12 Capim buffel (61-90 dias) 34,6 7,8 1,8 1,8 52,3 - - Capim coast cross 32,6 12,2 2,5 - 65,4 0,46 0,16 Capim colonião outono 29,4 14,7 1,3 - - - - Capim colonião primavera 23,4 14,6 1,6 - - - - Capim colonião verão 26,7 16,5 2,6 - - - - Capim elefante 21,7 7 2,3 1,7 50 0,36 0,23 Capim gordura 28 6,9 1,3 2,1 58 0,24 0,07 Capim massai (61-90 dias) 29,5 8 2,1 1,8 51,6 - - Capim mombaça 27 11 1,7 1,9 53 0,74 0,19 Capim mombaça (61-90 dias) 26,8 8,3 1,4 1,8 52 - 0,11 Capim setária (61-90 dias) 21,7 9 1,4 1,9 53,7 - - Capim sudão 19 12,9 2,9 2,0 55 - - Capim tanzânia 23,4 9,5 2,4 1,8 51 0,59 0,14 Capim tanzânia (61-90 dias) 31 5,6 1,7 1,8 53 - - Capim tifton 68 23 13,4 2,9 - - - 0,08 Continuação MS% PB% EE% EM (Mcal/kg) NDT% Ca% P% Capim tifton 85 27 12,9 2,0 1,4 39,5 0,54 0,5 Cunhã 29 16,6 5,1 2,6 69,5 - 0,18 Gliricídia 22 17 5,4 2,2 59 - - Leucena 32 21,2 3,9 2,7 69 0,86 0,18 Maniçoba 24,8 19,4 7,1 2,5 65,3 - 0,18 Milheto 20 12,2 3,1 2,2 60 0,72 0,26 Mororó 47,4 11,3 3,8 2,3 62 - - Palma miúda 11,3 4,1 2,6 2,3 64,2 3,84 0,22 Sabiá 43,6 12 4,3 2,3 62,2 - - Sorgo forrageiro 24 6,9 3,0 1,8 51,6 0,13 0,13 Forragens verdes e cultivadas Alfafa 25 22 2,7 - 65 1,64 0,23 Aveia branca 90 15 - - - - - Aveia preta 21 8 1,6 2,2 61,5 0,31 0,25 Aveia + Azevém (cultivada) 19 19 4,8 - - - - Azevém 15 15 3,6 - 68 0,43 0,28 Azevém pré-florescimento 17,5 15 1,7 2,4 66,6 0,42 0,3 Azevém início floresc. 22,4 12 1,5 2,3 63 0,45 0,27 Cana-de-açúcar caule 26 2,9 3,2 - - - - Cana-de-açúcar caule+folhas 24 7 3,0 2,3 63,5 0,23 0,21 Centeio 25 13 1,5 2,2 60 0,26 0,29 Cornichão 21 18 2,0 2,3 63 0,92 0,27 Festuca 24 8,5 1,8 2,3 64 0,32 0,3 Trevo branco 16 19 2,1 2,4 64 1,1 0,37 Amendoim branco 36,6 16,8 2,4 2,4 67 1,23 0,18 Braquiarão - 9 1,7 2,3 57 0,3 0,17 Capim colonião (20-60 dias) - 11-5 - - 61-47 0,45¹ 0,24² Capim pangola 35 7,5 - - 55 - - Guandu (40->90 dias) - 21-13 - - - - - Continuação MS% PB% EE% EM (Mcal/kg) NDT% Ca% P% Fontes alternativas (Nordeste) Coroa de frade 11 8 3,5 2,5 - 2,06 0,17 Facheiro 10,5 7,5 2,4 2,5 - 5,03 0,12 Mandacaru 14,5 3,5 1,8 2,5 - 3,06 0,07 Palma gigante 12 5 1,9 2,5 - 2,35 0,13 Xique-xique 13 6 1,3 1,7 48,3 3,12 0,07 Cana-de-açúcar caldo 23 0,3 - 2,0 - 0,01 0,02 Cana-de-açúcar levedura 89 35 1,9 2,0 - 0,48 0,73 Coco farelo 91 24 9,0 3,0 - 0,29 0,51 Capim buffel feno 87 4,5 1,2 1,2 - 0,21 0,06 Capim tifton feno 91 8,5 1,6 1,75 53 0,49 0,14 Cunhã feno 90,5 18 2,7 3,0 - 0,43 0,18 Erva-sal feno 89 9 1,6 - - 0,77 0,04 Feijão bravo feno 80 11,5 3,3 3,0 51 - - Flor de seda feno 75 14 6 1,9 - 2,6 0,22 Guandu feno - 14 2,7 - - - 0,11 Leucena feno 91 21 3,2 2,8 55 1,18 0,29 Mata-pasto feno 89 9,5 - - - 1,75 0,12 Sorgo forrageiro feno 90,8 4,2 - 2,0 - 0,4 0,22 Canafístula 40,8 12,9 4,6 2,0 54 - - Capim elefante roxo 20 8,5 3,5 - - 0,42 0,41 Géria 88 16 1,0 - - 1,17 0,21 Feijão dos arrozais 24 17 5,0 2,7 69 2,6 0,04 Glicirídia casca - 13 0,9 - - 2,06 0,18 Glicirídia caule - 5,6 0,4 - - 0,44 0,07 Glicirídia folha - 22,7 2,0 - - 2,44 0,18 Guandu parte aérea 35 19 5,0 - - 0,89 0,12 Jurema preta 35 12 9,0 - - 0,67 0,25 Leucena caule 49,4 7,5 2,1 - - 0,56 0,69 Leucena folha 35,5 24 2,2 - - 2,18 0,2 Mandioca folha 45 22 5,5 2,5 - 0,91 0,23 Continuação MS% PB% EE% EM (Mcal/kg) NDT% Ca% P% Siratro 25 16 2,7 - - 1,02 0,16 Umbuzeiro folha 15 15 8,6 - - 1,29 0,22 Mandioca parte aérea silagem 12,3 18 3,6 2,0 53 1,21 0,14 Caju castanha 97,5 21,9 40,1 5,5 128,9 - - Caju castanha farelo amêndoa 95 23,5 47 3,5 - 0,6 0,25 Caju farelo pseudofruto 89,5 14,8 6,0 - 75 0,06 0,04 Coco amêndoa farelo 96 25 21,7 2,7 - 0,31 0,26 Goiaba subproduto 55 8 4,7 - 35,7 0,15 0,36 Mandioca bagaço 87,6 2 0,6 - 65 0,14 1,8 Maracujá subproduto 92 11 0,7 1,8 52 0,42 0,22 Melão subproduto 92 14 2,1 0,95 37 0,56 0,8 Milho palha 92,3 5,1 0,4 2,5 54 0,15 0,13 Fontes de minerais Calcário 100% MS – 38% Ca e 1% Mg Calcário calcítico 100% MS – 33,6% Ca Calcário dolomítico 92% MS – 20,3% Ca e 9,6% Mg Cloreto de potássio 100% MS – 39,6% K Flor de enxofre 100% MS – 96% S Fosfato bicálcico 100% MS – 23% Ca – 18% P – 1% Mg – 0,08% K e 0,13% Na Fosfato tricálcico 99,6% MS – 40,2% Ca e 16% P Iodato de potássio 100% MS – 59,3% I Óxido de magnésio 98% MS – 0,58% Ca – 53,8% Mg e 0,03% Na Sal comum 99% MS – 39,5% Na – 2,7% Mn e 9,9% Zn – 1,3% Cu Selenito de sódio 100% MS – 45,6% Se Sulfato de cobalto 100% MS – 20% Co Sulfato de cobre 100% MS – 25,4% Cu Sulfato de manganês 100% MS – 32,5% Mn Sulfato de zinco 100% MS – 35% Zn Fontes proteicas de origem animal³ Proibidos na alimentação de ruminantes dada a IN MAPA – 8/2004 Art. 1º Fonte: DA SILVA, 2021. -/- FORMULAÇÃO DE RAÇÃO PARA OVINOS -/- A formulação de dietas para ovinos e caprinos de corte é análoga ao esquema de formulação para a espécie caprina e demais ruminantes. Sempre é necessário categorizar os animais para determinar situações como peso vivo do animal, estado fisiológico, isto é, se está produzindo ou não, idade etc.; posteriormente, faz-se necessário a busca pelas exigências nutricionais dos animais mediante a literatura, seja através das publicações do NRC, AFRC ou CSIRO; encontrada as exigências dos ovinos é necessário a avaliação de quais são os ingredientes disponíveis para a formulação da dieta e sua composição nutricional para ser utilizado de métodos matemáticos ou programações de computador para balancear as quantidades de cada um para que possam suprir a exigência do animal. Aqui, apresentarei situações de formulação práticas, que o profissional poderá se deparar no cotidiano profissional, dos quais os animais serão alimentados com o uso do creep-feeding e flushing; e animais em mantença, confinados para o ganho de peso, sob pastejo, gestantes e, por fim, em lactação com uma ou duas crias ao pé. Para a determinação das exigências dos animais utilizarei os valores aqui descritos que foram compilados do NRC, 2007 e descritos nas tabelas do capítulo 1. Para os alimentos serão usados os valores aqui presentes e compilados de diversos autores e descritos na tabela 28 do capítulo 2. A abordagem matemática utilizada para formular as dietas serão explicadas pelos métodos de formulação do quadrado de Pearson simples, que balanceia apenas um nutriente, ou duplo, que balanceia mais de um nutriente; pelo método algébrico com duas equações e dois ingredientes, ou três equações e três ou mais ingredientes, do qual esse método é capaz de sempre balancear dois ou três nutrientes, sendo os usados a PB e NDT. Os cálculos serão explicados de forma didática visando a facilidade para todos. EXEMPLO 1: formular uma ração para cordeiros com 12 dias de idade que exigem 20% de PB e 75% de NDT utilizando farelo de trigo, MDPS e farelo de soja. Deixar 1% para suplemento mineral e sal. Como 1% deve ser reservado para a inclusão de sal mineral e sal, a ração a ser formulada deve ser de 99%. 1º passo: composição dos alimentos: Ingredientes MS % PB % NDT % Farelo de trigo 89 16 75 MDPS 90 9 85 Farelo de soja 90 45 80 -/- 2º passo: montar o sistema de equações com 3 incógnitas onde x será farelo de trigo, y MDPS e z farelo de soja: Equação MS: x + y + z = 99 Equação PB: 0,16x + 0,09y + 0,45z = 20 Equação NDT: 0,75x + 0,85y + 0,80z = 75 Sendo: x farelo de trigo; y milho desintegrado com palha e sabugo; z farelo de soja; 0,16 a % de PB do farelo de trigo; 0,09 a % de PB do MDPS; 0,45 a % de PB do farelo de soja; 0,75 a % de NDT do FT; 0,85 a % de NDT do MDPS; 0,80 a % de NDT do FS. Sempre, para a resolução de um sistema de 3 equações, devemos juntar as equações 1 e 2, nesse caso as equações MS e PB, multiplicar os termos da equação 1 (MS) pelo termo da primeira incógnita da equação 2 (PB), que nesse caso é o de x e multiplicar todos os termos da equação PB por -1 para obter a equação 4. Do mesmo modo, posteriormente pegamos as equações MS e NDT que serão multiplicadas do mesmo método e os resultados serão adicionados para a determinação da equação 5. Vamos resolver para elucidar melhor: 1º - determinação da equação 4 através de MS e PB: Equação MS: x + y + z = 99 (x por 0,16) Equação PB: 0,16x + 0,09y + 0,45z = 20 (x por -1) 0,16x + 0,16y + 0,16z = 15,84 -0,16x - 0,09y - 0,45z = -20 0,07y – 0,29z = -4,16 (equação 4) 2º - determinação da equação 5 através de MS e NDT: Equação MS: x + y + z = 99 (x por 0,75) Equação PB: 0,75x + 0,85y + 0,80z = 75 (x por -1) 0,75x + 0,75y + 0,75z = 74,25 -0,75x - 0,85y - 0,80z = -75 -0,10y – 0,05z = -0,75 (equação 5) 3º - determinação de z através das equações 4 e 5: Equação 4: 0,07y – 0,29z = -4,16 (x por -0,10) Equação 5: -0,10y – 0,05z = -0,75 (x por 0,07) -0,007y + 0,029z = 0,416 -0,007y - 0,0035z = -0,0525 0,0255z = 0,3635 z = 14,25 4º - substituindo o valor de z (14,25) na equação 4 vamos determinar y: 0,07y – (0,29 x 14,25) = -4,16 0,07y – 4,1325 = -4,16 0,07y = -4,16 + 4,1325 0,07y = -0,0275 x -1 (para o resultado ser positivo) y = 0,39 5º - usando a equação MS para determinar x: MS = x + y + z = 99 x = 99 – y – z x = 99 – 0,39 – 14,25 x = 84,36 3º passo: resolvendo o sistema em 3 passos com, as equações MS e PB para determinar a equação 4, com a MS e NDT para determinar a equação 5 e com as 4 e 5 para determinar z, encontramos z = 14,25; y = 0,39 e x = 84,36. 4º passo: verificar a ração: Os valores encontrados no sistema de equação refletem a quantidade de MS dos ingredientes. Para calcular o valor dos ingredientes com base na matéria natural, fazemos a divisão da quantidade de MS pela porcentagem de MS do ingrediente, desta forma: - matéria natural dos ingredientes, tal qual será misturada à ração: Farelo de trigo: 84,36/0,89 = 94,8 kg MDPS: 0,39/0,9 = 0,43 kg Farelo de soja: 14,25/0,9 = 15,83 kg Suplemento mineral e sal: 1/1 (como exemplo um suplemento com 100% de MS) = 1 kg - calcular a % dos ingredientes: a soma com base na matéria natural é 112,06, então: Farelo de trigo: 94,8/112,06 x 100 = 84,6% MDPS: 0,43/112,06 x 100 = 0,4% Farelo de soja: 15,83/112,06 x 100 = 14,1% Suplemento e sal: 1/112,06 x 100 = 0,9% - verificar a proteína bruta dos ingredientes: Farelo de trigo: 100 kg ---------- 16% PB 84,36 kg ---------- x% PB x = 84,36 x 16/100 x = 13,5% MDPS: do mesmo modo, teremos: 0,39 x 9/100 = 0,1% Farelo de soja: teremos: 14,25 x 45/100 = 6,4% A soma das proteínas é 20%, a exigência foi suprida. - verificar o NDT dos ingredientes: Farelo de trigo: 100 kg ---------- 75% NDT 84,36 kg ---------- x% NDT x = 84,36 x 75/100 x = 63,27% MDPS: 0,39 x 85/100 = 0,33% Farelo de soja: 14,25 x 80/100 = 11,4% A soma do NDT é 75%, a exigência foi suprida. Verificando os resultados no quadro: Ingrediente MS kg MN kg % final PB % NDT % Farelo de trigo 84,36 94,8 84,6 13,5 63,27 MDPS 0,39 0,43 0,4 0,1 0,33 Farelo de soja 14,25 15,83 14,1 6,4 11,4 Suplemento e sal 1 1 0,9 - - TOTAL 100 112,06 100 20 75 Exigência 100 - 100 20 75 DÉFICE - - - - - -/- O fornecimento da ração deverá ser à vontade. -/- EXEMPLO 2: formular dieta para ovinos da raça Dorper em mantença com média de 70 kg PV. Os alimentos disponíveis na propriedade são cana-de-açúcar com 1% de ureia, raspa de mandioca e farelo de girassol. O animal em mantença ganha cerca de 10 g/dia de PV. Deixar ER de 1,5% para suplemento mineral e sal. 1º passo: exigências nutricionais do animal: Exigência CMS g PB g NDT g Ca g P g TOTAL 1100 110 660 4 3 TOTAL % 100 10 60 0,36 0,27 -/- 2º passo: composição dos alimentos disponíveis: Ingrediente MS % PB % NDT % Ca % P % Cana e ureia 30 11 58 0,21 0,06 Raspa de mandioca 88 3 74 0,15 0,8 Farelo de girassol 90 45 65 0,6 0,9 Calcário 100 - - 38 - Fosfato bicálcico 100 - - 23 18 -/- 3º passo: montar o sistema de resolução com 3 equações e 3 incógnitas para determinar as quantidades de x raspa, y cana com ureia e z farelo de girassol: Equação MS: x + y + z = 98,5 Equação PB: 0,03x + 0,11y + 0,45z = 10 Equação NDT: 0,74x + 0,58y + 0,65z = 60 4º passo: da resolução, análoga ao exemplo 1, encontramos 17,2% de raspa de mandioca, 79,7% de cana com ureia e 1,6% de farelo de girassol. 5º passo: 98,5% de um CMS de 1100 g equivale a 1083,5 g, logo, calculamos a quantidade dos ingredientes para esse consumo: Raspa: 1100 x 17,2% = 189,2 g MS Cana com ureia: 1100 x 79,7% = 876,7 g MS Farelo de girassol: 1100 x 1,6% = 17,6 g MS A soma das quantidades é 1083,5 g MS que corresponde a 98,5% de 1100 g. 6º passo: verificação da ração: Ingrediente MS g PB g NDT g Ca g P g Raspa 189,2 5,7 140 0,3 1,5 Cana 876,7 96,4 508,5 1,8 0,5 Farelo 17,6 7,9 11,5 0,1 0,2 ER - - - - - TOTAL 1083,5 110 660 2,2 2,2 Exigência 1100 110 660 4 3 DÉFICE 16,5 - - 1,8 0,8 -/- 7º passo: a proteína e a energia foram balanceadas, agora vamos ao ajuste mineral com a adição de fosfato bicálcico (18% de P e 23% Ca) e calcário (38% Ca) para suprir o défice de Ca e P: Para P: 100 g de fosfato ---------- 18 g de P x g de fosfato ---------- 0,8 g de P (défice da ração) x = 0,8 x 100/18 = 4,5 g de fosfato bicálcico supre os 0,8 g de P Como o fosfato possui Ca, vamos ver quantos g do mineral existem em 4,5 g: 100 g de fosfato ---------- 23 g de Ca 4,5 g de fosfato ------------ x g de Ca x = 4,5 x 23/100 = 1 g de Ca Como há défice de 1,8 g de Ca na ração e o fosfato possui 1 g de Ca, o novo défice de Ca é 0,8 g, logo: Para Ca: 100 g de calcário ---------- 38 g Ca X g de calcário ---------- 0,8 g Ca x = 0,8 x 100/38 = 2,1 g de calcário supre os 0,8 g de Ca Para P: 4,5 g de fosfato possui 0,8 g de P e 1 g de Ca Para Ca: 2,1 g de calcário possui 0,8 g de Ca 8º passo: composição final da dieta: Ingrediente MS g MN g % final PB g NDT g Ca g P g Raspa 189,2 215 6,8 5,7 140 0,3 1,5 Cana 876,7 2923 92,3 96,4 508,5 1,8 0,5 Farelo 17,6 19,6 0,6 7,9 11,5 0,1 0,2 Fosfato 4,5 4,5 0,2 - - 1,0 0,8 Calcário 2,1 2,1 0,1 - - 0,8 - TOTAL 1090,1 3164,1 100 110 660 4 3 Exigência 1100 - 100 110 660 4 3 DÉFICE 9,9 - - - - - - -/- Por fim, para um ovino Dorper de 70 de kg PV em mantença são necessários o fornecimento de 3 kg de cana-de-açúcar com 1% ureia para a ração volumosa e uma mistura concentrada composta por 220 g de raspa de mandioca, 20 g de farelo de girassol, 5 g de fosfato bicálcico e 2,5 g de calcário para cada animal/dia. Poderá ser adicionado sal comum à ração para usar os 10 g de MS que sobram. A relação Ca:P da dieta é de 1,3:1. -/- EXEMPLO 3: formular dieta para fêmeas que encontram-se magras e estão próximas da estação de monta. A estratégia nutricional é a utilização do flushing que objetiva a administração suplementar de concentrado para maximizar a taxa de concepção. O lote possui 10 ovelhas com 50 kg de PV que estão ganhando cerca de 100 g de PV/dia. Por fim, calcule o total de alimentos necessários para as 10 ovelhas durante um período de 3 semanas, ou 20 dias. Os alimentos disponíveis para a formulação são bagaço de cana, MDPS e farelo de soja. Deixar 2% de ER para suplemento mineral e sal. 1º passo: determinação das exigências nutricionais: Exigência CMS g PB g NDT g Ca g P g Total 1600 152 945 6 3 TOTAL % 100% 9,5% 59% 0,38% 0,19% -/- 2º passo: composição dos alimentos disponíveis: Ingrediente MS % PB % NDT % Ca % P % Bagaço 90 2 47 0,21 0,06 MDPS 88 8 72 0,1 0,2 Farelo de soja 90 50 84 0,29 0,64 Calcário 100 - - 38 - Fosfato bicálcico 100 - - 23 18 -/- 3º passo: montar o sistema de 3 equações e 3 incógnitas onde x é bagaço, y MDPS e z farelo de soja, de modo que uma dada quantidade supra os requerimentos de 0,152 kg de PB (9,5%) e 0,945 kg de NDT (59%). Podemos solucionar de duas formas: 1ª forma: Equação MS: x + y + z = 98 Equação PB: 0,02x + 0,08y + 0,50z = 9,5 Equação NDT: 0,47x + 0,72y + 0,84z = 59 2ª forma: Equação MS: x + y + z = 1,568 Equação PB: 0,02x + 0,08y + 0,50z = 0,152 Equação NDT: 0,47x + 0,72y + 0,84z = 0,945 4º passo: dada a resolução do sistema, seguindo os mesmos passos do exemplo 1, encon-tramos x = 51,7%; y = 35% e z = 11,3%. De 98% do CMS de 1,6 kg ou 1600 g, teremos as quantidades de MS de cada ingrediente: Bagaço: 1600 x 51,7% = 827,2 g MS MDPS: 1600 x 35% = 560 g MS Farelo: 1600 x 11,3% = 180,8 g MS A soma dos ingredientes é 1568 que corresponde a 98% de 1600 g. -/- 5º passo: verificação da ração: Ingrediente MS g PB g NDT g Ca g P g Bagaço 827,2 16,5 389 1,7 0,6 MDPS 560 45 404 0,6 1,1 Farelo 180,8 90,5 152 0,5 1,1 TOTAL 1568 152 945 2,8 2,8 Exigência 1600 152 945 6 3 DÉFICE 32 - - 3,2 0,2 -/- 6º passo: balanceamento de Ca e P: Para P: 1,2 g de fosfato bicálcico possui 0,2 g P e 0,3 g de Ca Para Ca: 7,7 g de calcário possui 2,9 g de Ca 7º passo: verificação e composição final da dieta: Ingrediente MS g MN g % final PB g NDT g Ca g P g Bagaço 827,2 920 52,1 16,5 389 1,7 0,6 MDPS 560 637 36,1 45 404 0,6 1,1 Farelo 180,8 200 11,3 90,5 152 0,5 1,1 Calcário 7,7 7,7 0,4 - - 2,9 - Fosfato 1,2 1,2 0,1 - - 0,3 0,2 TOTAL 1576,9 1765,9 100 152 945 6 3 Exigência 1600 - 100 152 945 6 3 DÉFICE 23,1 - - - - - - -/- Por fim, para cada fêmea com 50 kg de PV são necessários 920 g de bagaço de cana, 640 g de MDPS, 200 g de farelo de soja, 8 g de calcário e 2 g de fosfato bicálcico diariamente. A relação Ca:P da dieta é de 2:1 e a composição é de 9,6% PB, 59,9% NDT, 0,38% Ca e 0,19% de P. Ração para o lote total de 10 fêmeas por 3 semanas ou 20 dias: 8º passo: multiplicar a quantidade de cada ingrediente pelo número de cabeças para determinar o consumo do lote em um dia: Bagaço: 920 g x 10 animais = 9,2 kg/dia, e assim com os demais MDPS: 5,6 kg/dia; farelo de soja: 1,81 kg/dia; calcário: 0,08 kg/dia e fosfato: 0,02 kg/dia 9º passo: para um período de 20 dias: Bagaço: 9,2 x 20 dias = 184 kg, e assim com os demais MDPS: 112 kg; farelo de soja: 36,2 kg; calcário: 1,6 kg e fosfato: 0,4 kg Em um período de flushing de 3 semanas, as fêmeas ganharão 2 kg de PV e serão gastos 184 kg de bagaço de cana, 112 kg de MDPS, 36,2 kg de farelo de soja, 1,6 kg de calcário e 0,24 kg de fosfato bicálcico. Considerando perdas é necessário aumentar a quantidade dos ingredientes em +10% ou +15%. -/- EXEMPLO 4: em uma propriedade no Agreste de Pernambuco, um produtor possui um lote de ovinos da raça Santa-Inês e deseja formular uma dieta para manter seus animais durante um período escasso de chuvas. Os alimentos disponíveis na propriedade são palma, capim tifton e leucena. O peso médio dos animais é de 40 kg PV. 1º passo: exigências dos animais: CMS g PB g NDT g Ca g P g 770 60 410 2 1,5 100% 7,8% 53,2% 0,26% 0,19% -/- 2º passo: composição dos ingredientes: Ingrediente MS % PB % NDT % Ca % P % Palma 10 4 60 1,8 0,2 Tifton 27 13 40 0,54 0,5 Leucena 35 24 65 2 0,2 -/- 3º passo: montar o sistema de equações onde x é palma, y tifton e z leucena: Equação MS: x + y + z = 100 Equação PB: 0,04x + 0,13y + 0,24z = 7,8 Equação NDT: 0,60x + 0,40y + 0,65z = 53,2 Ou: MS: x + y + z = 0,77 PB: 0,04x + 0,13y + 0,24z = 0,06 NDT: 0,60x + 0,40y + 0,65z = 0,41 4º passo: as duas formas podem solucionar o problema, a primeira é expressa em porcentagem e a segunda na quantidade em kg do ingrediente conforme o CMS da equação MS. Logo, da resolução de ambos os sistemas encontramos os seguintes valores: 1ª forma: x = 61,6%; y = 34,9% e z = 3,5% = 100% do CMS 2ª forma: x = 474,3 g; y = 268,7 g e z = 27 g = 770 g do CMS 5º passo: verificação da ração: Ingrediente MS g PB g NDT g Ca g P g Palma 474,3 19 284,8 8,5 0,9 Tifton 268,7 35 107,6 1,4 1,3 Leucena 27 6 17,6 0,5 0,05 TOTAL 770 60 410 10,4 2,25 Exigência 770 60 410 2 1,5 DÉFICE - - - +8,4 +0,75 -/- 6º passo: há uma exponencial diferença entre a quantidade de cálcio e a de fósforo, dado que os ingredientes são ricos em Ca. A relação máxima que os ruminantes suportam entre Ca:P chega a 3:1 e o balanço da ração é de 4,6:1, logo é necessário a adição de P para diminuir a diferença. Em nosso caso, utilizaremos uma fonte única de P com 24%. Para um bom balanceamento, vamos diminuir a relação para 2,6:1, para isso é necessário que haja 4 g de P na ração e há 2,25 g, então é necessário a adição de 1,75 g de P. Logo: Para P: 100 g produto ---------- 24 g P X g produto ---------- 1,75 g P x = 7,3 g de fonte de P com 24%. -/- 7º passo: composição final da dieta: Ingrediente MS g MN g % final PB g NDT g Ca g P g Palma 474,3 4743 81,5 19 284,8 8,5 0,9 Tifton 268,7 995,2 17,1 35 107,6 1,4 1,3 Leucena 27 77,2 1,3 6 17,6 0,5 0,05 Fonte de P 7,3 7,3 0,1 - - - 1,75 TOTAL 777,3 5822,7 100 60 410 10,4 4 Exigência 770 - 100 60 410 2 1,5 DÉFICE +7,3 - - - - +8,4 +2,5 -/- Por fim, para mantença do lote de ovinos com 40 kg PV, situados no Agreste de Pernambuco, são necessários o fornecimento de 4,7 kg de palma forrageira picada, 1 kg de tifton, 80 g de leucena e 8 g de fonte de P com 24% para cada animal diariamente. O animal vai consumir 5,82 kg de ração por dia para suprir seu requerimento de 0,77 kg de MS. A relação Ca:P da dieta, após a adição da fonte de P, é aceitável ao animal, ou seja, não o prejudica já que está dentro dos limites, sendo de 2,6:1. A composição da ração é 7,7% PB, 52,7% NDT, 1,3% Ca e 0,5% de P. -/- EXEMPLO 5: formular dieta para cordeiros desmamados precocemente com crescimen-to moderado. O lote possui peso médio de 20 kg e estão ganhando cerca de 250 g de PV/dia. Os alimentos disponíveis são fubá de milho, farelo de trigo e farelo de soja. Calcule a quantidade de ração necessária para um lote de 100 cordeiros confinados para serem abatidos com 40 kg PV. Deixar 1,5% para suplemento mineral e sal. 1º passo: exigências do animal: CMS g PB g NDT g Ca g P g 1000 168 800 5,5 3 100% 16,8% 80% 0,55% 0,30% -/- 2º passo: composição dos ingredientes: Ingredientes MS % PB % NDT % Ca % P % Fubá de milho 88 9 86 0,03 0,31 Farelo de trigo 88 16 75 0,15 0,80 Farelo de soja 90 50 84 0,30 0,65 -/- 3º passo: sistema de equações onde x é milho, y farelo de trigo e z farelo de soja: Equação MS: x + y + z = 98,5 Equação PB: 0,09x + 0,16y + 0,50z = 16,8 Equação NDT: 0,86x + 0,75y + 0,84z = 80 Ou: MS: x + y + z = 0,985 PB: 0,09x + 0,16y + 0,50z = 0,168 NDT: 0,86x + 0,75y + 0,84z = 0,800 4º passo: da resolução através da segunda forma, encontramos os seguintes valores: Xmilho: 455 g MS Ytrigo: 406 g MS Zsoja: 124 g MS 5º passo: verificação da ração: Ingredientes MS g PB g NDT g Ca g P g Milho 455 41 391,3 0,14 1,4 Farelo de trigo 406 65 304,5 0,61 3,2 Farelo de soja 124 62 104,2 0,37 0,8 TOTAL 985 168 800 1,12 5,4 Exigência 1000 168 800 5,5 3 DÉFICE -15 - - -4,38 +2,4 -/- 6º passo: ajuste mineral com calcário usando o ER de 1,5% ou 15 g de um CMS 1000 g. 100 g ---------- 38 g Ca x g ---------- 4,38 g Ca x = 12 g de calcário 7º passo: verificação e composição final da dieta: Ingredientes MS g MN g % final PB g NDT g Ca g P g Milho 455 517,1 45,8 41 391,3 0,14 1,4 Farelo de trigo 406 461,4 40,9 65 304,5 0,61 3,2 Farelo de soja 124 137,8 12,2 62 104,2 0,37 0,8 Calcário 12 12 1,1 - - 4,5 - TOTAL 997 1128,3 100 168 800 5,62 5,4 Exigência 1000 - 100 168 800 5,5 3 DÉFICE -3 - - - - +0,12 +2,4 -/- Por fim, serão necessários diariamente o fornecimento de 1,13 kg de ração/ani-mal/dia composta por 45,8% de milho, 40,9% de farelo de trigo, 12,2% de farelo de soja e 1,1% de calcário. O CMS da ração é exatamente o exigido pelo animal e a ração possui balanço Ca:P de 1:1. Cálculo da ração para lote de 100 cordeiros para engorda de 20 kg PV com GPD 0,25 kg 8º passo: quantidade/dia: Cada animal deverá consumir uma certa quantidade, para determinar o total para 100 animais basta multiplicar a quantidade pelo número de animais, no caso 100, logo: Milho: 51,7 kg/dia; trigo: 46,14 kg/dia; soja: 13,78 kg/dia e calcário: 1,2 kg/dia 9º passo: quantidade total para tempo de confinamento: Basta multiplicar a quantidade de alimento/dia pelo número de dias da engorda. Os animais entraram em confinamento com 20 kg e ganham 0,25 kg/dia, para alcançar 40 kg serão necessários, portanto, 80 dias (20 kg PV/0,25 kg). Logo: Milho: 4,14 toneladas; trigo: 3,7 ton.; soja: 1,1 ton. e calcário: 96 kg. -/- EXEMPLO 6: formular dieta para cordeiros da raça Santa Inês que foram desmamados precocemente. O lote possui peso de 10 kg e possui alto potencial de crescimento, ou seja, ganham, em média, 250 g de PV/dia. Os alimentos disponíveis para a formulação são raspa de mandioca, milho e farelo de soja. Por fim, calcule a ração necessária para 100 cordeiros para um tempo de engorda onde os animais sairão para abate com 70 kg de PV. 1º passo: exigências nutricionais do animal: CMS g PB g NDT g Ca g P g 600 160 480 6 3 100% 26,7% 80% 1% 0,5% -/- 2º passo: composição dos alimentos: Ingrediente MS % PB % NDT % Ca % P % Raspa de mandioca 88 3 74 0,15 0,8 Milho 89 9 86 0,03 0,31 Farelo de soja 90 45 80 0,3 0,65 -/- 3º passo: montar o sistema de equações onde x é raspa, y milho e z farelo de soja: Equação MS: x + y + z = 0,600 Equação PB: 0,03x + 0,09y + 0,45z = 0,160 Equação NDT: 0,74x + 0,86y + 0,80z = 0,480 4º passo: dada a resolução do sistema, encontramos os seguintes valores em MS: x = 0,140 kg MS de raspa de mandioca y = 0,140 kg MS de milho z = 0,320 kg MS de farelo de soja 5º passo: verificação da ração: Ingrediente MS g PB g NDT g Ca g P g Raspa 140 4 103,6 0,21 1,1 Milho 140 12,6 120,4 0,03 0,4 Farelo 320 144 256 0,96 2,1 TOTAL 600 160,6 480 1,2 3,6 Exigência 600 160 480 6 3 DÉFICE - - - -4,8 +0,6 -/- 6º passo: balancear Ca e P adicionando calcário: 13 g de calcário possui 4,9 g de Ca 7º passo: verificação e composição final da dieta: Ingrediente MS g MN g % final PB g NDT g Ca g P g Raspa de mandioca 140 159,1 23,2 4 103,6 0,21 1,1 Milho 140 157,3 23 12,6 120,4 0,03 0,4 Farelo de soja 320 355,6 51,9 144 256 0,96 2,1 Calcário 13 13 1,9 - - 4,9 - TOTAL 613 685 100 160,6 480 6,1 3,6 Exigência 600 - 100 160 480 6 3 DÉFICE +13 - - - - - - -/- Por fim, para cordeiros de 10 kg PV com alto potencial e GPD de 0,25 kg é necessária uma ração que contenha 160 g de raspa de mandioca, 160 g de milho moído, 360 g de farelo de soja e 15 g de calcário para cada animal diariamente. O CMS da ração ultrapassou a exigência do animal em 13 g o que é aceitável. O balanço Ca:P é de 1,7:1 que está dentro da zona de conforto. A composição da dieta é de 26,2% PB, 78,3% NDT, 1% Ca e 0,59% P. Cálculo da ração para lote de 100 cordeiros para abate com 70 kg PV 8º passo: quantidade de cada alimento diariamente: Raspa: 159,1 g x 100 animais = 15,91 kg, seguindo o mesmo esquema: milho: 15,73 kg; soja: 35,56 kg e calcário 1,3 kg. 9º passo: os animais deverão ir para abate com 70 kg, logo deverão ganhar 60 kg de PV. Com um ganho de 250 g/dia, o tempo total de engorda será de 240 dias (60 kg/0,25 kg), logo: Raspa: 15,91 x 240 = 3,82 toneladas, seguindo igual: milho: 3,78 ton.; soja: 8,54 ton. e calcário: 312 kg. -/- EXEMPLO 7: em uma propriedade no Rio Grande do Sul um ovinocultor desmamou 50 animais com 30 kg PV para confiná-los. A estimativa é que os animais ganhem 150 g de PV diariamente até que alcancem 50 kg para abate. A propriedade dispõe de silagem de capim-elefante, aveia e glúten de milho para fornecer aos animais. Formule uma dieta para esses animais para ser fornecida diariamente e a quantidade de ingredientes neces-sária para o período de engorda. DADOS, segundo QUADROS & CRUZ, as exigências são CMS: 3,35% PV, PB: 115 g; NDT: 630 g. 1º passo: composição dos ingredientes: Ingrediente MS % PB % NDT % Silagem de capim-elefante 27 5 60 Aveia 88 11 65 Glúten de milho 90 62 85 -/- 2º passo: sabendo-se que o CMS de 3,35% de 30 kg equivale a 1 kg MS, montamos o sistema de equações onde x é silagem, y aveia e z glúten: Equação MS: x + y + z = 1 Equação PB: 0,05x + 0,11y + 0,62z = 0,115 Equação NDT: 0,60x + 0,65y + 0,85z = 0,630 3º passo: da resolução do sistema encontramos: x = 830 g MS de silagem y = 63 g MS de aveia z = 107 g MS de glúten de milho 4º passo: verificação da ração: Ingrediente MS g PB g NDT g Silagem de capim-elefante 830 41,5 498 Aveia 63 7 71 Glúten de milho 107 66,5 91 TOTAL 1000 115 630 Exigência 1000 115 630 DÉFICE - - - -/- 5º passo: composição final da ração com base na matéria natural tal como vai para o misturador: Ingrediente MN g % final Silagem de capim-elefante 3074,1 94,2 Aveia 71,6 2,2 Glúten de milho 118,9 3,6 TOTAL 3264,6 100 -/- Por fim, para cada ovino/dia é necessário a administração de 3,1 kg de silagem de capim-elefante e uma mistura de 200 g de concentrado com 80 g de aveia e 120 g de glúten de milho. O CMS da ração é exatamente a exigência do animal. Neste exemplo não determinamos o conteúdo mineral da dieta, mas você pode fazê-lo de acordo com o percentual de mineral do dado ingrediente. Quantidade de alimentos/dia e por período de engorda 6º passo: quantidade de ingredientes por dia, basta multiplicar quantidade/animal x total de animais: Silagem: 153,7 kg/dia; aveia: 3,6 kg/dia e glúten: 6 kg/dia 7º passo: quantidade por período de engorda: os animais têm 30 kg PV e deverão sair para abate com 50 kg PV, logo deverão ganhar 20 kg PV. Como ganham cerca de 0,15 kg/dia o período de engorda será de 134 dias (20 kg/0,15 kg). Então: Silagem: 153,7 x 134 = 20,6 ton.; aveia: 482 kg e glúten: 804 kg -/- EXEMPLO 8: em uma propriedade na cidade de Belo Jardim, Pernambuco, 10 ovelhas estão nas primeiras semanas de lactação, todas tiveram parto de um cordeiro. O lote possui peso variado, mas o médio é de 60 kg PV e perdem cerca de 25 g/dia. Os alimentos disponíveis para a formulação da dieta são capim tifton com melaço, casca de soja e farelo de mamona detoxificado. 1º passo: determinação das exigências nutricionais: CMS g PB g NDT g Ca g P g 2300 320 1500 10 7 100% 13,9% 65,2% 0,43% 0,3% -/- 2º passo: composição dos ingredientes: Ingrediente MS % PB % NDT % Ca % P % Casca de soja 90 12 75 0,6 0,2 Capim + melaço 35 5 25 0,32 0,12 Farelo de mamona 90 40 40 0,7 0,7 -/- 3º passo: montar o sistema de equações onde x é casca de soja, y é capim tifton com melaço e z é farelo de mamona: Equação MS: x + y + z = 2,3 Equação PB: 0,12x + 0,05y + 0,40z = 0,32 Equação NDT: 0,75x + 0,25y + 0,40z = 1,5 4º passo: da resolução do sistema, encontramos: x = 1,78 kg MS de casca de soja y = 0,29 kg MS de capim + melaço z = 0,23 kg MS de farelo de mamona O total é exatamente o CMS requerido de 2,3 kg MS. 5º passo: verificação da ração: Ingrediente MS g PB g NDT g Ca g P g Casca de soja 1780 213,6 1335 5,7 2,1 Capim + melaço 290 14,5 73 1,8 0,6 Farelo de mamona 230 92 92 1,6 1,6 TOTAL 2300 320,1 1500 9,1 4,3 Exigência 2300 320 1500 10 7 DÉFICE - - - -0,9 -2,7 -/- 6º passo: há deficiência de Ca e P, vamos balanceá-los: Para P: 15 g de fosfat. (shrink)

Husserl and Cassirer stand, according to their own self-understanding, as key 20th century figures in the cultivation of Enlightenment’s principles and views on humanity, culture, and history. In a word, they both understand European culture and history as a story of progress (§ 1). As I see it, central in a culture and its dynamics is its system of values, and a grounded understanding of the issue of progress presupposes an adequate theory of the standing or constitution as well as (...) of the givenness and transvaluation of values. Neither Husserl nor Cassirer, however, actually advanced any such theory. We are still in need of one in order to account for culture’s formation and dynamics in history. Next, I briefly review Husserl’s and Cassirer’s available problematic views on values (§ 2). Then, in § 3, I examine some of the central problems in the traditional approaches to culture and to values. In § 4, I appeal to Köhler’s very interesting Gestalt theoretical approach to values and pinpoint some of its problems. Next, in § 5, I suggest how we could start the research from below, from the level of the organism, which could eventually shed some new light on the problem of value constitution and givenness. Finally, in § 6, I attempt to sketch an explanation for how we can use this new approach to values in order to understand actual cultural formation and its historicity, in a way that goes further than the whiggish philosophy of history. (shrink)

Contents 1 Introduction / 2 The Timaeus on dignity: the Demiurge’s speech / 3 Justice as a virtue / 4 The content of just actions / 5 Justice of the law and justice of the state / 6 Equality / 7 Some key issues in Plato’s conception of justice / 7.1 What is more excellent—justice of the soul or justice of action? / 7.2 Which activity is best and what is its best object? / 7.2. Just actions over contemplation / (...) 7.2. The Timaeus and Plato’s teaching on justice / 7.2. The elderly Cephalus on justice: foreword as epilogue / 7.3 The sharing of wives: testing the interpretation on a ‘hard case’ / 8 Conclusions. (shrink)

Confirming Robinson’s Statement? A Lakatosian Analysis of Keynes and his Immediate Orthodoxy Jesús Muñoz Abstract Was the Keynesian message alive during the second half of the XXth Century, or was it betrayed by his followers? This article in the fields of the history of economic thought and methodology contrasts the Scientific Research Programmes (SRPs), a Lakatosian concept, of Keynes in The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (TGT) with those of its immediate orthodox schools: Monetarism (MS), Neoclassical Synthesis (NS), (...) New Classical Macroeconomics – rational expectations – (RE) and General Disequilibrium (GD). The objective is to to assess the immediate impact of Keynes’s vision in economics. It can be concluded according to this comparison that Keynes’s bequeath was alive during the period between 1950 and 1980, but that it was accepted under different names. Many economists deny this statement. However it is hereby argued with the help of Lakatosian methodology that in both economic and philosophical terms the MS, NS, RE and GD SRPs are degenerative variants of Keynes's SRP. The Keynesian reasoning chain -a non self-regulated system, non neutrality on the part of money, organicism, non-ergodicity, historical time and uncertainty- is misunderstood and hence misapplied on the part of these deviant schools, or transformed into “bastard Keynesianism”, to quote Joan Robinson (Joan Robinson, 1975[1973], 125). In other words, Keynes’s economics is different from Keynesian economics as was firstly proposed by Axel Leijonhuvfud (Leijonhuvfud, 1968). The internal history of macroeconomics in those periods is undertaken, since it is is the rational reconstruction of the meaning of a SRP. Section 1 is an introduction to basic concepts related to philosophy of science and methodology, especially Lakatosian methodology, which can be skipped by the specialized reader. Section 2 is an analysis of Keynes’s hard core in his SRP, also being an introduction to the problem as it outlines Keynes’s thinking, Section 3 describes initial Post Keynesianism, which was faithful to the original message. Sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 outline the hard cores of Monetarists, Neoclassical Synthesis, New Classical Macroeconomics and General Disequilibrium, respectively. Section 8 is a comprehensive analysis of the differences between the mentioned paradigms, and hence concludes. References are listed at the end of the article. (shrink)

This book first published in the year 2021 June. Paperback: 240 pages Publisher: Kuhn von Verden Verlag. Includes bibliographical references. 1). Philosophy. 2). Metaphysics. 3). Philosophy, German. 4). Philosophy, German -- 19th century. 5). Philosophy, German and Greek Influences Metaphysics. 6). Nihilism (Philosophy). 7). Eternal return. I. Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm, 1844-1900. II. Ferrer, Daniel Fidel, 1952-.[Translation from German into English of Friedrich Nietzsche’s notes of 1881]. New Translation and Notes by Daniel Fidel Ferrer. Many of the notes have never been (...) translated into English before. Go inside the workshop of a great philosopher's mind and read these notes. Table of Contents Introduction and Preface (Pages: 1-11 ) Notebook: 11 = M III 1. Spring - Autumn 1881 11 [1 to 348] (Pages: 12-167 ) Nietzsche’s Notebooks in English: a Translator’s Introduction and Afterward (Pages: 168-183 ) The thought of the eternal return of the same (Pages: 184-197 ) Later Recapitulation note of 1888 14 [188] (Pages: 198-204 ) Rejection of the idea of eternal (Pages: 205 ) Translation of 4 notes by Nietzsche on Perspectivism (Pages: 206-210 ) Nietzsche gets some final few words (Pages: 211-216 ) Bibliographies (Pages: 217-236 ) Project started in summer of 2012. No one else has read this book for errors. As always, any errors, mistakes or oversights etc. are mine alone. Given a couple more years, I could improve this book. This is a philosophical translation and not a philological translation. If you want to get in to more philological details you must learn German (see Nietzschechannel plus many published books on the topics). Translation notes. I have not tried to fix, polish-up, or clarify Nietzsche’s unpublished writings. Some of the translator have really refined Nietzsche’s ideas and positions. I have not “fixed” Nietzsche. I have not dropped or added words or changed the wording to make Nietzsche’s position clearer or stronger (others have done enough damage). Learn German and read the texts in German – my best recommendation and advice to you the reader. There are groups on the internet that work on all the details of translating Nietzsche’s remarks. There are many nuances and shades of the meaning in attempting to translate anyone’s language. Some words I could not translate from German and French; and I left those few words in German, but more words in French. I think most of the French texts are quotes that Nietzsche wrote down from French authors that he was reading at the time he wrote these notes. Reader beware. There are many historical and philosophical allusions as in all of Nietzsche’s philosophical writings and these notebooks are similar. Remember these are “notebooks” and include lots of notes or jottings -- and these are neither fragments nor polished drafts for publication. Nietzsche may have written these notebooks from back to front and re-used various notebooks at a later time. In the German text there are missing punctuations marks, missing quotation marks, missing words, abbreviation of words, miss numbered section, working table of contents for project books he wanted to publish, projects outlined, quotes without quote marks. Enjoy reading and thinking with Nietzsche in his unpublished notes. (shrink)

Heidegger’s Middle Period (German and English): an index By Daniel Fidel Ferrer ©Daniel Fidel Ferrer, 2021. 1. Heidegger, Martin, -- 1889-1976. 2. Heidegger, Martin, -- 1889-1976 -- Concordances. 3. Heidegger, Martin, -- 1889-1976 -- Indexes. 4). Metaphysics. 5). Philosophy, German. 6). Philosophy, German – Greek influences. 7). Heidegger, Martin; -- Wörterbuch. 8). Ontology. 9). Heidegger, Martin, -- 1889-1976 -- Concordances. I. Ferrer, Daniel Fidel, 1952-. Language: English (Preface and Introduction). Language: German (Main Index). Pages 1 to 1134 2. Includes bibliographical (...) references. Language of index is both: English and German. Introduction is mostly English. This is a Word Index to Martin Heidegger’s (1889-1976) writings of his middle period. All words are indexed. Includes typos, translator’s introductions, title pages, indexes, etc. Introduction The combined texts of the following volumes listed below are a total of 5242 pages. Seven volumes written in German by Heidegger (and a few pages of editors and translator notes). Five volumes of English translations. The combined total of indexed words adds up to 60,309 words. This is an index to Heidegger’s writing in the middle period. Starting with Basic questions of philosophy: selected "problems" of "logic" lectures given at the University of Freiburg in 1937–1938. These lectures were given during the time he was working on his second major project after Being and Time (1927); namely, his Contributions to Philosophy: (From Enowning) (1936-1940) and also translated as Contributions to Philosophy (of the Event). Short title in German is simply, Beiträge (GA 65). Note with Heidegger it is extremely problematic to call his later writing projects: “books” or “Hauptwerk”. He explicit deny this attempt. (shrink)

This chapter states the contrast between presumptivism about testimonial warrant (often called anti-reductionism) and strict reductionism (associated with Hume) about testimonial warrant. Presumptivism sees an analogy with modest foundationalism about perceptual warrant. Strict reductionism denies this analogy. Two theoretical frameworks for these positions are introduced to better formulate the most popular version of persumptivism, a competence reliabilist account. Seven arguments against presumptivism are then stated and critiqued: (1) The argument from reliability; (2) The argument from reasons; (3) the argument from (...) positive reasons; (4) the argument from negative reasons; (5) the argument from agency; (6) the argument from psychological force; and (7) the argument from gullibility. If presumptivm is false, it is not for any of these arguments. (shrink)

Dark matter and dark energy. Two notions that have troubled cosmologists for a long time. Why? Because they don’t have a “satisfactory” definition, and nobody can identify the “matter” or “forces” that govern them. Currently, we can only deduce the existence of these two notions from the strange movement of the galaxies and the manner they move away from one another, with increasing speed. However, these are not the only mysteries that cosmology cannot yet explain. What happened before the Big (...) Bang? Is the universe still expanding (cosmic inflation)? What is the relation between the theory of relativity and the laws of quantum mechanics? What if the answers to all these questions were far more accessible than researchers thought? What if the real “culprit” for their absence was in fact the framework used by cosmologists, a framework that involves the existence of space and time? With the help of the Epistemologically Different Worlds paradigm, Gabriel and Mihai Vacariu aim to offer an answer to all these questions and many others. -/- Content -/- Chapter 1 Epistemologically different worlds Chapter 2 Space and time cannot even exist! 2.1 Leibniz versus Newton 2.2 Space and time, just illusions of human mind 2.3 Spacetime, Einstein’s special theory of relativity, nothing and EDWs Chapter 3 Big Bang, inflation and gravitational waves 3.1 Big Bang and what was immediately after Big Bang: gravitational waves and inflation? 3.2 The results of BICEP2 about Big Bang, gravitational waves and inflation Chapter 4 Dark matter and dark energy 4.1 General information about dark matter and dark energy 4.2 “Haloes”, “structures”, and the “flat universe” 4.3 Does any relationship between dark matter and dark energy exist? 4.4 Do “interactions” of dark particles exist? 4.5 Other problems related to dark matter and dark energy 4.6 The Martian, dark matter and dark energy Chapter 5 Grand Unified Theory and Theory of Everything, the impossible relationship between quantum mechanics and Einstein’s theory of relativity 5.1 Einstein’s theory of relativity and quantum mechanics 5.2 GUT or TOE? Or neither? Conclusion of this book at http://filosofie.unibuc.ro/cv_gabriel_vacariu/conclusion-2016-vacariu-and-vacariu-dark-matter/. (shrink)

The paper discusses this year’s Nobel Prize in physics for experiments of entanglement “establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science” in a much wider, including philosophical context legitimizing by the authority of the Nobel Prize a new scientific area out of “classical” quantum mechanics relevant to Pauli’s “particle” paradigm of energy conservation and thus to the Standard model obeying it. One justifies the eventual future theory of quantum gravitation as belonging to the newly established quantum information (...) science. Entanglement, involving non-Hermitian operators for its rigorous description, non-unitarity as well as nonlocal and superluminal physical signals “spookily” (by Einstein’s flowery epithet) synchronizing and transferring some nonzero action at a distance, can be considered to be quantum gravity so that its local counterpart to be Einstein’s gravitation according to general relativity therefore pioneering an alternative pathway to quantum gravitation different from the “secondary quantization” of the Standard model. So, the experiments of entanglement once they have been awarded by the Nobel Prize launch particularly the relevant theory of quantum gravitation grounded on “quantum information science” thus granted to be nonclassical quantum mechanics in the shared framework of the generalized quantum mechanics obeying rather quantum-information conservation than only energy conservation. The concept of “dark phase” of the universe naturally linked to the very well confirmed “dark matter” and “dark energy” and opposed to its “light phase” inherent to classical quantum mechanics and the Standard model obeys quantum-information conservation, after which reversible causality or the mutual transformation of energy and information are valid. The mythical Big Bang after which energy conservation holds universally is to be replaced by an omnipresent and omnitemporal medium of decoherence of the dark and nonlocal phase into the light and local phase. The former is only an integral image of the latter and borrowed in fact rather from religion than from science. Physical, methodological and proper philosophical conclusions follow from that paradigm shift heralded by this year’s Nobel Prize in physics. For example, the scientific theory of thinking should originate from the dark phase of the universe, as well: probably only approximately modeled by neural networks physically belonging to the light phase thoroughly. A few crucial philosophical sequences follow from the break of Pauli’s paradigm: (1) the establishment of the “dark” phase of the universe as opposed to its “light” phase, only to which the Cartesian dichotomy of “body” and “mind” is valid; (2) quantum information conservation as relevant to the dark phase, furthermore generalizing energy conservation as to its light phase, productively allowing for physical entities to appear “ex nihilo”, i.e., from the dark phase, in which energy and time are yet inseparable from each other; (3) reversible causality as inherent to the dark phase; (4) the interpretation of gravitation only mathematically: as an interpretation of the incompleteness of finiteness to infinity, for example, following the Gödel dichotomy (“either contradiction or incompleteness”) about the relation of arithmetic to set theory; (5) the restriction of the concept of hierarchy only to the light phase; (6) the commensurability of both physical extremes of a quantum and the universe as a whole in the dark phase obeying quantum information conservation and akin to Nicholas of Cusa’s philosophical and theological worldview. (shrink)

The task of this paper is to give a new, catholic interpretation of Leibniz’s concept of characteristica universalis. In § 2 we shall see that in different periods of his development, Leibniz defined this concept differently. He introduced it as “philosophical characteristic” in 1675, elaborated it further as characteristica universalis in 1679, and worked on it at least until 1690. Secondly, we shall see (in § 3) that in the last 130 years or so, different philosophers have advanced projects (...) similar to that of Leibniz, not always referring to him, at that. These very projects, we claim, threw some light on what Leibniz idea of characteristica universalis could be; or, in more positive sense, on how could it be reconstructed in a more workable way. Unfortunately, they failed to answer the question what exactly Leibniz’s philosophy was. Finally, despite the fact that Leibniz’s concept of characteristica universalis impressed generations of philosophers who tried to make sense of it, the result is that in the more than 300 years after it was introduced, it was never used in the scale its author dreamed of. This fact sets out the next objective which we are going to pursue in this paper: we shall try to find out (in §§ 4 and 5) how this concept can be interpreted in more practical form. (shrink)

This article argues that Brentano’s classification of mental phenomena is best understood against the background of the theories of natural classification held by Auguste Comte and John Stuart Mill. Section 1 offers a reconstruction of Brentano’s two-premise argument for his tripartite classification. Section 2 gives a brief overview of the reception and historical background of the classification project. Section 3 addresses the question as to why a classification of mental phenomena is needed at all and traces the answer back to (...) Mill’s view that psychological laws are class-specific. Section 4 and 5 connect the second premise of Brentano’s argument to Comte’s principle of comparative likeness and Mill’s insistance that class membership is determined by the possession of common characteristics. And section 6 briefly discusses the evidence Brentano provides for the first premise. (shrink)

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

This paper is about compositionality, belief reports, and related issues. I begin by introducing Putnam’s proposal for understanding compositionality, namely that the sense of a sentence is a function of the sense of its parts and of its logical structure (section 1). Both Church and Sellars think that Putnam’s move is superfluous or unnecessary since there is no relevant puzzle to begin with (section 2). I will urge that Putnam is right in thinking that there is indeed a puzzle with (...) a discussion of translation and belief individuation (section 3). Later Salmon (2001/ 2007) reinforces Church’s position, but I will argue that it is still possible to make my case by clarifying the nature of my proposal, i.e., understanding explanations of action from the third-person point of view (section 4). Now, Fine (2007) agrees with Putnam that there is indeed a puzzle to be solved, but he argues that Putnam’s solution of it is problematic, and that his own semantic relationism is a better view. In response to this, I will recast the notion of compositionality based on a certain conception of belief individuation, namely that the semantic content of a sentence is a function of the semantic contents of its parts and of the structure of intensional discourses (sections 3 and 5). Finally the paper will end with a reconsideration of the recalcitrant Kripke’s puzzle about belief (1979/1988), since it might seem to put some pressure on my account. It turns out that my understanding of this puzzle is again different from Fine’s perspective (section 6). (shrink)

One of the main lines of research in algorithmic fairness involves individual fairness (IF) methods. Individual fairness is motivated by an intuitive principle, similar treatment, which requires that similar individuals be treated similarly. IF offers a precise account of this principle using distance metrics to evaluate the similarity of individuals. Proponents of individual fairness have argued that it gives the correct definition of algorithmic fairness, and that it should therefore be preferred to other methods for determining fairness. I argue that (...) individual fairness cannot serve as a definition of fairness. Moreover, IF methods should not be given priority over other fairness methods, nor used in isolation from them. To support these conclusions, I describe four in-principle problems for individual fairness as a definition and as a method for ensuring fairness: (1) counterexamples show that similar treatment (and therefore IF) are insufficient to guarantee fairness; (2) IF methods for learning similarity metrics are at risk of encoding human implicit bias; (3) IF requires prior moral judgments, limiting its usefulness as a guide for fairness and undermining its claim to define fairness; and (4) the incommensurability of relevant moral values makes similarity metrics impossible for many tasks. In light of these limitations, I suggest that individual fairness cannot be a definition of fairness, and instead should be seen as one tool among several for ameliorating algorithmic bias. (shrink)

In this article, I analyze the evolution of Husserl's view on the normativity of logic and the corresponding changes in his phenomenological analysis of judgment. Initially, in the Prolegomena, Husserl claimed that the laws of pure logic are ideal and acquire normative status only as a result of application. Later, however, he revised this position and claimed that the same laws are at once ideal and normative. Sections 1 and 2 present textual evidence for attributing such a change of position (...) to Husserl, which is not generally acknowledged in the literature. Section 3 critically examines Husserl's early position, with specific attention to the model of instantiation. Sections 4–6 identify three key stages in the development of Husserl's theory of judgment that lead to the normative conception of pure logic: (1) the critique of the dissociation of ideal content and assertive force; (2) the rejection of the instantiation model of proposition and the development of a new account in terms of identification; (3) the genetic‐phenomenological interpretation of proposition and the elaboration of the three‐layer structure of pure logic. (shrink)

As Reginald Allen has observed, ‘the afterlife and influence of Plato’s Symposium is nearly as broad as the breadth of humane letters in the West.’ I argue here that the dialogue’s appeal can be traced back to six features: (1) the high degree of artistry with which Plato organized the speeches in honor of the god Eros; (2) the symposium format which allows for the presentation of competing intellectual traditions and contrasting personalities; (3) the provision of a philosophical framework through (...) which to understand the process through which the soul ascends from a physical to a spiritual realm: (4) the identification of a distinctively intellectual and spiritual kind of interpersonal relationship later known as ‘Platonic love’: (5) the presentation of a memorable portrait of Socrates in Alcibiades’ speech; and (6) an insightful account of the role played by passionate desire across a wide range of human activities. -/- . (shrink)

Four studies are reported that employed an object location task to assess temporal–causal reasoning. In Experiments 1–3, successfully locating the object required a retrospective consideration of the order in which two events had occurred. In Experiment 1, 5- but not 4-year-olds were successful; 4-year-olds also failed to perform at above-chance levels in modified versions of the task in Experiments 2 and 3. However, in Experiment 4, 3-year-olds were successful when they were able to see the object being placed (...) first in one location and then in the other, rather than having to consider retrospectively the sequence in which two events had happened. The results suggest that reasoning about the causal significance of the temporal order of events may not be fully developed before 5 years. (shrink)

Wars are large-scale conflicts between organized groups of belligerents, which involve suffering, devastation, and brutality unlike almost anything else in human experience. Whatever one’s other beliefs about morality, all should agree that the horrors of war are all but unconscionable, and that warfare can be justified only if we have some compel- ling account of what is worth fighting for, which can justify contributing, as individu- als and as groups, to this calamitous endeavour. Although this question should obviously be central (...) to both philosophical and politi- cal discussion about war, it is at the forefront of neither. In recent years, philosophical discussion of warfare has bloomed, but the debate has focused on whom we may kill, on the assumption that our aims are justified.1 Political debate, meanwhile, is more concerned with matters of prudence, international law, and public justification, than with reassessing what is worth fighting for. For wars of intervention to halt or prevent massive humanitarian crises, this gap is not so troubling. When warfare is the only means to prevent the mass killing or enslavement of the innocent, the purposes of military force are clear enough (though undoubtedly many other problems remain). The problem is more pressing, how- ever, for the justification of national defence.3 Although common-sense morality and international law view national defence as the paradigm case of justified warfare, grounding this consensus is surprisingly difficult.4 We typically believe that any state is justified in using lethal force to protect its territory against any form of uninvited military incursion by any other state. And yet we lack a good argument to explain why this should be so. In this chapter, I explain why one familiar and otherwise plausible approach to the justification of killing in war cannot adequately ground common-sense views of permissible national defence.5 Reductionists believe that justified warfare reduces to an aggregation of acts that are justified under ordinary principles of interpersonal morality.6 The standard form of reductionism focuses on the principles governing killing in ordinary life, specifically those that justify intentional killing in self- and other-defence, and unintended but foreseen (for short, collateral) killing as a lesser evil. Justified warfare, on this view, is no more than the coextension of multiple acts justified under these two principles. Reductionism is the default philosophical approach to thinking through the ethics of killing in war. It makes perfect sense to ask what principles govern permissible kill- ing in general, before applying them to the particular context of war. If it cannot deliver a plausible set of conclusions about when national defence is permitted, then we must either revise our beliefs about which conclusions count as plausible, or else face the significant challenge of developing a different theoretical model for justifying war- fare—an exceptionalist model, which views war as an exception to the regular moral landscape, to which principles apply which apply to nothing else but war.7 We must show, in other words, that there is something worth fighting for in wars of national defence, which is not engaged when we use force in any other context. The chapter proceeds as follows. Section 2.2 sets out the argument against reduc- tionism.8 Section 2.3 considers and rebuts one common response to the argument, which has often been thought sufficient grounds to disregard its conclusion. Section 2.4 then asks whether a modified reductionism would survive unscathed by the argu- ment. Finally, section 2.5 sets out some desiderata on a plausible exceptionalist alterna- tive. Section 2.6 concludes. (shrink)

I explore the critical significance of the phenomenological notion of intuition. I argue that there is no meaning that is originally formal-conceptual. The meanings of concepts function as symbolic approximations to original nonconceptual, intuitive givens. However, the meaning content originally intuitively given in lived experience has a tendency to be lost in pursuit of universalizability and communicability of conceptual content. Over time, conceptual approximations lose their reference to the experience that had given them their meaning in the first place. The (...) loss of an experiential reference makes for a vacuous set of concepts, giving way to ideologies, by which I mean the conscious prejudicial support for a set of ideas without the experiential, intuitive context that is necessary to see the value of those ideas. A critical phenomenology is a critique of ideological views by descriptively recovering the intuitive content whereby concepts can be adequately reevaluated. -/- This main aim of this work is to establish the methodological features of critical phenomenology by responding to the objections made against phenomenology and intuition by Frankfurt School critical theorists. Scheler’s phenomenology is used as a way forward due to his far-reaching critique of reason and emphasis on the phenomenological intuition of value. -/- Chapter 1 considers three Frankfurt School objections of Husserlian phenomenology, as (1) immanentist (Adorno), (2) idealist (Adorno), and (3) normatively empty (Habermas). Each fail to discern the subtle features of nonidentity with respect to Husserl’s notions of apperception and adumbrated phenomena. -/- Chapter 2 shows how Scheler’s original view of the phenomenological attitude makes more explicit Husserl’s subtle dialectical elements. Adequate and inadequate givenness is interpreted with respect to one’s intentional orientation and the moral attitudes carried within the world, influencing the content of the given. -/- Chapter 3 confronts the popular charge of idealism. Reality is a problem for phenomenology only to conscious modes of givenness. But through ecstatic modes of givenness (in resistances) Scheler’s phenomenology achieves an existential ground that is crucial for phenomenology to engage actually existing social structures and factors. -/- Chapter 4 concerns the charge that phenomenology is normatively empty. That Scheler had developed a theory of value is not enough to rebut the charge but his view of value-givenness as an attitude informed by the act of loving, opens an awareness of the values disclosed by that attitude. -/- Chapter 5 shows that Scheler’s sociology of knowledge, in contrast to Karl Mannheim’s interpretation, provides a unified picture of the interdependency of spirit and life needed for the realization of values in the world and society. -/- Chapter 6 suggests a way of framing a phenomenological critique of ideology. Scheler points to the attitudinal factors of loving and hating to disclose systemic devaluation and overvaluation. This awareness arises (1) from noticing how individual valuation reflects social valuation, and (2) by being attuned to how one’s own intuitions contradict prevailing social valuation and thought, thereby opening a space for a critique of those patterns. (shrink)