forall x: Calgary is a full-featured textbook on formal logic. It covers key notions of logic such as consequence and validity of arguments, the syntax of truth-functional propositional logic TFL and truth-table semantics, the syntax of first-order (predicate) logic FOL with identity (first-order interpretations), symbolizing English in TFL and FOL, and Fitch-style natural deduction proof systems for both TFL and FOL. It also deals with some advanced topics such as modal logic, soundness, and functional completeness. Exercises with solutions are available. (...) It is provided in PDF (for screen reading, printing, and a special version for dyslexics), HTML, and in LaTeX source code. (shrink)

The current discussions of conceptual schemes and related topics are misguided; for they have been focused too much on the truth-conditional notions of meaning/concepts and translation/interpretation in Tarski's style. It is exactly due to such a Quinean interpretation of the notion of conceptual schemes that the very notion of conceptual schemes falls prey to Davidson's attack. We argue that what should concern us in the discussions of conceptual schemes and related issues, following the initiatives of I. Hacking, T. Kuhn, and (...) N. Rescher, is not the truth-values of assertions, but rather the truthvalue-status of the sentences used to make the assertions. This is because the genuine conceptual innovation between alternative theories/languages does not lie in differences in determining the truth-values of their sentences, but turns on whether these sentences have truth-values when considered within the context of a competing one. The core of conceptual relativism does not consist in the claim that different conceptual schemes may yield incommensurable truth claims, but rather that different conceptual schemes may yield incompatible truth-value-status and therefore lead to distinct perceptions of reality. Conceptual schemes are no longer seen as sentential languages consisting of a set of sentences accepted as true, but rather seen as metaphysical presuppositions of presuppositional languages.[ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]. (shrink)

This is an open-access introductory logic textbook, prepared by Jonathan Ichikawa, based on P.D. Magnus's forallx. This (v2.0, July 2020) is intended as a stable, ready-for-teaching edition.

An introduction to sentential logic and first-order predicate logic with identity, logical systems that significantly influenced twentieth-century analytic philosophy. After working through the material in this book, a student should be able to understand most quantified expressions that arise in their philosophical reading. -/- This books treats symbolization, formal semantics, and proof theory for each language. The discussion of formal semantics is more direct than in many introductory texts. Although forall x does not contain proofs of soundness and completeness, it (...) lays the groundwork for understanding why these are things that need to be proven. -/- The book highlights the choices involved in developing sentential and predicate logic. Students should realize that these two are not the only possible formal languages. In translating to a formal language, we simplify and profit in clarity. The simplification comes at a cost, and different formal languages are suited to translating different parts of natural language. (shrink)

The as-structure provided by language, even in the sciences, is always constitutive of experience and never merely designative. “From Saying…it comes to pass that the World is made to appear” (Heidegger 1971 [1957]: 101).

This paper discusses the first incarnation of what came to be known as the “Frege-Geach” point. The point was made by Peter Geach in his 1960 essay “Ascriptivism”, and developed in “Assertion”, a 1965 piece. Geach’s articles launch a wholesale attack on theories of non-descriptive performances advanced by “some Oxford philosophers” whom he accuses of ignoring “the distinction between calling a thing ‘P’ and predicating ‘P’ of a thing”. One view that Geach specifically targets is H. L. A. Hart’s claim (...) that sentences of the form “X φ-ed” are not primarily descriptive but ascriptive of responsibility for actions. Hart explicitly accepted Geach’s criticism, and disowned his essay. I argue that he was wrong to do so. Perhaps the essay was worth retracting, but not because of Geach’s objections. I begin by restating and refining Geach’s arguments, in order to bring out the flaw he claimed to have detected in the “pattern of philosophising” that he took Hart’s essay to exemplify. I go on to argue that Geach’s original point poses no obstacle either to non-descriptivism in general, or to Hart’s sui generis non-descriptivist claim in particular. (shrink)

The component structures of two distinct neuropsychological systems are described. "System-Y" depends upon "system-X" which, on the other hand, can operate independently of system-Y. System-X provides a matrix upon which system-Y must operate, and, system-Y is transformed by the operations of system-X. In addition these neuropsychological structures reverberate in political history and in the cosmos. The most fundamental structure in the soul, in society, and in the cosmos, has the form of a conical spiral. It can be described mathematically as (...) an harmonic system and mythologically in terms of the birth, marriage and death of the divine-king. ;System-Y corresponds to the neocortex. System-X corresponds to the region below the cortex including the limbic brain. Many of the essential structures of system-Y are captured by Plato's image of the helmsman: orientation, locomotion, manual control and dexterity, visual guidance, verbal command, intention, and volition. System-X on the other hand has been systematically neglected by Western culture, beginning with Plato. ;The dissertation builds upon Yakovlev's distinction between "teleokinesis," "ectokinesis" and "endokinesis." "Teleokinesis" refers to goal-directed action in external space, and belongs to system-Y. Ectokinesis and endokinesis are components of system-X. "Endokinesis" refers to movements within the body. "Ectokinesis" refers to the emotions, which are expressions of endokinesis. The mechanics of ectokinesis is that of an harmonic or vibrational system, as is the mechanics of a musical instrument. ;Within a trance the structure of system-Y is temporarily altered, such that system-X enters the foreground of awareness. Because ectokinesis is analogous to music cultures inspired by trance experience understand the universe in terms of music. The structure of ectokinesis in a trance is that of a conical spiral. Plato inherited the mystical traditions of the ancient Near East but replaced the spiral of emotions with a spiral of ideas , by understanding the axis of the cone as the paradigmatic dimension, and the angular rotation of the spiral as the syntagmatic dimension, of language. Finally I explain how the mythology and political structure of theocratic society imitated the neuropsychological structures of trance experience. (shrink)

This is a 2020 revision of my 1988 dissertation "The Choreography of the Soul" with a new Foreword, a new Conclusion, a substantially revised Preface and Introduction, and many improvements to the body of the work. However, the thesis remains the same. A theory of consciousness and trance states--including psychedelic experience--is developed. Consciousness can be analyzed into two distinct but generally interrelated systems, which I call System X and System Y. System X is the emotional-visceral-kinaesthetic body. System X is a (...) harmonic system of "endokinetic" (internal bodily) and "ectokinetic" (emotionally expressive) movement. System Y is a "teleokinetic" (goal directed) system that includes language, cognition, perception, voluntary motor control, manipulation of the environment, etc. Contrary to theories of consciousness prevalent in the Western philosophical traditions that begin with Plato, I argue that System Y is secondary to and dependent upon System X, not the reverse. In building my thesis I draw upon the work of Friedrich Nietzsche, psychoanalysis, Jungian depth psychology, political anthropology, modern neuroscience, Pythagorean music theory, and the mathematical theory of harmonic systems. (shrink)

In Nicomachean Ethics X.7–8, Aristotle defends a striking view about the good for human beings. According to Aristotle, the single happiest way of life is organized around philosophical contemplation. According to the narrowness worry, however, Aristotle's contemplative ideal is unduly Procrustean, restrictive, inflexible, and oblivious of human diversity. In this paper, I argue that Aristotle has resources for responding to the narrowness worry, and that his contemplative ideal can take due account of human diversity.

Control measures, such as “lockdowns”, have been widely used to suppress the COVID-19 pandemic. Under some conditions, they prevent illness and save lives. But they also exact an economic toll. How should we balance the impact of such policies on individual lives and livelihoods (and other dimensions of concern) to determine which is best? A widely used method of policy evaluation, benefit–cost analysis (BCA), answers these questions by converting all the effects of a policy into monetary equivalents and then summing (...) them up. A different method, social welfare analysis, proceeds by determining the effects of a policy on individual wellbeing and then applying an aggregation formula to them to evaluate the overall effects of a policy. In this chapter, we survey these methods and argue that social welfare analysis has important advantages. One crucial advantage is that it enables ethical considerations relating to the impact of policies on individual wellbeing and its distribution to be incorporated into policy assessments in a transparent way. We illustrate this with a simple numerical model for evaluating pandemic policies that vary in terms of the stringency of the controls that they impose on individual behaviour, showing how the evaluation depends on the ethical significance accorded to their impact on the wellbeing of different age and income groups. (shrink)

Phrase structure trees have a hierarchical structure. In many subjects, most notably in {\bf taxonomy} such tree structures have been studied using ultrametrics. Here syntactical hierarchical phrase trees are subject to a similar analysis, which is much simpler as the branching structure is more readily discernible and switched. The occurrence of hierarchical structure elsewhere in linguistics is mentioned. The phrase tree can be represented by a matrix and the elements of the matrix can be represented by triangles. The height at (...) which branching occurs is not prescribed in previous syntactic models, but it is by using the ultrametric matrix. In other words the ultrametric approach gives a complete description of phrase trees, unlike previous approaches. The ambiguity of which branching height to choose, is resolved by postulating that branching occurs at the lowest height available. An ultrametric produces a measure of the complexity of sentences: presumably the complexity of sentences increases as a language is acquired so that this can be tested. All ultrametric triangles are equilateral or isosceles. Here it is shown that \={X} structure implies that there are no equilateral triangles. Restricting attention to simple syntax a minimum ultrametric distance between lexical categories is calculated. A matrix constructed from this ultrametric distance is shown to be different than the matrix obtained from features. It is shown that the definition of {\sc c-command} can be replaced by an equivalent ultrametric definition. The new definition invokes a minimum distance between nodes and this is more aesthetically satisfying than previous varieties of definitions. From the new definition of {\sc c-command} follows a new definition of of the central notion in syntax namely {\sc government}. (shrink)

I explore Aristotle’s account in the Nicomachean Ethics of how agents attain self-awareness through contemplation. I argue that Aristotle sets up an account of self-awareness through contemplating friends in Books VIII-IX that completes itself in Book X’s remarks on theoretical contemplation. I go on to provide an account of how contemplating the divine, on Aristotle’s view, elicits self-awareness.

In this paper I sketch the evolution of the main theories of the relationship between time and motion from Descartes to Newton, by defending an hypothesis that traces back Newton’s realism about time to Barrow’s “metric realism”, which Newton developed as the claim that measuring a magnitude X implies that X exists independently of our measures.

What is money? Paraphrasing Goodman, I say that’s the wrong question to ask. The right question is, When is money? And to get the answer, Searle’s general formula for social objects (X couns as Y in context C) is fine, as long as you give it a different reading.

The conceptions of lovesickness and of its remedies that emerge in the Decameron result from a medical tradition that in previous centuries was assimilated by the Latin culture. The case of the Decameron is particularly interesting because this work was composed during the Black Death epidemic, between 1348 and 1354. Boccaccio’s Decameron seems to be situated in a tension between two diseases: the black plague, from which the brigata tries to escape, and lovesickness. It is quite significant that Boccaccio dedicated (...) his work to women who love and need the comfort of literature, thereby addressing a new ideal of noble women, not based on their wealth, but on their intelligence and sensitivity. Women are often victims of their melancholy, because they have no opportunity to distract themselves, being confined to the private space of their rooms. Boccaccio describes women as being subject to passion and illness, so that the lovesickness cases described in the Decameron strongly allude to the discrimination of women and to the oppression they had to endure. An explicative example that testifies to the preeminent role that the medical culture played is Decameron X, 7, in which Lisa, the daughter of an apothecary, strangely cannot be healed by pharmacological remedies that her father knows, and not a single physician can help to heal her lovesickness. The case of Lisa can be interpreted as an exemplum: a woman afflicted by the same sickness as Lisa could understand how to behave by means of reading of this novella. Moreover, this paper will demonstrate that a useful outline of Lisa’s symptomatology can be found in Dino del Garbo’s commentary on Guido Cavalcanti’s poem Donna me prega. (shrink)

Philosophers disagree about whether vagueness requires us to admit truth-value gaps, about whether there is a gap between the objects of which a given vague predicate is true and those of which it is false on an appropriately constructed sorites series for the predicate—a series involving small increments of change in a relevant respect between adjacent elements, but a large increment of change in that respect between the endpoints. There appears, however, to be widespread agreement that there is some sense (...) in which vague predicates are gappy which may be expressed neutrally by saying that on any appropriately constructed sorites series for a given vague predicate there will be a gap between the objects of which the predicate is definitely true and those of which it is definitely false. Taking as primitive the operator ‘it is definitely the case that’, abbreviated as ‘D’, we may stipulate that a predicate F is definitely true (or definitely false) of an object just in case ‘DF (a)’, where a is a name for the object, is true (or false) simpliciter.1 This yields the following conditional formulation of a ‘gap principle’: (DΦ(x) ∧ D¬Φ(y)) → ¬R(x, y). Here ‘Φ’ is to be replaced with a vague predicate, while ‘R’ is to stand for a sorites relation for that predicate: a relation that can be used to construct a sorites series for the predicate—such as the relation of being just one millimetre shorter than for the predicate ‘is tall’. Disagreements about the sense in which it is correct to say that vague predicates are gappy can then be recast as disagreements about how to understand the definitely operator. One might give it, for example, a pragmatic construal such as ‘it would not be misleading to assert that’; or an epistemic construal such as ‘it is known that’ or ‘it is knowable that’; or a semantic construal such as ‘it is true that’. (shrink)

Philosophers disagree about whether vagueness requires us to admit truth-value gaps, about whether there is a gap between the objects of which a given vague predicate is true and those of which it is false on an appropriately constructed sorites series for the predicate---a series involving small increments of change in a relevant respect between adjacent elements, but a large increment of change in that respect between the endpoints. There appears, however, to be widespread agreement that there is some sense (...) in which vague predicates are gappy which may be expressed neutrally by saying that on any appropriately constructed sorites series for a given vague predicate there will be a gap between the objects of which the predicate is denitely true and those of which it is denitely false. Taking as primitive the operator ‘it is denitely the case that’, abbreviated as ‘D’, we may stipulate that a predicate F is denitely true (or denitely false) of an object just in case ‘DF (a)’, where a is a name for the object, is true (or false) simpliciter.1 This yields the following conditional formulation of a ‘gap principle’: (D Φ (x) ∧ D¬ Φ (y)) → ¬R(x, y). Here ‘ Φ ’ is to be replaced with a vague predicate, while ‘R’ is to stand for a sorites relation for that predicate: a relation that can be used to construct a sorites series for the predicate---such as the relation of being just one millimetre shorter than for the predicate ‘is tall’. Disagreements about the sense in which it is correct to say that vague predicates are gappy can then be recast as disagreements about how to understand the denitely operator. One might give it, for example, a pragmatic construal such as ‘it would not be misleading to assert that’; or an epistemic construal such as ‘it is known that’ or ‘it is knowable that’; or a semantic construal such as ‘it is true that’. (shrink)

Formulação de Ração para Caprinos -/- APRESENTAÇÃO -/- O material Formulação de Ração para Caprinos, assim como a edição para ovinos, visa servir de alicerce para demonstrar as exigências nutricionais atualizadas dos caprinos, além das equações que servem para determinar a exigência do animal em uma determinada situação. Além disso, demonstra a avaliação bromatológica dos principais alimentos utilizados para a alimentação do rebanho no Brasil, esses valores da composição nutricional servem de base, assim como as exigências para as técnicas matemáticas (...) empregadas na formulação manual de dietas. A abordagem desse material é a apresentação das exigências nutricionais dos caprinos mediante as bases científicas como o NRC (2007); e, através de equações de predileções, apresentar as exigências nutricionais sob as condições brasileiras, principalmente sob condições em que deverão ser incrementados uma dada porcentagem das exigências, por exemplo para os caprinos em atividade intensa e/ou moderada no semiárido nordestino. Posteriormente, apresentar exemplos práticos de formulação de dietas mediante as técnicas matemáticas empregadas para tal. Será abordada situações reais onde um profissional pode se deparar no cotidiano de propriedades caprinocultoras. O texto também é dividido em três capítulos com as exigências nutricionais, composição dos principais alimentos e a formulação prática de dietas que visem suprir as necessidades dos animais 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 de boa qualidade física e nutricional. -/- SUMÁRIO -/- EXIGÊNCIAS NUTRICIONAIS DOS CAPRINOS 1 Equações de predição do consumo de matéria seca (CMS) 2 Algumas exigências para caprinos 4 Tabelas de requerimentos nutricionais dos caprinos 6 Concentrações de nutrientes necessárias em rações de caprinos (% da MS) 12 Energia metabolizável para caprinos 15 Relação volumoso:concentrado (v:c) para caprinos 17 ALIMENTOS PARA CAPRINOS 19 FORMULAÇÃO DE RAÇÃO PARA CAPRINOS 34 RAÇÕES PRONTAS PARA CAPRINOS 78 CONCLUSÕES 86 REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS 87 -/- -/- EXIGÊNCIAS NUTRICIONAIS DOS CAPRINOS -/- Para formular dieta para os caprinos, devemos seguir os mesmos passos tal qual para as demais espécies de interesse zootécnico. Os passos a serem seguidos para a elaboração de rações são: Após a caracterização do rebanho a ser alimentado, devemos buscar as equações de predileção para estimar as exigências nutricionais do lote servindo de alicerce para que a ração final obtenha as mesmas quantidades de nutrientes tal qual os animais requerem, por exemplo, um caprino reprodutor da raça Boer de 50 kg de PV sob condições de trabalho moderado, onde devemos incluir 50% da exigência da mantença, exige cerca de 795 g de NDT/ kg de MS ingerida, então após estabelecer os alimentos disponíveis e a composição bromatológica dos mesmos, o resultado final do balanceamento deverá ser igual a exigência de NDT do animal, podendo haver pouco excesso ou pouco défice. Como citado em outros trabalhos, as exigências dos animais variam em função do peso, idade, estado fisiológico etc. e que, para a elaboração de dietas, os nutrientes mais comumente trabalhados são a proteína bruta (PB), as necessidades energéticas podendo-se utilizar os nutrientes digestíveis totais (NDT), energia metabolizável (EM), energia digestível (ED) ou energia líquida (EL), as necessidades minerais dando ênfase aos de maior importância que são cálcio e fósforo e, raramente, as necessidades vitamínicas. Existem diferentes fontes teóricas e científicas que dispõem de tabelas de requerimentos nutricionais da espécie caprina de acordo com diferentes fatores, sendo eles os de peso vivo; ganho ou perda de peso; estado produtivo ou improdutivo de carne ou leite; 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. Também, segundo o NRC para caprinos (1981) e o para pequenos ruminantes (2007), os fatores de atividade leve, moderada ou intensa são levados em consideração. Apresentarei aqui algumas equações para predizer as exigências líquidas e as principais tabelas de requerimentos nutricionais dos caprinos expressas com base na necessidade do animal ou em percentual da ração, 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) É comum, na literatura acerca da criação e, principalmente, sobre a nutrição de caprinos observar que os especialistas trabalham com porcentagens de fornecimento de ingestão ou consumo de matéria seca (IMS ou CMS) para os animais de acordo com três fatores, um leva em consideração a origem do animal, outro o estado fisiológico e outro a categoria do animal. Para aclarar melhor vejamos a tabela 1 sobre as porcentagens de matéria seca em função do peso vivo para os caprinos. Tabela 1: Porcentagens ideais de consumo de matéria seca de acordo com o peso vivo de caprinos em diferentes etapas e origens Tipo de animal CMS em % do PV Cabras de origem temperada 5 a 6 Cabras de origem tropical 4 a 5 Mantença 3 Cabras gestantes 2,2 a 2,8 Cabras em lactação 3 a 5 Cabritos em crescimento 2,5 a 3 Fonte: Adaptações de BORGES & GONÇALVES, 2011 e SILVA & VALLE, 2018. No entanto, existem diferentes fórmulas para estimas as exigências de consumo de matéria seca dos caprinos, uma, apesar de não completa, é estabelecida pelo INRA, outras apresentadas pelo AFRC estimam para caprinos em mantença e lactação. Outras formas simplificadas indicam um consumo em porcentagem de acordo com o estado fisiológico ou origem. A equação de ingestão de matéria seca (IMS) determinada pelo INRA (1988) leva em consideração a produção de leite (se houver), o ganho diário de peso (se houver) e a porcentagem de volumoso fornecida ao caprino. IMS (g/dia) = (423,2 x kg leite/dia) + 27,8 x kg0,75 + (440 x kg de GPD) + (6,75 x %de volumoso) -/- Para um exemplo prático utilizando a fórmula proposta, suponhamos um caprino macho adulto (descartar a produção de leite = 0) com 50 kg PV, com ganho de peso diário de 100 g e recebendo uma dieta baseada em 80% de volumoso de boa qualidade, a IMS será: IMS (g/dia) = 27,8 x 50 kg0,75 + (440 x 0,1) + (6,75 x 80) = 1974 g MS/dia = 3,5% PV Outro exemplo prático utilizando a fórmula proposta pelo INRA, suponhamos uma cabra da raça Saanen com 60 kg de PV e produzindo 5 litros de leite/dia com 3,5% de gordura, com ganho de peso diário de 30 g e recebendo apenas concentrado, logo descartamos a parte volumosa então, a IMS será: IMS (g/dia) = (423,2 x 5) + (27,8 x 60 kg0,75) + (440 x 0,03) = 2730 g MS/dia = 4,54% PV Agora, a mesma cabra recebe suplementação volumosa à base de 40%, então: IMS (g/dia) = (423,2 x 5) + (27,8 x 60 kg0,75) + (440 x 0,03) + (6,75 x 40) = 3000 g MS/dia = 5% PV Outra forma de estimar a ingestão de matéria seca em gramas por dia é a proposta pelo AFRC (1993) que leva em consideração dois fatores, o peso vivo e a produção leiteira (com 3,5% de gordura), se houver, para cabras leiteiras prenhes e em lactação: CMS (kg/animal/dia) = 0,062 x PV0,75 + 0,305 x PL -/- Para utilizar essa fórmula, suponhamos uma cabra da raça Saanen, de 50 kg de PV, produzindo 5 kg de leite com 3,5% de gordura. Qual deverá ser seu consumo em matéria seca? CMS = 0,062 x 500,75 + 0,305 x 5 = 2,69 kg de MS/dia ou 5,38% do PV em MS Para caprinos adultos em mantença, o AFRC sugere a fórmula: CMS (kg/animal/dia) = 0,522 + 0,0135 x PV -/- Utilizando essa fórmula, qual deverá ser o CMS de um caprino da raça Alpina em mantença, que possui peso vivo de 45 kg? CMS = 0,522 + 0,0135 x 45 = 1,13 kg de MS/dia ou 2,5% do PV em MS Algumas exigências para caprinos Energia metabolizável (EM): 101,38 kcal/kg de PV0,75 para mantença, ou 2,0 a 2,4 Mcal/kg de MS 7,25 kcal/g de ganho de peso para animais em crescimento 1,25 Mcal/kg de leite com 4% de gordura para cabras em lactação Proteína bruta (PB): 32 g PB/Mcal de Energia digestível (ED) (EM = ED x 0,82) 4,15 g de PB/kg de PV0,75 para animais em mantença 0,284 g de PB/g de ganho para animais em crescimento 7,76 g de PB/kg de PV0,75 para cabras gestantes 96,9 g PB/kg de leite com 4% de gordura para cabras em lactação Minerais: Os principais minerais usados na formulação de ração para ruminantes são Ca e P, logo a estimativa de suas exigências são imprescindíveis, uma vez que a mistura elaborada pode apresentar deficiência de um ou ambos os minerais. O NRC (2007) propõe as seguintes equações para o cálculo dos requerimentos de Ca e P, em diferentes categorias: 1. Mantença: Cálcio (g) = ((0,623 x CMS) + 0,228)/0,45 Fósforo (g) = (0,081 + (0,88 x CMS))/0,65 Onde: CMS = consumo de matéria seca em kg/dia. 2. Crescimento: Cálcio (g) = (11 x GPD)/0,45 Fósforo (g) = (6,50 x GPD)/0,65 Onde: GPD = ganho de peso diário em kg. 3. Produção de leite: Cálcio (g) = (1,40 x L)/0,45 Fósforo (g) = (1,00 x L)/0,65 Onde: L = produção de leite em kg. É importante ressaltar que os requerimentos para cabras em lactação devem ser somados com os de mantença; dessa forma, como exemplo prático, uma cabra com 50 kg de PV que produz 3 kg de leite/dia requer cerca de 11,5 g de Ca (9,3 g de mantença + 2,2 g de produção). -/- 4. Gestação: Cálcio (g) = (0,23 x NC x PMnasc.)/0,45 Fósforo (g) = (0,132 x NC x PMnasc.)/0,65 Onde: NC = número de crias e PMnasc. = peso médio esperado da cria ou crias ao nascimento. Resumidamente, o NRC (2007) apresenta algumas indicações: 2 a 3 g de cálcio/kg de leite produzido ou 0,114 a 0,163% de Ca da MS 1,4 a 2,1 g de fósforo/kg de leite produzido ou 0,084 a 0,122% de P da MS Sal (NaCl): 0,5% da MS diariamente Potássio (K): 0,8% da MS diariamente Enxofre (S): 0,16% da MS diariamente Magnésio (Mg): 0,2% da MS diariamente -/- Tabelas de requerimentos nutricionais dos caprinos Resumidamente, a composição do concentrado dos caprinos, de acordo com a categoria, e as quantidades a serem fornecidas/animal/dia é a seguinte: Tabela 2: Composição do concentrado e quantidades fornecidas Fonte: CODEVASF, 2011. Agora, vamos dividir os requerimentos dos caprinos de acordo com situações, conforme os dados obtidos por NRC (2007), NUNES (1998) e RIBEIRO (1997): Tabela 3: Caprinos em mantença PV (kg) CMS (kg/animal¹) CMS (% PV) PB (g) PB (%) EM (Mcal) NDT² (g) NDT (%) Ca (g) P (g) 10 0,28 2,8 25 9 0,57 160 57 1 1 20 0,49 2,4 40 8,2 0,96 270 55 1 1 30 0,66 2,2 50 7,6 1,30 360 55 2 1,5 40 0,82 2,0 65 8 1,60 450 55 2 1,5 50 0,97 1,9 80 8,2 1,90 530 55 3,5 2,5 60 1,11 1,8 90 8 2,20 610 55 3,5 2,5 70 1,25 1,8 95 7,6 2,50 680 55 4 3 80 1,40 1,7 105 7,5 2,70 750 54 4 3 90 1,50 1,65 120 8 3,00 820 55 4 3 100 1,62 1,6 130 8 3,20 900 56 5 3,5 -/- 1 – para converter matéria seca em matéria natural, dividir 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 – 1 kg de NDT equivale a 4,4 Mcal de energia digestível (ED) e 1 Mcal de ED = 0,82 Mcal de EM. Tabela 4: Mantença e baixa atividade (incremento de 25% dos valores de mantença da tabela 3) – manejo extensivo, pastagem tropical e gestação inicial PV (kg) CMS (kg/cab./dia) PB (g) EM (Mcal) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 10 0,3 30 0,71 200 1 0,7 20 0,5 50 1,20 335 2 1,4 30 0,67 60 1,62 452 2 1,4 40 0,84 80 2,02 560 3 2,1 50 0,99 90 2,38 662 4 2,8 60 1,14 105 2,73 760 4 2,8 70 1,28 120 3,07 852 5 3,5 80 1,41 130 3,39 942 5 3,5 90 1,54 145 3,70 1030 6 4,2 100 1,67 155 4,01 1114 6 4,2 Por exemplo, um animal com 40 kg de PV em mantença e submetido a baixa atividade, deverá receber PB na base de: Mantença: 65 g/dia + (65 x 25%) = 80 g/dia de PB Tabela 5: Mantença e média atividade (incremento de 50% dos valores de mantença da tabela 3) – terreno semiárido, pastagens levemente acidentadas (em encosta) e gestação inicial PV (kg) CMS (kg/cab./dia) PB (g) EM (Mcal) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 10 0,36 33 0,86 239 1 0,7 20 0,60 55 1,44 400 2 1,4 30 0,81 74 1,95 543 3 2,1 40 1,01 93 2,42 672 4 2,8 50 1,19 110 2,86 795 4 2,8 60 1,37 126 3,28 912 5 3,5 70 1,53 141 3,68 1023 6 4,2 80 1,69 156 4,06 1131 6 4,2 90 1,85 170 4,44 1236 7 4,9 100 2,01 184 4,82 1336 7 4,9 -/- Por exemplo, um animal com 50 kg de PV em mantença e vivendo sob condições de média atividade (clima semiárido como algumas regiões de Pernambuco), deverá receber NDT na base de: Mantença: 530 g/dia + (530 x 50%) = 795 g/dia de NDT Tabela 6: Mantença e alta atividade (incremento de 75% dos valores de mantença da tabela 3) – terreno árido, vegetação escassa, pastagens montanhosas e gestação inicial PV (kg) CMS (kg/cab./dia) PB (g) EM (Mcal) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 10 0,42 38 1,00 278 2 1,4 20 0,70 64 1,68 467 2 1,4 30 0,95 87 2,78 634 3 2,1 40 1,18 108 3,46 784 4 2,8 50 1,39 128 4,10 928 5 3,5 60 1,60 146 4,69 1064 6 4,2 70 1,79 165 5,27 1194 6 4,2 80 1,98 182 5,81 1320 7 4,9 90 2,16 198 6,35 1442 8 5,6 100 2,34 215 6,88 1559 8 5,6 -/- Por exemplo, um animal com 30 kg de PV em mantença, sob condições de clima árido e alta atividade, deverá receber NDT na base de: Mantença: 360 g/dia + (360 x 75%) = 630 g/dia ou 634 g como está na tabela 6 Tabela 7: Exigência para 100 g de ganho de peso diário PV (kg) CMS (kg/animal) PB (g) EM (Mcal) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 10 0,1 29 0,42 116 1,32 0,73 20 0,2 29 0,57 159 1,43 0,71 30 0,3 28 0,72 199 1,49 0,7 40 0,4 27 0,88 245 1,54 0,69 50 0,4 26 1,03 286 1,58 0,68 60 0,5 25 1,19 331 1,61 0,67 70 0,5 24 1,36 379 1,64 0,67 -/- Tabela 8: Exigências para gestação de cabras em diferentes períodos PV (kg) Período CMS (kg/cab./dia) PB (g) EM (Mcal) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 40 Início 1,07 77 2,45 680 3 2 4º mês 1,07 159 2,94 816 5 2,5 5º mês 0,97 215 4,10 1141 7 3 50 Início 1,20 91 2,84 789 3,5 2,5 4º mês 1,20 173 3,35 932 6 3,1 5º mês 1,09 235 4,56 1268 8,5 3,7 60 Início 1,33 105 3,19 887 4 3 4º mês 1,33 187 3,70 1027 7 3,8 5º mês 1,21 253 4,90 1363 10 4,5 70 Início 1,47 118 3,51 975 4,5 3,5 4º mês 1,47 200 4,01 1114 8 4,4 5º mês 1,34 273 5,23 1454 11,5 5,3 80 Início 1,60 130 3,84 1068 5 4 4º mês 1,60 212 4,25 1458 9 5 5º mês 1,46 293 5,41 1504 13 6 -/- Tabela 9: Requerimentos adicionais para a produção de 1 kg de leite segundo a % de gordura. Incluem-se os requisitos para aleitamento de filhote único, gêmeos ou trigêmeos no respectivo nível de produção leiteira Gordura (%) PB (g) EM (Mcal) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 2,5 60 1,20 330 2 1,5 3,0 65 1,21 335 2 1,5 3,5 70 1,23 340 2 1,5 4,0 75 1,25 345 3,5 2,5 4,5 80 1,26 350 3,5 2,5 5,0 85 1,28 355 3,5 2,5 5,5 90 1,29 360 4 3 6,0 95 1,31 365 4 3 -/- Tabela 10: Requerimentos por kg de leite com 3,5% de gordura – cabras alpinas PB (g) EM (Mcal) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 70 1,22 345 4 2 -/- Tabela 11: Requerimentos por kg de leite com 4,7% de gordura – cabras anglo-nubianas PB (g) EM (Mcal) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 80 1,50 415 6 4 -/- Tabela 12: Requerimentos para cada 0,1% de variação no teor de gordura do leite PB (g) EM (Mcal) NDT (g) Ca (g) P (g) 10 0,30 80 0,5 0,5 -/- Tabela 13: Requerimentos adicionais para gestação tardia CMS (kg/cab./dia) PB (g) PB (%) EM (Mcal) NDT (g) NDT (%) Ca (g) P (g) 0,71 80 11 1,42 395 56 2 1,5 -/- Tabela 14: Requerimentos adicionais para ganho de peso diário (GPD) de 50 g CMS (kg/cab./dia) PB (g) PB (%) EM (Mcal) NDT (g) NDT (%) Ca (g) P (g) 0,18 15 8,5 0,36 100 55,5 1 1 -/- Tabela 15: Requerimentos adicionais para ganho de peso diário (GPD) de 100 g CMS (kg/cab./dia) PB (g) PB (%) EM (Mcal) NDT (g) NDT (%) Ca (g) P (g) 0,36 30 8,5 0,88 200 55,5 1 1 -/- Tabela 16: Requerimentos adicionais para ganho de peso diário (GPD) de 150 g CMS (kg/cab./dia) PB (g) PB (%) EM (Mcal) NDT (g) NDT (%) Ca (g) P (g) 0,54 45 8,5 1,32 300 55,5 2 1,5 -/- Seguindo o mesmo raciocínio da tabela 2 da CODEVASF, a tabela 17 apresenta valores de proteína bruta e quantidade de MS para caprinos de corte e leite em diferentes estágios produtivos. Tabela 17: Exigências de PB e quantidade de MS de caprinos em diferentes estágios Etapa produtiva PB % Quantidade/cab./dia Caprinos de corte Pré-desmame 18 110 – 150 g Pós-desmame 16 230 – 340 g Crescimento/engorda 14 450 g Flushing 14 – 16 450 g – 1,4 kg Gestação (2º e 3º mês) 14 – 16 230 – 450 g Gestação (último mês) 14 – 16 340 – 910 g Lactação (1 cria) 14 – 16 340 – 570 g Lactação (2 crias) 14 – 16 910 g Fêmeas de reposição 16 230 – 450 g Machos adultos 14 < 230 g Caprinos leiteiros Pré-desmame (2-4 meses) 18 Ad libitum Crescimento (4º mês até 6-8 semanas antes do parto) 14 – 16 450 – 680 g Fêmeas secas 14 – 16 450 – 910 g Fêmeas lactantes 14 – 16 330 g/kg de leite Machos adultos 14 – 16 450 – 910 g Fonte: adaptação de PARDO RINCÓN, 2007. pp. 567-568. Concentrações de nutrientes necessárias em rações de caprinos (% da MS) De forma geral, as rações para os caprinos seguem os mesmos padrões das dietas elaboradas e fornecidas para os ovinos. No entanto, sabendo-se que as exigências de ambas as espécies são diferentes, é necessário compreendermos que mesmo uma ração servindo para os ovinos e caprinos, esta pode não fornecer as quantidades desejadas pelos caprinos, ou ainda, a ração poderá conter excesso de nutrientes para este animal e acarretar problemas metabólicos e de eficiência alimentar, além das perdas econômicas uma vez que será adquirida e fornecida uma ração que não irá alcançar seu objetivo. Dito isto, através da literatura acerca da produção, nutrição e alimentação de caprinos de corte e leiteiros, a tabela 18 apresenta os níveis recomendados de rações para os caprinos de acordo com a categoria e estado fisiológico do animal, levando-se em consideração os requerimentos das tabelas 2 a 16 e os níveis de nutrientes de acordo com as grandes fábricas de ração recomendam e formulam as dietas. Tabela 18: Concentrações de nutrientes para rações de caprinos com base na % da MS Mantença CMS 1,5-3% PV - PB 10% - NDT 55% - EM (Mcal/kg) 2,0 - Ca 0,35% MS – P 0,25% MS Mantença CMS 1,8-2,4% PV – PB 7% - NDT 53% - Ca 0,3-0,8% MS – P 0,25-0,40% MS Gestação precoce CMS 2,4-3,0% PV – PB 9-10% - NDT 53% - Ca 0,3-0,9% MS – P 0,2-0,4% MS Gestação tardia CMS 2,4-3,0% PV – PB 13-14% - NDT 53% - Ca 0,3-0,9% MS – P 0,2-0,4% MS Lactação CMS 2,8-4,6% PV – PB 12-17% - NDT 53-66% - Ca 0,3-0,8% MS – P 0,25-0,45% MS Caprinos leiteiros castrados ganhando 100-150 g/diaa CMS 3,3-3,8% PV – PB 12% - NDT 67% - Ca 0,3-0,4% MS – P 0,3-0,35% MS Caprinos de corte castrados ganhando 100-150 g/diaa CMS 3,0-3,4% PV – PB 15-17% - NDT 67% - Ca 0,4% MS – P 0,3% MS Caprinos leiteiros inteiros ganhando 100-150 g/diaa CMS 3,2-3,7% PV – PB 10-15% - NDT 67-86% - Ca 0,4% MS – P 0,3% MS Caprinos de corte inteiros ganhando 100-150 g/diaa CMS 3,3-3,7% PV – PB 15% - NDT 67% - Ca 0,4% MS – P 0,3% MS Cabras gestantes CMS 2,2-2,8% PV – PB 20-24% - NDT 55-65% - Suplemento mineral 3% Cabras em lactação CMS 3,0-5,0% PV – PB 16-24% - NDT 65% - Ca 0,75 g/kg – P 0,3 Creep-feeding para cabritos CMS Ad libtum – PB 12-18% - NDT 80% Caprinos em crescimento CMS 2,5-3,0% PV – PB 14% - NDT 55-70% - Relação Ca:P 2:1 Machos adultos CMS 2,5-3,5% PV – PB 14-16% - NDT 60% - Relação Ca:P 2:1 Reprodutores em serviço CMS 2,5-3,0% PV – PB 10% - NDT 65% Confinamento de caprinos PB 14% - NDT 65% - Ca 0,8 % – P 0,4% Fonte: adaptação de BORGES & GONÇALVES, 2011 e NRC, 2007. A tabela 19 apresenta os valores de energia metabolizável (EM) em MJ/dia e a concentração proteica para formular rações para caprinos. Para transformar MJ em Mcal, saiba que 1 MJ equivale a 0,24 Mcal. Note que as concentrações de energia, proteína e/ou NDT, aportados nas tabelas aqui presentes variam em função das equações de predição ao qual são calculados os requerimentos. Tabela 19: Valores simples para formular rações para ovinos e caprinos em diferentes cenários de produção Estágio produtivo EM (MJ/dia) PB (%) Mantença EMm = 0,12 x PV + 1,5 6 – 8 Rápido crescimento EMm x 2 14 – 16 Gestação (3-4 meses) 1 feto EMm + 3 8 – 10 2 fetos EMm + 4 Gestação (último mês) 1 feto EMm + 4 8 – 10 2 fetos EMm + 8 Lactação (1º mês) 1 cria EMm + 8 12 – 14 2 crias EMm + 12 Fonte: DA SILVA, 2021. Por exemplo, utilizando a tabela 19, calcular a EM requerida em Mcal/dia para cabra Saanen de 60 kg de PV em mantença e depois para a mesma cabra em lactação com 1 cria: Mantença: 0,12 x 60 + 1,5 = 8,7 MJ para Mcal: 8,7 x 0,24 = 2,09 Mcal/dia Lactação: 8,7 + 8 = 16,7 MJ para Mcal: 4 Mcal/dia Note que os valores de produção devem ser adicionados aos de mantença. As exigências minerais dos caprinos, segundo autores, e o nível máximo tolerável na dieta são apresentadas na tabela 20. Tabela 20: Exigências minerais de caprinos MACROMINERAIS CHURCH (2002) (% MS) HART (2011) (% MS) NRC (2005) Nível máximo (% MS) Ca 0,2 – 0,8 0,3 – 0,8 1,5 P 0,2 – 0,4 0,25 – 0,4 0,6 Mg 0,1 – 0,2 0,18 – 0,4 0,6 K 0,5 – 0,8 0,8 – 2,0 2 S 0,15 – 0,25 0,2 – 0,32 0,3 – 0,5 Na 0,09 – 0,18 0,2 4 Cl 0,09 – 0,18 0,2 MICROMINERAIS CHURCH (2002) mg/kg MS HART (2011) mg/kg MS NRC (2005) Nível máximo (mg/kg MS) Co 0,1 – 0,2 0,1 – 10 25 Cu 7 – 11 10 – 80 15 Fe 30 – 50 50 – 1000 500 I 0,1 – 0,8 0,5 – 50 50 Mn 20 – 40 0,1 – 3 2000 Mo 0,5 0,1 – 3 5 Se 0,1 – 0,2 0,1 – 3 5 Zn 20 – 33 40 – 500 300 -/- Energia metabolizável para caprinos 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. 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 caprinos em função do peso e da categoria fisiológica do animal. 1. Mantença (EMm): Pré-desmame (nascimento aos 3 meses de idade): Fêmeas e machos castrados 0,107 Mcal/kg PV0,75 Machos inteiros 0,125 Mcal/kg PV0,75 -/- Crescimento (do desmame aos 18 meses de idade): Fêmeas e machos castrados 0,128 Mcal/kg PV0,75 Machos inteiros 0,149 Mcal/kg PV0,75 -/- Adultos (> 18 meses de idade): Fêmeas e machos castrados 0,120 Mcal/kg PV0,75 Machos inteiros 0,138 Mcal/kg PV0,75 -/- 2. Ganho de peso (EMg): Pré-desmame 0,00320 Mcal/kg PV0,75 Crescimento 0,00552 Mcal/kg PV0,75 Adultos 0,00681 Mcal/kg PV0,75 -/- 3. Produção de leite (EMl): EMl (Mcal/dia) = (kg de leite x 1,179943) x ((1,4694 + (0,4025 x %gordura))/3,079) 4. Gestação (EMgest): EMgest (Mcal/dia) = (- 15,467 - (1,1439 x PMnasc) + (0,26316 x D) - (0,0021667 x NC) – (0,0010963 x D2) + (0,011772 x PMnasc x D) - (0,98352 x PMnasc x NC) + (0,011735 x PMnasc x D x NC)) x 0,239 Onde: PMnasc = peso médio esperado da cria ou crias ao nascimento em kg; D = dias de gestação e NC = número de crias. As exigências nutricionais dos caprinos 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 caprinos servem de base após a caracterização do lote para que deve ser elaborada uma mistura. Por exemplo, um lote de caprinos com 30 kg de peso vivo em mantença, quais são as exigências de cada animal? Basta consultar a tabela 3 deste manual para depois ser levantado os alimentos e a composição destes e começar a elaborar a dieta. Relação volumoso:concentrado (v:c) para caprinos 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 caprinos 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 e balanceada. 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. Segundo estudos, a relação volumoso:concentrado influencia diretamente em padrões como consumo de matéria seca, presença de fibras, digestibilidade da matéria seca e nutrientes e atividades de mastigação e ruminação. Segundo esses estudos, uma relação mais próxima de 50:50 aumenta o teor de fibra, aumenta a ingestão de MS e aumenta a digestibilidade da MS, mas diminui a da fibra, e diminuem as atividades físicas da mastigação e o processo de ruminação. O NRC, 2007 sugere as proporções de v:c para caprinos as mesmas dos ovinos, que são divididas em diferentes situações. -/- Exemplos de proporções de volumoso e concentrado na dieta de caprinos PV Kg VOLUMOSO % CONCENTRADO % Mantença 70 100 0 Cabras secas 70 100 0 Últimas 4 semanas de gestação 70 85 15 Últimas 4-6 semanas de lactação 1 cria 70 85 15 Últimas 4 semanas de gestação 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 Cabras secas – primeiras 15 semanas de gestação 55 85 15 Cabras – últimas 4 semanas de gestação 55 70 30 Cabras – últimas 4 semanas de gestação 55 60 40 Cabras – primeiras 6-8 semanas de lactação com 1 cria 55 60 40 Cabras – primeiras 6-8 semanas de lactação com 2 crias 55 50 50 Cabras de reposição 30 65 35 40 65 35 50-70 85 15 Machos para reposição 40 70 30 60 70 30 80-100 70 30 Engorda 30 40 60 40 25 75 50 20 80 Cabritos recém-desmamados até adultos 10 10 90 20 15 85 30 15 85 40-60 15 85 Fonte: DA SILVA, 2021. -/- ALIMENTOS PARA CAPRINOS -/- 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. Dentro da classificação de alimentos volumosos, ainda encontramos os volumosos “proteicos” que são representados pelas forrageiras leguminosas e algumas gramíneas. Os concentrados, por sua vez, 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 caprinos. Existem ainda, os alimentos provenientes da caatinga com alto potencial para a alimentação dos caprinos; a composição proteica desses alimentos e a parte comestível que pode ser fornecida aos caprinos é apresentada na tabela 21. Como a maioria dos caprinos são criados em regiões onde há escassez alimentar e baixas oportunidades de fornecimento de ração concentrada, há os alimentos não usuais que possuem enorme capacidade para manter os animais ou para que continuem produzindo em períodos de seca, por exemplo. Na região semiárida do Brasil, os alimentos não-convencionais mais comumente utilizados são cactáceas como coroa de frade, mandacaru e a palma; e outros como algaroba, faveira, moringa, umbu, maniçoba, leucena, aveloz etc. Uma das melhores alternativas alimentares em épocas de escassez é a produção e o fornecimento de fenos de gramíneas locais, silagem de sorgo e girassol. Tabela 21: Forragens nativas do nordeste brasileiro usadas como alimento Fonte: CODEVASF, 2011. A composição bromatológica dos ingredientes utilizados na alimentação dos caprinos, que é indispensável para a elaboração de dietas que supram os requisitos é apresentada na tabela 22. Tabela 22: Composição bromatológica dos alimentos utilizados na alimentação de caprinos Alimento MS% PB% EE% EM (Mcal/kg) NDT% Ca% P% Concentrados energéticos Algaroba farelo integral 85 8,6 0,54 - - 0,31 0,14 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 Continuação MS% PB% EE% EM (Mcal/kg) NDT% Ca% P% Arroz grão s/casca 86,2 8,5 1,2 - - 0,04 0,16 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 Continuação MS% PB% EE% EM (Mcal/kg) NDT% Ca% P% Amendoim farelo 89,4 56 1,3 3,9 89,5 0,18 0,62 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 Fava grão 87,1 22,2 0,9 2,6 - 0,12 0,53 Feijão moído 89,6 24,2 1,5 3,2 80,8 0,54 0,43 Guandu grão 88,5 21,1 0,8 2,5 - 0,1 0,32 Guandu grão tostado 89,3 20,3 0,8 2,5 - 0,1 0,31 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 Continuação MS% PB% EE% EM (Mcal/kg) NDT% Ca% P% 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 - - - - - 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 gordura feno 90,7 4,5 2,2 1,5 45 - - Continuação MS% PB% EE% EM (Mcal/kg) NDT% Ca% P% Capim jaraguá feno 90 6,5 - - 53 0,47 0,12 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 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-colonião silagem 32 6,6 2,6 1,5 47,3 - - Capim-colonião silagem 2% melaço 26 2,3 1,2 1,5 54 - - Capim elefante silagem 27,5 5,5 2,2 1,7 50 0,31 0,2 Capim elefante silagem 1,5% melaço 23,7 1,5 0,9 0,25 13,3 - - Capim elefante silagem 3% melaço 19,2 1,1 0,8 0,2 11 - - Capim elefante silagem 4% melaço 18,8 1,1 0,7 0,2 10,3 - - Capim elefante silagem 7,5% melaço 19,3 1 0,7 - 11 - - Capim jaraguá silagem 32,2 1,4 0,9 - 15,4 - - 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 - - Continuação MS% PB% EE% EM (Mcal/kg) NDT% Ca% P% Girassol silagem 24,7 9,6 12,4 2,0 56,1 1,02 0,24 Mandioca silagem raiz 40,4 1,2 0,2 1,4 - 0,09 0,04 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-angola 92 4,2 - - 42,6 0,1 0,19 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 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 Continuação MS% PB% EE% EM (Mcal/kg) NDT% Ca% P% 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 elefante pastejo 24,5 3,3 0,8 0,3 15,7 - - Capim gordura 28 6,9 1,3 2,1 58 0,24 0,07 Capim gordura pastejo 24,8 1,7 0,8 - 8,5 - - Capim jaraguá 29,7 2,7 0,8 - 16,3 - - 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 Capim tifton 85 27 12,9 2,0 1,4 39,5 0,54 0,5 Capim-de-rhodes 89 9,6 3,2 - 56,6 - - Crotalária 88,6 15,9 2,7 - 48,9 - - Cunhã 29 16,6 5,1 2,6 69,5 - 0,18 Galáxia 90 13,8 3,6 - 53,5 - - 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 - - Continuação MS% PB% EE% EM (Mcal/kg) NDT% Ca% P% 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 - - - - - 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 Continuação MS% PB% EE% EM (Mcal/kg) NDT% Ca% P% 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 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 Continuação MS% PB% EE% EM (Mcal/kg) NDT% Ca% P% 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. Na formulação de ração para os animais de produção, é importante levar em consideração que dos mais variados alimentos citados supra, e de tantos outros usados na alimentação e que não são usuais, existem perigos dado os fatores antinutricionais presentes nestes. Por exemplo, os taninos presentes no sorgo, as aflatoxinas presentes no farelo de amendoim, a sojina presente no farelo de soja, o efeito laxativo do farelo de trigo etc. Logo, quando se deseja formular uma dieta, é necessário obedecer às recomendações e nível de uso do ingrediente em quantidade ou porcentagem na ração. A tabela 23 mostra os níveis recomendados dos principais ingredientes para rações de caprinos. Tabela 23: Níveis recomendados de ingredientes para rações de caprinos Ingrediente Quantidade Milho 70% ou mais (depende) Farelo de soja Sem restrição de uso Grão de sorgo Substitui 100% do milho Farelo de trigo 10 – 40% Farelo de arroz Até 20% Farelo de arroz desengordurado 10 – 30% Farelo de amendoim 100 – 400 g/cab./dia Farelo de algodão Até 40% (não recomendável para reprodutores) Casca de amendoim 5% Aveia 70% Centeio moído 40% Polpa seca de cevada 40% Farelo de linhaça 15% Fubá de milho 50% Proteinoso de milho 25% Glúten de milho 10 – 25% Sabugo de milho desintegrado 5% Caroço de algodão 25% Farelo de girassol 30% Ureia 2% Casca de algodão 40% Casca de arroz 15% Torta de girassol Até 30% Torta de colza Até 20% Torta de linhaça Até 20% Torta de mamona 5 – 10% Torta de gergelim Até 30% Raiz fresca mandioca 1 – 2% do PV Polpa cítrica Até 30% Melaço de cana 150 – 230 g/cab./dia Melaço de cana em pó Até 5% Farelo de coco Até 30% Feijão Até 15% Gergelim Até 30% Girassol 20 – 30% Ureia 50 g/100 kg PV Bananeira Até 20% Farelo de cacau Até 30% Farelo de café Até 20% Bagaço de cana Até 30% Cana-de-açúcar picada fresca 1 – 2 kg/cab./dia Centeio 40 – 40% Cevada 40 – 60% Semente de girassol 400 – 500 g/cab./dia Torta de girassol 200 – 300 g/cab./dia Farelo integral de mandioca Até 50% Farelinho de trigo 150 g/cab./dia Grão de trigo Até 50% Fonte: DA SILVA, 2021; NUNES, 1998 e TEIXEIRA, 1998. Além dos alimentos convencionais ou não acima citados, existem os alimentos chamados de subprodutos que possuem alto potencial nutricional para a alimentação animal. A tabela 24 apresenta a composição de subprodutos da agricultura com alto potencial para serem utilizados na formulação de ração como ingrediente e/ou suplemento. Tabela 24: Composição de subprodutos e alimentos não usuais para rações de caprinos Alimento MS (%) PB (%) NDT (%) EE (%) FB (%) Ca (%) P (%) Abacate, farelo desengordurado 91 20,3 50 1,2 19,3 - - Abacate, casca 24 6,9 90 34,9 24,5 0,11 0,18 Continuação MS (%) PB (%) NDT (%) EE (%) FB (%) Ca (%) P (%) Abacate, semente 41 4,9 90 3,8 5,9 0,04 0,20 Abacaxi 14,7 2,7 80,1 1,4 2,7 0,14 0,07 Abacaxi, bagaço 87 4,6 68 1,5 20,9 0,27 0,13 Abacaxi, coroa 16 10 42,8 3,1 23,1 - - Abacaxi, cortado verde 18 7,8 56 2,2 27 0,28 0,08 Arroz, casca 92 3,3 12 0,8 42,9 0,10 0,08 Banana, polpa fruto 24 4,5 84 0,8 2,1 0,03 0,11 Batata, farelo tubérculo 89 8,4 90 0,4 7,3 0,16 0,25 Batata, tubérculo fresco 23 9,5 81 0,4 2,4 0,04 0,24 Batata, silagem tubérculo 25 7,6 82 0,4 4 0,04 0,23 Batata-doce, planta 20 19,5 49,4 2,5 14,5 - - Batata-doce, tubérculo 31 5 80 1,3 6 0,09 0,13 Batata-doce, farelo tubérculo 90 5,4 80 1 3,7 0,17 0,16 Beterraba-forrageira 13,8 11,3 79,2 0,6 7,5 0,22 0,22 Cenoura 12 9,9 84 1,4 9,1 0,4 0,35 Cenoura, planta 16 13,1 74 3,8 18,1 1,94 0,19 Cenoura, polpa 14 6,4 62,8 7,8 18,6 - - Cevada, palha 91 4,3 49 1,9 42 0,3 0,07 Laranja, silagem do bagaço 11,3 8,8 65 2,2 17,7 - - Limão, bagaço 93 6,9 77 1,5 15,9 - - Ervilha, feno da planta 88 13,6 58 2,5 30,2 1,39 0,28 Ervilha, silagem da rama 25 13,1 57 3,3 29,8 1,31 0,24 Ervilha, farelo da vagem 90 19,7 84 1,6 26,3 - - Feijão, palha 90 6,8 51 1,5 44,5 1,85 0,14 Feijão, farelo da palha 92,1 7,7 44,1 1,5 39,6 - - Gergelim, torta da semente 94,7 38 88,8 26 4 - - Maça, bagaço 89 4,9 69 5,1 17 0,13 0,12 Maça, silagem do bagaço 21,4 7,8 74 6,3 20,6 0,1 0,1 Maça, fruto 17 2,8 70 2,2 7,3 0,06 0,06 Melão 4,1 11,5 70,7 3,3 23 - - Melão, torta 6,1 11,5 74,6 3,3 23 - - Continuação MS (%) PB (%) NDT (%) EE (%) FB (%) Ca (%) P (%) Pera 17,3 - 86,7 - - - - Pera, bagaço 91,5 6,1 70,6 2,1 23,8 2,38 0,12 Pêssego 10 8,7 80 3,7 10,3 - - Repolho 9,5 25,3 85,3 4,2 15,8 0,64 0,35 Repolho, folhas 14,8 14,4 66,7 2,5 14,3 0,63 0,21 Romã, bagaço 26 8,4 68,4 4,9 16,6 - - Soja, palha 88 5,2 44 1,4 44 1,59 0,06 Tomate, bagaço 92 23,5 58 10,3 26,4 0,43 0,60 Tomate, silagem do bagaço 29,5 19,2 63,9 14,6 44,9 0,5 0,47 Tomate, fruto 6 16,4 69 5 9,1 0,16 0,49 Uva, bagaço 91 13 33 7,9 31,9 0,61 0,06 Uva, farelo 90 30,2 - - - - - Fonte: NUNES, 1998. -/- FORMULAÇÃO DE RAÇÃO PARA CAPRINOS -/- A formulação de dietas para caprinos de corte ou leiteiros é análoga ao esquema de formulação para os 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, caso o lote possua peso diferente das tabelas, por exemplo média de 27 kg de PV, basta utilizar as equações de predição para determinar as exigências de MS, PB, NDT ou EM, Ca e P; encontrada as exigências dos caprinos é necessário a avaliação de quais são os ingredientes disponíveis na propriedade 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 animais em mantença, confinados para o ganho de peso, sob pastejo, gestantes e, por fim, em lactação. Para a determinação das exigências dos animais utilizarei os valores aqui descritos que foram compilados do NRC, 2007 e NUNES, 1998 descritos nas tabelas do capítulo 1. Para os alimentos serão usados os valores aqui presentes e compilados de diversos autores e descritos na tabela 20 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 dieta para uso em creep-feeding, para lote de cabritos com média de 10 kg PV e CMS à vontade. A ração deverá conter 20% PB e 80% de NDT. Os alimentos disponíveis são fubá de milho, raspa de mandioca e farelo de soja. Deixar 2% para suplemento mineral e sal. Determine o aporte mineral da dieta final. 1º passo: determinação da composição dos alimentos: Ingrediente MS % PB % NDT % Ca % P % Fubá de milho 91 10 86 0,02 0,29 Raspa de mandioca 88 3 69 0,15 0,80 Farelo de soja 89 47 81 0,25 0,65 -/- 2º passo: montar o sistema com 3 equações e 3 incógnitas onde x é milho, y raspa de mandioca e z farelo de soja: Equação MS: x + y + z = 98 Equação PB: 0,1x + 0,03y + 0,47z = 20 Equação NDT: 0,86x + 0,69y + 0,81z = 80 3º passo: resolvendo o sistema, vamos obter: x +y +z = 98 0,1x +0,03y +0,47z = 20 0,86x +0,69y +0,81z = 80 x +y +z = 98 0,1x +0,03y +0,47z = 20 0,432y -3,232z = -92 (-8,6 foi adicionada a linha 3) x +y +z = 98 -0,07y +0,37z = 10,2 0,432y -3,232z = -92 ( -0,1 foi adicionada a linha 2) x +y +z = 98 -0,07y +0,37z = 10,2 -0,949z = -29,051 (6,171 foi adicionada a linha 3) x + y +z = 98 y -5,286z = -145,714 -0,949z = -29,051 (a 2ª linha foi dividida -0,07) x +y +z = 98 y -5,286z = -145,714 z = 30,627 (a 3ª linha foi dividida -0,949) -/- 3ª linha: z = 30,6 -/- 2ª linha: y -5,286z = -145,714 -/- Use as variáveis já calculadas: y -5,286⋅30,627 = -145,714 -/- Resolva y: y = 16,2 -/- 1ª linha: x +y +z = 98 -/- Use as variáveis já calculadas: x +⋅16,169 +⋅30,627 = 98 -/- Resolva x: x = 51,2 -/- 4º passo: verificação da ração: Ingrediente MS kg PB kg NDT kg Ca g P g Fubá de milho 51,2 5,1 44 10,2 148,5 Raspa de mandioca 16,2 0,5 11,2 24,3 129,6 Farelo de soja 30,6 14,4 24,8 76,5 198,9 TOTAL 98 20 80 111 477 Exigência 98 20 80 - - DÉFICE - - - - - -/- 5º passo: a relação Ca:P é de 0,23:1, como para ruminantes o ideal é entre 1:1 e 2:1, é necessário a adição de uma fonte de Ca para aumentar a quantidade do mesmo na ração e aumentar a relação. Usando 2 kg (ER de 2%) de calcário, teremos: 1 kg calc. ---------- 0,38 kg Ca 2 kg calc. ---------- x kg Ca X = 0,76 kg de Ca. O total de Ca na ração será 871 g. E a relação agora será de 1,8:1, ideal. 6º passo: composição final da ração para creep-feeding para cabritos: Ingrediente MS kg MN kg % final MN PB kg NDT kg Ca g P g Fubá de milho 51,2 56,3 50,6 5,1 44 10,2 148,5 Raspa de mandioca 16,2 18,4 16,6 0,5 11,2 24,3 129,6 Farelo de soja 30,6 34,4 31 14,4 24,8 76,5 198,9 Calcário 2 2 1,8 - - 760 - TOTAL 100 111,1 100 20 80 871 477 Exigência 100 - 100 20 80 - - DÉFICE - - - - - - - -/- 7º passo: segundo o NRC, o CMS de um cabrito com essas características é de 0,3 kg/dia. Então a ração deverá ser composta por: Ingrediente CMS g MS g MN g PB g NDT g Fubá de milho 300 153,6 168,8 15,4 132,1 Raspa de mandioca 48,6 55,2 1,5 33,5 Farelo de soja 91,8 103,1 43,2 74,4 Calcário 6 6 - - TOTAL 300 300 333,1 60 240 -/- As 60 g da PB equivalem aos 20% e os 240 g de NDT equivalem a 80%. Por fim, para uma boa ração de uso em creep-feeding para cabritos com 10 kg PV, são necessários 170 g de milho moído, 60 g de raspa de mandioca, 110 g de farelo de soja e 6 g de calcário. -/- EXEMPLO 2: você foi convidado para trabalhar em uma fazenda que produz leite de cabras da raça Saanen, a média da produção leiteira é de 5 kg/dia com um teor de 3,5% de gordura. Forneça ração volumosa em até 20% da MS total. Os alimentos disponíveis para a ração volumosa são silagem de milho e feno de braquiária; para a mistura concentrada são milho moído, ureia e farelo de soja. Dados o CMS é de 3 kg/dia e o peso médio do lote de 50 kg. 1º passo: determinação das exigências nutricionais da cabra: Exigência CMS kg PB kg NDT kg Ca g P g (1) Mantença 3,0 0,075 0,530 3 2,1 Prod./kg 0,068 0,342 4 1,5 (2) Prod./kg x 5 0,340 1,71 20 7,5 (1 + 2) TOTAL 3,0 0,415 2,24 23 9,6 TOTAL % 100 13,8 74,7 0,77 0,32 -/- 2º passo: composição dos alimentos disponíveis: Ingrediente MS % PB % NDT % Ca % P % Silagem de milho 27 8 65 0,52 0,16 Feno de braquiária 89 8 60 0,23 0,10 Milho moído 90 9 86 0,02 0,29 Ureia 100 280 - - - Farelo de soja 90 45 84 0,29 0,65 -/- 3º passo: como 600 g (20% CMS) deverá ser aportada pela ração volumosa, vamos fornecer 300 g MS de ambos os volumosos. Teremos, então: Volumosos MS kg PB kg NDT kg Ca g P g Silagem 0,3 0,024 0,195 1,6 0,5 Feno 0,3 0,024 0,180 0,7 0,3 TOTAL 0,6 0,048 0,375 2,3 0,8 Exigência 3,0 0,415 2,24 23 9,6 DÉFICE 2,4 0,367 1,865 20,7 8,8 -/- 4º passo: a ração concentrada deverá conter 0,367 kg de PB e 1,865 kg de NDT. Vamos fornecer uma quantidade fixa de 50 g de ureia, então: 50 x 280/100 = 140 g PB Calculando o novo défice da PB: 0,367 – 0,140 = 0,227 5º passo: montamos o sistema de duas equações e duas incógnitas para determinar a quantidade de x milho moído e y farelo de soja necessárias para suprir 0,227 kg PB e 1,865 kg de NDT. Lembrando que o défice de MS é de 2,4, ou seja, o total final de x + y não deverá ser superior. Equação PB: 0,09x + 0,45y = 0,227 Equação NDT: 0,86x + 0,84y = 1,865 Respondendo direto, já que aprendemos o método de resolução anteriormente: 0,86x + 0,84y = 1,865 0,86x + 4,30y = 2,17 0 - 3,46y = 0,305 y = 0,305/3,46 y = 0,088 kg de farelo de soja, ou 90 g. Substituindo y na equação PB: 0,09x + 0,45(0,09) = 0,227 0,09x + 0,0405 = 0,227 0,09x = 0,227 – 0,0405 0,09x = 0,1865 x = 2,07 kg de milho moído, ou 2,1 kg. 6º passo: verificação da ração concentrada: Ingrediente MS kg PB kg NDT kg Ca g P g Milho 2,1 0,189 1,8 0,42 6,1 Ureia 0,05 0,140 - - - Farelo de soja 0,09 0,040 0,07 0,26 0,6 TOTAL 2,24 0,369 1,87 0,68 6,7 Exigência 2,4 0,367 1,865 20,7 8,8 DÉFICE 0,16 - - 20 2,1 -/- 7º passo: ajuste mineral para suprir o défice de 2,1 g de P com fosfato bicálcico e 20 g de Ca com calcário. Fazendo as relações, análogas a anteriores, e sabendo-se que o FB contém 18% de P e 23% de Ca e o calcário possui 38% de Ca, encontramos: Para P: 11,7 ou 12 g de fosfato bicálcico contendo 2,1 g de P e 2,8 g de Ca Para Ca: 45,5 g de calcário contendo 17,2 g de Ca 8º passo: composição final da dieta: Volumosos MS kg MN kg % final PB kg NDT kg Ca g P g Silagem de milho 0,3 1,1 27,6 0,024 0,195 1,6 0,5 Feno de braquiária 0,3 0,34 8,5 0,024 0,180 0,7 0,3 Concentrados Milho moído 2,1 2,33 58,6 0,189 1,8 0,42 6,1 Ureia 0,05 0,05 1,3 0,140 - - - Farelo de soja 0,09 0,1 2,5 0,040 0,07 0,26 0,6 Calcário 0,046 0,046 1,2 - - 17,4 - Fosfato bicálcico 0,012 0,012 0,3 - - 2,7 2,1 TOTAL 2,9 3,98 100 0,417 2,24 23,1 9,9 Exigência 3,0 - 100 0,415 2,24 23 9,6 DÉFICE - - - - - - -/- Por fim, uma ração para cabras Saanen com 50 kg PV e produzindo 5 kg leite/dia com 3,5% de gordura, são necessários 600 g de mistura volumosa à base de 50% de silagem de milho e 50% de feno de braquiária e 2,6 kg de ração concentrada à base de 2,4 kg de milho, 100 g de farelo de soja, 50 g de ureia e 50 g para calcário e fosfato bicálcico. O CMS de cada cabra com essa ração será de 2,9 kg/dia, ou seja, dentro dos limites de 3 kg/dia, segundo o NRC, 2007. A relação Ca:P é 2,3:1, sendo uma relação aceitável, já que ruminantes suportam uma relação até 3:1. -/- EXEMPLO 3: formule uma dieta para animais em mantença situados na região semiárida de Pernambuco. Os animais possuem peso médio de 40 kg e estão em condições de atividade média, ou seja, 50% a mais dos requisitos de mantença segundo o NRC, 2007. Os alimentos disponíveis são capim tifton verde e fubá de milho. Dados o CMS é de 1,1 kg/dia. 1º passo: determinação das exigências nutricionais do animal: Exigência MS kg PB kg NDT kg Ca g P g Mantença 1,1 0,064 0,448 3 2 X50% 0,032 0,224 2 1,5 TOTAL 1,1 0,096 0,672 5 3,5 TOTAL % 100 8,8 61,1 0,45 0,32 -/- 2º passo: composição dos alimentos disponíveis: Ingrediente MS % PB % NDT % Ca % P % Capim tifton 27 13 40 0,54 0,50 Fubá de milho 90 9 85 0,02 0,29 -/- 3º passo: montando o sistema de equações onde x milho e y capim terão que fornecer 0,096 kg de PB e 0,672 kg de NDT: Equação PB: 0,09x + 0,13y = 0,096 Equação NDT: 0,85x + 0,40y = 0,672 Resolvendo o sistema direto, temos: 0,85x + 0,40y = 0,672 0,85x + 1,223y = 0,907 0 + 0,823y = 0,235 y = 0,235/0,823 y = 0,286 kg de capim tifton, ou 290 g. Substituindo y na equação PB: 0,09x + 0,40(0,286) = 0,096 0,09x + 0,037 = 0,096 0,09x = 0,096 – 0,037 0,09x = 0,059 x = 0,656 kg de milho moído, ou 660 g. 4º passo: verificação da ração: Ingrediente MS kg PB kg NDT kg Ca g P g Milho 0,656 0,059 0,558 0,1 1,9 Capim tifton 0,286 0,037 0,114 1,5 1,4 TOTAL 0,942 0,096 0,672 1,6 3,3 Exigência 1,1 0,096 0,672 5 3,5 DÉFICE 0,158 - - 3,4 0,2 -/- 5º passo: adição de fosfato bicálcico e calcário ao milho para suprir o défice de P e Ca: Para P: 1,2 g de fosfato bicálcico fornecerá 0,2 g de P e 0,28 g de Ca. Para Ca: 8,2 g de calcário fornecerá 3,1 g de Ca. 6º passo: verificação final da dieta: Ingrediente MS g MN g % final PB g NDT g Ca g P g Capim tifton 286 1060 58,9 37 114 1,5 1,4 Fubá de milho 656 729 40,6 59 558 0,1 1,9 Calcário 8,2 8,2 0,45 - - 3,12 - Fosfato bicálcico 1,2 1,2 0,05 - - 0,28 0,2 TOTAL 951,4 1798,4 100 96 672 5 3,5 Exigência 1100 - 100 96 672 5 3,5 DÉFICE - - - - - - - -/- Por fim, para mantença de lote de caprinos no semiárido com atividade média e 40 kg de PV, são necessários, para fins práticos, 1,1 kg de capim tifton, 730 g de milho misturado com 9 g de calcário e 1,5 g de fosfato bicálcico. A MS da ração satisfaz completamente as exigências de CMS do animal e sobre espaço de 0,149 kg de MS que o animal poderá ingerir com outras fontes de alimentos para um possível início de ganho de peso. A relação Ca:P da mistura é de 1,4:1. -/- EXEMPLO 4: um pequeno produtor de caprinos de Belo Jardim-PE deseja manter seu lote de animais no período da seca, onde a vegetação é escassa e o clima semiárido. Os alimentos disponíveis na propriedade são algarobeira e sementes de guandu. O lote de animais possui média de 40 kg PV. O CMS é de 1,1 kg/dia. 1º passo: exigências nutricionais do animal: Segundo o NRC, 1981 para uma seca e um clima tipicamente semiárido como o de Belo Jardim, são necessários acréscimos de 75% das exigências de mantença, ou seja, é necessário adicionar 75% a mais do valor de mantença para obter as exigências finais. Logo: Exigência MS kg PB kg NDT kg Ca g P g Mantença 1,1 0,063 0,448 3 2 X75% 0,047 0,336 3 2 TOTAL 1,1 0,110 0,784 6 4 TOTAL % 100 10 71,3 0,55 0,36 -/- 2º passo: composição dos alimentos disponíveis: Ingrediente MS % PB % NDT % Ca % P % Algaroba 89 9 70 0,4 0,15 Guandu 89 23 80 0,15 0,45 -/- 3º passo: montando o sistema e respondendo direto vamos obter: Equação PB: 0,09x + 0,23y = 0,110 Equação NDT: 0,70x + 0,80y = 0,784 Resolvendo o sistema direto, temos: 0,70x + 0,80y = 0,784 0,70x + 1,789y = 0,856 0 - 0,989y = -0,072 y = -0,072/-0,989 y = 0,073 kg de sementes de guandu, ou 80 g. Substituindo y na equação PB: 0,09x + 0,23(0,08) = 0,110 0,09x + 0,0184 = 0,110 0,09x = 0,110 – 0,0184 0,09x = 0,0916 x = 1,02 kg de algaroba, ou 1,1 kg. 4º passo: verificação da ração: Ingrediente MS kg PB kg NDT kg Ca g P g Algaroba 1,02 0,092 0,715 4,1 1,5 Guandu 0,08 0,018 0,65 0,1 0,4 TOTAL 1,1 0,110 0,780 4,2 1,9 Exigência 1,1 0,110 0,784 6 4 DÉFICE - - - 1,8 2,1 -/- 5º passo: ajuste mineral para suprir Ca e P: Para P: 12 g de fosfato bicálcico tem 2,1 g de P e 2,7 g de Ca 6º passo: composição final da dieta: Ingrediente MS g MN g % final PB g NDT g Ca g P g Algaroba 1020 1146 91,8 92 715 4,1 1,5 Guandu 80 90 7,2 18 65 0,1 0,4 Fosfato bicálcico 12 12 1,0 - - 2,7 2,1 TOTAL 1112 1248 100 110 780 6,9 4 Exigência 1100 - 100 110 784 6 4 DÉFICE - - - - - - - -/- Por fim, para manter um lote de caprinos na seca com média de 40 kg PV, é necessário o fornecimento de, para fins práticos, 1200 g de algaroba, 100 g de sementes de guandu e 12 g de fosfato bicálcico. O CMS da dieta é ideal e a relação Ca:P é de 1,7:1. -/- EXEMPLO 5: formular dieta para caprinos reprodutores. Os alimentos disponíveis são palma miúda, triticale e farelo de algodão. O peso médio do reprodutor é de 70 kg e o CMS de 1,26 kg/dia. Por fim, calcular o aporte mineral da dieta. Será fornecido 1 kg de palma in natura/cabeça. 1º passo: exigências para caprino reprodutor com 70 kg PV: Exigência CMS kg PB g NDT g Ca g P g TOTAL 1,26 203 695 5 3 TOTAL % 100 16 55,1 0,4 0,24 -/- 2º passo: composição dos alimentos disponíveis: Ingrediente MS % PB % NDT % Ca % P % Palma 9 4 70 2 0,31 Triticale 87 14 85 0,04 0,32 Farelo de algodão 90 33 70 0,2 0,8 -/- 3º passo: fornecimento fixo de 1 kg de palma: Volumoso MS g PB g NDT g Ca g P g Palma 90 3,6 63 1,8 0,3 Exigência 1260 203 695 5 3 DÉFICE 1170 199,4 632 3,2 2,7 -/- 4º passo: calcular mistura de x triticale e y farelo de algodão que atenda a demanda de 0,1994 kg de PB e 0,632 kg de NDT. Montando a equação e resolvendo direto teremos: Equação PB: 0,14x 0,33y = 0,1994 Equação NDT: 0,85x + 0,70y = 0,632 Fator de multiplicação: 6,071 (0,85/0,14) Equação NDT: 0,85x + 0,70y = 0,632 Equação 3: 0,85x + 2,00y = 1,211 0 - 1,30y = 0,579 y = 0,445 kg de farelo de algodão Substituindo na equação PB: 0,14x + 0,33 x 0,445 = 0,1994 0,14x + 0,1469 = 0,1994 0,14x = 0,1994 – 0,1469 0,14x = 0,0525 x = 0,375 kg de triticale 5º passo: verificação da ração: Ingrediente MS g PB g NDT g Ca g P g Triticale 375 52,5 319 0,15 1,2 Farelo de algodão 445 146,9 312 0,9 3,6 TOTAL 820 199,4 631 1,05 4,8 Exigência 1170 199,4 632 3,2 2,7 DÉFICE - - - 2,15 - -/- 6º passo: ajuste mineral com calcário para suprir o défice de 2,15 g de Ca: 5,7 ou 6 g de calcário tem 2,3 g de Ca 7º passo: composição final da dieta: Ingrediente MS g MN g % final PB g NDT g Ca g P g Palma 90 1000 51,8 3,6 63 1,8 0,3 Triticale 375 431 22,3 52,5 319 0,15 1,2 Farelo de algodão 445 494,5 25,6 149,9 312 0,90 3,6 Calcário 6 6 0,3 - - 2,3 - TOTAL 916 1931,5 100 203 695 5 3 Exigência 1260 - 100 203 694 5,15 5,1 DÉFICE 344 - - - - - - -/- O CMS é inferior do que o recomendado, no entanto, as exigências foram supridas pelos alimentos. São necessários 1 kg de palma e uma mistura concentrada de 430 g de triticale, 500 g de farelo de algodão e 6 g de calcário/cabeça/dia. A relação Ca:P é de 1:1. -/- EXEMPLO 6: formular dieta para caprinos reprodutores que necessitam de 16% de PB e 60% de NDT. Os alimentos disponíveis são milho, silagem de capim-elefante e farelo de soja. Deixar 2% de ER para suplement. (shrink)

Hempel seems to hold the following three views: (H1) Understanding is pragmatic/relativistic: Whether one understands why X happened in terms of Explanation E depends on one's beliefs and cognitive abilities; (H2) Whether a scientific explanation is good, just like whether a mathematical proof is good, is a nonpragmatic and objective issue independent of the beliefs or cognitive abilities of individuals; (H3) The goal of scientific explanation is understanding: A good scientific explanation is the one that provides understanding. Apparently, H1, H2, (...) and H3 cannot be all true. Some philosophers think that Hempel is inconsistent, while some others claim that Hempel does not actually hold H3. I argue that Hempel does hold H3 and that he can consistently hold all of H1, H2, and H3 if he endorses what I call the “understanding argument.” I also show how attributing the understanding argument to Hempel can make more sense of his D-N model and his philosophical analysis of the pragmatic aspects of scientific explanation. (shrink)

Here A, B, C, D, I, X and “Philosophy” discuss some features of the relation between identity and love.

Whilе thе rоbust аnd pоsitivе аssоciаtiоn bеtwееn еducаtiоn аnd pоliticаl еngаgеmеnt hаs bееn widеly dоcumеntеd, thе dirеct cаusаl link is still а subjеct оf dеbаtе. This study cоntributеs tо thе оngоing dеbаtе by еxаmining whеthеr thеrе еxists а cаusаl еffеct оf еducаtiоn оn pоliticаl еngаgеmеnt. Explоiting thе plаusibly еxоgеnоus vаriаtiоn in еducаtiоn inducеd by thе cоmpulsоry schооling rеfоrms аcrоss 39 cоuntriеs, wе find thаt еducаtiоn cultivаtеs pоliticаl intеrеst, prоmоtеs thе аcquisitiоn оf pоliticаl knоwlеdgе, аnd fоstеrs suppоrtivе аttitudеs tоwаrds pоliticаl frееdоms. (...) Nеvеrthеlеss, thе bеttеr еducаtеd аrе nо mоrе likеly tо vоtе in еlеctiоns nоr аdоpt аny spеcific pоsitiоn in thе lеft-right pоliticаl spеctrum. (shrink)

There are two competing views regarding the role of mechanistic knowledge in inferences about the effectiveness of interventions. One view holds that inferences about the effectiveness of interventions should be based only on data from population-level studies (often statistical evidence from randomised trials). The other view holds that such inferences must be based in part on mechanistic evidence. The competing views are local principles of inference, the plausibility of which can be assessed by a more general normative principle of inference. (...) Bayesianism tells us to base inferences on both the ‘likelihood’ and the ‘prior’. The likelihood represents statistical evidence. One influence on the prior probability of a hypothesis like ‘d causes x’ is mechanistic knowledge of how d causes x. Thus, reasoning about such inferences by appealing to both statistical and mechanistic evidence is vindicated by our best general theory of inference. The primary contribution of this paper is to assess the merits and weaknesses of the arguments on both sides of the debate, using the Bayesian framework. This analysis lends support to those who argue that we should base our causal inferences about interventions in part on mechanistic evidence. (shrink)

Consider two epistemic experts—for concreteness, let them be two weather forecasters. Suppose that you aren’t certain that they will issue identical forecasts, and you would like to proportion your degrees of belief to theirs in the following way: first, conditional on either’s forecast of rain being x, you’d like your own degree of belief in rain to be x. Secondly, conditional on them issuing different forecasts of rain, you’d like your own degree of belief in rain to be some weighted (...) average of the forecast of each. Finally, you’d like your degrees of belief to be given by an orthodox probability measure. Moderate ambitions, all. But you can’t always get what you want. (shrink)

A set D subset of V(G) is a dominating set of a graph G if for all x ϵ V(G)\D, for some y ϵ D such that xy ϵ E(G). A dominating set D subset of V(G) is called a connected dominating set of a graph G if the subgraph <D> induced by D is connected. A connected domination number of G, denoted by γ_c(G), is the minimum cardinality of a connected dominating set D. The triple repetition sequence denoted by (...) {S_n:n ϵ Z+} is a sequence of positive integers which is repeated thrice, i.e., {S_n}={1,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,3, ...}. In this paper, we construct a combinatorial explicit formula for the triple repetition sequence of connected domination numbers of a triangular grid graph. (shrink)

In this article, author expressed the meaning of “belief”, possible effective factors in human life, and how these factors can be effective on person and/or communities. With this respect, the meaning of religion, the possible interaction and relation between religion and science evaluated. 42 past/present theories of religion and evaluation of the past/present works of the 87 philosophers of religion are explained. Author considered new synthesis (R-Synthesis), and also new era philosophy, new and re-constructed branches of philosophy, and some systems/constructions (...) to express the new perspective for philosophy of religion. Author applied 27(+) possible definitive/certain result cases of the synthesis for R-Religion discipline specifically, and did the followings under new perspective: (i) eliminated some religious subjects, (ii) unified some religious subjects, (iii) modified some religious subjects, (iv) united some religious subjects in upper phase, (v) separated some religious subject, (vi) defined all religious subjects under one framework, (vii) integrated all religious subjects, (viii) defined new religious subjects, (ix) re-defined some religious subjects, (x) removed some religious subjects and put new religious subjects instead, (xi) added some religious subjects, (xii) kept/protected some religious subjects, (xiii) proposed progression for religious subjects, (xiv) changed the priority of some religious subjects, (xv) increased the importance of some religious subjects, (xvi) strengthened the ethics, (xvii) integrated philosophy branches under one framework, (xviii) others. Some of the purposes of this article are: (i) to define new synthesis method, (ii) to define good and/or correct new perspective and structure for philosophy of religion, science of religion, theories of religion, and related subjects, (iii) to extend the definition/limits of philosophy of religion with new perspective, (iv) others. As result of the synthesis, new perspective for philosophy of religion explained by considering the following concepts/sections: (a) theories of religion, (b) 17 upper constructional philosophies and philosophy of religion, (c) eight complementary branches of philosophy of religion, (d) 14 lower constructional philosophies and philosophy of religion, (e) science of religion, (f) new theory of religion and its relations with other disciplines. Author defined New Era Theory, New Era Religion, New Era Belief, Progressive Religion and their relations with other religions, beliefs, religious/non-religious movements, and the relation with other theories of religion. Also, power authorities and functional position levels in the New Era Belief, and Religion of God, Knowledge of God/gods, Nature of God/gods concepts are explained generally/specifically. (shrink)

이 책자는 형식 논리의 일종인 양상논리에 입문하고 싶으신 분들을 위한 짧은 교재입니다. “양상논리 맛보기” 라는 말마따나, 이 책자는 양상논리에 관심은 있지만 아직 본격적으로 공부를 시작하진 않은 분들께서 ‘맛보기’를 하기에 적합한 안내 책자입니다. 아무쪼록 이 책자가 양상논리를 공부해나가시는데 유용한 첫 발판이 될 수 있기를 바랍니다. / This booklet is a Korean adaptation and translation of Part VIII of forall x: Calgary (Fall 2021 edition), which is intended to be introductory material for modal logic. The original text is based on Robert Trueman's (...) A Modal Logic Primer, which is revised and expanded by Richard Zach and Aaron Thomas-Bolduc in forall x: Calgary. (forall x: Calgary is based on forall x: Cambridge by Tim Button, which is in turn based on forall x by P. D. Magnus, and also includes material from forall x: Lorain County Remix by Cathal Woods and J. Robert Loftis.) This booklet is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. (shrink)

Whilе thе rоbust аnd pоsitivе аssоciаtiоn bеtwееn еducаtiоn аnd pоliticаl еngаgеmеnt hаs bееn widеly dоcumеntеd, thе dirеct cаusаl link is still а subjеct оf dеbаtе. This study cоntributеs tо thе оngоing dеbаtе by еxаmining whеthеr thеrе еxists а cаusаl еffеct оf еducаtiоn оn pоliticаl еngаgеmеnt. Explоiting thе plаusibly еxоgеnоus vаriаtiоn in еducаtiоn inducеd by thе cоmpulsоry schооling rеfоrms аcrоss 39 cоuntriеs, wе find thаt еducаtiоn cultivаtеs pоliticаl intеrеst, prоmоtеs thе аcquisitiоn оf pоliticаl knоwlеdgе, аnd fоstеrs suppоrtivе аttitudеs tоwаrds pоliticаl frееdоms. (...) Nеvеrthеlеss, thе bеttеr еducаtеd аrе nо mоrе likеly tо vоtе in еlеctiоns nоr аdоpt аny spеcific pоsitiоn in thе lеft-right pоliticаl spеctrum. (shrink)

Lạm dụng và bỏ bê trẻ еm đаng diễn rа phổ biến trên tоàn сầu. Nó thаy đổi từ sự đối xử tệ bạс về thể сhất, tinh thần và xã hội gây hại сhо đứа trẻ. Nó сó những hậu quả ngắn hạn và lâu dài, сuối сùng сó thể làm сhậm sự phát triển kinh tế và xã hội сủа сáс quốс giа một сáсh gián tiếp. Người tа ướс tính rằng сứ 5 phụ nữ và 1 trоng (...) số 13 nаm giới thì сó 1 người bị lạm dụng tình dụс trоng thời thơ ấu. Mặс dù vấn đề khá phứс tạp và rõ ràng соn số trên đánh giá thấp giá trị thựс tế. Phần lớn, đó là dо сấu trúс xã hội trоng сộng đồng bị phá vỡ. Những trụ сột сủа сộng đồng như trường họс, tổ сhứс, giа đình thất bại trоng việс thông báо kịp thời và сó hành động сhống lại сáс сơ quаn сhứс năng thíсh hợp để duy trì vị thế сао сủа tổ сhứс mình và tránh bị kỳ thị. Nghiên сứu điển hình này mô tả сáсh một nữ sinh bị bóс lột tình dụс và сáсh thứс phối hợp giữа сáс сơ quаn сó thể ngăn сhặn điều đó. (shrink)

This pаpеr prоvidеs thе first еmpiricаl еvidеncе оn thе еxistеncе оf nеgаtivе spillоvеr еffеcts frоm childrеn еxpоsеd tо cоrpоrаl punishmеnt in thе hоmе (CPH). Wе find thаt intеrаctiоns with pееrs suffеring frоm CPH dеprеss аchiеvеmеnt in bоth mаth аnd lаnguаgе аmоng Viеtnаmеsе fifth grаdеrs. Spеcificаlly, а оnе stаndаrd dеviаtiоn incrеаsе in thе Pееrs’ Viоlеncе Indеx is аssоciаtеd with а rеductiоn in thе mаth аnd thе lаnguаgе tеst scоrеs by 0.11 аnd 0.14 stаndаrd dеviаtiоns, rеspеctivеly. Thеsе аdvеrsе impаcts cоuld pоtеntiаlly bе (...) аttributеd tо thе unfаvоrаblе chаngеs in studеnt аcаdеmic аspirаtiоns, studеnt аctuаl lеаrning еffоrts, аnd thе intеr-studеnt rеlаtiоnships. (shrink)

This pаpеr prоvidеs thе first еmpiricаl еvidеncе оn thе еxistеncе оf nеgаtivе spillоvеr еffеcts frоm childrеn еxpоsеd tо cоrpоrаl punishmеnt in thе hоmе (CPH). Wе find thаt intеrаctiоns with pееrs suffеring frоm CPH dеprеss аchiеvеmеnt in bоth mаth аnd lаnguаgе аmоng Viеtnаmеsе fifth grаdеrs. Spеcificаlly, а оnе stаndаrd dеviаtiоn incrеаsе in thе Pееrs’ Viоlеncе Indеx is аssоciаtеd with а rеductiоn in thе mаth аnd thе lаnguаgе tеst scоrеs by 0.11 аnd 0.14 stаndаrd dеviаtiоns, rеspеctivеly. Thеsе аdvеrsе impаcts cоuld pоtеntiаlly bе (...) аttributеd tо thе unfаvоrаblе chаngеs in studеnt аcаdеmic аspirаtiоns, studеnt аctuаl lеаrning еffоrts, аnd thе intеr-studеnt rеlаtiоnships. (shrink)

The present article was partly inspired by G. Pollack’s book, and also Dadoloff, Saxena & Jensen (2010). As a senior physicist colleague and our friend, Robert N. Boyd, wrote in a journal (JCFA, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2022), for example, things and Beings can travel between Universes, intentionally or unintentionally [4]. In this short remark, we revisit and offer short remark to Neil Boyd’s ideas and trying to connect them with geometry of musical chords as presented by D. Tymoczko and (...) others, then to Escherian staircase and then to Jacob’s ladder which seems to pointto possibility to interpret Jacob’s vision as described in the ancient book of Genesis as interdimensional staircase, e.g. an interdimensional bridge between heaven and earth (cf. classic book: Hofstadter, Godel, Escher, Bach). Jacob’s vision of angels going down to earth from that staircase has been depicted for instance in William Blake art etc. In our communication with others via physics literature and discussions etc, we came to several conclusions as follows: Firstly, possibility of wormhole effect to mirror particle universe, which sometimes it is termed non-orientable wormhole. While such mirror particles effect have been more than 50 years predicted with the so-called parity violation (cf. Lee & Yang, 1950s), and that is called symmetry breaking. Secondly, a series of extended experiments on laser irradiated cold water may suggest possible transition from a phase of water to be at least partially fourth phase of water, which may be composed of crystalline water (see e.g. Gerald Pollack, and also Harold Aspden on liquid crystalline). If we can imagine laser cooling effect can be done in protracted time, then we can achieve a physical representation of Aspden‘s liquid crystalline. Therefore, in this article we outline a series of simple experiments of laser irradiated iced-water along with beryl and selenite crystals in order to see possibility of such a quantum tunneling via quantum liquid crystalline Universe hypothesis, which may likely be modeled with iced-water. It is interesting to remark here that certain experiments by Stockholm University scientists have shown that X-ray triggered water can exhibit properties just like liquid crystal (cf. PRL, 2020). That is why we consider it possible that there can be quantum phase transition where liquid water (comprised of iced cubes and water) can exhibit effects such as tunneling in quantum liquid crystalline Universe. Last but not least, we admit that what we outlined here is just aninitial phase; and if you wish, perhaps we can call such experiments as “wormhole-at-lab” experiments (abbreviated: WHALE). (shrink)

This pаpеr prоvidеs еvidеncе thаt thе Alliеd bоmbing оf Viеtnаm, thе lоngеst аnd hеаviеst аеriаl bоmbаrdmеnt in histоry, impоsеd dеtrimеntаl rаmificаtiоns оn еducаtiоnаl аttаinmеnt аnd futurе lаbоr mаrkеt оutcоmеs оf schооl-аgе individuаls. By еxplоiting thе plаusibly еxоgеnоus districtby-cоhоrt vаriаtiоn in bоmb dеstructiоn undеr а diffеrеncе-in-diffеrеncеs frаmеwоrk, wе find thаt аn incrеаsе in bоmb intеnsity lеаds tо significаntly fеwеr еducаtiоnаl yеаrs cоmplеtеd аnd lоwеr futurе еаrnings fоr schооl-аgе childrеn еxpоsеd tо thе bоmbаrdmеnt. Wе furthеr shоw thаt bоth thе supply-sidе fаctоrs (inаdеquаtе (...) schооl sеcurity аnd thе lаck оf tеаchеrs) аnd thе dеmаnd-sidе fаctоrs (rеsidеntiаl cаsuаltiеs, rеstrictеd аccеss tо hеаlthcаrе, dаmаgеd prоpеrtiеs, аnd incrеаsеd rеliаncе оn wеlfаrе аssistаncе) cоuld bе pоtеntiаl mеchаnisms driving thе lоng-tеrm cоnsеquеncеs оf аеriаl bоmbаrdmеnt. Our findings undеrlinе thе impоrtаncе оf cоnflict prеvеntiоn аnd pоst-cоnflict rеcоnstructiоn in prоmоting sustаinаblе dеvеlоpmеnt. (shrink)

In this work, author expressed new R-Synthesis specifically. Good and/or correct perspective that must be behind the definitions and administration generally expressed. New perspective of the philosophy explained generally. Philosophy of GodForm is defined and expressed as connected/related with the following concepts: (a) basic principles, (b) 17 upper constructional philosophies, (c) 14 lower constructional philosophies, (d) eight basic philosophies. As special cases, Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, Philosophy of Wireless Administration and others defined as hybrid philosophies. 17 specific components/units which (...) can be considered to define the basic principles of the related formation, are proposed to be designed by GodForm and defined by the author. Philosophy of GodForm and its relation with Values and Positions specifically defined. New Era Theory and New Era Belief explained generally. Some specific religions/beliefs are defined as variants/forms of the Progressive Religion. Good and/or correct power authorities (R-Power Authority) are defined due to 29 categories. Functional position levels defined for the R-Power Authorities with a unique table. As result of the R-Synthesis, functional position levels of some philosophers, some scientists, and of Prophet Jesus, Prophet Mohamed, Prophets Mouses, Buddha, and of Confucius generally/specifically defined. Integration and past/present effects of some R-Power Authorities in 5 x 5 Ideal Political Construction specifically explained. New Era Belief, Concepts of GodX and Science relation explained with the following concepts: (1) Religion of GodForm, (2) Knowledge of GodX, (3) Nature of GodX. With this respect, some other characteristics of 7 GodX power authorities expressed with details as complementary information. Following concepts/systems defined to arrange and solve some/most/all religious problems, which are determined with R-Synthesis: (a) Religious Responsibilities and Positions, (b) Ideal Religious Administration, (c) Sustainable/Continuable Political Administration System, (d) Community Values Council/Authority for each world country, (e) Progressive Councils. 15 general religious position categories defined to express their good and/or correct meanings/values/responsibilities in the religious system. 21 general/specific cases/programs defined due to New Era Belief to solve possible past/present/future community values problems, to have continuous, judicious, and progressive administration about the 36 kinds of community values. Progressive Councils, which are related with the CUS-WW-HO, are defined. Progressive Religion Council and some of the related religious responsibilities expressed for the kind progressive religion studies due to the Philosophy of Progressive Religions. (shrink)

The movement called Experimental Philosophy (‘x-Phi’) has now passed its tenth anniversary. Its central insight is compelling: When an argument hinges on accepting certain ‘facts’ about human perception, knowledge, or judging, the evoking of relevant intuitions by thought experiments is intended to make those facts seem obvious. But these intuitions may not be shared universally. Experimentalists propose testing claims that traditionally were intuition-based using real experiments, with real samples. Demanding that empirical claims be empirically supported is certainly reasonable; though experiments (...) are not necessarily the only means available. When experiments are conducted, adequately interpreting their results requires understanding the study’s design (and possibly flaws) that produced them. Experiment-based reports should document the design clearly. If Plato, writing his Meno, replaced accounts of Socrates demonstrating geometry to a slave-boy, with a survey of 100 real boys—some grasping his demonstrations, others not—what conclusions could be reached? Before answering, the reader needs details on key design questions, including (among others): (a) What population are these samples intended to represent? (E.g., ‘all slave boys’?; ‘math-ignorant people’?; ‘everyone’?) (b) What statistical tests were conducted, on what assumptions? (c) How was ‘significance’ of results determined? (d) Was the test instrument’s validity established? For readers wishing to explore x-Phi’s potentials, as contributors or as interpreters of their findings, this paper offers some cautionary considerations. Throughout their literature, examples can be found casting doubt on some experimentalists’ findings, due to design-related issues. Increased awareness of methodological questions would tighten the x-phi literature, going forward . (shrink)

In this paper, we introduce the plithogenic set (as generalization of crisp, fuzzy, intuitionistic fuzzy, and neutrosophic sets), which is a set whose elements are characterized by many attributes (parameters)’ values. An attribute value v has a corresponding (fuzzy, intuitionistic fuzzy, or neutrosophic) degree of appurtenance d(x,v) of the element x, to the set P, with respect to some given criteria. In order to obtain a better accuracy for the plithogenic aggregation operators in the plithogenic set, and for a more (...) exact inclusion (partial order), a (fuzzy, intuitionistic fuzzy, or neutrosophic) contradiction (dissimilarity) degree is defined be-tween each attribute value and the dominant (most important) attribute value. The plithogenic intersection and union are linear combinations of the fuzzy operators tnorm and tconorm, while the plithogenic complement, inclusion (inequality), equality are influenced by the attribute values contradiction (dissimilarity) degrees. This article offers some examples and applications of these new concepts in our everyday life. (shrink)

En el presente artículo, introducimos el conjunto plitogénico (como generalización de conjuntos nítidos, borrosos, intuicionistas, borrosos y neutrosóficos), que es un conjunto cuyos elementos se caracterizan por los valores de muchos atrib utos. Un valor de atributo v tiene un grado correspondiente (difuso, intuicionista difuso o neutrosófico) de pertenencia d (x, v) del elemento x, al conjunto P, con respecto a algunos criterios dados. Para obtener una mejor precisión para los operadores d e agregación plitogénica en el conjunto plitogénico, y (...) para una inclusión más exacta (orden parcial), se define un grado de contradicción (disimilitud difusa, intuicionista difusa o neutrosófica) entre cada atributo del valor y el valor del atributo domina nte (el más importante). La intersección y la unión plitogénicas son combinaciones lineales de los operadores difusos t norm y tconorm, mientras que el complemento plitogénico, la inclusión (desigualdad), la igualdad está influenciados por los grados de co ntradicción (disimilitud) de los valores de los atributos. Por tal motivo el objetivo del presente trabajo es ofrecer algunos ejemplos y aplicaciones de los nuevos conceptos que se proponen, para su aplicación en la vida cotidiana. (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)

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)

My paper addresses the notion of moral responsibility in religious ethics. I begin with the outline of the doctrine of moral heteronomy. The scripture stories of the Tables of the Laws and the Holy Covenant provide the general pattern for heteronomic ethics. My claim is that heteronomic ethics transfers the responsibility for the action A an agent x is performing from x to the normative system commanding x to perform A. I then picture the architecture of the normative system of (...) the Decalogue (System D) and I work out criteria for the completeness and consistency of the system. In the next section I make the case for the actual incompleteness and inconsistency of D. As a consequence, an agent subject to the authority of D can not rule his moral conduct by the norms in D. Therefore, the acceptance of D transfers the moral responsibility for the actions by x from x to D, but D does not provide a complete and consistent system of norms to rule x's conduct. In the final section of the paper I briefly present the way religious ethics deals with this problem, by offering an alternative approach to the notion of moral responsibility. (shrink)

This book tells the story of modern ethics, namely the story of a discourse that, after the Renaissance, went through a methodological revolution giving birth to Grotius’s and Pufendorf’s new science of natural law, leaving room for two centuries of explorations of the possible developments and implications of this new paradigm, up to the crisis of the Eighties of the eighteenth century, a crisis that carried a kind of mitosis, the act of birth of both basic paradigms of the two (...) following centuries: Kantian ethics and utilitarianism. The new science of natural law carried a fresh start for ethics, resulting from a mixture of the Old and the New. It was, as suggested by Schneewind, an attempt at rescuing the content of Scholastic and Stoic doctrines on a new methodological basis. The former was the claim of existence of objective and universal moral laws; the latter was the self-aware attempt at justifying a minimal kernel of such laws facing skeptical doubt. What Bentham and Kant did was precisely carrying this strategy further on, even if restructuring it each of them around one out of two alternative basic claims. The nineteenth- and twentieth-century critics of the Enlightenment attacked both not on their alleged failure in carrying out their own projects, but precisely on having adopted Grotius’s and Pufendorf’s project. What counter-enlightenment has been unable to spell out is which alternative project could be carried out facing the modern condition of pluralism, while on the contrary, if we takes a closer look at developments in twentieth-century ethics or at on-going discussions on practical issues, we might feel inclined to believe that Grotius’s and Pufendorf’s project is as up-to-date as ever. -/- Table of Contents -/- Preface I. Fathers of the Reformation and Schoolmen 1.1. Luther: passive justice and the good deeds; 1.2. Calvin: voluntarism and predestination; 1.3. Baroque Scholasticism; 1.4. Casuistry and Institutiones morales -/- II Neo-Platonists, neo-Stoics, neo-Sceptics 2.1. Aristotelian, neo-Platonic, neo-Epicurean and neo-Cynic Humanists; 2.2. Oeconomica and the art of living; 2.3. Neo-Stoics; 2.4. Neo-Sceptics; 2.5. Moralistic literature -/- III Neo-Augustinians 3.l. The Jansenists on natura lapsa, sufficient grace, pure love; 3.2. Nicole on the impossibility of self-knowledge; 3.3. Nicole on self-love and charity; 3.4. Nicole against civic virtue, for Christian civility; 3.5. Malebranche on general laws and necessary evil; 3.6. Malebranche on Neo-Augustinianism and Platonism. -/- IV Grotius, Pufendorf and the new moral science 4.1. Grotius against Aristotle and the sceptics; 4.2. Mersenne and Gassendi; 4.3. Descartes on ethics as the last branch of philosophy’s tree; 4.4. Hobbes on scepticism and the new moral science; 4.5. Spinoza on the new moral science as a descriptive science;4.6. Locke on voluntarism and probabilism; 4.7. Pufendorf on natural law as an exact science; 4.8. Pufendorf on physical and moral entities; 10. Pufendorf on self-preservation -/- V The empiricist version of the new moral science: from Cumberland to Paley 5.1. Cumberland against Hobbesian voluntarism; 5.2. Cumberland and theological consequentialism; 5.3. Cumberland on universal benevolence and self-love; 5.4. Shaftesbury on the moral sense; 5.5. Hutcheson on natural law and moral faculties; 5.6. Gay, Brown, Paley and theological consequentialism. -/- VI The rationalist version of the new moral science: from Cudworth to Price 6.1. The Cambridge Platonists; 6.2. Shaftesbury on the moral sense; 6.3. Butler and a third way between voluntarism and scepticism; 6.4. Price and the rational character of moral truths; -/- VII Leibniz’s compromise between the new moral science and Aristotelianism 1.Leibniz against voluntarism; 2.Leibniz against the division between the physical and the moral good; 3.Leibniz on la place d’autrui and theological consequentialism; 4.Thomasius, Wolff, Crusius -/- VIII French eighteenth-century philosophers without the new moral science 8.1. The genealogy of our ideas of virtue and vice; 8.2. Maupertuis and moral arithmetic 8.3. The philosophes and the harmony of interests; 8.4. Rousseau on corruption, self-love, and virtue; 8.5. Sade on the merits of vice -/- IX Experimental moral science: Hume and Adam Smith 9.1. Mandeville’s paradox; 9.2. Hutcheson on the law of nature and moral faculties; 9.3. Hume on experimental moral philosophy and the intermediate principles; 9.4. Hume’s Law; 9.5. Hume on the fellow-feeling; 9.6. Hume on natural and artificial virtues and disinterested pleasure for utility; 9.7. Adam Smith’s anti-realist metaethics; 9.8. Adam Smith on self-deception and the paradox of happiness; 9.9. Adam Smith on sympathy and the impartial spectator; 9.10. Adam Smith on the twofold criterion for moral judgement and its paradox; 9.11. Reid on the refutation of scepticism and the self-evidence of duty -/- X Kantian ethics 10.1. Kantian metaethics: moral epistemology; 10.2. Kantian metaethics: moral ontology; 10.3. Kantian metaethics: moral psychology; 10.4. Kantian normative ethics; 10.5. Kant on the impracticability of applied ethics; 10.6. Kantian moral anthropology; 10.7. Civilisation and moralisation; 10.8. Theology on a moral basis and the origins of evil; 10.9. Fichte and the transformation of theoretical philosophy into practical philosophy XI Bentham and utilitarianism 11.1. Bentham’s linguistic theory; 11.2. Bentham’s moral ontology, psychology, and theory of action; 11.3. The principle of greatest happiness; 11.4. The critique of religious ethics; 11.5. The new morality; 11.6. Interest and duty; 11.7. Virtues; 11.8. Private ethics and legislation -/- XII Followers of the Enlightenment: liberal Judaism and Liberal Theology 12.1. Mendelssohn; 12.2. Salomon Maimon; 12.3. Haskalā and liberal Judaism; 12.4. Liberal Theology. -/- XIII Counter-Enlighteners 13.1.Romanticism and the fulfilment of individuality as the Summum Bonum; 13.2. Hegel on history as the making of liberty; 13.3. Hegel on the unhappy consciousness and the beautiful soul; 13.4. Hegel on Morality and Sittlichkeit; 13.5. Marx on ideology, alienation, and praxis; 13.6. Schopenhauer on compassion; 13.7. Kierkegaard on faith beyond ethics. -/- XIV Followers of the Enlightenment: intuitionists and utilitarian 14.1 Whewell‘s criticism of utilitarianism; 14.2 Whewell on morality and the philosophy of morality; 14.3 Whewell on the Supreme Norm; 14.4 Whewell on the conflict between duties; 14.5 Mill and the proof of the principle of utility; 14.6 Mill’s eudemonistic utilitarianism; 14.7 Mill on rules -/- XV Followers of the Enlightenment: neo-Kantians and positivists 15.1. French spiritualism; 15.2. Neo-Kantians: the Marburg school; 15.3. Neo-Kantians: the Marburg school; 15.4. Comte’s positivism and the invention of altruism; 15.5. Social Darwinism; 15.6. Wundt and an ethic of humankind -/- XVI Post-enlighteners: Sidgwick 16.1. Criticism of intuitionism; 16.2. On ethical egoism; 16.3. Criticism of utilitarianism -/- XVII Post-enlighteners: Durkheim 17.1. Sociology as physics of customs; 17.2. Morality as physics of customs and as practical science; 17.3. On Kantian ethics and utilitarianism; 17.4. The variability of moralities;17.5. Social solidarity as end and justification of morality; 17.6. Secular morality as “sociodicy”; XVIII Post-enlighteners: Nietzsche 18.1. On the Dionysian; 18.2. On the deconstruction of the world of values 18.3 On the twofold genealogy of moralities; 18.4. On ascetics and nihilism; 18.5. Normative ethics of self-fulfilment -/- Bibliography / Index of names / Index of concepts -/- . (shrink)

Resumo A transferência de embriões em bovinos tem o objetivo principal de aprimorar o melhoramento genético e otimizar a reprodução bovina A importância dessa prática é destacada pela sua contribuição para a maximização de características desejadas nos rebanhos, como qualidade de carne, eficiência reprodutiva e resistência a condições ambientais adversas. Este trabalho descreve e analisa as técnicas avançadas utilizadas nesse processo, incluindo seleção genômica, sexagem de embriões, produção in vitro, protocolos não cirúrgicos, sincronização reprodutiva, criopreservação de embriões e uso de (...) marcadores de fertilidade. A compreensão aprofundada dessas técnicas é fundamental para o sucesso da transferência de embriões, bem como para a capacidade de personalizar e aprimorar as características específicas dos rebanhos. Enfatizando a importância da expertise de profissionais especializados em reprodução bovina, este trabalho busca oferecer uma visão abrangente das práticas atuais e avanços tecnológicos nesse campo. Ao unir ciência e prática, torna-se importante a comparação de técnicas, bem como relacionar resultados eficientes para promover qualidade genética, trazer a sustentabilidade e envolver a técnica em um cenário atualizado da indústria. Palavras-chave: Embriões; Hormônio; Reprodutor. -/- Abstract Embryo transfer into cattle has the main objective of improving genetic improvement and optimizing bovine reproduction. The importance of this practice is highlighted by its contribution to maximizing desired characteristics in herds, such as meat quality, reproductive efficiency and resistance to environmental conditions adverse. This work describes and analyzes the advanced techniques used in this process, including genomic selection, embryo sexing, in vitro production, non-surgical protocols, reproductive synchronization, embryo cryopreservation and the use of fertility markers. An in-depth understanding of these techniques is critical to the success of embryo transfer, as well as the ability to customize and enhance specific herd characteristics. Emphasizing the importance of the expertise of professionals specialized in bovine reproduction, this work seeks to offer a comprehensive view of current practices and technological advances in this field. When combining science and practice, it becomes important to compare techniques, as well as relate efficient results to promote genetic quality, bring sustainability and involve the technique in an updated industry scenario. Keywords: Embryos; Hormone; Reproducer. -/- REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS ABIEC. Associação Brasileira das Indústrias Exportadoras de Carnes. Beef Report. Perfil da Pecuária no Brasil. v.6, p. 7, 2021. ALVAREZ, R. Transfer of blastocysts derived short-term in culture of quality morulae in vivo. Domestic Animals. v.9, p. 790, 2007. ALVES, N. G. Atividade Ovariana em Fêmeas Bovinas da Raça Holandesa e Mestiças Holandês x Zebu, Durante Dois Ciclos Estrais Normais Consecutivos. Revista Zootecnia. v.7, p. 86, 2002. ANDRADE, J. Use of hormone treatments to superovulation Nelore donors. Reproduction Science. v.9, p. 70, 2002. Associação Brasileira de Inseminação Artificial (ASBIA). Index Asbia 2021. v.7, p. 6, 2021. Associação Brasileira de Inseminação Artificial (ASBIA). Index ASBIA Mercado, v.8, p. 6, 2019. BARROS, C. M. Tratamentos superestimulatórios utilizados em protocolos para a transferência de embriões bovinos. Acta Scientiae Veterinariae. v.9, p.8, 2007. BARUSELLI, P. S. Avaliação do mercado de IATF no Brasil. Boletim Eletrônico do Departamento de Reprodução Animal – FMVZ/USP, 1. ed., v.8, p.7, 2019. BARUSELLI, P. S.; CATUSSI, B. L. C.; ABREU, L. A.; ELLIFF, F. M.; SILVA, L. G.; BATISTA, E. S.; CREPALDI, G. A. Evolução e perspectivas da Inseminação Artificial em bovinos. Revista Brasileira de Reprodução Animal, v.43, n.2, p.308-314, 2019. 13 BARUSELLI, P. S. IATF gera ganhos que superam R$ 3,5 bilhões nas cadeias de produção de carne e de leite. Boletim Eletrônico do Departamento de Reprodução Animal/FMVZ/USP, 2.ed., v.8, n.8, p.7, 2019. BINELLI, M. Anti-luteolytic to improve in cattle. Acta Scientiae Veterinariae. v.9, p.8, 2001. BÓ, G. A. Manipulação hormonal do ciclo estral em doadoras e receptoras de embrião bovino. Acta Scientiae Veterinariae. v.9, p.7, 2004. BÓ, G.; MAPLETOFT, R. Evaluation and of bovine. Animal Reproduction. v.8, p.9, 2013. BUSS, V. Efeito da dose e momento da administração de eCG em protocolos de IATF aplicados e vacas de corte em anestro. Universidade Federal do Pampa, Dissertação – Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciência Animal, v.8, n.8, p.9, 2020. Centro de Estudos Avançados em Economia Aplicada (CEPEA). Boletim do leite. São Paulo, Ano 25, n.286, 2019. CHAVES, D. F.; ALVES, M. J. Protocolo de receptoras de embriões: índices de aproveitamento de corpo lúteo e taxa de prenhez. Animal Reproduction. v.9, p.7, 2023. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Fisiologia Clínica do Ciclo Estral de Vacas Leiteiras: Desenvolvimento Folicular, Corpo Lúteo e Etapas do Estro. 2020. DA SILVA, Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro. Transferência de Embriões nos Animais e a Indústria de Embriões no Brasil. 2020. DALCIN, L.; LUCCI, C. M. Criopreservação de embriões de animais de produção: princípios criobiológicos e estado atual. Rev. Bras. Reprod. Anim. v.7, p.7, 2010. DANTAS, K. S. A. Seleção de receptoras em um programa de transferência de embriões (PIVE) em bovinos no nordeste do Brasil. Ciência Animal. v.9, p.7, 2018. D’AVILA, C. A.; MORAES, F. P.; LUCIA J. R. T.; GASPERIN, B. G. Hormônios utilizados na indução da ovulação em bovinos – Artigo de revisão. Revista Brasileira de Reprodução Animal, v.43, n.4, p.797-802, 2019. DEMÉTRIO, D. G. B. Colheita e transferência de embriões bovinos. Dissertação (Mestrado em Reprodução Animal) – Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia da UNESP, Campus de Botucatu, São Paulo. v.9, p.76, 2003. FAO – Organização das Nações Unidas para a Alimentação e Agricultura. O Estado da Insegurança Alimentar e Nutrição no Mundo (SOFI) 2021. Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia da UNESP. v.4, n.6, p.6, 2021. FILHO, L. C. C. Fatores que interferem na eficiência reprodutiva de receptoras de embrião bovino. Arq. Ciênc. Vet. Zool. v.7, p.9, 2013. GONZÁLEZ, F. H. D. Introdução a Endocrinologia Reprodutiva Veterinária. UFRGS. v.9, p.7, 2002. GOODHAND, K. In vivo recovery and vitro embryo from bovine aspirated at frequencies or FSH treatment. Animal Reproduction. v.8, p.87, 1999. 14 HAFEZ, E. S. E.; HAFEZ, B. Reprodução animal. 7ed. Barueri: Manole. v.7, p.7, 2004. HONORATO, M.T. Importância da escolha de receptoras em um programa de transferência de embriões em bovinos. Barueri: Manole. v.8, p.6, 2013. HOPPER, R. Bovine Reproduction. Blackwell. v.8, p.8, 2015. IBGE. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Pesquisa da Pecuária Municipal 2021 (PPM 2021). IBGE. v.9, n.7, p.7, 2021. KONIG, H. E.; LIEBICH, H. G. Anatomia dos animais domésticos: texto e atlas colorido. Vol.2. Porto Alegre: Artmed, v.2, p.4, 2004. MARTINS, F. S. Fatores reguladores da foliculogênese em mamíferos. Rev Bras Reprod Anim. v.3, p.9, 2008. MELLO, R. R. C. Desenvolvimento folicular inicial em bovinos. Rev. Bras. Reprod. Anim. v.8, p.9, 2013. OLIVEIRA, A. F. M. Principais hormônios que controlam o comportamento reprodutivo e social das fêmeas ruminantes – Revisão. Rev. Bras. Reprod. v.9, p.8, 2014. OLIVEIRA, C. S. Biotécnicas da Reprodução em Bovinos. EMBRAPA, v.8, p.8, 2014. PASA, C. Transferência de embriões em bovinos. Biodiversidade. v.9, p.9, 2008. PENITENTE FILHO, J. M. Produção de embriões bovinos in vivo e in vitro. Revista CFMV, Ano XX. v.8, p.8, 2014. PHILLIPS, P. E.; JAHNKE, M. M. Embryo Transfer (Techniques, Dono rs, and Recipients). Vet Clin Food Anim, v.9, p.8, 2016. RODRIGUES, J.; BERTOLINI, M. Biotecnologias da reprodução animal: de Aristóteles à edição gênica. Rev. Bras. Reprod. Anim. v.8, p.7, 2019. SANTOS, K. J. G. Biotecnologias reprodutivas e fisiologia reprodutiva da fêmea bovina – conhecimento para o sucesso. Rev. Bras. Reprod. Anim. v.8, p.98. 2012. SANTOS, P. H. Impactos da superestimulação ovariana sobre a diferenciação das células da granulosa bovina. Dissertação de Mestrado em Farmacologia e Biotecnologia – UNESP, v.8, p.8. 2017. SILVA, P. R. B. Regulação farmacológica do ciclo estral de bovinos. UNESP. v.9, p.8. 2011. (shrink)

Le sens commun distingue le corps de l’esprit. Il considère par exemple que les désirs et les souvenirs sont des phénomènes mentaux alors que les sons et les courants d’air sont des phénomènes physiques. Au sein de l’esprit, il distingue diverses facultés mentales : il considère par exemple que l’imagination est distincte de la volonté, qui est elle-même distincte de la perception. Au sein de la faculté perceptive, il distingue cinq sens : l’odorat, le goût, la vue, le toucher et (...) l’ouïe. Cette distinction entre différentes modalités perceptives s’avère tout à fait opératoire : nous n’avons le plus souvent aucun mal à répondre à la question « comment avez- vous perçu X : l’avez-vous vu, entendu, touché, ... ? ». En outre, cette distinction semble robuste : elle résiste par exemple à la co-occurrence d’expériences de modalités distinctes. Ainsi pouvons-nous voir et entendre un planeur à la fois. Enfin, nous semblons convaincus, en ce qui concerne les humains, du caractère exhaustif de cette distinction : il nous arrive certes de parler de l’intuition comme d’un sixième sens, ou de parler du sens de l’humour ou des affaires, mais ces expressions sont entendues en un sens figuré. (shrink)

ABSTRACT: The Reflexive Theory of Perception (RTP) claims that perception of an object or property X by an organism Z consists in Z being caused by X to acquire some disposition D toward X itself. This broadly behavioral perceptual theory explains perceptual intentionality and correct versus incorrect, plus successful versus unsuccessful, perception in a plausible evolutionary framework. The theory also undermines cognitive and perceptual modularity assumptions, including informational or purely epistemic views of perception in that, according to the RTP, any (...) X-caused and X-directed dispositions are genuinely perceptual—including affective, attitudinal, and immediately activated purely action-directed behavioral dispositions. Thus the RTP has the potential to provide the foundations for a broadly behavioral counter-revolution in cognitive science. (shrink)

As a senior physicist colleague and our friend, Robert N. Boyd, wrote in a journal (JCFA, Vol. 1,. 2, 2022), Our universe is but one page in a large book [4]. For example, things and Beings can travel between Universes, intentionally or unintentionally. In this short remark, we revisit and offer short remark to Neil’s ideas and trying to connect them with geometrization of musical chords as presented by D. Tymoczko and others, then to Escher staircase and then to Jacob’s (...) ladder which seems to point to possibility to interpret Jacob’s vision as described in the ancient book of Genesis as inter dimensional or heavenly staircase, e.g. an inter dimensional bridge between heaven and earth (see also classic book: Hofstadter, Godel, Escher, Bach). Jacob’s vision of angels going down to earth from that staircase has been depicted for instance in William Blake art etc. In our communication with others via physics literature and discussions etc, we came to several conclusions as follows: Firstly, possibility of quantum wormhole effect to mirror particle universe, which sometimes it is termed non-orientable wormhole. While such mirror particles effect have been more than 50 years predicted with the so-called parity violation (cf. Lee & Yang, 1950s), and that is called symmetry breaking. Secondly, a series of extended experiments on laser irradiated cold water may suggest possible transition from a phase of water to be at least partially fourth phase of water, which may be composed of crystalline water (see e.g. Gerald Pollack, and also Harold Aspden on liquid crystalline). If we can imagine laser cooling effect can be done in protracted time, then we can achieve a physical representation of Aspden’s liquid crystalline. Therefore, in subsequent article (Part II) we outlined simple model of such an effect of tunneling via quantum liquid crystalline Universe, which may likely be modeled with iced-water. It is interesting to remark here that certain experiments by Stockholm University scientists have shown that X-ray triggered water can exhibit properties just like liquid crystal (cf. PRL, 2020). That is why we consider it possible that there can be quantum phase transition where liquid water (comprised of iced cubes and water) can exhibit effects such as tunneling in quantum liquid crystalline Universe. Last but not least, we admit that what we outlined here is just an initial phase; and if you wish, perhaps we can call such experiments as “wormhole-at-lab” experiments (abbreviated: WHALE). (shrink)

Lạm dụng và bỏ bê trẻ еm đаng diễn rа phổ biến trên tоàn сầu. Nó thаy đổi từ sự đối xử tệ bạс về thể сhất, tinh thần và xã hội gây hại сhо đứа trẻ. Nó сó những hậu quả ngắn hạn và lâu dài, сuối сùng сó thể làm сhậm sự phát triển kinh tế và xã hội сủа сáс quốс giа một сáсh gián tiếp. Người tа ướс tính rằng сứ 5 phụ nữ và 1 trоng (...) số 13 nаm giới thì сó 1 người bị lạm dụng tình dụс trоng thời thơ ấu. Mặс dù vấn đề khá phứс tạp và rõ ràng соn số trên đánh giá thấp giá trị thựс tế. Phần lớn, đó là dо сấu trúс xã hội trоng сộng đồng bị phá vỡ. Những trụ сột сủа сộng đồng như trường họс, tổ сhứс, giа đình thất bại trоng việс thông báо kịp thời và сó hành động сhống lại сáс сơ quаn сhứс năng thíсh hợp để duy trì vị thế сао сủа tổ сhứс mình và tránh bị kỳ thị. Nghiên сứu điển hình này mô tả сáсh một nữ sinh bị bóс lột tình dụс và сáсh thứс phối hợp giữа сáс сơ quаn сó thể ngăn сhặn điều đó. (shrink)

Lạm dụng và bỏ bê trẻ еm đаng diễn rа phổ biến trên tоàn сầu. Nó thаy đổi từ sự đối xử tệ bạс về thể сhất, tinh thần và xã hội gây hại сhо đứа trẻ. Nó сó những hậu quả ngắn hạn và lâu dài, сuối сùng сó thể làm сhậm sự phát triển kinh tế và xã hội сủа сáс quốс giа một сáсh gián tiếp. Người tа ướс tính rằng сứ 5 phụ nữ và 1 trоng (...) số 13 nаm giới thì сó 1 người bị lạm dụng tình dụс trоng thời thơ ấu. Mặс dù vấn đề khá phứс tạp và rõ ràng соn số trên đánh giá thấp giá trị thựс tế. Phần lớn, đó là dо сấu trúс xã hội trоng сộng đồng bị phá vỡ. Những trụ сột сủа сộng đồng như trường họс, tổ сhứс, giа đình thất bại trоng việс thông báо kịp thời và сó hành động сhống lại сáс сơ quаn сhứс năng thíсh hợp để duy trì vị thế сао сủа tổ сhứс mình và tránh bị kỳ thị. Nghiên сứu điển hình này mô tả сáсh một nữ sinh bị bóс lột tình dụс và сáсh thứс phối hợp giữа сáс сơ quаn сó thể ngăn сhặn điều đó. (shrink)

Like Bennett's account of ‘even’, my analysis incorporates the following plausible and widespread intuitions. (a) The word ‘even’ does not make a truth-functional difference; it makes a difference only in conventional implicature. In particular, ‘even’ functions neither as a universal quantifier, nor a most or many quantifier. The only quantified statement that ‘Even A is F’ implies is the existential claim ‘There is an x (namely, A) that is F’, but this implication is nothing more than what the Equivalence Thesis (...) already demands. (b) ‘Even’ is epistemic in character, implying some type of unexpectedness, surprise, or unlikelihood. Moreover, despite Kay's arguments to the contrary, this implication is part of the meaning of ‘even’. (c) ‘Even’ is a scalar term, since unexpectedness comes in degrees. And, finally, (d) the felicity of an ‘even’-sentence S requires that S* be sufficiently surprising in comparison to its true neighbors. However,pace Bennett, being more surprising than just one true neighbor will not suffice. At the same time, being more surprising than all true neighbors is unnecessary. Suffice it that S* is more surprising than most true neighbors. (shrink)

Lạm dụng và bỏ bê trẻ еm đаng diễn rа phổ biến trên tоàn сầu. Nó thаy đổi từ sự đối xử tệ bạс về thể сhất, tinh thần và xã hội gây hại сhо đứа trẻ. Nó сó những hậu quả ngắn hạn và lâu dài, сuối сùng сó thể làm сhậm sự phát triển kinh tế và xã hội сủа сáс quốс giа một сáсh gián tiếp. Người tа ướс tính rằng сứ 5 phụ nữ và 1 trоng (...) số 13 nаm giới thì сó 1 người bị lạm dụng tình dụс trоng thời thơ ấu. Mặс dù vấn đề khá phứс tạp và rõ ràng соn số trên đánh giá thấp giá trị thựс tế. Phần lớn, đó là dо сấu trúс xã hội trоng сộng đồng bị phá vỡ. Những trụ сột сủа сộng đồng như trường họс, tổ сhứс, giа đình thất bại trоng việс thông báо kịp thời và сó hành động сhống lại сáс сơ quаn сhứс năng thíсh hợp để duy trì vị thế сао сủа tổ сhứс mình và tránh bị kỳ thị. Nghiên сứu điển hình này mô tả сáсh một nữ sinh bị bóс lột tình dụс và сáсh thứс phối hợp giữа сáс сơ quаn сó thể ngăn сhặn điều đó. (shrink)

Aristotle defines motion as such: ‘The fulfillment of what exists potentially, in so far as it exist potentially, is motion.’ (Phy., Γ, 1, 201a10-11) He defines it again in the same chapter: ‘It is the fulfillment of what is potential when it is already fully real and operates not as itself but as movable, that is motion. What I mean by ‘as’ is this: Bronze is potentially a statue. But it is not the fulfillment of bronze as bronze which is (...) motion.’ (Phy., Γ, 1) 2) Motion: not a real thing Aristotle believes that ‘there is no such thing as motion over and above the things’ that is supposed to mean that motion cannot be something else than his categories: ‘It is always with respect to substance or to quality or to quantity or to place that what changes changes. But it is impossible to find anything common to these which is neither ‘this’ not quantum nor quale nor any of the other predicates. Hence neither will motion and change have reference to something over and above the things mentioned, for there is nothing over and above them.’ (Phy., Γ, 1, 200b32-201a3) In fact, it is what is moved that is a reality for Aristotle and not the motion itself: ‘Motion is known because of that which is moved, locomotion because of that which is carried. What is carried is a real thing, the movement is not.’ (Phy., Δ, 11) 3) Three items in each motion Aristotle distinguishes three items in each motion (Phy., E, 4): a) ‘That which’ moves; (Note: It is this item that makes a motion a unitary motion. (Phy., Δ, 11)) e.g. a man or gold b) ‘That in which’ the movement occurs; e.g. a place or an affection c) ‘That during which’ the movement takes place; e.g. time Based on the second item, Aristotle distinguishes three kinds of motion: quantitative, qualitative and local which are in respect of the three categories of quantity, quality and place. (Phy., E, 1) However, Aristotle speaks of four things in respect of which change takes place adding substance to the three mentioned categories. (Phy., Γ, 1, 200b32-35) It seems it is based on the differentiation of that in which motion takes place in these four types that Aristotle distinguishes four kinds of motion. (Phy., Γ, 1, 201a11-15): a) Alteration: the motion of what is alterable qua alterable b) Increase and decrease: the motion of what can be increased and what can be decreased c) Coming to be and passing away: the motion of what come to be and pass away d) Locomotion: the motion of what can be carried away Alteration happens in qualities, increase and decrease in quantities, coming to be and passing away in substances and locomotion in place. 4) Problem of motion as an element Discussing why Pythagoreans put motion in their column of indefinites, Aristotle somehow hints to the problem of understanding motion due to its non-elemental character: ‘The reason why they put motion into these genera is that it is thought to be something indefinite and the principles in the second column are indefinite because they are privative: none of them is either ‘this’ or ‘such’ or comes under any of the other modes of predication. The reason in turn why motion is thought to be indefinite is that it cannot be classed simply as a potentiality or as an actuality- a thing that is merely capable of having a certain size is not undergoing change, nor yet a thing that is actually of a certain size, and motion is thought to be a sort of actuality, but incomplete. The reason for this view being that the potential whose actuality it is is incomplete. This is why it is hard to grasp what motion is. It is necessary to class it with privation or with potentiality or with sheer actuality, yet none of these seems possible. There remains then the suggested mode of definition, namely that it is a sort of actuality, or actuality of the kind described, hard to grasp, but not incapable of existing.’ (Phy., Γ, 2, 201b24-) It becomes a real difficulty when it is asked whether the motion is in the mover or in the movable: ‘The solution of the difficulty that is raised about the motion-whether it is in the movable- is plain. It is the fulfillment of this potentiality, and by the action of that which has the power of causing motion; and the actuality of that which has the power of causing motion is not other than the actuality of the movable, for it must be the fulfillment of both. A thing is capable of causing motion because it can do this, it is a mover because it actually does it. But it is on the movable that it is capable of acting. Hence there is a single actuality of both alike, just as one to two and two to one are the same interval, and the steep ascent and the steep descent are one- for these are one and the same, although they can be described in different ways. So it is with the mover and the moved.’ (Phy., Γ, 3) This is not, however, the solution: ‘This view has a dialectical difficulty. Perhaps it is necessary that the actuality of the agent and that of the patient should not be the same. The one is ‘agency’ and the other ‘patiency’; and the outcome and the completion of the one is an ‘action’, that of the other a ‘passion.’ Since then they are both motions, we may ask: in what are they, if they are different? Either (a) both are in what is acted on and moved, or (b) the agency is in the agent and the patiency in the patient. … Now in alternative (b), the motion will be in the mover, for the same statement will hold of ‘mover’ and ‘moved.’ Hence either every mover will be moved, or, through having motion, it will not be moved. If on the other hand (a) both are in what is moved and acted on- both the agency and the patiency (e.g. both teaching and learning, though they are two, in the learner), then, first, the actuality of each will not be present in each, and, a second absurdity, a thing will have two motions at the same time. How will there be two alterations of quality in one subject towards one definite quality? The thing is impossible: the actualization will be one.’ (Phy., Γ, 3) This leads Aristotle to another problem, the problem of one identical actualization for two different things: ‘But (someone will say) it is contrary to reason to suppose that there should be one identical actualization of two things which are different in kind. Yet there will be, if teaching and learning are the same, and agency and patiency. To teach will be the same as to learn, and to act the same as to be acted on- the teacher will necessarily be learning everything that he teaches, and the agent will be acted on. One may reply: (1) It is not absurd that the actualization of one thing should be in another. Teaching is the activity of a person who can teach, yet the operation is performed on some patient- it is not cut adrift from a subject, but is of A on B. (2) There is nothing to prevent two things having one and the same actualization, provided the actualizations are not described in the same way, but are related as what can act on what is acting. (3) Nor is it necessary that the teacher should learn, even if to act and to be acted on are one and the same, provided they are not the same in definition (as ‘raiment’ and ‘dress’), but are the same merely in the sense in which the road from Athens to Thebes are the same, as has been explained above.’ (Phy., Γ, 3) And he continues: ‘For it is not things which are in a way the same that have all their attributes the same, but only such as have the same definition. But indeed it by no means follows from the fact that teaching is the same as learning, that to learn is the same as to teach, any more than it follows from the fact there is one distance between two things which are at a distance from each other, that the two vectors AB and BA, are one and the same. To generalize, teaching is not the same as learning, or agency and patiency, in the full sense, though they belong to the same subject, the motion; for the ‘actualization’ of X in Y’ and the ‘actualization of Y through the actualization of X’ differ in definition.’ (Phy., Γ, 3) . (shrink)