This paper offers a theory of filial piety on which piety is the ethical virtue that responds to the action of person-creating. Piety is the virtue of a creature qua creature. I begin by identifying the action of person-creating as the action of a parent. I then offer some points from the philosophy of action to delineate the action of person-creating. Next, I explain the metaphysical states that this action gives rise to and their value. Parent (...) and child fall in the category of relatives, discussed by Aristotle in his Categories. More specifically, Aristotle says that parent and child are relatives as creator and created. Agreeing with but going beyond Aristotle, I show how parent and child are creator and created as paradigm and image. A pious child is one who images their paradigm well. A child does this by participating in and perfecting the person-creating action of their parent, that is, by being a good person. I argue for the theory’s acceptance on the grounds that it better explains common intuitive judgments about filial piety than do the gratitude theory and the special goods theory (the two most influential and plausible competing theories of filial piety in the philosophical literature). (shrink)

Critics of Confucianism have long been concerned with its emphasis on filial piety (xiao 孝). Among the many traditional strictures of this concept are demands that children serve their parents vigilantly, to do so with the proper outward respect and demeanor, and to yield to parental wishes when personal desires come into conflict with them. Critics have found this problematic as an orientation not only toward one’s parents but also to authority figures more generally. One common response to (...) such criticism is to claim that it misunderstands or misrepresents the true nature of filial piety, which demands not only that one serve, respect, and yield to one’s parents, but also remonstrate with them when they may be veering off the path of what is right and proper. This response, though popular, is unconvincing. First, the passages used to support this claim suggest that remonstration should be conveyed lightly and only when it will not engender bad feelings or estrangement, which may not work with stubborn or insensitive parents. Second, other passages from the same texts suggest that remonstration is not to be done at all, and that pleasing one’s parents is most paramount whether children should remonstrate or accept their parents’ decisions. Lastly, the strongest endorsements for remonstration come from a text of comparatively minor influence, the Xunzi. I conclude that critics’ concerns about blind obedience to authority should not be easily dismissed and deserve serious consideration. (shrink)

A hallmark of Confucian morality is its emphasis on duties to family and kin as weighty features of moral life. The virtue of ‘filiality’ or ‘filial piety’ (xiao 孝), for example, is one of the most important in the Confucian canon. This aspect of Confucianism has been of renewed interest recently. On the one hand, some have claimed that, precisely because it acknowledges the importance of kin duties, Confucianism should be seen as an ethics rooted in human nature (...) that remains a viable system of morality today. On the other hand, some have argued that the extreme emphasis on filial duties is precisely the aspect of Confucian moral philosophy that ought to be jettisoned in favor of greater impartialism; without mitigating its emphasis on filial piety, Confucianism risks irrelevance to modern concerns. In this paper, I will outline the nature of filial morality in the Confucian tradition and discuss these recent contributions to the literature. (shrink)

In a number of papers, Liu Qingping has critiqued Confucianism’s commitment to “consanguineous affection” or filial values, claiming it to be excessive and indefensible. Many have taken issue with his textual readings and interpretive claims, but these responses do little to undermine the force of his central claim that filial values cause widespread corruption in Chinese society. This is not an interpretive claim but an empirical one. If true, it merits serious consideration. But is it true? How can (...) we know? I survey the empirical evidence and argue that there is no stable or direct relationship between filial values and corruption. Instead, other cultural dimensions are more robust predictors of corruption. As it happens, China ranks very high in these other cultural dimensions. I conclude that if the empirical research is correct then Liu’s claims lack support. (shrink)

Confucianism’s emphasis on filial piety is both a hallmark of its approach to ethics and a source of concern. Critics charge that filial piety’s extreme partialism corrupts Chinese society and should therefore be expunged from the tradition. Are the critics correct? In this article, we outline the criticism and note its persistence over the last century. We then evaluate data from the empirical study of corruption to see whether they support the claim that partialism corrupts. Finally, (...) we report some recent experimental work done with colleagues testing the claim that filial piety is associated with tolerance of corruption in Chinese societies. The results suggest that the critics are on to something. However, partialism (or kin affection) is not a cause of concern. Instead, authoritarianism (another aspect of filial piety) is associated with tolerance of corruption. We conclude that critics should reformulate their criticisms if they seek to combat corruption effectively. (shrink)

In this paper, I introduce what I call relational virtue and defend it as an important subcategory of virtue. In particular, I argue that it offers a valuable resource for answering questions concerning the value of intimate relationships such as parent-child relationship or friendship. After briefly sketching what I mean by relational virtue, I show why it is a virtue and in what sense we can meaningfully distinguish it from other sorts of virtue. I then describe some distinctive features of (...) relational virtue in more detail and discuss their implications. Next, I present filial piety as the paradigmatic example of relational virtue. I argue that a child s being filial should be understood as an appropriate response to her parent s being virtuous as a parent. I conclude by showing how my relational virtue theory of filial piety can avoid the difficulties faced by previous theories of filial piety such as gratitude theory and friendship theory. (shrink)

Siblings ought to treat one another specially – in other words, siblings qua siblings ought to treat one another in ways that they need not treat others. This paper offers a theory of why this is the case. The paper begins with some intuitive judgments about how siblings ought to treat one another and some other normative features of siblinghood. I then review three potential theories of why siblings ought to treat one another specially, adapted from the literature on (...) class='Hi'>filial piety: the gratitude theory, the friendship theory, and the special goods theory. In each case, these theories fail to explain some of the intuitive judgments about how siblings ought to treat one another. The paper then proposes a familial belonging theory. The institution of the family has certain goals, which impose normative demands on family members. I suggest that one such family goal is that every member feel familial belonging towards every other member, a goal which grounds the ways in which siblings ought to treat one another specially. (shrink)

Given that one of the major goals of the practice of Philosophy for Children (P4C) is the development of critical thinking skills (Sharp 1987/2018, pp. 4 6), an urgent question that emerged for one of the authors, who is of Chinese Heritage and a novice practitioner at a P4C summer camp was whether this emphasis on critical thinking might make this practice incompatible with the fabric of Chinese culture. Filial piety (孝), which requires respect for one’s parents, elders, (...) and ancestors is considered an important virtue in Asian culture, as is the preservation of harmony. But if one of the goals of P4C is to teach youngsters to courageously pursue reasoned dialogue, does this not set-up young Asians for serious conflict when they come face-to-face with positions that are articulated by elders, but which are ones to which they are diametrically opposed; a racist grandmother, for instance, or an uncle who insists that those at the Tiananmen Square uprising were nothing but hooligan’s. It is this question that we will explore in this presentation. In the process, we will come to the conclusion that, when positions seem irreconcilable, rather than continuing to pursue rigorous critical interchange that may do little other than escalate insult, the facilitator, rather, ought to move toward creating a deeper understanding of each position juxtaposed against its opposing view (a process that we refer to as ‘collaborative caring’), so as to produce side-by-side understanding, knowing that communal bonds have been maintained and, hence, that the opportunity for genuine reasoned collaborative inquiry on other issues and at future times remains open. (shrink)

In a society where filial piety is regarded as a social norm, should a son consent to withdrawing treatments to his terminally ill father or should he request that his father’s life be maintained as long as possible? Leaving a father unattended is regarded as unfilial in a Confucian society, let alone untreated while being ill. Although Taoism also teaches filial piety, it asserts artificially as unnatural. In other words in Taoist view, uselessly prolonging a life (...) through life-sustaining devices or futilely treating an incurable terminal patient is against the will of Heaven. This paper is not an argument in favor of euthanasia but a discussion of what is natural and un-natural in terms of life and death phenomenon from Taoist perspective. Artificial life relying on external means is not harmonious with nature. Thus keeping a person in PVS stage alive should be ethically flaw. In this sense, don’t all attempts to cure illness un-natural? This author will say that if treatments can restore health, then it is not un-natural. But if medical procedures fail to revert the deterorating health of a terminally ill patient and treatments prove to be futile, foregoing treatments can be regarded as flowing with Heaven and thus is ethically justifiable. (shrink)

Caregiving robots are often lauded for their potential to assist with geriatric care. While seniors can be wise and mature, possessing valuable life experience, they can also present a variety of ethical challenges, from prevalence of racism and sexism, to troubled relationships, histories of abusive behavior, and aggression, mood swings and impulsive behavior associated with cognitive decline. I draw on Confucian ethics, especially the concept of filial piety, to address these issues. Confucian scholars have developed a rich set (...) of theoretical resources for dealing with beloved but imperfect elders, and navigating the challenges of supporting seniors whose ethical commitments are unreliable. These resources provide a way to reconcile two important but conflicting desiderata: to value and care for seniors, but also to clear-mindedly deal with their moral shortcomings. In particular, they articulate a duty to remonstrate with our elders when they err. Confucian filial piety can helpfully inform robot design and use in geriatric care. They can be used to strengthen and protect emotional connections in important relationships, but should not be used to reinforce patient preferences when doing so damages relationships or their ability to act morally. Rather than conceive of patient wellbeing as in tension with moral behavior, and care as a burden for caregivers, not a source of value and meaning, Confucian accounts of filial piety help identify both new areas of concern and new potential in the development of caregiving technologies, ones which see these goods as complementary. (shrink)

My dissertation aims to shed light on the importance and distinctive nature of intimate relationships such as parent-child relationship and friendship by developing my own version of a virtue-ethical approach. -/- In Chapter 1, I critically examine important contemporary Western theories of filial piety and argue that they do not adequately capture the nature of a desirable parent-child relationship and filial piety. -/- In Chapter 2, I show why the duty-centered approach to filial piety (...) is inadequate focusing on why it fails to make sense of filial love and argue that filial piety is better understood as a virtue by showing how it can do justice to the normative significance of filial love. -/- In Chapter 3, I introduce what I call ‘gratitude for being’ to capture the distinctive type of gratitude we owe to people who have consistent and particularized care for us, especially our parents. I argue that the idea of gratitude for being can best make sense of deep gratitude typically found among intimates who care for each other. -/- In Chapter 4, I introduce what I call ‘relational virtues,’ which are virtues required for the participants of a given type of personal relationship and argue that it offers a valuable resource for answering questions concerning the value of intimate personal relationships. Next, I propose my own relational virtue theory of filial piety. -/- In Chapter 5, I discuss several aspects of the Confucian conception of filial piety—early filial piety, the close connection between self-cultivation and filial piety, and postmortem filial piety—and show how my relational virtue theory can defend and make sense of them. Lastly, I show how my view of filial piety is different from the Confucian view, or at least a version of it. -/- In Chapter 6, I discuss the virtue of friendship as a relational virtue and show how it can make sense of the nature and value of friendship. In particular, I show why the virtue of friendship is distinct from general virtues such as benevolence or generosity and why it is morally important to have this virtue. -/- Finally, in Chapter 7, I propose what I call ‘relational activity view’ on partiality. After critically examining existing views on partiality, I suggest a picture of how special values are transformed, delivered, and created within intimate relationships. -/- . (shrink)

Do adult children have a particular duty, or set of duties, to their aging parents? What might the normative source and content of filial obligation be? This chapter examines Kant’s duty of beneficence in The Doctrine of Virtue and the Groundwork, suggesting that at its core, performance of filial duty occurs in response to the needs of aging parents. The duty of beneficence accounts for inevitable vulnerabilities that befall human rational beings and reveals moral agents as situated in (...) communities of dependence and mutual aid. Other accounts of filial obligation, such as those based on a notion of gratitude, virtue, or friendship, generate various difficulties and fail to adequately address and emphasize four morally significant features of the adult child/ aging parent relationship. First, the relationship between adult children and their aging parents is one of dependency created by the increasing frailty and need of those parents. Second, the obligations that adult children have to aging parents take place in the context of a relationship not voluntarily assumed, but not coerced. Third, given a cultural tendency toward paternalistic care of elderly individuals, the content of filial obligation should safeguard against such treatment. Fourth, because dependency relations between adult children and aging parents can involve an immense degree of sacrifice on the part of the caretaker, an acknowledgment of duties should be accompanied by a concurrent acknowledgment of the necessary limitation of duties. Addressing these four issues is essential in offering a coherent account of the normative source, content, nature, and scope of adult children’s duty to care for their aging parents. This essay demonstrates that the Kantian duty of beneficence, when functioning as the philosophical foundation of filial obligation, allows for ample light to be shed upon and for proper analysis to take place of these four issues. (shrink)

Urbaniana University Journal 73.3 (2020): 73-99. -/- A close reading of Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion reveals that it is not what it appears. Rather than a work of natural theology, meant to show something about arguments concerning the existence and nature of God, the Dialogues turn out to embody a moral pedagogy exemplifying and attempting to instill a conception of piety and religion as virtues. This paper defends this interpretation by reviewing three alternative, but ultimately inadequate, interpretations of (...) the text, and then compares Hume’s moral pedagogy with that of Aquinas in the Summa Theologiae to highlight the ambition, and the limitation,of Hume’s attempt to characterize piety without metaphysics. (shrink)

Following the Introduction, the second section of this essay lays out Tom Cavanaugh’s helpful and convincing account of the enduring significance of the Hippocratic Oath in terms of how it responds to the problem of iatrogenic harm. The third section discusses something underemphasized in Cavanaugh’s account, namely, the key role of the virtue of piety within the Oath and the profession it establishes, and argues that this virtue should be regarded as integral to an authentic Hippocratic ethic. The fourth (...) and final section briefly examines the connection between medicine and philosophy, focusing on how both should be seen as wisdom-seeking ways of life, and shows the relevance of this for regarding the virtue of piety as the key virtue of medical practice. (shrink)

The argument used by Socrates to refute the thesis that piety is what all the gods love is one of the most well known in the history of philosophy. Yet some fundamental points of interpretation have gone unnoticed. I will show that (i) the strategy of Socrates' argument refutes not only Euthyphro's theory of piety and such neighboring doctrines as cultural relativism and subjectivism, but nominalism in general; moreover, that (ii) the argument needs to assume much less than (...) is generally thought, and finally that (iii) while Socrates' argument, properly understood in its full force, appears to be inconsistent with the goal of his own inquiry, his own 'Platonic' position escapes the inconsistency. (shrink)

Martin Heidegger broadened the meaning of art to a truth-disclosing event akin to seemingly disparate events such as the founding of a political state, Jesus’s sacrifice for all humankind, and the questioning of a philosopher. Art makes us pay attention to it by presenting the familiar in a new and unfamiliar context and unsettles our presuppositions and reconceptualizes our way of thinking. I begin by explicating the Heideggerian interpretation of the nature of art by looking at the key concepts that (...) make a work of art work. Then I argue that by themselves, the concept of veiling and the concept of fashion are very familiar concepts to Indonesians, but that the practice of combining these two ideas brings something unfamiliar to that society. This new practice reveals a way of Being that combines religious piety with our current, late-modern, consumer society. The combination of fashion and veiling for piety discloses, in the Heideggerian sense, a new “world” that undermines secular and fundamentalist narratives about the religious agent while still remaining an authentic Indonesian art piece. (shrink)

This article looks at the inadequacy of space available to women in the two most holy sites for all Muslims: Masjid al-Haram in Makkah and Masjid an-Nabawi in Madinah, Saudi Arabia. I argue that religious discourse, shaped by geopolitical factors, has framed piety for women primarily in terms of modesty, such that a woman is often considered a good Muslim if she is visible only within her female community but invisible to the larger society. Furthermore, I argue that the (...) allocation of meager space affects not only the perception of women's religious standing in society, but also women's own perception about their moral selves. The article claims that by being relegated to small sections within religious spaces, women's collective worship is evident neither to the community at large nor can it be fully experienced by individual women, thus placing obstacles in women's path to seek to closeness to God. (shrink)

Charitable interpreters of David Hume set aside his sprinkles of piety. Better to read him as lying than as clumsily inconsistent. We argue that the attribution of lies can pay dividends in historical scholarship no matter how strongly the theorist condemns lying. Accordingly, we show that our approach works even with one of the strongest condemners of lying: Immanuel Kant. We argue that Kant lied in his scholarly work and even in the first Critique. And we defend the claim (...) that this lie attribution, strange as it may sound, amounts to a kind of scholarly charity. (shrink)

In this paper, I use an example from the history of philosophy to show how independently defining each side of a pair of contrary predicates is apt to lead to contradiction. In the Euthyphro, piety is defined as that which is loved by some of the gods while impiety is defined as that which is hated by some of the gods. Socrates points out that since the gods harbor contrary sentiments, some things are both pious and impious. But “pious” (...) and “impious” are contrary predicates; they cannot simultaneously characterize the same thing. Euthyphro changes his definition, but the problem of recognizing emotional ambivalence is only side-stepped. I go on to show how contemporary philosophers run into a similar problem. According to Prinz, something is good if and only if we harbor positive sentiments towards it and bad if and only if we harbor negative sentiments towards it. Thus, if we are ambivalent towards something (if we harbor both positive and negative sentiments towards it), then it is both good and bad. Like “pious” and “impious”, “good” and “bad” are contraries. Next, according to the fitting-attitude theory first elaborated by Brentano and favored by contemporary meta-ethicists like Blackburn, Brandt, Ewing, Garcia, Gibbard, McDowell, and Wiggins, something is good if and only if it is a fitting (appropriate) object of approbation, and something is bad if and only if it is a fitting (appropriate) object of disapprobation. I argue that moral ambivalence is sometimes appropriate, i.e., that the correct response to some things is to both love and hate them. Hence, according to the fitting-attitudes theory, some things are both good and bad. I conclude by discussing a variety of ways in which the problem of ambivalence may be solved, suggesting that attitudes of approbation and disapprobation be further individuated by the reasons for them. (shrink)

In this paper, I explore how theorists might navigate a course between the twin dangers of piety and excess cynicism when thinking critically about state apologies, by focusing on two government apologies to indigenous peoples: namely, those made by the Australian and Canadian Prime Ministers in 2008. Both apologies are notable for several reasons: they were both issued by heads of government, and spoken on record within the space of government: the national parliaments of both countries. Furthermore, in each (...) case, the object of the apology – that which was apologized for – comes closer to disrupting the idea both countries have of themselves, and their image in the global political community, than any previous apologies made by either government. Perhaps as a result, both apologies were surrounded by celebration and controversy alike, and tracing their consequences – even in the short term – is a difficult business. We avoid excessive piety or cynicism, I argue, when we take several things into account. First, apologies have multiple functions: they narrate particular histories of wrongdoing, they express disavowal of that wrongdoing, and they commit to appropriate forms of repair or renewal. Second, the significance and the success of each function must be assessed contextually. Third, when turning to official political apologies, in particular, appropriate assessment of their capacity to disavow or to commit requires that consider apologies both as performance and as political action. While there remain significant questions regarding the practice of political apology – in particular, its relationship to practices of reparation, forgiveness and reconciliation – this approach can provide a framework with which to best consider them. (shrink)

Saba Mahmood’s anthropological work studies the gain in skills, agency and capacity building by the women’s dawa movement in Egypt. These women increase their virtue toward the goal of piety by following dominant, often patriarchal norms. Mahmood argues that “teleological feminism” ignores this gain in agency because this kind of feminism only focuses on opposition or resistance to these norms. In this paper I defend Mahmood’s “anti-teleological” feminist work from criticisms that her project valorizes oppression and has no vision (...) for a nonoppressive feminist future. I argue the future envisioned by teleological feminists gets caught in “the Hegelian” trap of replicating past oppression in their feminist future. I find in Mahmood’s work the tools to escape this trap. I argue, rather than a movement of overcoming oppression, Mahmood’s work suggests an immanent and creative movement that emphasizes difference for a truly new future. I turn to a Bergsonian metaphor and argue that this movement can be seen as akin to the movement of biological evolution. I conclude using the work of Eve Sedgwick that the Egyptian women that Mahmood studies are being read in a “paranoid” fashion and demonstrate using Leila Ahmed a better “reparative” reading of these women. (shrink)

I begin the first part by showing how situationism should make us question traditional understandings of virtues as intrinsic dispositions. I concentrate specifically on situationist experiments related to mood. I then introduce Islamic virtue ethics and the dawa movement. In parts two and three I examine ethnography of the dawa movement to explore how they deal with worries about the influence of mood on their virtue. In part two I show how they train their habits in very traditional virtue ethics (...) ways in order to be more resilient when faced with virtue-diminishing affective situations. In part three I show how the situation, rather than hindering practitioners, is recruited into helping these women achieve piety. I conclude, in part four, by showing the dawa movement's creative use of the Islamic veil as a way to help these women deal with the objection that one cannot avoid all bad situations. Going beyond social psychological experiments, I examine two methodological sources not found in situationist debates. First, I argue for ethnography as an empirical method through which to study virtue. I draw on ethnography of the Islamic women's dawa movement. Secondly, the work in the philosophy of mind on ‘affective scaffolding’. (shrink)

Nietzsche talks about trust [vertraue*] and mistrust [misstrau*] in all of his published and authorized works, from The Birth of Tragedy to Ecce Homo. He refers to trust in 90 passages and mistrust in 101 – approximately ten times as often as he refers to resentment/ressentiment. Yet the scholarly literature on Nietzsche and trust includes just a handful of publications. Worse still, I have been unable to find a single publication devoted to Nietzsche and mistrust. This chapter aims to fill (...) the gap in the secondary literature by using digital humanities methods to systematically investigate the functions of trust and mistrust in Nietzsche’s writings. I argue that Nietzsche offers three main insights into trust and an additional two into mistrust. When it comes to trust, in his free spirit works, he reflects on the development of interpersonal trust, with an eye to situations in which trust is or is not reciprocated. He also criticizes some of the heuristics people use to identify trustworthy partners, especially the notion that all and only people with stable character are trustworthy. And perhaps Nietzsche’s most interesting thoughts about trust relate to self-trust, which he thinks is often unjustifiably undermined. When it comes to mistrust, although he regards generalized mistrust as a sign of bad character, he also thinks that harnessing mistrust can be valuable in at least two domains. One is morality, where we are disposed to accept traditional pieties and would benefit from turning a suspicious eye towards these pieties. The other is science, which systematizes both trust and mistrust in pursuit of the truth. (shrink)

In this chapter I critique the contemporary Western ideal of unconditional maternal love. In the first section, I draw some preliminary distinctions and clarify the scope and limitations of my inquiry. In the second section, I argue that unloving mothers exist, and are not psychologically abnormal. In the third section, I go further and suggest that lack of maternal love can be fitting and even morally permissible. In the fourth section, I sketch some implications that lack of maternal love and (...) unrequited filial love have for the debate on reasons for love. I conclude with avenues for future research. (shrink)

Call the ethos understanding rightness in terms of spiritual purity and piety, and wrongness in terms of corruption and sacrilege, the “fetish ethic.” Jonathan Haidt and his colleagues suggest that this ethos is particularly salient to political conservatives and non-liberal cultures around the globe. In this essay, I point to numerous examples of moral fetishism in mainstream academic ethics. Once we see how deeply “infected” our ethical reasoning is by fetishistic intuitions, we can respond by 1) repudiating the fetishistic (...) impulse, by 2) “sublimating” our fetishism into liberal rationales, or by 3) accepting the fetishism on its own terms. Of these options, I argue that sublimating our fetishism is not advisable, and that embracing our ethical fetishism isn’t as obviously misguided as some suggest. (shrink)

We argue that, while Cavendish did express orthodox piety, she is likely to have been read by her contemporaries as heterodox and deistic at best, atheistic at worst. Furthermore, they would have been right: it is seemingly impossible to reconcile her metaphysical and epistemological views with particular providence, miracles, the incarnation and revelation. We proceed by outlining her general metaphysical position (section 1) before looking in some detail at her discussion of immaterial beings (section 2). We then consider the (...) implications of these views for certain orthodox Christian doctrines (section 3). (shrink)

Ysabel Ydelsa Delgado Del Águila nació el 23 de diciembre de 1990 en Lima (Perú). Estudió la carrera de Traducción e Interpretación en el Instituto de Educación Superior Tecnológico Privado Cibertec, donde se especializó en el aprendizaje de las lenguas del inglés y el portugués y se graduó con una tesis dedicada al escritor portugués José Saramago. Actualmente, trabaja como traductora freelance y es gerente de operaciones en la filial Recife (Brasil) de VFS Global para la misión de Canadá (...) y Reino Unido. Esta organización se encarga del trámite de documentos administrativos y de cobranza para la adquisición de una visa o un permiso temporal en esos países en condición de turista. Durante el tiempo de capacitación de sus empleados, la entidad les brinda la oportunidad de establecer vínculos educativos con las universidades de la India. Ha estudiado el idioma francés en la Alianza Francesa y el italiano en el Instituto Italiano de Cultura. Además, continúa sus estudios de Administración en la Universidad Cruzeiro do Sul (São Paulo, Brasil). (shrink)

This paper critically examines what I call the ‘testing theodicy,’ the widely held idea that natural evil exists in order to test our faith in God. This theodicy appears numerous times in the scriptures of all three Abrahamic faiths. After examining some of these scriptural passages, we will argue that in light of these texts, the notion of faith is best understood as some type of commitment such as trust, loyalty or piety, rather than as merely a belief in (...) God’s existence. After carefully showing the form this theodicy must take, I argue that the testing theodicy suffers from serious difficulties and fails to adequately account for the existence of natural evil. (shrink)

The human person has been defined in a variety of ways along human history. As time goes on, reflections from philosophy, theology, psycology, anthropology, sociology, and history have done great contributions to understand and explain what the human person is. We have focused in the proposals that personalism have done so far which states that the human person should be the center and start point of every reflection about the human being. Among all the characteristics of personalism, we find that (...) the human person is above all a being for the encounter with each other and its first encounter is the filial relationship. Even though being children is more than evident for every single person, we usually do not live as them or at least it does not seem that we fully understand this fact. This is why we try to shed light on the keys that could help today men and women to understand the value of being children and the possible causes that hinder us to live or accept that condition in our own lives. We hope that this work could help understand the richness of being children, so that we can facilitate the comprehension and opening to christian faith which states that we all are children of God. -/- La persona humana ha sido definida de muchas maneras a lo largo de la historia. Con el paso del tiempo, la reflexión filosófica, teológica, psicológica, antropológica, sociológica, histórica, etc, ha hecho grandes aportes a la comprensión de la persona humana y aportado otras definiciones. Nos hemos enfocado en las reflexiones que ha hecho el personalismo que sostiene que la persona humana es el centro y punto de partida de toda reflexión. De todas sus características, la persona humana es ante todo un ser para el encuentro y el primer encuentro de su existencia es la relación filial. No obstante lo evidente que resulta el ser hijos, no vivimos como tales o al menos no parece que lo entendamos así.. Es por eso que hemos querido sacar a la luz algunas claves que sirvan a hombres y mujeres del mundo actual para comprender el valor de la dimensión filial de la persona humana y qué puede estar impidiendo vivirla o aceptarla en la propia vida; esperando que a partir de esta reflexión se pueda ayudar a reconocer la riqueza del ser hijos, y de esta manera, se tiendan puentes para facilitar la comprensión y la apertura a la fe cristiana que entiende a todo ser humano como hijo de Dios. (shrink)

A. E. Taylor states the widely held view that Plato’s Euthyphro posed a question which figured prominently in later ethical controversies: “It amounts to asking whether acts of piety, or more generally virtuous acts, derive their character of being right from the mere fact of being commanded or are commanded because they are antecedently intrinsically right.” I argue against this characterization of the Euthyphro. The argument Socrates deploys against Euthyphro’s third and most serious definition of holiness or piety (...) (to hosion) is not the opening round in the debate over divine command theory nor is a discussion of the nature of holiness ipso facto an exercise in ethical theory. (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)

In accordance with Leo Strauss’s ingenious suggestion, the Athenian Stranger of Plato’s Laws is best understood as an alternative ‘Socrates’, fleeing from the hemlock to Crete. Situated between Crito and Phaedo, Laws effectively tests the reader’s loyalty to the real Socrates who obeys Athenian law and dies cheerfully in Athens. Having separated Plato from the Stranger, a nuanced defence of Karl Popper’s suspicions about Laws confronts the apologetic readings of both Strauss and Christopher Bobonich. As hinted by his preference for (...) wine, the antidote for hemlock, the Athenian Stranger repeatedly proves himself the opposite of Socrates, particularly with respect to piety. Once the Stranger is recognized as ‘an unreliable narrator’, this apparently ponderous product of Plato’s senility becomes the taut thriller of an innovative teacher at the peak of his powers. (shrink)

My intention in this paper is to reframe the practice of veiling as an embodied practice of self-development and self- transformation. I argue that practices like these cannot be handled by the choice/chance distinction relied on by those who would restrict religious minority accommodations. Embodied self- transformation necessarily means a change in personal identity and this means the religious believer cannot know if they will need religious accommodation when they begin their journey of piety. Even some luck egalitarians would (...) find leaning exclusively on preference and choice to find who should be burdened with paying the full costs of certain choices in one’s life too morally harsh to be justifiable. I end by briefly illustrating an alternative way to think about religious accommodation that does not rely on the choice/chance distinction. (shrink)

Narrator Ron Howard tells us that Arrested Development is the “story of a wealthy family who lost everything, and the one son who had no choice but to keep them all together.” The cult-classic follows Michael Bluth – the middle son of an inept, philandering, corrupt real-estate developer, George Bluth Sr., who is arrested for white-collar crimes. Constantly faced with crises created by his eccentric family, Michael does his best to preserve the family business, put out fires, and serve as (...) a role model for his teenage son, George Michael. The Bluths’ misadventures raise the question, what, if anything, do adult children owe their parents? This chapter explores the relationships between the members of the Bluth family and argues that Arrested Development makes the case that, insofar as adult children “owe” their parents anything, such an obligation is grounded in a sense of friendship – a voluntarily entered relation that can be terminated at any time. As a result, Arrested Development challenges the often-unquestioned assumption that children owe their parents special consideration simply in virtue of the parent-child relationship. (shrink)

Intellectualism about human virtue is the thesis that virtue is knowledge. Virtue intellectualists may be eliminative or reductive. If eliminative, they will eliminate our conventional vocabulary of virtue words-'virtue', 'piety', 'courage', etc.-and speak only of knowledge or wisdom. If reductive, they will continue to use the conventional virtue words but understand each of them as denoting nothing but a kind of knowledge (as opposed to, say, a capacity of some other part of the soul than the intellect, such as (...) the will or the appetites). Virtue intellectualists may be pluralists or monists. If pluralist, they identify the virtues with distinct kinds of knowledge. If monist, they identify all the virtues with one and the same kind of knowledge. In a number of dialogues-including the Euthyphro, Apology, Charmides, Euthydemus, Laches, Lysis, Protagoras, and Republic I-Socrates gives arguments that support Reductive Monist Intellectualism (RMI) about human virtue. I disarm an influential objection to RMI as the correct interpretation of Socrates. (shrink)

To understand Hobbes’s handling of Christian scripture in Part 3 of Leviathan we need to see it in the light of his own radical account of the norms controlling public religious speech and practice as set out in Part 2 and in other works such as De Cive and De Corpore. As these texts make clear, Hobbes holds that we ought rationally to venerate the first cause of all, and that the proper way to venerate this awesome and incomprehensible being (...) is to publicly adopt the local culture’s religious practices, however arbitrary or conventional those practices might be. For the seventeenth-century English subject, the Anglo-Protestant scriptural religion provides the appropriate vehicle to express this rationally mandated religious piety, and thus provides a form of devotion that Hobbes embraces in a spirit of genuine religious reverence. At the same time, he also regards this religion, like all scriptural religions, as a conventional human artifact that, given the ear of the sovereign, he might hope to shape in favor of Hobbesian ideals such as civil obedience, the separation of philosophy from religion, and the extirpation of belief in an immaterial spirit-world. The proposed interpretation dissolves systematic problems facing irreligious readings on the one hand, and more straightforwardly Christian readings on the other. (shrink)

Vlastos, G. Introduction: the paradox of Socrates.--Lacey, A. R. Our knowledge of Socrates.--Dover, K. J. Socrates in the Clouds.--Robinson, R. Elenchus.--Robinson, R. Elenchus, direct and indirect.--Robinson, R. Socratic definition.--Nakhnikian, G. Elenctic definitions.--Cohen, S. M. Socrates on the definition of piety: Euthyphro 10A-11B.--Santas, G. Socrates at work on virtue and knowledge in Plato's Laches.--Burnyeat, M. F. Virtues in action.--Walsh, J. J. The Socratic denial of Akrasia.--Santas, G. Plato's Protagoras and explanations of weakness.--Woozley, A. D. Socrates on disobeying the law.--Allen, R. (...) E. Plato's earlier theory of forms. (shrink)

According to Amos Funkenstein, Stephen Gaukroger and Andrew Cunningham, seventeenth-century natural philosophy was fused with theology, driven by theology, and pursued primarily to shed light on God. Experimental natural philosophy might seem to provide a case in point. According to its English advocates, like Robert Boyle and Thomas Sprat, experimental philosophy embodies the Christian virtues of humility, innocence, and piety, it helps establish God’s existence, attributes, and providence, and it provides a basis for evangelism. This chapter shows that, unlike (...) their English counterparts, experimental philosophers in seventeenth-century Italy kept natural philosophy sharply distinct from theological and religious matters. This indicates that seventeenth-century experimental philosophy was not, as such, theologically driven or oriented. It also suggests that there was no intrinsic relation between experimental philosophy and religion. Whether experimental philosophy was presented as an ally of religion or as distinct from it was, to a significant extent, a matter of cultural politics. It depended on which rhetorical and argumentative strategies were believed to be most likely to ensure freedom of research and institutional support for the work of experimental philosophers in a specific sociopolitical context. (shrink)

In Plato’s dialogues, Socrates calls things like justice, piety, and largeness “forms.” In several of these dialogues, he makes clear that forms are very different from familiar objects like tables and trees. Why, exactly, does he think that they differ and how are they supposed to do so? This chapter argues that in the Phaedo Socrates does not assume that they are different, but rather, over five stages of the dialogue, provides an account of how and why they do (...) so. To fully understand the claims made in the first stage, one must look to the next stage, and so on until the final stage. Socrates' ultimate reason for distinguishing forms from ordinary objects does not depend on our intuitions about things like justice and largeness, nor on the distinction between universals and particulars. Ultimately, forms cannot be ordinary objects because the form of f-ness must cause every f-thing to be f, but no ordinary object could serve as such a cause. They cannot do so because they have multiple parts and are receptive of opposites; by contrast, the form of f-ness must be simple and unchanging, since it causes every f-thing to be f. (shrink)

Suffering can make sacred, so it may partly be nature, and not culture alone, that leads us to apprehend a sacred aspect in victims of oppression. Those who recognize this sacredness show piety—a special form of respect—toward members of oppressed groups. The result is a system of social constructions often dismissed as “identity politics.” This essay starts with an analysis of the intentionality of piety and sacredness and how they relate to suffering, sacrifice, sanctions, pollution, and purification. It (...) then argues that the sacralization of oppressed groups is an expression of the perennial human disposition to acknowledge sacredness and to respond piously. The essay then analyzes this sacred status as socially constructed. Based on the sacred-making power of suffering, the sacred status elicits piety, gives its bearers special authority, surrounds them with sanctions, and calls for symbolic sacrificial punishments of the impious. By dissecting sacrificial politics as a system of social constructions, we see that, although the oppressed groups are made sacred, certain people in the oppressor groups—“the Pious”—continue to exercise fundamental power. This essay, by displaying the inner logic of this cultural phenomenon, helps us both to sympathize with and to critique the system and then to pose questions about what good or bad the system might be doing. (shrink)

The main purpose of this study is to introduce, analyze and propose the concept of Piety in Rousseau as a part of the ethical fundament of Positive Leadership Theory, also as a continuum of the original fundamental element of the Social Pact and its implication on the legitimization of organizational dynamics in the private sector (corporate ethics) and the impact on institutional efficiency. Given the theoretical nature of this research, the classic dialectic method has shown itself adequate once in (...) it there is a search for identification of an object (theory), its contradictions, and conflicts involved in the analyses of the problem. For that purpose, a vast bibliographical, documental e internet site research was conducted examining many of the main works about the themes studied. After presenting and dialectically analyzing the foundation of the Rousseaunian Social Pact, in convergence with the responsibility principle structure, this paper concludes by suggesting that these theoretical models can constitute the ethical basis of the management proposition of Positive Leadership as organization dynamics. (shrink)

In his two chief works, the Theogony and Works and Days, Hesiod treats the possibility of providence. In the former poem, he considers what sort of god could claim to gives human beings guidance. After arriving at Zeus as the only consistent possibility, Hesiod presents Zeus’ rule as both cosmic and legalistic. In the latter poem, how- ever, Hesiod shows that so long as Zeus is legalistic, his rule is limited cosmically to the human being. Ultimately, Zeus’ rule emerges as (...) more human than cosmic, and thus unable to fulfill the cosmic demands of piety. Hesiod’s presentation thus begs, without thematically posing, the question of how human beings ought to live. Accordingly, Hesiod’s theological analysis, and not his theogony (or, implicit cosmogony or cosmology), sets the stage for the inquiries of the early Greek philosophers, and so political philosophy as a whole. (shrink)

FISIOLOGIA DO CICLO ESTRAL DOS ANIMAIS -/- Departamento de Zootecnia – UFRPE Embrapa Semiárido e IPA -/- • _____OBJETIVO -/- O cio ou estro é a fase reprodutiva dos animais, onde as fêmeas apresentam receptividade sexual seguida de ovulação. Para tanto, é necessário entender a fisiologia do estro para a realização do manejo reprodutivo dos animais. Em geral, as fêmeas manifestam comportamentos fora do comum quando estão ciclando, tais comportamentos devem ser observados para que não percam o pico de ovulação (...) e, consequentemente, para que não perca o momento de monta ou inseminação para emprenhar o animal. Neste trabalho, o estudante compreenderá o ciclo estral identificando as diferenças entre as espécies domésticas, para considerá-las na manipulação do mesmo. -/- • _____INTRODUÇÃO -/- As fêmeas dos mamíferos domésticos apresentam, em sua vida reprodutiva, even-tos recorrentes conhecidos como ciclos estrais que se caracterizam por uma série de alte-rações ovarianas, genitais, endócrinas e comportamentais. Esses ciclos são o fundamento da reprodução e possuem a finalidade de que ocorra a ovulação de forma sincronizada com o acasalamento para conduzir a uma gestação. A compreensão deste é de suma im-portância para alcançar uma boa eficiência produtiva nas propriedades pecuárias; consi-derando que a oportunidade de gestar os animais se limita a períodos, em geral, muito curtos, que ocorrem em cada ciclo. Assim que as fêmeas atingem a puberdade, em bovinos entre 11 e 19 meses, inicia-se a apresentação dos ciclos estrais, o que geralmente indica o início da receptividade sexual, também chamada de "estro" ou "cio", por ser a fase mais fácil de reconhecer devido ao qual a fêmea busca, atrai e aceita a montaria do macho. Todavia, para uma melhor eficiência reprodutiva, as fêmeas que apresentarem o primeiro cio não devem ser colocadas à disposição do macho ou da IA, uma vez que ela ainda não possui o aporte e a condição corporal ideal para conseguir gestar; logo para serem colocadas à reprodução devem estar ao terceiro estro ou possuir entre 60 a 70% do seu peso vivo adulto. Depois da receptividade ocorre um período em que a fêmea não atrai nem aceita o macho. Assim, um ciclo estral é definido como o período entre um estro e o seguinte. Quando durante o ciclo estral ocorre uma cópula fértil, as fêmeas passam a uma fase de anestro fisiológico, causado pela gestação, em que cessa o ciclo estral e passam a não apresentarem atividade sexual. Nas espécies sazonais (cabras, éguas e ovelhas), a manifestação dos ciclos estrais também é limitada pela época do ano em que as fêmeas apresentam um anestro sazonal. Essas espécies sazonais ou estacionais apresentam cio durante a época em que os dias apresentam a presença de luz por mais tempo; isto é, dias mais longos. Deve-se considerar que a ciclicidade feminina pode ser alterada por eventos patológicos como processos infecciosos, persistência do corpo lúteo, desnutrição e estresse, entre outros. -/- • _____CONTROLE ENDÓCRINO DO CICLO ESTRAL -/- As mudanças ovarianas, genitais e comportamentais que ocorrem ao longo dos ciclos estrais são controladas pelo sistema endócrino e são o resultado de uma complexa interação entre hipotálamo, hipófise, ovário e útero. Vários hormônios participam desse processo, dos quais serão descritos a importância e a participação dos mais relevantes (figura 1). -/- Figura 1: Interação hormonal do eixo hipotálamo-hipófise-gonodal. No lado esquerdo, com linhas contínuas, os principais hormônios são exemplificados quando há um folículo pré-ovulatório. No lado direito, com linhas pontilhadas, os hormônios envolvidos são mostrados quando a estrutura ovariana predominante é o corpo lúteo. Fonte: RANGEL, 2018. A Kisspeptina é um peptídeo hipotalâmico que tem sido denominado regulador central, pois os neurônios que a produzem recebem informações do meio ambiente e do próprio corpo, o que indica o momento ideal para a reprodução. Além de modular a secreção de GnRH durante o ciclo estral, esse hormônio controla tanto o início da puberdade quanto da estacionalidade reprodutiva. Além disso, é inibido durante a lactação, bloqueando a atividade reprodutiva das fêmeas nessa fase. Os neurônios produtores de Kisspeptina possuem receptores de estradiol, que os regulam para modular a liberação tônica e cíclica de GnRH, controlando assim a secreção de gonadotrofina; além disso, foi sugerida a participação de outros hormônios neurotransmissores e neuropeptídios na modulação da secreção de GnRH. Entre eles estão os estimuladores: norepinefrina, serotonina, aminoácidos excitatórios (principal-mente glutamato) e neurotensina. Atuando como inibidores: GABA e opioides endógenos (principalmente o β-endorfina). O GnRH é um neuropeptídio hipotalâmico que estimula a produção e liberação de LH, de forma que um pulso de LH é sempre precedido por um pulso de GnRH. Os estrogênios foliculares têm, por outro lado, um efeito de feedback positivo com o LH, aumentando a produção de GnRH pelo centro cíclico e a formação de seus receptores nos gonadotrópicos da hipófise. Como resultado, a maturação dos folículos ovarianos é alcançada e os picos pré-ovulatórios de estradiol e LH são alcançados. No centro tônico da secreção de GnRH, os estrogênios inibem a liberação desse hormônio quando os animais estão na vida pré-púbere ou nos estágios de anestro, e a sensibilidade a esse feedback negativo diminui durante os estágios reprodutivos. No sentido estrito, a liberação de FSH pelos gonadotrópicos hipofisários não requer a presença do GnRH, que participa antecipadamente do estímulo de sua síntese; o FSH é considerado, então, um hormônio secretado constitutivamente, ou seja, constantemente, a menos que haja um estímulo inibitório. Este estímulo inibitório existe graças aos estrogênios e à inibina, que são produzidos pelos folículos em desenvolvi-mento, especialmente pelo folículo dominante. A progesterona é um hormônio esteroide produzido pelo corpo lúteo (CL) que inibe a secreção de LH. Isso é realizado tanto indiretamente por meio da inibição da secreção de GnRH no nível hipotalâmico, quanto por ação direta no nível da hipófise, uma vez que bloqueia a formação de receptores de GnRH nos gonadotropos. Assim, diminui a frequência dos pulsos de LH, que é mantida em níveis basais capazes de participar da formação e manutenção do corpo lúteo, mas incapaz de causar ovulação. Na vaca, o papel do LH na manutenção do corpo lúteo é controverso, uma vez que alguns autores propõem que apenas o hormônio do crescimento participe para esse fim, pois a administração de inibidores de GnRH quando há corpo lúteo funcional não afeta a secreção de progesterona. Se a fertilização não for alcançada com sucesso, eventualmente o corpo lúteo deve ser destruído por apoptose (processo conhecido como luteólise), para permitir a ocorrência de um novo ciclo estral. Nesse caso, os hormônios participantes são a ocitocina, produzida inicialmente no nível central e posteriormente pelo CL; e a prostaglandina F2alfa (PGF2α), secretada pelo endométrio uterino ao final do diestro; entre ambos os hormônios estabelecerão um mecanismo de feedback positivo até que se complete a luteólise. -/- • _____FREQUÊNCIA DE APRESENTAÇÃO DOS CICLOS ESTRAIS -/- As espécies são classificadas de acordo com a frequência com que apresentam seus ciclos estrais em um dos três grupos existentes (figura 2). -/- Figura 2: classificação das espécies domésticas de acordo com a frequência de apresentação de seus ciclos estrais ao longo do ano. Fonte: RANGEL, 2018. -/- Tabela 1: tipo e duração do ciclo estral de diferentes espécies Monoéstricas -/- São as espécies que apresentam um único ciclo estral, uma ou duas vezes ao ano, que culmina com um período de anestro, que faz parte do mesmo ciclo. Em geral, a fase de receptividade sexual dessas espécies é muito longa para garantir a fecundação. Dentro desta classificação está a família Canidae, que inclui cães domésticos, lobos e raposas. Os cães domésticos são capazes de se reproduzir em qualquer época do ano, portanto, não são considerados sazonais; apesar disso, observou-se que o estro tende a ocorrer com mais frequência no final do inverno ou início da primavera. Como exceção, a raça de cães Basenji é considerada sazonal, pois eles sempre têm seus ciclos férteis no outono. -/- Poliéstricas estacionais ou sazonais -/- São espécies que para garantir que seus filhotes nasçam na época do ano mais favorável à sua sobrevivência, apresentam uma série de ciclos estrais durante uma estação limitada do ano (figura 3). No final desta estação, os animais entram em anestro sazonal, que termina com o início da próxima estação reprodutiva. Dentro deste grupo estão as espécies que se reproduzem nas épocas do ano em que está aumentando a quantidade de horas-luz por dia ou fotoperíodo crescente (primavera-verão), como equinos e gatos; o último mostra a atividade ovariana entre janeiro e setembro (ou até outubro) nas zonas temperadas. Há outro grupo de espécies que se reproduzem em períodos de fotoperíodo decrescente (outono-inverno), entre as quais estão ovinos e caprinos. -/- Figura 3: classificação das espécies domésticas, de acordo com a estacionalidade de sua reprodutiva. Fonte: RANGEL, 2018. Poliéstricas contínuas -/- As espécies deste grupo são caracterizadas por ciclos estrais durante todo o ano. Dentro desta classificação estão bovinos e suínos. -/- • _____ETAPAS DO CICLO ESTRAL -/- Do ponto de vista das estruturas ovarianas predominantes, o ciclo estral se divide em duas fases: a fase folicular, na qual os folículos ovarianos se desenvolvem e amadurecem, além da ovulação; nas espécies poliéstricas, esta fase começa com a regressão do corpo lúteo do ciclo anterior. A outra é conhecida como fase lútea e refere-se às etapas do ciclo em que o corpo lúteo se forma e tem sua maior funcionalidade. Cada uma dessas fases pode ser dividida em etapas de proestro e estro (fase folicular); e metaestro e diestro (fase lútea) (figura 4). Algumas espécies, adicionalmente, podem apresentar períodos de anestro e interestro, como parte de seus ciclos estrais (figura 4). -/- Figura 4: etapas dos ciclos estrais dos animais domésticos. Fonte: RANGEL, 2018. -/- Fase folicular -/- É identificada porque os hormônios ovarianos predominantes são os estrogênios (produzidos pelos folículos em crescimento), que desencadeiam o comportamento sexual e fazem com que o aparelho reprodutor passe por algumas adaptações para atrair o macho, preparar-se para a cópula e facilitar o transporte dos gametas. O proestro começa quando as concentrações de progesterona do ciclo anterior baixem para níveis basais devido à regressão do CL; e termina quando o comportamento de receptividade sexual começa. É caracterizado pelo crescimento do folículo dominante da última onda folicular do ciclo anterior; portanto, sua duração depende do grau de desenvolvimento em que o folículo se encontra no momento da luteólise. Nesse estágio, aumenta-se a produção de estradiol e inibina secretada pelo folículo ou folículos que iniciaram seu desenvolvimento durante o final do período de diestro. As concentrações de FSH diminuem no início do proestro; entretanto, eles começam a aumentar à medida que o estro se aproxima. O LH, devido ao efeito do estradiol, passa a aumentar sua frequência de secreção e diminuir a amplitude de seus pulsos, o que acentua a produção de andrógenos pelas células da teca e a capacidade de aromatização das células da granulosa, com o consequente aumento na produção de estradiol. O aumento do estradiol desencadeia a apresentação comportamental do estro que também é conhecido como estágio de cio, calor ou receptividade sexual, uma vez que representa o único período em que a fêmea procura ativamente o macho e aceita a montagem e a cópula. O comportamento sexual pode variar em intensidade entre diferentes espécies. Durante a fase de estro, o(s) folículo(s) em desenvolvimento no ovário adquirem sua maturidade e tamanho pré-ovulatório (figura 5), atingindo as concentrações máximas de estradiol. Um feedback positivo é então exercido entre o estradiol, GnRH e LH, para que ocorra o pico de LH pré-ovulatório que será responsável pela ovulação. -/- Figura 5: folículos ovarianos de porcas. Esquerda: pequenos folículos, estágio de proestro. À direita: folículos pré-ovulatórios, estágio de estro. Fonte: RANGEL, 2018. -/- O estro é a fase do ciclo em que ocorre a ovulação em espécies domésticas, com exceção dos bovinos que ovulam durante o metaestro inicial. A ovulação, por outro lado, manifesta-se espontaneamente na maioria das espécies domésticas, com exceção dos felinos, leporídeos e camelídeos, nos quais a cópula deve ocorrer para induzi-la, por isso são conhecidos como espécies de ovulação induzida (figura 6). Nessas espécies, a cópula provoca um reflexo nervoso que atua no nível hipotalâmico para induzir a liberação de GnRH e, portanto, o pico pré-ovulatório de LH. Existem outras espécies em que a cópula não estimula a ovulação, mas é necessária para induzir a formação do CL (figura 6). Dentro dessas espécies estão ratos e camundongos. -/- Figura 6: classificação das espécies domésticas, segundo a espontaneidade da ovulação e a formação do corpo lúteo. Fonte: RANGEL, 2018. -/- Em caninos, deve-se considerar que, embora tradicionalmente se diga que a ovulação ocorre dois dias após o início do estro, ela pode ocorrer mais tarde, em alguns casos ocorrendo próximo ao final do estro. Em geral, durante a fase folicular, o útero tem maior suprimento e as glândulas endometriais entram em fase proliferativa, aumentando seu tamanho. Isso faz com que o útero fique mais tônico, ou seja, mais firme, exceto no caso de éguas e carnívoros nos quais os estrogênios fazem com que o útero se encontre com edema e sem tonalidade, enquanto a cérvix aparece relaxada durante o estro. Além disso, o aumento do suprimento de sangue causa hiperemia e congestão do epitélio vaginal e vulvar (figura 7). Para permitir a passagem do esperma, a cérvix se abre e a produção de um muco cervical muito fluido, cristalino e abundante é aumentada; o útero e o oviduto aumentam suas contrações. Nessa última ação participam as prostaglandinas contidas no plasma seminal (PGF₂α e PGE). Na vagina, o número de camadas de células do epitélio começa a aumentar e as células da superfície tornam-se cornificadas. No caso da cadela, a situação hormonal durante a fase folicular é completamente diferente do resto das espécies domésticas (figura 8), uma vez que há altas concentrações de estrógenos durante o proestro, que atingem seu nível máximo 24 a 48 h antes de seu término; ao mesmo tempo, os folículos iniciam sua luteinização, antes de serem ovulados. Essa situação provoca a liberação de progesterona, que começa a aumentar suas concen-trações; à medida que aumenta, as concentrações de estradiol começam a cair. Assim, o estro começa quando os níveis de progesterona atingem uma concentração de cerca de 1 ng/ml. O pico de LH ocorre durante a transição do proestro para o estro e a ovulação ocorre 48 a 60 horas depois; processo que pode se estender de 24 a 96 h. Os níveis de progesterona aumentam após o início do estro, de modo que antes da ovulação estão entre 2 e 4 ng/ml, enquanto as concentrações entre 5 e 10 ng/ml estão relacionadas ao tempo de ovulação. Uma vez que as concentrações de estradiol caem abaixo de 15 pg/ml, o estro é encerrado (figura 8). -/- Figura 7: comparação da aparência vulvar em porcas. O círculo azul indica a vulva de uma porca que não está em estro, enquanto um círculo vermelho mostra uma vulva apresentando hiperemia e edema característicos da fase de estro. Fonte: Acervo pessoal do autor. -/- As altas concentrações de estradiol no proestro são responsáveis pela atração da fêmea pelo macho a partir desta fase, porém, não apresentará comportamento receptivo até o início da fase de estro. Deve-se levar em consideração que algumas cadelas podem não aceitar o macho, apesar de estarem endócrinamente na fase de estro, o que pode ser atribuído às condições de manejo, aos comportamentos adquiridos ou às características hierárquicas, ou ainda a distúrbios relacionados a endocrinologia da reprodução (anorma-lidades hormonais e/ou baixas concentrações de hormônios). No caso das éguas, não há menção à fase de proestro e os eventos que ocorreriam nessa fase estão englobados no estro, que tradicionalmente será denominado fase folicular ou simplesmente estro (figura 9). -/- Figura 8: Endocrinologia do ciclo estral da cadela. Fonte: RANGEL, 2018. -/- Figura 9: duração das etapas do ciclo estral das éguas. A ovulação ocorre nos últimos 2 dias da fase de estro. Fonte: RANGEL, 2018. -/- Fase lútea -/- Durante essa fase, o esteroide ovariano predominante é a progesterona, cujo objetivo é manter a gravidez se a fertilização for bem-sucedida. Para isso, os estrogênios pré-ovulatórios favorecem a formação de receptores de progesterona uterina, então a presença da progesterona faz com que as glândulas endometriais entrem em sua fase secretora e iniciem a produção de histiotrofo ou leite uterino, para nutrir o produto que poderia estar potencialmente presente. Já na fase lútea, ocorre redução das concentrações de estrogênio, o que causa diminuição do tônus uterino, hiperemia e edema vulvar. Por fim, a cérvix se fecha e o muco cervical torna-se espesso, pegajoso, opaco e menos abundante, de modo a isolar o útero por fora, evitando a entrada de microrganismos que poderiam comprometer a possível gravidez. O metaestro começa quando a fêmea deixa de aceitar a montaria do macho e termina quando há um CL funcional bem estabelecido. Este estágio corresponde ao período de transição entre a dominância estrogênica e o aumento das concentrações de progesterona. Nesse estágio, as concentrações de FSH são aumentadas pela queda repentina de estradiol e inibina após a ovulação, o que permite o recrutamento da primeira onda folicular. Nesta fase, o ovário contém o corpo hemorrágico, a partir do qual se desenvolverá o CL (figura 10). O corpo hemorrágico tem meia-vida muito curta, pois as células que compõem suas paredes iniciam sua luteinização imediatamente após ou mesmo antes da ovulação. -/- Figura 10: ovários bovinos. Corpo hemorrágico (CH); folículos (F) e corpo lúteo (CL). -/- O diestro, por sua vez, constitui a etapa mais longa do ciclo estral e é caracterizado por um CL que se encontra em sua atividade secretora máxima. Somente no final dessa fase, e se não houver fecundação, o CL sofre luteólise; caso contrário, o CL é mantido de forma a preservar a gestação, prolongando um estado fisiológico semelhante ao do diestro. A imagem 11 esquematiza o ciclo estral da vaca, eventos ovarianos e endócrinos, bem como a duração das etapas do ciclo estral. Nessa fase, a progesterona atinge suas concentrações máximas e exerce efeito negativo na liberação de LH, pois inibe a formação de receptores de GnRH nos gonadotropos hipofisários, bem como a secreção de GnRH pelo hipotálamo. Além disso, observam-se aumentos repetidos da secreção de FSH com o consequente aumento do desenvolvimento folicular e das concentrações plasmáticas de estradiol e inibina. No entanto, os folículos que começam seu desenvolvimento, não conseguem completar sua maturação e sofrem regressão (ondas foliculares). A égua é a única fêmea doméstica que pode ovular naturalmente durante a fase lútea, com uma incidência de ovulação de 10-25% nesta fase. Figura 11: etapas, estruturas ovarianas e endocrinologia do ciclo estral da vaca. Fonte: RANGEL, 2018. -/- No final do diestro, os estrogênios sensibilizam o endométrio, de modo que as células epiteliais formam os receptores de ocitocina. Após uma primeira secreção de ocitocina da neurohipófise e secreções subsequentes originadas do corpo lúteo, um mecanismo de feedback positivo é iniciado para a secreção de PGF2α. O papel da PGF2α é destruir o CL quando não houver fertilização. Deve-se considerar que para o útero ser capaz de produzir PGF2α deve haver um período prévio de exposição à progesterona, durante o qual aumenta o conteúdo de precursores das prostaglandinas no endométrio, como o ácido araquidônico (ácido graxo C20H32O2). O anestro é considerado como um período de inatividade reprodutiva, mesmo quando continua havendo atividade hormonal e desenvolvimento folicular, uma vez que o estímulo é insuficiente para que ocorra a maturação folicular e a ovulação. Ao longo desta fase não haverá alterações comportamentais ou morfológicas nas fêmeas. Nas espécies estacionais ou sazonais, o anestro é muito importante, pois limita a estação reprodutiva de forma que os partos ocorram na época do ano que pode ser mais favorável para a sobrevivência dos filhotes. Em espécies poliéstricas contínuas, o anestro aparecerá em casos de processos fisiológicos como gestação ou amamentação, ou devido a condições patológicas que interrompem a ciclicidade. Em caninos, o anestro é considerado mais uma fase do ciclo estral (figura 12), e é o estágio de transição entre o diestro de um ciclo e o proestro do próximo; na verdade, o anestro é a fase mais longa do ciclo nessa espécie, pois pode durar de 4 a 10 meses, dependendo do indivíduo. Em algumas espécies de animais domésticos, o anestro pode ocorrer pós-parto. O interestro é uma fase de repouso entre as ondas foliculares e é característica do ciclo estral de espécies cuja ovulação é induzida, como os felinos e camelídeos, por exemplo, a lhama e a alpaca. Ao longo desta fase, não há comportamento sexual. Sua apresentação se deve ao fato de a monta não ter ocorrido ou de não ter sido capaz de induzir a ovulação, de modo que os folículos ovarianos regridem, dando origem a um novo recrutamento folicular. No caso dos felinos, foi relatado que até 50% das cópulas simples são insuficientes para causar ovulação. -/- Figura 12: etapas do ciclo estral da cadela. A ovulação ocorre dois dias após o início do cio. Fonte: RANGEL, 2018. -/- • _DURAÇÃO DOS CICLOS ESTRAIS E PARTICULARIDADES POR ESPÉCIE -/- As variações na duração do ciclo estral e as fases presentes entre as diferentes espécies domésticas são indicadas na tabela 2. Em particular, existe uma grande variação entre os indivíduos dependendo da duração das fases do ciclo estral em caninos e felinos, sendo difícil precisar sua duração, já que no caso da cadela o anestro é parte integrante do ciclo; na gata, a duração do ciclo anovulatório é diferente daquele em que ocorreu a ovulação. Assim, em um ciclo anovulatório, a gata pode manifestar períodos de estro de sete dias em média, seguidos de 2 a 19 dias sem estro (período denominado interestro), que são continuados com outro período de estro. Quando ocorre a ovulação e não é fértil, surge uma fase lútea de 35 a 37 dias e às vezes demora mais 35 dias para o animal apresentar um novo estro. Em cadelas, não há estágio de metaestro propriamente dito, pois a ovulação ocorre no início do estro, de forma que, ao término do comportamento sexual, os corpos lúteos já estão formados. Da mesma forma, as gatas não apresentam este estágio, portanto, se ocorrer ovulação, a fase de estro é imediatamente seguida pela fase diestro (figura 13). Figura 13: etapas e endocrinologia do ciclo estral da gata. Fonte: RANGEL, 2018. -/- Tabela 2: Duração do ciclo estral e suas fases nas diferentes espécies domésticas Espécie Ciclo (dias) Proestro (dias) Estro Metaestro (dias) Diestro (dias) Interestro (dias) Anestro Bovina 21 (17-24) 2 a 3 8-18 h 3 a 5 12 a 14 - Pós-parto (vacas de leite) Lactacional (vacas de corte) Ovina 17 (13-19) 2 24-36 h 2 a 3 12 - Estacional Caprina 21 2 a 3 36 h (24-48) 3 a 5 8 a 15 - Estacional Suína 21 (17-25) 2 24-72 h 2 14 - Lactacional Equina 21 (15-26) - 4-7 d - 14 a 15 - Estacional Canina - 9 (3-20) 9 d (3-20) - 63 ± 5 em gestantes 70 a 80 em vazias - 4 a 10 meses Felina - 1 a 2 7 d (2-19) - 35 a 37 8 (2-19) Estacional (30-90 d) Onde: d = dias. h = horas. -/- O ciclo estral das éguas é dividido apenas em duas fases, folicular e lútea; às vezes também conhecido como estro e diestro, respectivamente (figura 14). No caso de bovinos, a ovulação ocorre durante a fase de metaestro, entre quatro e 16 horas após o término do estro, ou de 30 a 36 horas após o início do estro (figura 15). Uma vez que a ovulação ocorre, e como consequência da queda repentina nas concentrações de estradiol, algumas vacas podem ter uma secreção vulvar sanguinolenta (figura 16). -/- Figura 14: endocrinologia do ciclo estral da égua. Fonte: RANGEL, 2018. -/- Figura 15: duração das etapas do ciclo estral das vacas. A ovulação ocorre no metaestro ou de 4 a 16 horas depois do término do cio. Fonte: RANGEL, 2018. -/- Figura 16: secreção vulvar sanguinolenta em vaca no estágio de metaestro • ___DESENVOLVIMENTO FOLICULAR -/- Embora o desenvolvimento folicular que leva à ovulação ocorra na fase folicular do ciclo estral e desempenhe um papel essencial no controle do ciclo, durante a fase lútea também ocorre o desenvolvimento folicular, mas os folículos não conseguem realizar sua maturação final e ovulação; mesmo em animais pré-púberes e em animais em anestro, há crescimento folicular. Por isso o desenvolvimento folicular é considerado um processo constante e dinâmico. As fêmeas têm certo número de folículos e ovócitos desde o nascimento, que em geral excede consideravelmente o número de oócitos que serão ovulados ao longo de suas vidas. Aproximadamente 90% dos folículos ovarianos começam a crescer, mas não ovulam e regridem, fato conhecido como atresia folicular. Estima-se que a atresia ocorra em qualquer época de desenvolvimento, mas é mais comum nos estágios dependentes de gonadotrofinas. A razão pela qual as ondas foliculares se desenvolvem durante a fase lútea, culminando na atresia, é que a progesterona produzida pelo corpo lúteo inibe a pulsação de LH. Assim, os folículos dominantes não obtêm suprimento suficiente desse hormônio para completar seu crescimento e ovular, causando sua regressão. Quando os folículos sofrem atresia, cessa a produção de estradiol e inibina, retomando a secreção de FSH, iniciando um novo recrutamento folicular. No final do período de diestro, quando as concentrações de progesterona começam a diminuir devido à luteólise, os estrogênios foliculares estimulam a secreção de LH, que fornece suporte suficiente para o crescimento e maturação dos folículos até que a ovulação seja desencadeada. -/- • ___OVULAÇÃO -/- A ovulação ocorre graças a um processo de remodelação, adelgaçamento e ruptura da parede folicular ao nível do estigma, que é uma área de tecido desprovida de vascularização, que se forma na superfície do folículo ovulatório (figura 17). Nas espécies domésticas, o folículo pode se desenvolver e ovular em qualquer parte da superfície do ovário, com exceção dos equinos, nos quais, devido à conformação anatômica característica do ovário desta espécie, a ovulação sempre ocorre ao nível da fossa de ovulação. O pico de LH que precede a ovulação estimula a síntese e a liberação local de PGE₂ e PGF₂α, bem como o início da produção de progesterona pelas células foliculares. Junto com o pico pré-ovulatório de LH, ocorre aumento da quantidade de fluido folicular, graças ao aumento da permeabilidade vascular da teca (ação estimulada em conjunto com a PGE₂) e ao aumento do suprimento sanguíneo no período pré-ovulatório; entretanto, a pressão intrafolicular não aumenta porque a parede do folículo está distendida. -/- Figura 17: ruptura do estigma folicular durante o processo de ovulação. Fonte: Internet. -/- A ovulação começa com um enfraquecimento da parede folicular, porque a PGF₂α causa a liberação de enzimas lisossomais das células da granulosa do folículo pré-ovulatório. O aumento local da progesterona faz com que as células da teca interna sintetizem colagenase, uma enzima que cliva as cadeias de colágeno do tecido conjuntivo, enfraquecendo a túnica albugínea que constitui a parede folicular. À medida que a parede enfraquece, forma o estigma - projeção avascular - na região apical, o que indica que a ovulação está se aproximando. O estigma é o local onde o folículo se rompe, permitindo a liberação do oócito, que sai envolto pelas células da coroa irradiada e acompanhado pelo fluido contido no antro folicular. -/- • ___CORPO LÚTEO -/- Após a ovulação, as células que permanecem na cavidade folicular desenvolvem um CL, que é considerado uma glândula temporária; sua função essencial é a produção hormonal e só está presente durante o diestro, na gestação e em algumas patologias como a piometra. A luteinização, ou formação do CL, é mediada principalmente pelo LH; no entanto, outros hormônios também estão envolvidos, como o hormônio do crescimento (GH). Assim, o tratamento com GH em animais hipofisectomizados foi encontrado para restaurar a função normal do CL; enquanto em espécies como roedores e caninos, a formação do CL é induzida e mantida pela prolactina, hormônio que não participa com essa finalidade no caso dos ruminantes. Durante a luteinização, os remanescentes das células da granulosa se diferenciam em grandes células lúteas, que são capazes de secretar progesterona continuamente (basal), e possuem grânulos secretores responsáveis pela produção e liberação de ocitocina e relaxina, esta última durante a gestação de algumas espécies. Enquanto as células da teca formam as pequenas células lúteas, que não secretam ocitocina e produzem progesterona em resposta ao LH (tônico). O corpo lúteo é, finalmente, constituído de células luteais grandes e pequenas, fibroblastos, células mioides, células endoteliais e células do sistema imunológico. Outro fator importante para o processo de luteinização é a formação de uma rede vascular, essencial para aumentar o fluxo sanguíneo para o CL. A referida formação vascular é mediada principalmente por dois fatores, fator de crescimento de fibroblastos (FGF), que no estágio inicial do desenvolvimento lúteo estimula a proliferação de células endoteliais pela ação de LH, e fator de crescimento endotélio-vascular (VEGF) que promove a invasão de células endoteliais para a camada de células da granulosa e a organização e manutenção da microvasculatura do CL. A luteólise é um processo essencial para retomar a ciclicidade das fêmeas. Sucede ao final do diestro quando não ocorre a fecundação e consiste na desintegração funcional e estrutural do CL. O primeiro refere-se à queda nas concentrações de progesterona, enquanto o segundo abrange a regressão anatômica da estrutura lútea e a recuperação do tamanho normal do ovário. A desintegração funcional, com a consequente queda nas concentrações de progesterona, ocorre antes que a regressão estrutural seja observada. Caso ocorra a gestação, a vida do CL é prolongada, visto que existem mecanismos que o resgatam de sua regressão. Durante o diestro, a progesterona produzida pelo CL bloqueia inicialmente a ação do estradiol e da ocitocina. Para esse último, causa uma redução no número de receptores de ocitocina endometrial, modificando sua estrutura. Desta forma, não é possível estabelecer um feedback positivo entre a ocitocina e a PGF₂α, que será responsável pela luteólise. No entanto, à medida que o diestro progride, a progesterona esgota seus próprios receptores, de modo que, no final desse estágio, ela perde a capacidade de inibir os receptores de ocitocina. O estradiol ativa, então, o centro de geração de pulso de ocitocina no hipotálamo e começa a induzir o endométrio tanto a formação de seus próprios receptores como os da ocitocina. A ocitocina e o estradiol trabalham juntos para aumentar a atividade e a concentração das enzimas envolvidas na síntese de PGF2α: a fosfolipase (enzima responsável pela liberação de ácido araquidônico de fosfolipídios da membrana celular) e a prostaglandina sintetase (enzima responsável pela transformação do ácido araquidônico em prostaglandina). Dessa forma, a ocitocina hipotalâmica, liberada de forma pulsátil pela neurohipófise, estimula inicialmente a síntese e secreção de PGF2α através do endométrio. A PGF2α possui receptores em grandes células do CL, que aumentam seu número à medida que o ciclo estral progride. Assim, quando a PGF2α endometrial atinge o ovário provoca a liberação de ocitocina lútea, desencadeando um mecanismo local de feedback positivo, que agindo no endométrio aumenta a secreção de PGF2α. Este circuito continua até que se alcance uma frequência de pulsos de PGF2α de aproximadamente cinco pulsos em 24 h, uma frequência que é capaz de desencadear a luteólise. Em equinos, o CL não produz ocitocina; no entanto, as células endometriais os produzem, então a secreção por PGF2α depende do estímulo da ocitocina que vem desta última fonte e da hipófise. Ressalte-se que o CL deve atingir certo grau de maturidade para que possa ser receptivo à ação da PGF2α. Isso é conseguido através da formação de receptores para a PGF2α e desenvolvendo a capacidade de expressar a prostaglandina sintetase, de modo que o CL requer para produzir PGF2α na forma autócrina para atingir a lise. As células endoteliais e as células imunes, típicas do CL, também intervêm no processo de luteólise estrutural. As células endoteliais secretam proteína quimiotática de monócitos (MCP-1), para recrutar macrófagos que migram através do epitélio vascular que foi sensibilizado pela PGF2α. Os macrófagos ativados secretam o fator necrose tumoral alfa (TNFα) que atua sobre as células do corpo lúteo causando apoptose celular. A PGF2α também participa da luteólise funcional, inibindo a síntese de progesterona e reduzindo a síntese e fosforilação da proteína responsável pelo transporte de colesterol para a mitocôndria (StAR). Além disso, a PGF2α induz a produção de endotelina-1 (ET1) pelas células endoteliais encontradas no corpo lúteo, as quais contribuem para uma redução na síntese de progesterona. -/- • ___FATORES QUE AFETAM O CICLO ESTRAL -/- A apresentação dos ciclos estrais é natural e impreterível; no entanto pode ser afetada por fatores ambientais como o fotoperíodo, e fatores específicos do indivíduo como a sociabilidade e amamentação, além dos fatores de manejo como a nutrição e, consequentemente, o ECC das fêmeas e a endocrinologia (hormônios). Todos esses fatores serão explicados a seguir. -/- Fotoperíodo -/- O fotoperíodo é determinado pelo número de horas de luz do dia ao longo do ano e é considerado um dos fatores ambientais mais consistentes e repetíveis. A quantidade diária de horas-luz tem maior efeito nas espécies sazonais para determinar o início da atividade reprodutiva. No entanto, em espécies poliéstricas contínuas, variações anuais na ciclicidade também podem ser observadas, um exemplo disso é a acentuada sazonalidade nos nascimentos de búfalos e zebuínos. Da mesma forma, o momento em que uma bezerra ou leitão nasce afeta a idade em que atinge a puberdade, e a explicação para isso é que o fotoperíodo a que estão expostos impacta seu desenvolvimento. Assim, observou-se que uma maior quantidade de horas de luz do dia (suplementação de quatro horas por dia por cerca de dois meses) pode adiantar o início da puberdade em novilhas. -/- Amamentação -/- Em espécies como suínos e bovinos de corte, o anestro pós-parto é mantido pelo estímulo que a prole exerce sobre a mãe no momento da amamentação. Dessa forma, sob esses estímulos a fêmea deixará de apresentar cio enquanto estiver alimentando as crias (figura 18). Na ação de amamentação, pensa-se que participa o reconhecimento filial, onde intervêm a visão, o olfato e a audição. A verdade é que a participação de estímulos táteis é questionável, visto que foram realizados estudos nos quais a denervação da glândula mamária não antecipou o reinício da ciclicidade em fêmeas que amamentavam seus filhotes. O mecanismo pelo qual a amamentação afeta a atividade reprodutiva está relacionado a um aumento da sensibilidade do hipotálamo ao efeito inibitório do estradiol. Nisso intervêm os fatores como os opioides (endorfinas, encefalinas e dinorfinas) e os glicocorticoides. -/- Figura 18: na esquerda porca amamentando seus filhotes e a direita vaca com o bezerro no pé. -/- Nutrição -/- A função reprodutiva depende da existência de um consumo de energia superior ao necessário para manter as funções fisiológicas essenciais do corpo e as funções de produção, como termorregulação, locomoção, crescimento, manutenção celular ou lactação. Considera-se que o efeito da nutrição na atividade reprodutiva é maior nas fêmeas do que nos machos, devido a uma maior demanda de energia exigida pelas fêmeas para manter uma gestação do começo ao fim (figura 19). Quando o consumo de energia é insuficiente, a função reprodutiva é bloqueada para não comprometer as funções vitais. Desta forma, os animais pré-púberes que sofreram deficiências nutricionais durante o seu crescimento apresentam um atraso no início da sua atividade reprodutiva. Assim, existem sinais metabólicos ao nível do sistema nervoso central, como o IGF-I e a leptina, que indicam ao organismo o grau de desenvolvimento somático do indivíduo. Animais adultos que já iniciaram sua atividade reprodutiva também podem ser afetados pela nutrição, de forma que sua ciclicidade pode ser interrompida por perdas de peso corporal igual ou superior a 20%. Da mesma forma, o reinício da atividade ovariana pós-parto é retardado quando as fêmeas estão submetidas a dietas deficientes em proteínas, energia, minerais etc. -/- Figura 19: comparação das condições corporais em vacas leiteiras. À esquerda: uma vaca com uma condição corporal adequada, que está ciclando normalmente. À direita: vaca em péssimo estado corporal e, portanto, em anestro. -/- As deficiências nutricionais de energia e proteína não afetam diretamente os níveis circulantes de FSH em animais intactos, mas o efeito da desnutrição pode ser mascarado por feedback negativo dos hormônios ováricos sobre a secreção de FSH, uma vez que os animais ovariectomizados com uma boa condição corporal têm maiores concentrações de FSH que os de condição corporal pobre. Em contraste, a secreção de LH é altamente sensível a deficiências nutricionais e a mudanças na condição corporal. O diâmetro do folículo dominante é reduzido quando os animais estão a perder peso, o que se correlaciona com uma diminuição na produção de estradiol, o que diminui a secreção de LH e consequentemente é evitada a maturação folicular terminal e a ovulação, o que os animais entrarem em anestro. No pós-parto, a ciclicidade se recupera quando as concentrações basal e média de LH, bem como a sua frequência de secreção aumenta para exceder o nadir do balanço energético (este último é atingido quando o fornecimento de energia está no ponto mínimo e está excedido pelas exigências de mantença do organismo). O ECC possui relação direta com as taxas reprodutivas dos animais. Em bovinos um ECC ideal é entre 3,5 e 4,5 para o período reprodutivo. Com relação do ECC sobre o estro, estima-se que num rebanho de 100 vacas com ECC 2,5 cerca de 47 entram em cio, e dessas apenas 27 conseguem conceber. Por outro lado, no mesmo rebanho de 100 vacas, mas com ECC igual a 3, cerca de 62 vacas entram em cio normalmente e dessas 40 conseguem engravidar. Já com um ECC 3,5, 68 vacas entram em estro normalmente e dessas 46 conseguem engravidar. -/- Efeitos independentes de gonadotropinas -/- A importância das gonadotropinas no crescimento e maturação folicular já foi revisada neste trabalho; também deve ser mencionado que, além das gonadotropinas, existem outros fatores que podem intervir na regulação do desenvolvimento folicular e da ciclicidade. Um exemplo do anterior é o flushing: manejo nutricional que consiste na suplementação de uma fonte energética de rápida absorção, em que o aumento do número de folículos em desenvolvimento tem inicialmente um controle independente do eixo hipotálamo-hipófise-gonodal e é mediado por fatores que participam do controle do metabolismo energético do animal, que estão intimamente relacionados às mudanças nutricionais. Esses fatores incluem insulina, fator de crescimento semelhante à insulina I (IGF-I) e hormônio do crescimento (GH). O IGF-I é secretado principalmente pelo fígado em resposta à estimulação do GH e é creditado na regulação de muitas das ações do GH, portanto, quando o GH é administrado, as concentrações de insulina e IGF-I estão aumentadas e um aumento no número de folículos ovarianos é observado em suínos, bovinos, caprinos e ovinos. O IGF-I, da mesma forma, modula a secreção de GH por um efeito de feedback negativo, de modo que no início do pós-parto, quando o animal está em balanço energético negativo, as concentrações de insulina e IGF-I diminuem, enquanto as de GH aumentam. A insulina e o IGF-I estimulam a proliferação e esteroidogênese das células da granulosa e da teca no folículo. Outro fator que interfere na manifestação da atividade reprodutiva é a quantidade de gordura corporal. -/- Fatores sociais (sociabilidade) -/- Existem diferentes interações sociais que são capazes de modificar o início da atividade reprodutiva durante o período de transição para a puberdade ou para a estação reprodutiva, ou ainda de sincronização e manifestação dos ciclos estrais. Entre os fatores sociais o efeito fêmea-fêmea foi bem documentado em pequenos ruminantes, onde a introdução de fêmeas ciclando (em cio) a um grupo de fêmeas em anestro estacional adianta a estação reprodutiva induzindo e sincronizando a ovulação. Quando as porcas pré-púberes, por outro lado, são alojadas em pequenos grupos de dois ou três animais, o início da puberdade é retardado em comparação com indivíduos alojados em grupos maiores. A bioestimulação das fêmeas através do contato com um macho é conhecida como efeito macho (figura 20). Foi determinado que imediatamente após a introdução do macho se inicia o desenvolvimento e maturação folicular como uma resposta a um aumento na secreção de LH. Esse efeito será explicado em próximos trabalhos de minha autoria. -/- Estresse -/- Em vários estudos, foi demonstrado que o estresse pode bloquear a ciclicidade, devido ao aumento nas concentrações de corticosteroides ou opioides que causam redução na resposta da hipófise ao GnRH. Alojamentos inadequados, um ambiente social adverso e deficiências no manejo são considerados condições estressantes. -/- Figura 20: efeito do macho sobre as fêmeas (suínos). -/- REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS -/- AURICH, Christine. Reproductive cycles of horses. Animal reproduction science, v. 124, n. 3-4, p. 220-228, 2011. AISEN, Eduardo G. Reprodução ovina e caprina. MedVet, 2008. BARTLEWSKI, Pawel M.; BABY, Tanya E.; GIFFIN, Jennifer L. Reproductive cycles in sheep. Animal reproduction science, v. 124, n. 3-4, p. 259-268, 2011. BEARDEN, Henry Joe et al. Reproducción animal aplicada. México: Manual Moderno, 1982. CHRISTIANSEN, I. J. Reprodução no cão e no gato. São Paulo: Manole, 1988. CONCANNON, Patrick W. Reproductive cycles of the domestic bitch. Animal reproduction science, v. 124, n. 3-4, p. 200-210, 2011. COLAZO, Marcos Germán; MAPLETOFT, Reuben. Fisiología del ciclo estral bovino. Ciencia Veterinaria, v. 16, n. 2, p. 31-46, 2017. CUPPS, Perry T. (Ed.). Reproduction in domestic animals. Elsevier, 1991. . Fisiologia Clínica do Ciclo Estral de Vacas Leiteiras: Desenvolvimento Folicular, Corpo Lúteo e Etapas do Estro. . Fisiologia do Estro e do Serviço na Reprodução Bovina. DERIVAUX, Jules; BARNABÉ, Renato Campanarut. Reprodução dos animais domésticos. Acribia, 1980. DUKES, Henry Hugh; SWENSON, Melvin J.; REECE, William O. Dukes fisiologia dos animais domésticos. Editora Guanabara Koogan, 1996. FATET, Alice; PELLICER-RUBIO, Maria-Teresa; LEBOEUF, Bernard. Reproductive cycle of goats. Animal reproduction science, v. 124, n. 3-4, p. 211-219, 2011. FERREIRA, A. de M. Reprodução da fêmea bovina: fisiologia aplicada e problemas mais comuns (causas e tratamentos). Juiz de Fora: Minas Gerais–Brasil, p. 422, 2010. FORDE, N. et al. Oestrous cycles in Bos taurus cattle. Animal reproduction science, v. 124, n. 3-4, p. 163-169, 2011. HAFEZ, Elsayed Saad Eldin; HAFEZ, Bahaa. Reprodução animal. São Paulo: Manole, 2004. HIDALGO, Galina et al. Reproducción de animales domésticos. México: Limusa, 2008. HOPPER, Richard M. (Ed.). Bovine reproduction. John Wiley & Sons, 2014. MCKINNON, Angus O. et al. (Ed.). Equine reproduction. John Wiley & Sons, 2011. MEIDAN, R. et al. Intraovarian regulation of luteolysis. JOURNAL OF REPRODUCTION AND FERTILITY-SUPPLEMENT-, p. 217-228, 1999. NETT, T. M. et al. Pituitary receptors for GnRH and estradiol, and pituitary content of gonadotropins in beef cows. I. Changes during the estrous cycle. Domestic Animal Endocrinology, v. 4, n. 2, p. 123-132, 1987. NISWENDER, Gordon D. et al. Mechanisms controlling the function and life span of the corpus luteum. Physiological reviews, v. 80, n. 1, p. 1-29, 2000. NORMAN, Anthony W.; LITWACK, Gerald. Hormones. Academic Press, 1997. PATTERSON, David J. et al. Control of estrus and ovulation in beef heifers. Veterinary Clinics: Food Animal Practice, v. 29, n. 3, p. 591-617, 2013. PLANT, Tony M.; ZELEZNIK, Anthony J. (Ed.). Knobil and Neill's physiology of reproduction. New York: Academic Press, 2014. RANGEL, L. Ciclo estral. In. PORTA, L. R.; MEDRANO, J. H. H. Fisiología reproductiva de los animales domésticos. Cidade do México: FMVZ-UNAM, 2018. REKAWIECKI, R. et al. Regulation of progesterone synthesis and action in bovine corpus luteum. J Physiol Pharmacol, v. 59, n. suppl 9, p. 75-89, 2008. REYNOLDS, L. P.; REDMER, D. A. Growth and development of the corpus luteum. JOURNAL OF REPRODUCTION AND FERTILITY-SUPPLEMENT-, p. 181-191, 1999. RIPPE, Christian A. El ciclo estral. In: Dairy Cattle Reproduction Conference. 2009. p. 111-116. SANGHA, G. K.; SHARMA, R. K.; GURAYA, S. S. Biology of corpus luteum in small ruminants. Small Ruminant Research, v. 43, n. 1, p. 53-64, 2002. SARTORI, R.; BARROS, C. M. Reproductive cycles in Bos indicus cattle. Animal Reproduction Science, v. 124, n. 3-4, p. 244-250, 2011. SENGER, Phillip L. et al. Pathways to pregnancy and parturition. Current Conceptions, Inc., 1615 NE Eastgate Blvd., 1997. SMITH, Matthew J.; JENNES, Lothar. Neural signals that regulate GnRH neurones directly during the oestrous cycle. Reproduction (Cambridge, England), v. 122, n. 1, p. 1-10, 2001. SOEDE, N. M.; LANGENDIJK, P.; KEMP, B. Reproductive cycles in pigs. Animal reproduction science, v. 124, n. 3-4, p. 251-258, 2011. WEBB, R. et al. Mechanisms regulating follicular development and selection of the dominant follicle. REPRODUCTION-CAMBRIDGE-SUPPLEMENT-, p. 71-90, 2003. WHITTEMORE, Colin et al. The science and practice of pig production. Blackwell Science Ltd, 1998. -/- FIXAÇÃO DO ASSUNTO -/- 1. Disserte sobre o papel do eixo hipotálamo-hipófise-gonadal sobre o ciclo estral dos animais domésticos. -/- 2. Qual a importância do controle endócrino para a apresentação do estro? -/- 3. De acordo com a frequência do ciclo estral, como se classificam as vacas, porcas, éguas, gatas, cadelas, cabras e ovelhas? -/- 4. Defina e diferencia monoéstricas e poliéstricas. -/- 5. Um produtor possui fêmeas em primeiro cio, e deseja introduzi-las na vida reprodutiva. Explique por que não é ideal utilizar fêmeas em primeiro cio na vida reprodutiva? -/- 6. Quais são as etapas do ciclo estral? -/- 7. Defina e diferencia fase folicular e fase lútea. -/- 8. Defina e diferencie os tipos de ovulação e formação do corpo lúteo nas espécies domésticas? -/- 9. Quais os eventos ocorrem durante as fases proestro, estro, metaestro, diestro e inter-estro. -/- 10. Explique por que a égua possui ciclo diferente da vaca? -/- 11. Disserte e diferencie a endocrinologia do ciclo estral da cadela, da égua, da gata e da vaca? -/- 12. Fale sobre o desenvolvimento folicular durante o ciclo estral. -/- 13. Disserte sobre a ovulação das fêmeas domésticas. -/- 14. Defina e diferencie luteinização e luteólise. -/- 15. Disserte sobre os principais fatores que afetam a apresentação e manifestação do ciclo estral. -/- 16. Qual o papel da nutrição e do ECC sobre o ciclo estral? -/- 17. Defina e diferencie efeito fêmea-fêmea e efeito macho sobre a apresentação do estro nas fêmeas. -/- 18. Um produtor de ruminantes possui um rebanho de 10 bezerras, 10 cabritas e 10 cordeiras, todas com 1 mês de idade. Elabore um projeto reprodutivo para que essas fêmeas tenham seu primeiro parto após ciclos estrais normais e sem complicações. -/- Leve em consideração os fatores de idade ao primeiro cio ou a puberdade que é diferente entre as espécies, bem como aos fatores que podem afetar a manifestação do cio. (shrink)

This book is an anthology with the following themes. Non-European Tradition: Bussanich interprets main themes of Hindu ethics, including its roots in ritual sacrifice, its relationship to religious duty, society, individual human well-being, and psychic liberation. To best assess the truth of Hindu ethics, he argues for dialogue with premodern Western thought. Pfister takes up the question of human nature as a case study in Chinese ethics. Is our nature inherently good (as Mengzi argued) or bad (Xunzi’s view)? Pfister ob- (...) serves their underlying agreement, that human beings are capable of becoming good, and makes precise the disagreement: whether we achieve goodness by cultivating autonomous feelings or by accepting external precepts. There are political consequences: whether government should aim to respect and em- power individual choices or to be a controlling authority. Early Greek Thinking: Collobert examines the bases of Homeric ethics in fame, prudence, and shame, and how these guide the deliberations of heroes. She observes how, by depending upon the poet’s words, the hero gains a quasi- immortality, although in truth there is no consolation for each person’s inevi- table death. Plato: Santas examines Socratic Method and ethics in Republic 1. There Socrates examines definitions of justice and tests them by comparison to the arts and sciences. Santas shows the similarities of Socrates’ method to John Rawls’ method of considered judgments in reflective equilibrium. McPherran interprets Plato’s religious dimension as like that of his teacher Socrates. McPherran shows how Plato appropriates, reshapes, and extends the religious conventions of his own time in the service of establishing the new enterprise of philosophy. Ac- cording to Taylor, Socrates believes that humans in general have the task of helping the gods by making their own souls as good as possible, and Socrates’ unique ability to cross-examine imposes on him the special task of helping others to become as good as possible. This conception of Socrates’ mission is Plato’s own, consisting in an extension of the traditional conception of piety as helping the gods. Brickhouse and Smith propose a new understanding of Socratic moral psychology—one that retains the standard view of Socrates as an intellectualist, but also recognizes roles in human agency for appetites and passions. They compare and contrast the Socratic view to the picture of moral psychology we get in other dialogues of Plato. Hardy also proposes a new, non-reductive understanding of Socratic eudaimonism—he argues that Socrates invokes a very rich and complex notion of the “Knowledge of the Good and Bad”, which is associated with the motivating forces of the virtues. Rudebusch defends Socrates’ argument that knowledge can never be impotent in the face of psychic passions. He considers the standard objections: that knowledge cannot weigh incom- mensurable human values, and that brute desire, all by itself, is capable of moving the soul to action. Aristotle: Anagnostopoulos interprets Aristotle on the nature and acquisition of virtue. Though virtue of character, aiming at human happiness, requires a complex awareness of multiple dimensions of one’s experience, it is not properly a cognitive capacity. Thus it requires habituation, not education, according to Aristotle, in order to align the unruly elements of the soul with reason’s knowledge of what promotes happiness. Shields explains Aristotle’s doctrine that goodness is meant in many ways as the doctrine that there are different analyses of goodness for different types of circumstance, just as for being. He finds Aristotle to argue for this conclusion, against Plato’s doctrine of the unity of the Good, by applying the tests for homonymy and as an immediate cons- equence of the doctrine of categories. Shields evaluates the issue as unresolved at present. Russell discusses Aristotle’s account of practical deliberation and its virtue, intelligence (phronesis). He relates the account to contemporary philo- sophical controversies surrounding Aristotle’s view that intelligence is neces- sary for moral virtue, including the objections that in some cases it is unnecessary or even impedes human goodness. Frede examines the advantages and disadvantages of Aristotle’s virtue ethics. She explains the general Greek con- ceptions of happiness and virtue, Aristotle’s conception of phronesis and compares the Aristotle’s ethics with modern accounts. Liske discusses the question of whether the Aristotelian account of virtue entails an ethical-psy- chological determinism. He argues that Aristotle’s understanding of hexis allows for free action and ethical responsibility : By making decisions for good actions we are able to stabilize our character (hexis). Hellenistic and Roman: Annas defends an account of stoic ethics, according to which the three parts of Stoicism—logic, physics, and ethics—are integrated as the parts of an egg, not as the parts of a building. Since by this analogy no one part is a foundation for the rest, pedagogical decisions may govern the choice of numerous, equally valid, presentations of Stoic ethics. Piering interprets the Cynic way of life as a distinctive philosophy. In their ethics, Cynics value neither pleasure nor tradition but personal liberty, which they achieve by self-suffi- ciency and display in speech that is frank to the point of insult. Plotinus and Neoplatonism: Gerson outlines the place of ordinary civic virtue as well as philosophically contemplative excellence in Neoplatonism. In doing so he attempts to show how one and the same good can be both action-guiding in human life and be the absolute simple One that grounds the explanation of everything in the universe. Delcomminette follows Plotinus’s path to the Good as the foundation of free will, first in the freedom of Intellect and then in the “more than freedom” of the One. Plotinus postulates these divinities as not outside but within each self, saving him from the contradiction of an external foundation for a truly free will. General Topics: Halbig discusses the thesis on the unity of virtues. He dis- tinguishes the thesis of the identity of virtues and the thesis of a reciprocity of virtues and argues that the various virtues form a unity (in terms of reciprocity) since virtues cannot bring about any bad action. Detel examines Plato’s and Aristotle’s conceptions of normativity : Plato and Aristotle (i) entertained hybrid theories of normativity by distinguishing functional, semantic and ethical normativity, (ii) located the ultimate source of normativity in standards of a good life, and thus (iii) took semantic normativity to be a derived form of normativity. Detel argues that hybrid theories of normativity are—from a mo- dern point of view—still promising. Ho ̈ffe defends the Ancient conception of an art of living against Modern objections. Whereas many Modern philosophers think that we have to replace Ancient eudaimonism by the idea of moral obligation (Pflicht), Ho ̈ffe argues that Eudaimonism and autonomy-based ethics can be reconciled and integrated into a comprehensive and promising theory of a good life, if we enrich the idea of autonomy by the central elements of Ancient eudaimonism. Some common themes: The topics in Chinese and Hindu ethics are perhaps more familiar to modern western sensibilities than Homeric and even Socratic. Anagnostopoulos, Brickhouse and Smith, Frede, Liske, Rudebusch, and Russell all consider in contrasting ways the role of moral character, apart from intellect, in ethics. Brickhouse / Smith, Hardy, and Rudebusch discuss the Socratic con- ception of moral knowledge. Brickhouse / Smith and Hardy retain the standard view of the so called Socratic Intellectualism. Shields and Gerson both consider the question whether there is a single genus of goodness, or if the term is a homonym. Bussanich, McPherran, Taylor, and Delcomminette all consider the relation between religion and ethics. Pfister, Piering, Delcomminette, and Liske all consider what sort of freedom is appropriate to human well-being. Halbig, Detel, and Ho ̈ffe propose interpretations of main themes of Ancient ethics. (shrink)