La « querelle de la folie » a opposé Michel Foucault et Jacques Derrida. Cette « querelle » a déjà donné matière à plus d'un demi-siècle de débats. Et elle est toujours d'actualité. Pour l'auteure, il s'agit plutôt d'un différend, au sens où l'entend Jean-François Lyotard. Un différend à deux niveaux : celui de l'argument, émanant de la lecture que chaque philosophe a faite de la première méditation cartésienne, mais également, celui qui est tributaire de leur relation. Cet ouvrage apporte, (...) avec l'intégration du niveau relationnel, une nouvelle voie qui reprend la question classique des rapports entre la vie et l'oeuvre, la « biographie » et la « bibliographie » des philosophes. (shrink)

Reflexões sobre a expêriência com o Projeto Filosofia na Escola na Escola GAN (Ginásio da Asa Norte), escola da Rede Pública de Ensino do Distrito Federal, com adolescentes das séries finais do Ensino Fundamental.

In spite of the considerable literature nowadays existing on the issue of the moral exclusion of nonhuman animals, there is still work to be done concerning the characterization of the conceptual framework with which this question can be appraised. This paper intends to tackle this task. It starts by defining speciesism as the unjustified disadvantageous consideration or treatment of those who are not classified as belonging to a certain species. It then clarifies some common misunderstandings concerning what this means. Next, (...) it rejects the idea that there are different kinds of speciesism. Such an idea may result from confusion because there are (1) different ways in which speciesism can be defended; and (2) different speciesist positions, that is, different positions that assume speciesism among their premises. Depending on whether or not these views assume other criteria for moral consideration apart from speciesism, they can be combined or simple speciesist positions. But speciesism remains in all cases the same idea. Finally, the paper examines the concept of anthropocentrism, the disadvantageous treatment or consideration of those who are not members of the human species. This notion must be conceptually distinguished from speciesism and from misothery (aversion to nonhuman animals). Anthropocentrism is shown to be refuted because it either commits a petitio principia fallacy or it falls prey to two arguments: the argument from species overlap (widely but misleadingly known as “argument from marginal cases”) and the argument from relevance. This rebuttal identifies anthropocentrism as a speciesist view. (shrink)

In Zoopolis, Donaldson and Kymlicka argue that intervention in nature to aid animals is sometimes permissible, and in some cases obligatory, to save them from the harms they commonly face. But they claim these interventions must have some limits, since they could otherwise disrupt the structure of the communities wild animals form, which should be respected as sovereign ones. These claims are based on the widespread assumption that ecosystemic processes ensure that animals have good lives in nature. However, this assumption (...) is, unfortunately, totally unrealistic. Most animals are r-strategists who die in pain shortly after coming into existence, and those who make it to maturity commonly suffer terrible harms too. In addition, most animals do not form the political communities Zoopolis describes. The situation of animals in the wild can therefore be considered analogous to one of humanitarian catastrophe, or to that of irretrievably failed states. It matches closely what a Hobbesian state of nature would be like. This means that intervention in nature to aid nonhuman animals should not be limited as Donaldson and Kymlicka argue. (shrink)

Longtermism should not be wrongly defined as the view that we should act so that the future is as good as possible for human beings and their descendants; rather, longtermists should be concerned with what the long-term future may be like for all sentient beings. This includes nonhuman animals, as different risks of future suffering may afflict them. Indifference toward their interests could lead to the worsening of their use as resources, quantitatively and qualitatively. It could also help expand wild (...) animal suffering, a process that may have already begun. (shrink)

Humans often intervene in the wild for anthropocentric or environmental reasons. An example of such interventions is the reintroduction of wolves in places where they no longer live in order to create what has been called an “ecology of fear”, which is being currently discussed in places such as Scotland. In the first part of this paper I discuss the reasons for this measure and argue that they are not compatible with a nonspeciesist approach. Then, I claim that if we (...) abandon a speciesist viewpoint we should change completely the way in which we should intervene in nature. Rather than intervening for environmental or anthropocentric reasons, we should do it in order to reduce the harms that nonhuman animals suffer. This conflicts significantly with some fundamental environmental ideals whose defence is not compatible with the consideration of the interests of nonhuman animals. (shrink)

Drawing on Jewish dimensions in the works of Franz Kafka, Walter Benjamin, Gershom Scholem, Hannah Arendt, and Paul Celan, Vivian Liska reflects on the dialogues between these contemporaries and traces the changing role that Jewish tradition has played in the development of modern thought. She notes how these intellectuals and philosophers transmitted their particular visions of modernity but also viewed them in the light of the Jewish tradition’s legacies and challenges. Liska argues that these visions derive from a paradoxical dynamic, (...) namely that the attempt to break with convention also calls for using deep-seated figures of thought. (shrink)

Este artigo apresenta um quadro conceitual para examinar a questão do especismo. Começa definindo-o como a consideração ou tratamento desfavorável injustificado daqueles que não pertencem a uma determinada espécie. A seguir, esclarece alguns dos mal-entendidos comuns acerca do que é e do que não é o especismo. Depois disso, argumenta contra a confusão entre (1) os diferentes modos em que se pode defender o especismo; e (2) as diferentes posições que assumem o especismo como uma de suas premissas. Dependendo se (...) essas últimas aceitam ou não outros critérios para a consideração moral à parte do especismo, podem ser posições especistas simples ou combinadas. Mas o especismo segue sendo em todos os casos a mesma ideia. Finalmente, este artigo examina o conceito de antropocentrismo, que define como o tratamento ou consideração desfavorável daqueles que não são membros da espécie humana. O conceito de antropocentrismo difere do de especismo e do de misoteria (animadversão para com os animais não humanos). Não obstante, pode-se concluir que o antropocentrismo é uma forma de especismo, à luz do que indicam, entre outros, o argumento da sobreposição de espécies e o argumento da relevância. (shrink)

Many people think we should refrain from intervening in nature as much as possible. One of the main reasons for thinking this way is that the existence of nature is a net positive. However, population dynamics teaches us that most sentient animals who come into existence in nature die shortly thereafter, mostly in painful ways. Those who survive often suffer greatly due to natural causes. If sentient beings matter, this gives us reasons to intervene to prevent such harms. This counterintuitive (...) conclusion can be opposed by arguing that we should not care about nonhuman animals; that other values, such as the existence of certain ecosystemic relations or of untouched wild areas, count for more than the interests of sentient beings; or that intervention in nature cannot succeed. There are, however, strong reasons to reject these claims and to support significant intervention in nature for the sake of animals, despite our deep-rooted intuitions to the contrary. (shrink)

The term “speciesism” has played a key role in debates about the moral consideration of nonhuman animals, yet little work has been dedicated to clarifying its meaning. Consequently, the concept remains poorly understood and is often employed in ways that might display a speciesist bias themselves. To address this problem, this article develops a definition of speciesism in terms of discrimination and argues in favor of its advantages over alternative accounts. After discussing the key desiderata for a definition of discrimination (...) in general and speciesism in particular, a wide and evaluative account of speciesism is presented. According to it, speciesism is unjustified consideration or treatment of those who are not classified as belonging to a certain species. The article then discusses rival accounts, namely narrow and descriptive definitions of speciesism. The article argues that such accounts are problematic as they overly restrict the scope of phenomena that can be identified as speciesist and disrupt the continuity with other forms of discrimination such as racism and sexism. (shrink)

Engaging and thought-provoking, this book examines how we see and treat animals and argues that we should extend equal rights to all species, human and non-human alike. Our world is plighted by 'isms' - racism, sexism and ageism to name a few - but we have one more to add: speciesism. Speciesism is a form of discrimination against those who don't belong to a certain species and it is a concept which raises controversial questions over humanity's very complicated relationship with (...) animals. Forgetting that humans are animals too, this mindset allows us to see animals as objects, rather than individuals with their own interests and with the ability to feel and suffer. This book questions all of these assumptions. Human feelings of superiority have allowed us to feel entitled to own animals as pets, to eat them, to use them for entertainment and to treat them with unkindness and cruelty. Looking at both the use of animals for the production of food, as well as the suffering of wild animals, this book advocates for society to seriously take into account the interests of all animals and argues that we have a duty to treat animals with much greater care, consideration and respect. For all who care about the rights and welfare of animals, this book is essential reading. (shrink)

OSCAR HORTA | : This paper examines the extent of the opposition between environmentalists and those concerned with wild-animal suffering and considers whether there are any points they may agree on. The paper starts by presenting the reasons to conclude that suffering and premature death prevail over positive well-being in nature. It then explains several ways to intervene in order to aid animals and prevent the harms they suffer, and claims that we should support them. In particular, the paper (...) argues in favour of carrying out more research to learn the best ways to intervene without causing more harm to other animals and to intervene first in areas significantly transformed by human action. It then examines what positions environmentalist views can have towards intervention in nature for the sake of animals. It claims that, while ecocentric and naturocentric views will strongly oppose intervention in certain circumstances, they should not do so in other cases in which the values they promote are not at stake or might be outweighed. The paper then argues that, contrary to what it might seem at first, biocentric views should strongly support intervention. It then discusses whether there may be certain practical issues about which those concerned with wild animal suffering and environmentalists may support the same approach, such as opposition to the greening of desert ecosystems. Finally, it claims that raising awareness about wild animal suffering seems to be the most urgent task now for those concerned about it. | : Le présent article examine l’étendue de l’opposition entre les environnementalistes et ceux qui se préoccupent de la souffrance des animaux sauvages, afin de déterminer s’il existe des points sur lesquels ils peuvent être en accord. L’article débute en présentant les raisons permettant de conclure que la souffrance et la mort prématurée l’emportent sur le bien-être positif dans la nature. Ensuite, il explique plusieurs façons d’intervenir afin d’aider les animaux et de prévenir les maux dont ils souffrent et plaide pour la mise en oeuvre de celles-ci. Plus précisément, l’article préconise un plus grand nombre de recherches afin de déterminer les meilleures façons d’intervenir sans causer davantage de maux à d’autres animaux ainsi que pour prioriser des interventions en des endroits que l’action humaine a significativement transformés. L’article examine par la suite les positions que les conceptions environnementalistes peuvent adopter quant aux interventions dans la nature pour le bien des animaux. L’article propose que, bien que des visions écocentriques et naturocentriques s’opposent vivement à l’intervention dans certaines circonstances, elles ne devraient cependant pas s’y opposer dans les cas où les valeurs qu’elles promeuvent n’entrent pas en jeu ou peuvent avoir moins de poids que d’autres facteurs. L’article soutient ensuite que, contrairement à ce que l’on pourrait penser à première vue, les théories biocentristes devraient fortement appuyer l’intervention. Il pose la question à savoir si certains problèmes pratiques peuvent faire l’objet d’une approche commune parmi les environnementalistes et ceux qui se soucient de la souffrance des animaux sauvages, par exemple s’opposer à l’écologisation des déserts. Enfin, l’article propose que la tâche la plus pressante pour ceux qui se préoccupent de la souffrance des animaux sauvages consiste à accroître la sensibilisation à ce problème. (shrink)

The argument from relevance expresses an intuition that, although shared by many applied ethicists, has not been analyzed and systematized in the form of a clear argument thus far. This paper does this by introducing the concept of value relevance, which has been used before in economy but not in the philosophical literature. The paper explains how value relevance is different from moral relevance, and distinguishes between direct and indirect ways in which the latter can depend on the former. These (...) clarifications allow the argument to explain in detail how we can make two claims. The first one is that being a recipient of value should be the only criterion for full moral considerability. This follows if we accept that value relevance should determine, directly or indirectly, moral relevance. The second claim is that, given what the main theories of wellbeing imply regarding what entities can be recipients of value, sentience is both a sufficient and a necessary criterion for full moral considerability. The paper argues that this conclusion stands even if we hold views that consider other values different from sentience. (shrink)

Most philosophers consider olfactory experiences to be very poor in comparison to other sense modalities. And because olfactory experiences seem to lack the spatial content necessary to object perception, philosophers tend to maintain that smell is purely sensational or abstract. I argue in this paper that the apparent poverty and spatial indeterminateness of odor experiences does not reflect the “subjective” or “abstract” nature of smell, but only that smell is not directed to particular things. According to the view defended in (...) this paper, odors are properties of stuffs. This view, motivated by several arguments grounded in the phenomenology of olfactory experience, explains in particular why odors appear to be located both in the air around our nose and in the objects from which they emanate. It also explains the power of smell in the task of discriminating chemical compounds. (shrink)

There are many circumstances in which vegans are treated or considered worse than nonvegans, both in the private and the public sphere, either due to the presence of a bias against them or for structural reasons. For instance, vegans sometimes suffer harassment, have issues at their workplace, or find little vegan food available. In many cases they are forced to contribute to, or to participate in, animal exploitation against their will when states render it illegitimate to oppose or refuse to (...) support some uses of animals. For the most part this remains socially invisible. Vegans, however, often recognize this as a form of discrimination against them. But they seldom campaign against it, as they regard it as a consequence of another and more important discrimination, i.e. speciesist discrimination against nonhuman animals. If this is correct, discrimination against vegans can be characterized as a form of second-order discrimination, that is, discrimination against those who oppose another form of discrimination. If speciesism really is unjustified and discriminatory, then discrimination against vegans will always be discriminatory and unjustified too. But even if our current attitudes towards animals were justified there would be strong reasons to claim that vegans do suffer several forms of private and public discrimination that are unjustified. (shrink)

Axiological egalitarianism claims that an outcome improves at least in some respect if the value it contains is more evenly distributed. In this paper I defend this form of egalitarianism and identify some of its corollaries. First, I consider and reject the levelling down objection. I then point out that egalitarianism casts doubt on the traditional view of the value of life in terms of maximization. Further, I argue that this theory also questions anthropocentric conceptions of value.

El artículo analisa el actual Estado de Derecho en conexión con la redescubierta del valor de la justicia, producida por la Filosofía de los Valores característica del siglo XX, cuya vertiente neokantiana e idealista tendrá un significativo impacto en el Derecho. La justicia surge como el centro simbólico de la experiencia del Derecho, asumiendo papel axial en sus procesos de construcción y concrección. En el marco de la llamada Escuela Iusfilosófica de Minas Gerais, investigase las interfaces (evidentemente interdisciplinares) entre lo (...) jurídico y lo ético. Al retomar la justicia, acabamos construyendo la experiencia del Imperio de los jueces, en el fenómeno llamado justicialización de la política. El gran riesgo de la Era de la Justicia es despolitizar el nomos y el Ethos, como pasa hoy en Brasil. En ese sentido, hay que asumirse la necesaria reconstitucionalización de Brasil, para impedirse el fortalecimiento de las prerrogativas autocráticas judiciales y bien así el vaciamiento de lo político, de lo ideológico y de lo democrático. Afirmase que una comprensión culturalista del Derecho podrá combater la desideologización del Estado y recuperar la dimensión ética del Derecho, sin expoliarlo de la política y la historicidad. (shrink)

Conforme al antropocentrismo moral, está justificado tratar de forma desfavorable a los animales no humanos frente a los seres humanos. Esta idea se mantiene a menudo indicando que hay ciertas capacidades o relaciones, defendidas como moralmente relevantes, que solo tendrían estos últimos. El argumento de la superposición de especies apunta, sin embargo, que esta asunción se encuentra equivocada. Toda una serie de seres humanos incumplen también tal criterio. De este modo, si continuamos defendiendo su relevancia, estaremos aceptando que se dé (...) a estos seres humanos un trato coincidente con el que se proporciona hoy en día a los animales no humanos. Si, en cambio, se quiere dar una plena consideración y un consiguiente trato ecuánime a todos los seres humanos, ello implicará el rechazo de tal criterio, y la extensión de tal consideración y trato a los demás animales sintientes. Se ha intentado responder a este argumento asumiendo que sus premisas son equivocadas, o sosteniendo que hay otras razones por las cuales todos los seres humanos deben ser moralmente considerables. En este artículo se examinan estas respuestas y se concluye que ninguna de ellas tiene éxito. (shrink)

Se sostiene de manera habitual que los animales no pueden ser considerados personas, razón por la cual no es posible efectuar una demanda en su nombre. Este artículo examina tal idea. En él se analizan en primer lugar los distintos sentidos que el término "persona" tiene en el ámbito coloquial, metafísico, moral y jurídico, y se muestra que no hay una conexión necesaria entre estos. Asimismo, se desgranan y evalúan los distintos argumentos a favor del antropocentrismo moral, concluyéndose que ninguno (...) de ellos tiene éxito. Finalmente, se argumenta que si se continúa manteniendo la centralidad en el plano jurídico de la categoría de la personalidad, pero se excluye del alcance de esta a los animales de especies distintas a la nuestra, se incurrirá en una posición que carecerá de justificación moral. (shrink)

The use of the concept of moral status is commonplace today in debates about the moral consideration of entities lacking certain special capacities, such as nonhuman animals. This concept has been typically used to defend the view that adult human beings have a status higher than all those entities. However, even those who disagree with this claim have often accepted the idea of moral status as if it were part of an undisputed received way of thinking in ethics. This paper (...) argues that the use of this concept, however common, distorts our understanding of how to behave towards different individuals in different circumstances. When moral status is identified with the interest in living or the capacity for well-being, it becomes an arbitrary and irrelevant criterion. When it is used as a synonym of moral consideration or considerability, in a way that is compatible with the principle of equal consideration, it becomes trivial and confusing. When used, instead, to defend the unequal moral consideration of interests of equal weight, it has several implausible implications. In particular, the claim that unequal status is justified because of the value of cognitive capacities implausibly entails that our exercising those capacities should have priority over the promotion of our wellbeing. The idea of full moral status is also problematic as it implies the possibility of status monsters. In addition, its use is based in a misconceived way of what it would really entail to have a full status by virtue of having rational capacities. The paper concludes that we have strong reasons to abandon the concept of moral status altogether. (shrink)

The moral consideration of nonhuman animals and the critique of speciesism have been defended by appeal to a variety of ethical theories. One of the main approaches in moral and political philosophy today from which to launch such a defense is egalitarianism, which is the view that we should aim at favoring the worse off by reducing inequality. This paper explains what egalitarianism is and shows the important practical consequences it has for nonhuman animals, both those that are exploited by (...) humans and those in need of aid in the wild. Egalitarianism implies rejecting speciesism, and in practice it prescribes ceasing to exploit nonhuman animals as well as assisting them. Moreover, because they are worse off in comparison to humans, egalitarianism prescribes giving priority to the interests nonhuman animals. Due to this, egalitarianism gives us extra reasons to defend them beyond those entailed by other nonspeciesist approaches. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Philosophy and Rhetoric 33.4 (2000) 303-318 [Access article in PDF] The Threshold of the Self Bradford Vivian The subject has a history. Classical Greek sculpture expressed a fascination with the formal beauty of one's self. Ever gazing outward or upward, the marble figures symbolized the Greek preoccupation with a boldness of being, a constant focus on the ideals of the body and mind, which, through their pursuit, might allow (...) one a foretaste of heaven. Centuries later, as the pagan symbols of the ancient world were replaced with those of the growing Byzantine Empire, blocks of the same marble were fashioned into very different expressions. The ideals of form made manifest in the smooth, taught lines and surfaces of classical Greek sculpture were supplanted by Byzantine art's attention to the less perfect details of the individual: distinctive and common faces, beards, clothing, and less glorified bodies. The gazes of the Byzantine statues were cast down, contemplative, reflecting Byzantium's early Christian emphasis upon the modesty of human existence, the pious appraisal of one's time on Earth. Each of these sculptural styles is a material way of thinking and expressing one's being in the world. In this context, each is also symptomatic of the conditions in which such being was possible.The subject must not be conceived as a transcendent entity. Quite to the contrary, there is a historicity to our being and its expression, to our subjectivity and its elaboration. Within a more sweeping perspective, our epochal narratives of the subject--as well as the modes of thought and speech by which we make sense of ourselves--change with each passing age.At the forefront of the current era is a manifold effort to rethink and elaborate anew the concept of the subject. Feminist scholars have initiated political critique and transformation by arguing that the very notion of a subject in Western discourse has functioned as a trope of masculine privilege cloaked in the language of equality and secular humanism. 1 Postmodernists, of course, define contemporary subjectivity as de-centered and fragmented by nature (e.g., Baudrillard 1994; Latour 1993; Lyotard 1984). And [End Page 303] a variety of interdisciplinary studies illuminate the role of modern science and technology in not only sustaining our being, but actually constituting the human; in short, our daily interdependence and union with artificial body parts, synthetic products, life-support machines, test-tube reproduction, computers, and more, characterizes the arrival of what has been called "the posthuman." 2 Like ancient marble from a quarry, however, all of these materials are sculpted in historically specific ways to simultaneously think and express our subjectivity.What role might rhetoric play in this re-imagining of subjectivity? Modern Western thought has defined the subject according to content--that is, by the nature of the essence or being the subject is said to possess. Drawn around this content, the subject comes to appear enclosed, perhaps autonomous, and identical to itself. In this essay, however, I argue that the self may be conceived as a form--a rhetorical form--that exists only in its continual aesthetic creation, in its indefinite becoming. The self is, by this account, isomorphic with the threshold out of which it is composed. Such a formulation makes the self open to difference, to continual movement and transformation, instead of identical to itself.I aim in this essay to explore the abstract rhetorical forms and functions out of which the self is composed. The distinction here amounts to no longer asking, "What is a subject?" but, "What conditions and forces enable the ongoing production of the self?" Commensurate with such a proposal, it will be essential to ask how this movement--this continual becoming--of the self is brought about. The answer to this question ultimately will amplify the role of rhetoric in, not simply expressing, but actually producing conditions of being. In what follows, I begin by reviewing the very general aspects of subjectivity that I wish to call into question. Thereafter, I explore how the subject might be conceived differently. Finally, I discuss the manner in which rhetoric may... (shrink)

Este artículo examina de qué formas pueden defenderse conjuntamente los métodos de investigación con animales no humanos, el rechazo de los métodos que no impliquen el uso de animales, y la oposición a la experimentación con humanos. El artículo argumenta que la apelación a un salto axiológico o normativo entre el peso de los intereses humanos y de los animales no humanos tiene consecuencias inaceptables. A continuación, presenta otra serie de problemas implicados por las demás posiciones antropocéntricas. Finalmente, argumenta que, (...) aun si se acepta el antropocentrismo, el peso agregado de los intereses de los animales acaba superando al del interés humano en utilizarlos. (shrink)

La relación entre el problema de la temporalidad del valor y el de nuestra persistencia diacrónica prácticamente no ha sido explorada hasta ahora. Sin embargo, el análisis de cada una de estas cuestiones puede arrojar luz sobre la otra de manera interesante. Este artículo argumentará que las conexiones entre la asimetría de nuestras actitudes hacia el futuro y el pasado, y la cuestión de nuestra persistencia diacrónica pueden defenderse sin incurrir en modo alguno a una petición de principio. The relation (...) between the problem of the temporality of value and the problem of our diachronic persistence has virtually not been explored so far. However, the analysis of these questions can shed light on each other in an interesting way. This paper argues that an explanation of the connections between the asymmetry of our attitudes towards the future and the past and the question of our diachronic persistence is possible without begging the question in any way. (shrink)

Según la concepción del daño de la muerte en función del interés relativo al momento, propuesta por Jeff McMahan, nuestro interés en vivir no viene determinado sólo por el valor de nuestra vida futura, sino también por los vínculos prudenciales que nos atan a ésta. McMahan sostiene que tales relaciones dependen de nuestra complejidad psicológica. Esta propuesta respalda algunas asunciones comunes acerca del daño de la muerte. Pero también cuestiona los planteamientos antropocéntricos acerca del valor comparativo de las vidas de (...) los seres humanos, pues toda una serie de seres humanos (como los bebés y aquellos con diversidad funcional intelectual notable) tienen unas capacidades psicológicas inferiores a las de muchos animales no humanos. Por otra parte, no está claro que la fuerza de las relaciones prudenciales venga de hecho determinada por la complejidad psicológica. According to the Time-relative Interest Account of the harm of death, which Jeff McMahan has proposed, our interest in living is not only determined by the value of our future life, but also by the prudential ties which bind us to it. McMahan maintains that such relations depend significantly on our psychological complexity. This proposal backs up some common assumptions as regards the harm of death. But it also questions anthropocentric views regarding the comparative value of the lives of human beings, since a number of humans (such as babies and those with significant intellectual disabilities) have psychological capacities below those of many nonhuman animals. Apart from this, it is not clear whether the strength of prudential relations is actually determined by psychological complexity. (shrink)

Este artigo intenta apresentar uma visão panorâmica da complexidade histórica das relações entre sociedade, estado e meio ambiente no Brasil. Argumenta que a genealogia dessas relações evidencia uma trajetória não linear, multifacetada e conflituosa. Há diversas tradições no palco dos confrontos políticos atuais: o Brasil se destaca por uma longa história de destruição, que remonta ao início da colonização do território, mas também por uma fértil tradição de pensamento conservacionista, significativas lutas socioambientais, e pelo pioneirismo nas pautas globais em prol (...) do ambiente. Recuperar e valorizar a complexidade das relações entre sociedade e ambiente pode ser um ato decisivo na construção de caminhos futuros diversos para a questão socioambiental no Brasil, projetando e demonstrando a riqueza e o vigor de diferentes atores e práticas dissonantes. (shrink)

Todo filosofar, quando compreendido em marcos hegelianos, exige a prévia constituição de conhecimentos científicos, sobre os quais a Filosofia então se volta, como Saber de saberes. Ao tempo de Hegel, a Ciência do Direito (doutrina) — mesmo que buscasse remontar aos gregos e romanos, ou às muitas escolas de estudo e ensino jurídico emergentes com a criação das universidades medievais —, era ainda incipiente e insuficiente para alimentar uma Filosofia do Direito. Por isso, não foi possível a Hegel produzir uma (...) Filosofia do Direito, mas uma Filosofia do Estado. Somente após o desenvolvimento das Ciências Jurídicas, nos séculos XIX e XX, o hegelianismo pôde encontrar na obra de Joaquim Carlos Salgado — filósofo brasileiro do Direito e do Estado, formado pelo introdutor dos estudos hegelianos no Brasil, Henrique Cláudio de Lima Vaz —, uma Filosofia (hegeliana) do Estado e do Direito. O texto reconstitui o itinerário lógico de aparecimento da Filosofia do Direito salgadiana, revelando na história do Direito, do pensamento jurídico e da Filosofia os principais passos necessários à construção de seu pensamento jusfilosófico. Ao redescobrir a obra de Salgado, o Autor é contextualizado no sistema universitário brasileiro e na escola de pensamento que lidera no Brasil por várias décadas — a Escola Jusfilosófica Mineira, sediada em Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, sumarizada no texto para fins informativos —, e seu projeto jusfilosófico é então compreendido como um projeto hegeliano, por isso antes de uma Filosofia do Estado, concebido como Estado de Direito, para então desdobrar-se como uma Filosofia do Direito, centrada na primazia dos direitos fundamentais na arquitetura do Direito. (shrink)

As fábulas de Fedro são surpreendentemente instigantes, ainda na atualidade, porque tratam de temas universais, focalizando questões que envolvem o próprio homem como um ser social. A análise de três fábulas fedrianas - Ouis, canis et lupus; Leo senex, aper, taurus et asinus; Vulpes et ciconia, mostrará de que modo o fabulista se serve das palavras para difundir ideias e defender princípios morais por meio de discursos que transmitem muito mais do que se depreende numa simples e desatenta leitura.