This essay focuses on the impossibility of considering food as ‘a thing.’ It addresses the legal profiles of food from an interdisciplinary perspective by treating the production, signification and consumption of food as semio-spatial categories. The argument starts from the foundational premise that the dynamics of food, as a magmatic flow, comprehensively connect and transform all human activities and ecological aspects of life. Like a stream of radial projections in a mass of fluid, food functions as a semiotic membrane, embodying (...) the fundamental relationality of each human body to the whole globe. The main implication subsequently drawn from this view of ‘food’ is that to eat is always and everywhere to incorporate the entire world. Since food is the epitome of the space and time proactively and enactively involved in its production, in terms of both human activities and natural resources, by the mere fact of eating no human being can avoid recognizing themselves as a space–time cannibal. The consequences of this conclusion for food justice and its spatial dynamics are enormous, and even more so in light of the current ecological crisis. The essay thus critiques many categories related to the food politics of the ecological footprint, including sustainability, bio-diversity, food systems, and the circularity of food and resources. One proposed alternative offered is a chorological reading of human rights and their possible use as semantic-spatial transducers of the activities and phenomena inherent in the ‘food-as-omnilateral-relationship.’ The dynamic and transformative relationship between space, human rights and ecological change emerges clearly. Human action, and thus law are, then, constitutive ‘ingredients’ of food, which comes to the fore as a ubiquitous icon of the interpenetrative relationship between humanity and the becoming of the Earth; being and becoming blur. In the same vein, spaces and actions, facts and values are transformed into moving elements of an overall evolving situation that makes each a means of the other and thereby a generative factor of its significance. (shrink)

Qual o sentido da vida? Por que aqui estamos? Será destino? Será escolha? Neste livro, Mario Sergio Cortella e Leandro Karnal, dois dos maiores pensadores contemporâneos no Brasil, se encontram para refletir sobre essas questões que há séculos fascinam e intrigam a humanidade. A ciência, a filosofia, a religião e a arte têm oferecido algumas possibilidades de resposta que os autores discutem aqui. Afinal, pode ser aterrador imaginar que não há um destino, algo que explique a nossa existência. Por (...) outro lado, a ausência de sentido nos deixa livres para ser e viver conforme desejarmos - embora isso implique também responsabilidade. Mas somos mesmo livres? Seja escolha ou destino, seja a vida um drama que vamos tecendo ou uma tragédia anunciada, fato é que estamos sempre a procurar algum propósito que torne a existência mais significativa. Mas o que explica que algumas pessoas tenham mais sucesso do que outras no que fazem? Seria dom, vocação ou resultado de um esforço? Como os autores apontam, talvez a vida seja menos inspiração e mais transpiração. (shrink)

This collection of essays, written on four continents by scientists, philosophers and humanists, was initially presented to Karl R. Popper on his sixtieth birthday as a token of critical admiration and in recognition of his work. But the volume also stands on its own as a remarkable series of statements utilizing Popper's critical vision in the study of philosophy proper, logic, mathematics, science as method and theory, and finally to the study of society and history. What is remarkable is that (...) Popper worked in all of these areas, not in a cursory or discursive way, but with the utmost clarity and rigor.. The core position of this volume and its contributors is that the progress of knowledge is not a linear accumulation of definitive acquisitions but a zigzagging process in which counterexamples and unfavorable evidence ruin generalizations and prompt the invention of more comprehensive and sometimes deeper generalizations, to be criticized in their turn. A critical approach to problems, procedures, and results in every field of inquiry is therefore a necessary condition for the continuance of progress. The title of this volume then is, in a sense, an homage to Popper's critical rationalism and critical empiricism. The essays are a tribute to his unceasing and uncompromising quest, not for final certainty, but for closer truth and increased clarity. Among the contributors are outstanding figures in philosophy and the exact sciences in their own right, including Herbert Feigl, R. M. Hare, J.O. Wisdom, Nicholas Rescher, David Bohm, Paul K. Feyerabend, F. A. Hayek, and Adolf Grunbaum. Social science contributions include Hans Albert on social science and moral philosophy, W. B. Gallie, on the critical philosophy of history, Pieter Geyl on The Open Society and its Enemies, and George H. Nadel on the philosophy of History. (shrink)

The following essay argues that the Husserlian idea of the epoché could be expanded to cover all aspects of practical life. The first part summarizes the extensive debate developed on this issue in English speaking Phenomenology in the 1970s, one that focused on the relation between the notions of epoché and reduction. In fact, the notion of reduction seems to run counter to the idea of expanding the epoché, insofar as it confines the latter within the narrow horizon of a (...) transcendental subjectivism. But Husserl himself cherished the ambition to return to the world. The second part emphasizes that reduction is an act that operates in the practical world in order to introduce a new type of action. According to the author, the phenomenon of ritual can be considered a sort of action in abeyance, i.e. action free from the burden of natural life. Thus the notion of “relief” could prove the most appropriate for introducing a phenomenological theory of rituals as rules without meanings. The third part deals with the relation between Husserl and the Japanese journal “Kaizō,” which asked him for some contributions. The upshot of this proposal was a certain misunderstanding between the Husserlian emphasis upon the idea of new and the perspective of Japanese culture, that tends to overcome the opposition between innovation and repetition through the juxtaposition of the new and the old. (shrink)

Volume 37, Issue 3, September 2024, Page 150-154.

Poser ces questions, est-il soutenu dans ce recueil qui explore les référents culturels et les imaginaires paysagers issus de l'histoire, des pratiques d'aménagement et des politiques du paysage au Canada et en Europe, n'est-ce pas se ...

The cognitive impairments shown by brain-damaged patients emphasize the role of task difficulty as a major determinant for performance. We discuss the proposal of Kurzban et al. in light of our findings on right-hemisphere–damaged patients, who show increasing awareness deficits for the contralesional hemispace when engaged with resource-consuming dual tasks. This phenomenon is readily explained by the assumption of unspecific depletable resources.

Name der Zeitschrift: Paragrana Jahrgang: 23 Heft: 2 Seiten: 75-84.

Una de las características de la transmisión manuscrita de los _Tractatus _ _de Pedro Hispano es el hecho de que el tratado sobre las _Categorías _no siempre ocupa el mismo lugar al interior de la obra. En algunos manuscritos se encuentra en tercer lugar, después del tratado acerca de la _Isagoge _de Porfirio, siguiendo el orden tradicional de la _logica vetus. _Pero en algunos otros, se encuentra en quinto lugar, después del tratado sobre los _Tópicos _y antes del tratado sobre (...) la suposición. En los dos casos, el lugar de las _Categorías _de Aristóteles en la lógica es definido por la noción de “término”. El propósito de este artículo es entender por qué ocurre esta variación, ya que no es teóricamente neutral. Por tanto, para atender al problema del orden de aparición del tratado sobre las _Categorías _dentro de la lógica, se presentarán tres de los más destacados comentaristas de los _Tractatus_: Juan Buridan, Juan Versor y Pedro Tartaret. Este ejercicio proporcionará algunas conclusiones sobre la relación entre las categorías y la teoría de la suposición, y también sobre la _vexata quaestio _acerca del sujeto de las categorías. (shrink)