Jairo Da Silva

O objetivo do presente artigo é apresentar e confrontar os pressupostos de duas tradições interpretativas _Leviatã _de Thomas Hobbes. Pretendo demonstrar como, a partir dos pressupostos e dos critérios de interpretação de cada uma delas, teremos não apenas duas abordagens diversas, mas resultados e soluções distintas para problemas políticos e morais que o próprio Hobbes buscou solucionar com essa obra. Na primeira parte do artigo, apresentarei os aspectos inovadores da nova interpretação do _Leviatã_ em contraposição às interpretações tradicionais ou ortodoxas. Na segunda parte, confrontarei essa abordagem com a abordagem tradicional sobre um problema específico, mas central na filosofia de Hobbes: o problema da desordem social. Apresentarei a tese tradicional segundo a qual a solução para o problema da desordem seria criar um poder capaz de impor sanções que não permitissem que o interesse racional egoísta atuasse de forma irrestrita. Em seguida, apresentarei a solução revisionista segundo a qual a solução seria produzir uma estável e apropriada reconfiguração dos diversos interesses morais e religiosos dos cidadãos através de um processo de educação contínua responsável pelo consenso social.

In his book Chateaubriand points out some differences between the mathematical and the formal notions of proof. I argue here that the contrast between both cannot be exaggerated, and that the latter fails to represent essential aspects of the former. I also sketch a view of the nature of mathematics that can accommodate one particular feature of mathematical proofs the formal notion, by its very nature, cannot: their freedom.Em seu livro, Chateaubriand aponta algumas diferenças entre a noção formal e a noção matemática de demonstração. Eu argumento que o contraste entre ambas não pode ser maior, e que aquela é incapaz de capturar alguns aspectos essenciais desta. Eu apresento também um esboço de uma teoria sobre a natureza da matemática capaz de acomodar um aspecto particular das demonstrações matemáticas que a noção formal, pela sua própria natureza, não pode: a liberdade que por direto cabe àquelas

I discuss here the pragmatic problem in the philosophy of mathematics, that is, the applicability of mathematics, particularly in empirical science, in its many variants. My point of depart is that all sciences are formal, descriptions of formal-structural properties instantiated in their domain of interest regardless of their material specificity. It is, then, possible and methodologically justified as far as science is concerned to substitute scientific domains proper by whatever domains —mathematical domains in particular— whose formal structures bear relevant formal similarities with them. I also discuss the consequences to the ontology of mathematics and empirical science of this structuralist approach.

In this paper I argue for the view that the axioms of ZF are analytic truths of a particular concept of set. By this I mean that these axioms are true by virtue only of the meaning attached to this concept, and, moreover, can be derived from it. Although I assume that the object of ZF is a concept of set, I refrain from asserting either its independent existence, or its dependence on subjectivity. All I presuppose is that this concept is given to us with a certain sense as the objective focus of a ”phenomenologically reduced“ intentional experience.The concept of set that ZF describes, I claim, is that of a multiplicity of coexisting elements that can, as a consequence, be a member of another multiplicity. A set is conceived as a quantitatively determined collection of objects that is, by necessity, ontologically dependent on its elements, which, on the other hand, must exist independently of it. A close scrutiny of the essential characters of this conception seems to be sufficient to ground the set-theoretic hierarchy and the axioms of ZF.

In this paper, I carry out a comparative study of the philosophical views of Edmund Husserl and Hermann Weyl on issues such as mathematical existence and mathematical intuition, the validity of classical logic, the concept of logical definiteness, the nature of symbolic mathematics, the role of mathematics in empirical science, the relation of scientific theories with perception, space representation and the philosophy of geometry, and intentional constitution in general. My main goal is not simply to assess the extent of Husserl’s influence on Weyl, although this is an ever present concern, but to clarify the views of one by contrasting them with those of the other.

The main concern of this paper is the justification of the axioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, either as true statements about a concept of set or, alternatively, as true statements about abstract objects . I want to argue here that, in either case, set theory can be seen as a body of knowledge largely built on intuitive foundations . I call this inquiry “phenomenological” for it approaches its subject from the perspective of the intentional acts that originate sets as doubly dependent objects . Such an inquiry, I believe, brings to light the essential characters of sets as objects or, alternatively, the concept of set, which the axioms of the theory express

I discuss here the pragmatic problem in the philosophy of mathematics, that is, the applicability of mathematics, particularly in empirical science, in its many variants. My point of depart is that all sciences are formal, descriptions of formal-structural properties instantiated in their domain of interest regardless of their material specificity. It is, then, possible and methodologically justified as far as science is concerned to substitute scientific domains proper by whatever domains —mathematical domains in particular— whose formal structures bear relevant formal similarities with them. I also discuss the consequences to the ontology of mathematics and empirical science of this structuralist approach.

The main concern of this paper is the justification of the axioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, either as true statements about a concept of set or, alternatively, as true statements about abstract objects. I want to argue here that, in either case, set theory can be seen as a body of knowledge largely built on intuitive foundations. I call this inquiry “phenomenological” for it approaches its subject from the perspective of the intentional acts that originate sets as doubly dependent objects. Such an inquiry, I believe, brings to light the essential characters of sets as objects or, alternatively, the concept of set, which the axioms of the theory express.

Neste artigo, relato os aspectos mais salientes do affair Sokal-Bricmont - uma paródia que evoluiu para uma crítica articulada dos excessos de um certo pensamento pós-modernista - e analiso algumas das reações que suscitou em artigos publicados na Folha de S. Paulo. Termino com algumas reflexões sobre a nefasta negligência para com as ciências exatas na educação em geral e, em particular, na formação dos profissionais das áreas de filosofia e ciências humanas.In this paper I summarize some of the most relevant aspects of the so-called Sokal and Bricmont affair - a parody that evolved to a full-fledged criticism of the excesses of post-modernism - and analyze the reactions it elicited in some articles published in Folha de São Paulo. I close with a reflection on the unfortunate neglect of the exact sciences in education in general and, in particular, the education of philosophers and social scientists