Rodrigo Cid

These days philosophy teaching in universities follows two main views: the continental philosophy and the analytic philosophy. Each one of those traditions has very different philosophical and pedagogical practices. My objectives in this article are: 1. to show the distinctions between the practices that continental and analytical philosophies cultivated at the universities; 2. to indicate that there is a confusion at the characterization of what is analytic philosophy, and that the critics driven to it are in fact driven to logical positivism; 3. to show that the analytic practices are the ones we consider as genuinely philosophical. / Atualmente o ensino de Filosofia nas universidades tem seguido duas visões principais: a filosofia continental e a filosofia analítica. Cada uma dessas duas tradições diferem bastante em suas práticas filosófica e pedagógica. Meus objetivos neste artigo são: 1. mostrar as distinções entre as práticas cultivadas dentro das universidades pela filosofia continental e pela filosofia analítica; 2. indicar que há uma confusão na caracterização do que é filosofia analítica e que as críticas a ela dirigidas na verdade apontam para o positivismo lógico; 3. mostrar que as práticas analíticas são aquelas que consideramos como genuinamente filosóficas.

When we ask ourselves about the meaning of life, two analyses are possible in principle: 1. that we are asking something about the purpose or the reason of being of life or of a life, or 2. that we are asking something the value of life or of a life. At the present article, I do not approach 1 neither the life as a whole, but I take the individual lives in the context of 2. I briefly explain what would be to someone to have an objectivist conception of the meaning of life and what would be to someone to have a subjectivist one; and, then, I try to show how we can think in formulas that can capture the intuitions of those conceptions, without acquiring commitment with none of them. My way is to show that both objectivist and subjectivist conceptions think the meaning of life as related to projects or realizations that fulfill principles of value (the value can be objective or subjective according to the adopted conception), and ten I try to indicate that the projects or realizations from a person’s life come together through a simple sum to make the meaning of life of such a person’s life. The way I suggested for us to find the value of one of those realizations does not seem to present none theoretical problem. But the simple sum of realizations (and/or projects) to represent the value of the meaning of a person’s life simply did not work. That’s because it seems to lack some kind of index that is able to formalize the relations between realizations. Thus, although we couldn’t properly formalize the relation between the realizations that achieve the meaning of someone’s life at a certain moment, we get a good intuitive formalization of the value of a realization and we hope to have started an interesting investigation for future logicians, metaphysicians, mathematicians and theorists of value.

My main purpose in this article is to present an argument for the idea that necessity qua truth in all possible worlds, without other qualifications, leads us to contradiction. If we do not want to accept the contradiction, we will face a dilemma: or accepting that everything we take as contingent is in fact necessary, or accepting that we cannot translate some sentences – at least the indexed to worlds sentences – to the possible worlds vocabulary. We have an intuition – and we develop an argument for it – that if “P”, evaluated in w*, is a contingent truth, so it cannot be the case that “P in w*” is a necessary truth. Generally, the argument tries to show that “P”, evaluated in w*, and “P in w*” are made true by the same contingent fact. If we suppose that “P in w*” is necessary, we would have to suppose that the fact that makes it true is also necessary, which would be contradictory with the fact that makes “P” true in w*, if we accept that what makes “P” in w* and “P in w*” true is the same fact. I attain such an aim by presenting an argument that is divided in two parts, one to imply the contradiction and the other to show that there is no relevant difference between the indicated sentences, by showing how the dilemma arises, and by answering some possible objections. This is an important objective because the possible worlds vocabulary is the default vocabulary to treat the modalities of necessity and possibility. And if it is flawed, it is important that we identify the flaw and fix it – which is exactly what we intend to do at the end of this article, by suggesting some qualification at the necessity notion, that the necessity is the native truth in all possible worlds. And this would save the possible worlds vocabulary from the presented objection.

Abstract: This text is based on a survey in which somehealers from Santana (AP) were interviewed and theirpractices and recipes were cataloged, in addition to theirbeliefs regarding the effectiveness and the mystique of theirbottles [garrafadas]. The importance of this cataloging is toreserve an anthropological heritage from the BrazilianAmazon region for scientific research, whose practices arebeing lost in culture. We present some of the healers whowork with bottles, from the Santana (AP) region, as well asSacaca, the best-known producer and researcher of naturalremedies in Amapá, and his greatest recipes. We concludedby leaving the cataloging open and presenting our results.

This text was produced based on research into the narratives present in the poetic composition of the Marabaixo thieves, under the conception of the Marabaixo singers who produce these songs, and addresses the intentions and motivations of this musical genre. The objective of this work is to identify the elements belonging to the cultural identity of Marabaixo, based on the oral traditions that are embedded in the manifestation through thieves – the name given to the verses that make up the songs of this musical rhythm. The importance of this approach is to promote a closer relationship with the anthropological premises of the songs, allowing them to be described both for academic knowledge and for the appreciation of the Marabaixo manifestation. The research was based on the theory of Luiz Gonzaga Motta (2013), in the context of narrative analysis, which understands that they undergo an interpretative process through the construction of meaning; as a historical contribution, Pereira (1989) and Canto (1998) were able to collaborate in order to understand Marabaixo through the first historical records; Hampâté Bâ (2010) and Ferreira Netto (2008) have grounded the issue of orality and memory linked to oral narratives. This text highlights the most remote communities, represented by some singers who are direct descendants of the first Marabaixo composers. These singers, who are also composers, provided this work through interviews that demonstrate the relevance of the compositions and how the narratives surrounding the manifestation are constituted by oral tradition. The analysis of these narratives considered the social, historical, and cultural contexts, revealing the process of resistance symbolically imbued in the communities.

Temos três objetivos centrais neste ensaio. Primeiro, defender que a liberdade irrestrita de expressão é de fato compatível com a imposição de restrições a certos casos envolvendo ridicularização, e em particular a ridicularização de minorias. Nosso argumento central a favor disto será que a proibição ou punição da ridicularização nos casos relevantes não acarreta restrição à expressão de qualquer conteúdo que seja, mas apenas restrição aos modos como esses conteúdos são expressos. Segundo, mostrar que o tipo de restrição proposta é compatível com pelo menos três argumentos clássicos a favor da liberdade irrestrita de expressão, desenvolvidos por John Stuart Mill. Terceiro, sustentar que existe pelo menos um argumento consequencialista a favor deste tipo de restrição. Defenderemos que nossa perspectiva é imune aos argumentos apresentados por Ronald Dworkin em sua clássica e breve defesa da liberdade de ridicularização.

This paper aims to present the universalsproperties of the Archives, thought of as an archival institution, based on a priori philosophical reflection, to establish fundamentsto determinate the graduationof these properties –and their maximum level, at the Paradigmatic Archive –and to confirm these properties through the forms observed in the General Archive of the Indies, that displays them to some degree. With that, the aim is to build a model for the Archives, determining how they should be. The interdisciplinary approach, between ontology and archivology, was adopted, integrating the method of philosophical reflection with documentary research procedures, based on piecesof fonds from the General Archive of the Indies, collection of images of the author and sources. The discussion addresses aspects of practices, forms and functions, which indicate the essence of the Archives and their path towards their paradigmatic ideality. The General Archive of the Indies is presented as a particular example that exemplifies these essential properties. Our conclusion is that there are certain essential universal properties of Archives, or archival institutions, which are: accessibility, durability and practicality. In addition, the proposed model is applicable for the institutionalization of Archives and also for the construction, reforms, implantations, the creation of new spaces, adaptations, restructuring in buildings and institutional uses of the Archive.

This paper aims to analyze Blockchain technologies and decentralized storage systems (IPFS and Arweave) through the lens of the Paradigmatic Archive (PA) concept, as formulated by Aldabalde and Cid (2020). Starting from an a priori philosophical reflection on the universal properties of Archives – accessibility, durability, and practicality –, it seeks to demonstrate how these digital structures not only instantiate such properties but often do so to a high degree, approaching the paradigmatic ideal. An interdisciplinary approach, situated at the intersection of Ontology, Information Science, and Information Technology, examines how the immutability, decentralization, transparency, and programmatic accessibility inherent in these systems perform the archival functions of custody, preservation, and access in an innovative way. It is concluded that, although they are non-traditional entities, Blockchain, IPFS, and Arweave can be considered Archives in the full sense, exhibiting the essential properties to a notable degree and offering a new reference model for the design of archival institutions in the digital environment.

This article defends the position of unrestricted use of artificial intelligence in intellectual production, provided that there is a human agent with authority in the domain who publicly assumes responsibility for the result through signature. I initially examine the rival positions — the restrictivist one, which advocates total prohibition, and the moderate one, which attempts to draw lines between legitimate and illegitimate uses — presenting their best arguments and their respective difficulties. I then develop the defense of the unrestricted position, addressing the main objections: incomprehension, fragmentation of authorship, institutional erosion, devaluation of human work, and the practical difficulty of detection. I argue that responsible signature, combined with robust mechanisms of public scrutiny, can preserve epistemic integrity without resorting to unenforceable prohibitions or unstable distinctions. I conclude with an appeal for the Brazilian philosophical community to place this debate at the center of its public concerns.

This book offers a comprehensive philosophical investigation of contemporary artificial intelligence through the interconnected domains of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. Drawing on both classical philosophical debates and recent developments in machine learning, neural networks, and large language models, the authors examine fundamental questions concerning the nature of intelligence, consciousness, knowledge, responsibility, and moral agency in artificial systems. The work contrasts functionalist and biological-naturalist theories of mind, analyzes the epistemic opacity of “black-box” AI systems, explores algorithmic bias and justice, and investigates ethical dilemmas involving autonomous systems, surveillance, manipulation, and the future of labor. Beyond theoretical analysis, the book situates AI within broader historical, technical, and sociopolitical contexts, including Latin American and Brazilian perspectives often neglected in dominant anglophone discussions. A distinctive methodological feature of the work is its explicit reflection on the use of generative AI systems as collaborative instruments in philosophical research and writing, accompanied by proposals for transparent and ethically responsible academic practices. Intended both for students and researchers, the book combines technical accessibility with analytical rigor, aiming to provide conceptual tools for critically understanding the philosophical challenges posed by artificial intelligence in the twenty-first century.

O objetivo deste texto é apresentar o problema da definição de objeto de arte e algumas teorias que tentam fornecer uma resposta, tal como suas vantagens e desvantagens. Apresentamos também o problema da distinção entre objeto de arte e objeto de artesanato, tal como as desvantagens e vantagens de possíveis critérios para essa distinção. Essa discussão é importante, pois integra uma sub-área da filosofia, que é a metafísica da arte, numa discussão fundamental, para estabelecermos a natureza de grande parte dos objetos da apreciação estética. Ainda que não apontemos para uma resposta definitiva a essas questões, mostramos as dificuldades de várias respostas, trazendo um conhecimento negativo, sobre quais teorias e argumentos não funcionam, para a filosofia.

If we want to say what “fundamentality” means, we have to start by approaching what we generally see at the empty place of the predicate “____ is fundamental”. We generally talk about fundamental entities and fundamental theories. At this article, I tried to make a metaphysical approach of what is for something to be fundamental, and I also tried to talk a little bit of fundamental incomplete and complete theories. To do that, I start stating the notion of “entity” and looking at the difference at perceived entities. The difference led us to talk about the entities’ structures and their powers, and about the supervenience between these last two. The supervenience talk made us to see the fight between emergentism and reductionism as the difference between the irreducibility of laws and the reducibility of powers and structures to lower-order domains. Then, we conclude that “fundamentality” is a mereological relation – a relation that a whole structure has to a certain combination of its structural parts or that a power has to a certain combination of its constituent powers – of to be identical and to exist in virtue of them.

Neste capítulo, Loux apresenta alguns problemas com relação às modalidades e algumas das relações entre elas e o vocabulário dos mundos possíveis, expondo as duas principais posições ontológicas com relação a tais mundos e às modalidades e com relação à natureza das modalidades, a saber, o possibilismo e o actualismo, defendidos respectivamente por Lewis e Plantinga. Essas são teorias inconsistentes entre si, que intentam nos dizer se os mundos possíveis são concretos ou abstratos e se existe algo além do que é actual.

In this paper, I intend to argue against Alexander Bird‟s thesis (2001) that the law salt dissolves in water is metaphysically necessary. I briefly indicate Bird‟s argument for the necessity of such law, and then I provide a counter-argument to his thesis. In a general way, Bird wants to show that the existence of certain substances depends on the truth of certain laws, and that because of this the existence of such substances implies the existence of such laws. That would make the laws existing at least while the substance it rules exists; what, for Bird, makes such laws metaphysically necessary. My counter-argument to Bird is that such conception apprehends just what we call “weak necessity”, and not the strong necessity we would like a metaphysically necessary law to have.

Este livro marca o início da Série Investigação Filosófica. Uma série de livros de traduções de textos de plataformas internacionalmente reconhecidas, que possa servir tanto como material didático para os professores das diferentes subáreas e níveis da Filosofia quanto como material de estudo para o desenvolvimento pesquisas relevantes na área. Nós, professores, sabemos o quão difícil é encontrar bons materiais em português para indicarmos. E há uma certa deficiência na graduação brasileira de filosofia, principalmente em localizações menos favorecidas, com relação ao conhecimento de outras línguas, como o inglês e o francês. Tentamos, então, suprir essa deficiência, ao introduzirmos traduções de textos importantes ao público de língua portuguesa, sem nenhuma finalidade comercial e meramente pela glória da filosofia. O presente volume é constituído de três traduções de verbetes importantes sobre lógica, da Enciclopédia de Filosofia da Stanford: (1) A Lógica de Aristóteles, (2) Lógica Clássica, (3) Lógica Modal.

A primeira tese de Sober é que não podemos agir livremente, a não ser que o Argumento da Causalidade ou o Argumento da Inevitabilidade tenham alguma falha. O Argumento da Causalidade é o seguinte: nossos estados mentais causam movimentos corporais; mas nossos estados mentais são causados por fatores do mundo físico. Nossa personalidade pode ser reconduzida à nossa experiência e à nossa genética. E tanto a experiência quanto a genética foram causados por itens do mundo físico. Assim, o meio ambiente e os genes são os causadores de nossas crenças e desejos. E estes, por sua vez, causam o nosso comportamento. Como, em última instância, não escolhemos nem os nossos genes e nem o meio ambiente no qual adquirimos as nossas experiências, também não escolhemos o nosso comportamento: ele é causado por fatores além do nosso controle; isso nos faz não ser livres. E o Argumento da Inevitabilidade é exposto por Sober assim: se uma ação foi praticada livremente, então deve ter sido possível ao agente agir de outra forma. Mas, dado que as causas de nossas ações são as nossas crenças e desejos, não poderíamos ter agido diferentemente de como elas nos determinam a agir.

This article intends to present the thought of Wittgenstein – mainly from his notes at Philosophical Investigations (PI), Remarks on the Philosophy of Psychology (RPP), and Last Writings on the Philosophy of Psychology (LW) – and of his commentators about important thesis on memory. This one is a major epistemic problem, since our knowledge of the past facts comes from it. Provided that it sometimes fails, is important to know of what we are talking about when we use the term “memory” and to know how can we trust it.

É comum, até entre os leigos, a dúvida sobre a realidade do tempo. Pensamos que é possível que o tempo seja uma ilusão e que a percepção de sua passagem seja apenas percepção de outra coisa que não o tempo. Há uma série de argumentos, feitos por filósofos, tanto para defender, quanto para atacar a intuição de que o tempo é real. Um deles, e talvez o mais conhecido, é o argumento de McTaggart, que tenta estabelecer certa condição para que exista o tempo e que o tempo, pensado segundo tal condição e aplicado à realidade, nos leva a uma contradição; o que o faz concluir que o tempo não pode existir, e que, portanto, não existe. O que eu pretendo neste artigo é expor o argumento de McTaggart junto com algumas objeções originais e não originais, e tentar mostrar que, se aceitamos a abordagem de Prior do fluxo do tempo, o caráter cogente do argumento de McTaggart se perde.

Este artigo visa apresentar o pensamento de Wittgenstein – principalmente a partir desuas notas em Investigações Filosóficas, Observações sobre a Filosofia da Psicologia e Últimos escritos sobre a Filosofia da Psicologia – e a partir de alguns de seuscomentadores, com relação a importantes teses sobre a memória. Esta constitui um grandeproblema epistêmico, na medida em que o nosso conhecimento de fatos passados vem dela.Dado que é algumas vezes falha, é importante sabermos do que estamos falando ao usar o termo“memória” e o quanto podemos confiar nela.

This text is the result of academic research aimed at achieve the goal of finding viable ways to reduce social inequalities in the Brazilian context through the education. Our main focus was the pursuit of reducing violence through education and the ways in which education can promote development and security human in general. In order to achieve this goal with clarity and consistency, I address theoretical and practical issues. The part theory clarifies the essential concepts and establishes the background for the rest of the work. The practical part is a application of these concepts in the Brazilian educational scenario / Este texto é o resultado de uma pesquisa acadêmica que visa atingir o objetivo de encontrar formas viáveis para reduzir as desigualdades sociais no contexto brasileiro por meio da educação. Nosso foco principal foi a busca da redução da violência por intermédio da educação e as maneiras pelas quais a educação pode promover o desenvolvimento e a segurança humana no geral. Para alcançar essa meta com clareza e consistência, abordo questões de cunho teórico e prático. A parte teórica esclarece os conceitos essenciais e estabelece o pano de fundo para o restante do trabalho. A parte prática é uma aplicação desses conceitos no cenário educacional brasileiro.

With this book we want to illustrate the way we philosophers think that public argument and debate should be. Our goal is not to present a collection of academic texts. Although most of us are part of the academy, we want to present to the lay public shorter, more essay-like texts, originally published on an Internet page called Refutations. The page is not, of course, an academic journal; it is a digital magazine with opinion texts that share simplicity, rigor and total accessibility to anyone not initiated to the philosophers' way of thinking. And although the magazine's columnists are friends, they actively disagree on the most diverse topics, such as politics, economics, ethics and art. The reader, therefore, has before him a book with the most varied opinions on some of the main contemporary themes. Naturally, we do not expect to have the last word on any matter. Our intention is much more modest, but also very important: to show that it is possible, even without putting an end to the debates, to think in a creative, clear and civilized way. / Com este livro queremos ilustrar a maneira como nós, filósofos, pensamos que a argumentação e o debate públicos devem ser. Nosso objetivo não é apresentar uma coletânea de textos acadêmicos. Embora a maioria de nós seja parte da academia, queremos apresentar ao público leigo textos mais curtos e ensaísticos, originalmente publicados em uma página na Internet chamada Refutações. A página não é, naturalmente, um periódico acadêmico; trata-se de uma revista digital com textos de opinião que compartilham a simplicidade, o rigor e a total acessibilidade a qualquer não iniciado ao modo de pensar dos filósofos. E, embora os colunistas da revista sejam amigos, eles discordam ativamente a respeito dos mais diversos temas, como política, economia, ética e arte. O leitor, portanto, tem diante de si um livro com as mais variadas opiniões a respeito de alguns dos principais temas contemporâneos. Naturalmente, não esperamos dar a última palavra a respeito de qualquer assunto. Nossa pretensão é bem mais modesta, mas também muito importante: mostrar que é possível, mesmo sem colocar pontos finais aos debates, pensar de forma criativa, clara e civilizada.

The aim of this paper is to indicate the purpose of education and how it implies changes in the curricula of basic education and in the methods of teaching, guidance and evaluation. We start with the concepts of capacities and overlapping consensus, created respectively by Amartya Sen and John Rawls, and find something that we can call a good life and what it means to improve life. So, we established that education should have as its primary function to enable the subject to lead a good life in harmony with the social environment. To decide whether the basic educational curriculum fulfills this function, we started with an analysis of school subjects. We realized that both the curriculum and the teaching methods were important for the fulfillment of the function of education, and that Brazilian basic education fails to fulfill these two points satisfactorily, as the current curriculum does not fully enable the individual to lead a good life and teaching methods are not guided and evaluated pedagogically by professionals. Anyway, the conclusion we reached was that we need certain changes in the curriculum and teaching methods. / O objetivo deste artigo é indicar qual a finalidade da educação e como isso implica modificações nos currículos da educação básica e nos métodos de orientação e avaliação de ensino. Partimos dos conceitos de capacidades e consenso sobreposto, criados respectivamente por Amartya Sen e John Rawls, e encontramos algo que podemos chamar de vida boa e o que significa melhoria de vida. Então, estabelecemos que a educação deve ter como função primordial capacitar o sujeito a levar uma vida boa em harmonia com o meio social. Para decidirmos se o currículo educacional básico cumpre essa função, partimos para uma análise das disciplinas escolares. Percebemos que tanto o currículo, quanto os métodos de ensino eram importantes para a realização da função da educação, e que a educação básica brasileira não consegue cumprir esses dois pontos satisfatoriamente, pois o currículo atual não capacita plenamente o indivíduo a levar uma vida boa e os métodos de ensino não são orientados e avaliados pedagogicamente por profissionais. Enfim, a conclusão que chegamos foi a de que precisamos de certas mudanças no currículo e nos métodos de ensino.

In this article, I intend to show what the metaphysical possibility is, distinguishing it from the logical and the physical possibilities, and then to indicate that at least there is two kinds of metaphysical possibilities, i.e., the potentialities of the things and the possibilities of the events to occur. This is an important goal because it makes clearer the discussion about possibilities. To show what the metaphysical possibility is, I try to show that we need an absolute modality for the debate about what is possible do not be trivial. And to indicate that there are two kinds of metaphysical possibilities, I show that we can talk independently about these two notions of possibility, and that the debate between determinism and indeterminism presupposes such distinction. The conclusion we achieve is that there really are these two kinds of metaphysical possibilities, and that if we don’t want to be ambiguous, we have good reasons to use such distinction in our theories about the possibilities.

In this paper I intend to present the Dilemma of Continuity of Matter and a possible solution to it. This dilemma consists in choosing between two misfortunes in explaining the continuity of matter: or to say that material objects are infinitely divisible and not explain what constitutes the continuity of some kind of object, or to say that there is a certain kind of indivisible object and not explain what constitutes the continuity of such an object. The solution we provide is precisely the thesis that material objects consists of points, a thesis we try to make clearer, although we have not developed it much.