Waldomiro Silva Filho

Este ensaio apresenta as seguintes três breves considerações sobre autoconhecimento e transparência : a) a transparência do conteúdo mental é um traço característico do autoconhecimento; b) o tratamento epistemológico da transparência do conteúdo tem obscurecido a noção de autoconhecimento e o lugar que essa noção ocupa na imagem que temos de pessoa e da ação humana e; c) quando digo ter uma crença, a transparência não é um traço lógico ou epistêmico do discurso de primeira-pessoa, mas antes é uma expressão das atitudes pelas quais sou responsável. Com isso, pretendo sugerir que o autoconhecimento não é um conhecimento (que pode ser justificado e garantido teoreticamente), mas uma característica da posição de primeira-pessoa em relação a pensamentos, crenças etc. Nesse sentido, sugiro que, a partir da idéia de deliberação, um caminho interessante para discutir a noção de autoconhecimento é investigar a experiência comunicativa cotidiana

RESUMO Este ensaio visa motivar uma concepção epistêmica não individualista sobre a reflexão. A proposta é não individualista porque (a) não considera apenas o desempenho metacognitivo individual; (b) refere-se a uma situação em que duas ou mais pessoas estão em desacordo dialógico sobre o mesmo assunto ou alvo da proposta; (c) essas pessoas realizam uma disputa com base no espaço de conversação e têm o direito legítimo de esperar umas das outras o compromisso com a busca da verdade, evitar os erros e o entendimento. Chamo esta proposta de Perspectiva Dialética sobre Reflexão. Segundo essa perspectiva, reflexão é uma operação intelectual consciente e intencional por meio da qual uma pessoa toma conhecimento do conteúdo de crenças disputadas em uma troca dialógica ou interpessoal, envolvendo tanto suas próprias crenças quanto as crenças de seus interlocutores. Para essa proposta, a reflexão produz o bem epistêmico de evitar vícios epistêmicos e promover a moderação epistêmica.

Este artigo argumenta que uma Epistemologia da Conversação deve ser compreendida como um campo da Epistemologia Social que se dedica a investigar as normas estritamente epistêmicas que regem a interação entre duas ou mais pessoas acerca de suas crenças e outros estados epistêmicos. Uma definição elementar de conversação é: um ato comunicativo cooperativo nos quais os participantes assumem propósitos comuns e o compromisso de contribuir com declarações (asserções) relevantes. Partindo dessa definição elementar, o artigo apresenta quatro temas que deveriam ser considerados por uma Epistemologia da Conversação: a) que o desacordo é um motivo relevante para a conversação; b) que a conversação é um meio ou método de investigação em casos de desacordo entre pares; c) que as virtudes esperadas dos participantes são virtudes epistêmicas; e d) que qualquer resultado de uma conversação realizará um bem epistêmico.

This essay aims to motivate an epistemic non-individualistic conception of reflection. The proposal is non-individualistic because (a) it addresses more than individual metacognitive performance and (b) it refers to a situation in which two or more people are in dialogical disagreement about the same subject matter or target proposition; (c) their dispute is based on conversational space and they are entitled to expect one another to be engaged in attempts at truth, avoidance of error, and understanding. I call this proposal a Dialectical account of Reflection (DaR). According to (DaR), reflection is a conscious and intentional intellectual operation through which an individual becomes aware of the contents of disputed beliefs in a dialogical or interpersonal exchange, involving both her own beliefs and the beliefs of her interlocutors. In (DaR), reflection produces the epistemic good of avoiding epistemic vices and promoting epistemic moderation.

The subject of this book came up in several different places and dates, scattered in my experience in the countless times I was asked to think, discuss or pronounce myself on the idea that we have (or should have) an ability to judge that is part of our human nature, that we have the power to weigh our own opinions and, with this, conduct our lives and carry out the valuable tasks of properly knowing the world and properly deciding what to do. The fact is that at a certain moment, between readings, conferences, and the anomalies of everyday life, a question occurred to me about the possibility and value of reflection - understood as the act of examining one's own mental states. And I gave myself the task of investigating this. SUMMARY Preface Introduction Chap. 01 - How to get lost in one's own house Chap. 02 - It is still necessary to be neopironic Chap. 03 - The vicissitudes of rationality Chap. 04 - Understanding and the arena of reasons Chap. 05 - For a conversation, two References

This article discusses the notion of rationality and agency in Fernando Broncano's Racionalidad, Acción y Opacidad (2017). In this book, contradicting the apriorist normative theses or simple naturalistic descriptivism, Broncano argues that rationality is something that is directly associated with our ordinary practices of evaluating the judgments, actions and decisions of others. “Rationality” should be considered as a term we use as an intellectual qualifier or as a virtue we bestow on people who can make theoretical and practical decisions autonomously. Thus, rationality would not be an a priori condition for someone to become a person or a capacity to eliminate the turbulence of human cognitive and moral precariousness, but a form of involvement in the world that positively qualifies the organism that relates thought and action, judgment and choice in the search for lucidity in an uncertain world. With this, rationality and agency would be products of the social interdependence that one has in relation to the other, since we learn it and teach it in the context of natural life. This article is organized in three sections: in the first section I make a very brief presentation of one of the aspects of the problem that has motivated the philosophical discussion on rationality and agency; in the second section, I present my understanding of the themes developed in Racionalidad, Acción y Opacidad, their internal structure and, of course, their central thesis; in the third section, I specifically discuss the theme that the normativity of rationality arises from our dialectical encounter with other people and make personal considerations on the value and scope of the arguments constructed in this book.

Na filosofia analítica contemporânea, enquanto alguns epistemólogos afirmam que a reflexão – entendida como autoexame crítico das crenças – é uma condição necessária para a atribuição de estados epistêmicos valiosos, outros rejeitam essa afirmação e sustentam que os filósofos tendem a superestimar o valor da reflexão em seus relatos de fenômenos epistemológicos. Neste ensaio, apresentamos um breve panorama desse debate e indicamos os elementos que constituem o desacordo entre epistemólogos. Nosso diagnóstico é que, a despeito do radical desacordo, essas posições convergem porque tratam a reflexão de um ponto de vista individualista, uma vez que a definem como uma performance metacognitiva privada de um agente sobre os próprios estados epistêmicos. Além de ser um motivo de desacordo, essa concepção de reflexão pode ser a razão de uma compreensão equivocada dos epistemólogos sobre o lugar e valor da reflexão.

O texto compõe-se de duas partes em confronto. Na primeira, mais breve, Waldomiro, partindo de uma posição cético-analítica, levanta um conjunto de críticas e indagações à posição prático-poiética, de Crisóstomo, que, na segunda parte procura responder a cada uma delas. A primeira posição, internalista, toma como central a noção de reflexão; a segunda, externalista, tem como central a noção de prática. Para a primeira, a filosofia deve lidar apenas com problemas isolados, que atrapalhem o fluxo da vida prática. Para a segunda, também do ponto de vista da vida prática, a filosofia pode legitimamente ocupar-se da compreensão geral das coisas, orientadora, sem ser com isso dogmática nem transcendental. Na construção de seu ponto de vista, Crisóstomo parte de sua noção de intencionalidade sensível e de nosso suposto emaranhamento prático-sensível, criativo, com o mundo e as coisas. Um ponto de vista, então, que se pretende prático, não ascético, favorável à criação, que se constrói e se afirma por confronto com o empirismo, enquanto passivo, abstrato, mentalista, dogmático, e também com o linguicentrismo, enquanto idealista, relativista, “agnóstico”. Waldomiro vê com simpatia tal posição mas questiona como possivelmente demasiado ambiciosas sua abrangência, sua forma de justificação dialética, sua aparente redução de conhecimento humano a know-how, e eventuais inconsistências de um contraditório naturalismo criativo. Para Crisóstomo, por outro lado, é o ponto de vista de Waldomiro que arrisca envolver subjetivismo, artificialismo e inconsistência - na sustentação de nossas crenças.

This article deals with two questions: why would the way in which the neopyrronicle conducts his philosophical activity be more virtuous than his dogmatic, non-pyrrhic colleague does? And why would the result he achieves be more valuable? That said, my answer to the first question is that the way the neo-Pyrrhonian investigates is more virtuous because it seeks to deliberately avoid the vices of precipitation, arrogance and mental closure. Regarding the second question, I suggest that the outcome of the neopyronic investigation, whatever it may be (even if it is not the truth) is more valuable because of the way he conducts his investigation.

In contemporary analytic philosophy, while some epistemologists claim that reflection—understood as a critical self-examination of belief—is a necessary condition for the attribution of valuable epistemic states, others reject this claim and maintain that philosophers tend to overestimate the value of reflection in their reports of epistemological phenomena. In this essay, we present a brief overview of this debate and outline the elements that constitute disagreement between epistemologists. Our diagnosis is that, despite radical disagreement, these positions converge, because they deal with reflection from an individualistic point of view, defining it as an agent’s private metacognitive performance of her own epistemic states. As well as being a reason for disagreement, this conception of reflection may be the reason that epistemologists misunderstand its place and value.

This essay is about the conception of second person in Donald Davidson. For Davidson, what characterizes a significant act and the possibility of the content of an attitude is the interaction between two agents driven by a primary intention: the speaker has the intention that his utterances be understood by another person. The essay is organized in three sections: in the first section, I present the specific meaning of the second person as a creature with whom the speaker currently interacts, regardless of whether they share a rule or linguistic convention beforehand. In the second section I present Davidson’s thesis of triangulation, which is that the individualization of beliefs and thoughts is established from systematic causal connections in triangulation between the individual, another speaker with whom he interacts, and objects or events in the world. Finally, in the third section, I present the idea of the “norm of conversation” as a theoretical tool to address epistemological issues: in conversation, when interlocutors intend to understand each other, speakers engage in a kind of investigation about the meaning and content of the sentences, beliefs, and intentions in dispute.

Since the famous passage in which Socrates (Plato 38a5-6) says that the unexamined, and therefore non-reflected, life is not worth living, “reflection” has been a diffuse and iterant term in ethics, moral philosophy, epistemology, political philosophy (Tiberius 2008; Skorupski 2010), but also in psychology (Marsico, Andrisano Ruggieri & Salvatore 2015). This chapter outlines the discussion of reflection and presents the book "Thinking about Onself", a volume that opens a new perspective on the topic of reflection, considering the most recent approaches in both philosophy (namely in epistemology ) and cultural psychology.

What is the place and value of reflection in people’s lives? The answer requires a careful discussion about the relationship between our epistemic performances, our intellectual capabilities and competencies, our affective relationships with the environment, our actions and our interpersonal interactions. It is a fact that for us to navigate and interact with the world and with our society, we sometimes think about our reasons, we give reasons, we change our minds, and even think about our habits and character traits in order to make them virtuous. And it seems that at least most of the times, it is by reflection that we do it. This book brings together the following chapters: “Animal Versus Reflective Orders of Epistemic Competence” by Ernest Sosa; “The Status of Reflection in Virtue Epistemology” by Christopher Kelp; “The Social Value of Reflection” by John Greco; “Disagreement, Intellectual Humility, and Reflection” by Duncan Pritchard; “Philosophical Reflection and Rashness” by Plinio J. Smith; “Between Feeling and Symbolization: Philosophical Paths to Thinking about Oneself” by Robert E. Innis; “Mirrors and Reflexive processes” by Raffaele De Luca Picione; “Bodily origin of self-reflection and its socially extended aspects” by Shogo Tanaka; and “Psychological reflection, thought and imagination as epistemic skills” by Miika Vähämaa.

Normal 0 21 false false false PT-BR X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Tabela normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} Willard Van Orman Quine (1902-2000) had a decisive role in setting the agenda of the themes, instruments and procedures of contemporary philosophy, providing an original meeting between American thinking and European, as well as in the delimitation of the most significant characteristics of analytical philosophy. Their most well-known theses - refutation of the analytic-synthetic distinction; the indeterminacy of translation; ontological relativity; behaviorism; holism; the naturalization of epistemology - involving fields of ontology, epistemology, philosophy of language and philosophy of mind have serve the purpose of eroding borders that were historically prevalent between philosophy and natural science and, in this step, have shaped New Territories to the philosophical investigation. The publication of Quine in Dialogue witness not only the presence of the strong and unshakeable interest for the ideas of Quine, but mainly the strength of an intellectual practice style that has been marked deeply the philosophical English-speaking community; a practice that has as a characteristic mark the wide, open and indeterminate dialogue around themes, issues and concepts and not the worship of personalities, works and theories of the past. This review seeks to highlight that this work presents Quine as a philosopher that not only maintained a rich dialogue with other philosophers, many of them colleagues and ex-students - influencing and being influenced by them - but also as an intellectual who believed that the practice of dialogue is critical to the advancement of thought