I’m Professor of Theory of Knowledge at Federal University of Bahia, Brazil, and Researcher of the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq). I was visiting scholar in the Department of Philosophy at Harvard University (2009-2010) and in the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy at M.I.T. (2015-2016). I’m affiliated with the Graduate Studies in Philosophy and the Graduate Studies in History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching (Federal University of Bahia and State University of Feira de Santana) and in Department of Philosophy (Federal University of Bahia). I coordinate the Grupo de Investigações Filosóficas Mente, Conhecimento, Realidade (http://www.investigacoesfilosoficas.com). My research interests are in pyrrhonian skepticism and virtue epistemology.
This picture was taken by my wife, Virginia. Here is my son, João, contemplating a Pollock's painting (MoMA, NY).
Review about the article, people virtuous epistemicamente: about epistemology of virtue of e. Sos... more Review about the article, people virtuous epistemicamente: about epistemology of virtue of e. Sosa Sosa, ernest. Virtue epistemology: belief apta and reflective knowledge, vol i. Trad. Luiz paulo rouanet. Sao paulo: edicoes loyola, 2013. Sosa, ernest. Reflective knowledge: belief apta and reflective knowledge, vol ii. Trad. Cecilia c. Bartalotti. Sao paulo: edicoes loyola, 2013.
This article deals with two questions: why would the way in which the neopyrronicle conducts his ... more 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
This essay is about the conception of second person in Donald Davidson. For Davidson, what charac... more 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
On this essay I discuss the Bruner’s idea that intersubjectivity is related to an human condition... more On this essay I discuss the Bruner’s idea that intersubjectivity is related to an human condition, which constitutively enables us to access, interpret and know the minds of others while, at the same time, allowing us to create common signs and to transact through the use of language.
In this paper, we discuss two recurring themes in Sosa's work, reexamined in Judgment and Age... more In this paper, we discuss two recurring themes in Sosa's work, reexamined in Judgment and Agency (Sosa, 2015) from a new angle, i.e. the place and importance of reflection in the cognitive economy of the epistemic agent, and epistemic value. Regarding the latter, Sosa suggests that knowing full well, which necessarily involves reflection, has value because it contributes to human flourishing. Although Sosa's “new virtue epistemology” appears very promising in explaining different intuitions regarding epistemology and demonstrating that it is possible to join reliabilist and responsibilist accounts of virtue epistemology, we believe that solving the value problem requires further clarification in order to truly explain the value of knowledge.
This paper aims at establishing a dialogue between philosophy and psychology about the conditions... more This paper aims at establishing a dialogue between philosophy and psychology about the conditions and the process through which humans build epistemic relationships during ontogenetic development. By the latter term, we mean any form of interaction which is aimed at producing a belief about some relevant aspects of the world, present or absent, past or future and at assessing its degree of epistemic trustworthiness. The paper is built as a dialogue between a philosopher and a psychologist, who present different faces of the problem of epistemic legitimation respectively and discuss the possible ways in which the dialogue can lead to theoretical advancement in understanding the development of the human epistemic subject. The chapter is divided into four sections: in the first section, we outline how we develop ontogenetically as epistemic subjects, and the sense that our epistemic life depends on other people’s words or testimony; in the second section, we deal with the notion of epi...
Este artigo argumenta que uma Epistemologia da Conversação deve ser compreendida como um campo da... more 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 chapter builds on the book topic using Peirce’s semiotic theory. It illustrates how percepti... more This chapter builds on the book topic using Peirce’s semiotic theory. It illustrates how perception integrates semiosis and, therefore, is abductive because it can be corrected and, consequently, criticized. For this reason, the path of investigation is not lived only by the science of the laboratory, but also by all those who experience the continuum of time, space, language, and limits of life extension.
Review about the article, people virtuous epistemicamente: about epistemology of virtue of e. Sos... more Review about the article, people virtuous epistemicamente: about epistemology of virtue of e. Sosa Sosa, ernest. Virtue epistemology: belief apta and reflective knowledge, vol i. Trad. Luiz paulo rouanet. Sao paulo: edicoes loyola, 2013. Sosa, ernest. Reflective knowledge: belief apta and reflective knowledge, vol ii. Trad. Cecilia c. Bartalotti. Sao paulo: edicoes loyola, 2013.
This article deals with two questions: why would the way in which the neopyrronicle conducts his ... more 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
This essay is about the conception of second person in Donald Davidson. For Davidson, what charac... more 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
On this essay I discuss the Bruner’s idea that intersubjectivity is related to an human condition... more On this essay I discuss the Bruner’s idea that intersubjectivity is related to an human condition, which constitutively enables us to access, interpret and know the minds of others while, at the same time, allowing us to create common signs and to transact through the use of language.
In this paper, we discuss two recurring themes in Sosa's work, reexamined in Judgment and Age... more In this paper, we discuss two recurring themes in Sosa's work, reexamined in Judgment and Agency (Sosa, 2015) from a new angle, i.e. the place and importance of reflection in the cognitive economy of the epistemic agent, and epistemic value. Regarding the latter, Sosa suggests that knowing full well, which necessarily involves reflection, has value because it contributes to human flourishing. Although Sosa's “new virtue epistemology” appears very promising in explaining different intuitions regarding epistemology and demonstrating that it is possible to join reliabilist and responsibilist accounts of virtue epistemology, we believe that solving the value problem requires further clarification in order to truly explain the value of knowledge.
This paper aims at establishing a dialogue between philosophy and psychology about the conditions... more This paper aims at establishing a dialogue between philosophy and psychology about the conditions and the process through which humans build epistemic relationships during ontogenetic development. By the latter term, we mean any form of interaction which is aimed at producing a belief about some relevant aspects of the world, present or absent, past or future and at assessing its degree of epistemic trustworthiness. The paper is built as a dialogue between a philosopher and a psychologist, who present different faces of the problem of epistemic legitimation respectively and discuss the possible ways in which the dialogue can lead to theoretical advancement in understanding the development of the human epistemic subject. The chapter is divided into four sections: in the first section, we outline how we develop ontogenetically as epistemic subjects, and the sense that our epistemic life depends on other people’s words or testimony; in the second section, we deal with the notion of epi...
Este artigo argumenta que uma Epistemologia da Conversação deve ser compreendida como um campo da... more 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 chapter builds on the book topic using Peirce’s semiotic theory. It illustrates how percepti... more This chapter builds on the book topic using Peirce’s semiotic theory. It illustrates how perception integrates semiosis and, therefore, is abductive because it can be corrected and, consequently, criticized. For this reason, the path of investigation is not lived only by the science of the laboratory, but also by all those who experience the continuum of time, space, language, and limits of life extension.
Conversation, dialogue, reasonable disagreement, and the acquisition of knowledge through the wor... more Conversation, dialogue, reasonable disagreement, and the acquisition of knowledge through the words of others, all of this has always been at the center of philosophers’ concerns since the emergence of philosophy in Ancient Greece. It is also important to recognize that in contemporary philosophy, marked by the linguistic turn, there is a wealth of intellectual production on ethical (e.g. McKenna 2012), psycho-linguistic (e.g. Clark 1996), logical-linguistic (e.g. Grice 1989) and pragmatic (e.g. Walton 1992) aspects of the conversation. Despite all this, this is the first collection of texts dedicated exclusively to the strictly epistemic aspects of this phenomenon which is so decisive for the very constitution of our humanity. This book brings together the contributions of fifteen leading philosophers on some of the most relevant issues of what we could call the Epistemology of Conversation.
A scenario exists that is almost exclusively specific to university life. We are driven by the su... more A scenario exists that is almost exclusively specific to university life. We are driven by the supposition that our work is focused on the most elevated epistemic goals— pursued not only by each of us individually, but also by society—and that our task is a cognitively collective enterprise that involves the mind and an infinite number of performances by other people. Further, we accept from the outset that the people with whom we live are, at least in principle, as epistemically competent as we are, capable of observing, thinking, and achieving epistemic performances with us. In most cases, we secure our jobs because of our skills and achievements. When we start working at university, our goals are public, and we have access to the same techniques and instruments, methodological resources, and sources of information. In other words, it is a necessary condition for us to live in the midst of epistemic peers. But the fact is that these people are not always in agreement with us, and we frequently find ourselves in situations in which somebody demands explanations from us, better reasons and justifications, proof, and arguments.
For this reason, our life at the university is marked by epistemic disagreements in practically all subjects. And the absence of such disagreements should cause us a certain amount of discomfort because it may mean that academic power is excessively concentrated in the hands of someone arrogant and oppressive.
The public intellectual shaped by a university is somebody prepared to converse, to dialogue. They are trained to recognize that there are disagreements, and that this recognition is not trivial. Recognizing that the person we disagree with is an epistemic peer (is, at least ideally, as able and competent as we are in producing good epistemic achievements) is the central pillar of epistemic cooperation and one of the principles of democracy. In daily life, this type of recognition is rarer: in day-to-day situations when we enter into a disagreement, we almost always assume that our divergence is only a matter of viewpoint and taste; at other times we assume that our interlocutor is an opponent and must be less capable and rational than we are. In these cases, we doubt the competence, taste, honesty, and reasonableness of our opponent. But in epistemic disagreements between virtuous epistemic agents, our challenger must be someone who has good reason to believe things that are different from the things we believe.
Procurando Razões é um livro surpreendente. Partindo de um conjunto de temas clássicos da filosof... more Procurando Razões é um livro surpreendente. Partindo de um conjunto de temas clássicos da filosofia, como conhecimento, racionalidade, ceticismo e virtudes intelectuais, Waldomiro Silva Filho desenvolve um texto único no estilo e na abordagem ao narrar o percurso de uma investigação sobre a noção de reflexão.
Escrito na forma ensaística, este livro cruza a própria experiência pessoal do autor com referências filosóficas e literárias. Em vez de avançar, como normalmente acontece com livros de filosofia, para uma conclusão ou na defesa de uma teoria, o texto mostra como uma interrogação inicial sobre qual o bem que podemos conquistar com a reflexão foi se transformando numa dúvida sobre por que algumas vezes a reflexão é importante e porque razões importam.
Nesse movimento, o autor se dá conta de um episódio da vida comum, a conversa, é a chave para entender como a própria vida humana frequentemente espera de nós racionalidade, justificativa e reflexão. “Este livro não informa – escreve o autor –, não argumenta, não apresenta teorias novas, ele somente testemunha esse movimento”.
This book is an essay on the violence and consequences of war. Starting from the events surroundi... more This book is an essay on the violence and consequences of war. Starting from the events surrounding the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian army, the book reflects on the notion of "calamity," the situation where civilization becomes barbarism.
Why does philosophy matter for democracy? Philosophy matters to democracy for a number of reasons... more Why does philosophy matter for democracy? Philosophy matters to democracy for a number of reasons: it matters, for example, because the appeal to reason matters to democracy, and not only to thinkers locked away in their libraries, but to the women and men on the street who constantly have to decide about what is best to do, about what is fair, about the difference between opinion and knowledge, and so on. Even more, philosophy matters to democracy because the philosopher and the philosopher, regardless of their intellectual and moral positions, cannot renounce the power of dialogue, of argument-based conversation and the search for enlightenment. It matters because the ability to participate in a dialogue concerns a basic capacity of the game of democracy: to replace all force and violence with the power of speech, and thereby to be able to renounce arrogance, to be prepared to debate in front of a human audience, to conceive the rival as an equal.
Este livro reúne quatro capítulos escritos por jovens filósofos brasileiros.
Eles foram os venced... more Este livro reúne quatro capítulos escritos por jovens filósofos brasileiros. Eles foram os vencedores da primeira edição do Prêmio da Sociedade Brasileira de Filoso fia Analítica (SBFA), anunciado durante a V Conferência da SBFA, realizada em Salvador, Bahi a, entre 10 e 14 de setembro de 2018.
Concorreram ao prêmio doutorandos e jovens filósofos em início de carreira que submeteram artigos e ensaios inéditos que poderiam compreender qualquer uma das áreas da Filosofia Analítica Epistemologia, Lógica, Filosofia da Linguagem, Ética etc. Para compor a comissão julgadora, a direção da SBFA convidou filósofos reconhecidos pela comunidade filosófica brasileira: Adriano Naves de Brito (UNISINOS), André Leclerc (UnB), Eleonora Orlando (Universidad de Buenos Aires, SADAF), Guido Imaguire (UFRJ), Luiz Carlos Pereira (PUC Rio, UERJ), Marco Ruffino (UNICAMP), Oswaldo Chateaubriand (PUC Rio) e Sofia Stein (UNISINOS)
The texts gathered in this book, "Tolerance intolerance" by Lilia Schwarcz and "From bad to worse... more The texts gathered in this book, "Tolerance intolerance" by Lilia Schwarcz and "From bad to worse" by Ailton Krenak, impose an extremely arduous exercise on us: to think about the urgency of the civic and democratic conversation and, at the same time, to understand what has made it unfeasible among us, at least until now. There is urgency because an abyss has opened up beside which we have been walking in recent years, where we risk letting our own sense of humanity and civility collapse and, with it, letting the social and economic achievements and the beautiful 1988 Citizen Constitution be swallowed by the hole. There is an urgency because we have reached a point where there is not much time left for us to restore the space of politics as an arena for legitimate disputes and conflicts and around issues that matter to all people
What is the place and value of reflection in people’s lives? The answer requires a careful discus... more 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 volume is meant to be a starting point, an invitation to reflection, rather than a dogmatic statement about a closed theory. We think that the first step towards reflection is the open-minded and critical attitude. As the exchange between philosophy, epistemology, and cultural psychology has shown, thinking about reasons, generating knowledge, giving reasons, thinking about oneself and acting are not independent activities. They are rather sub-parts of an open system, dynamically interacting and feeding one into the other. The work of the philosophers and psychologists in this book aims to show that even though these activities can be studied individually by each specialization field, an interdisciplinary work is essential to focus on what connects each other, in this case, on reflection.
Yet, it is not possible in only one volume try to answer all the questions about reflection and explains its complete role in our lives. But we hope that, after reaching the end of this volume, we have triggered some intellectual curiosity and some positive thought about the need for cultivating dialogue beyond boundaries.
Este livro reúne a contribuição de filósofos brasileiros e argentinos. São tratadas questões sobr... more Este livro reúne a contribuição de filósofos brasileiros e argentinos. São tratadas questões sobre epistemologia, filosofia da mente, filosofia da linguagem, ética, metafísica e lógica. Os limites e fronteiras entre essas áreas da Filosofia são, obviamente, tênues e, em muitos casos, é simplesmente impossível dizer que uma questão não pertence simultaneamente a duas ou mais dessas áreas. É que, em Filosofia, a complexidade das questões faz com que, para chegar a uma resposta plausível, muitas perspectivas tenham de ser consideradas ao mesmo tempo. Embora a filosofia analítica contemporânea progressivamente trate de questões aparentemente mais específicas, o fato é que não é possível, num trabalho filosófico sério, perder de vista uma concepção mais abrangente das coisas.
Este livro reúne alguns dos mais importantes artigos de Davidson em sua primeira tradução para o ... more Este livro reúne alguns dos mais importantes artigos de Davidson em sua primeira tradução para o português. O trabalho de edição foi feito em cooperação com Paulo Ghiraldelli Jr. e Pedro Bendassolli e com o apoio de Luiz Paulo Rouanet.
Este libro pretende reflejar la gran influencia del pensamiento de Davidson sobre los filósofos d... more Este libro pretende reflejar la gran influencia del pensamiento de Davidson sobre los filósofos de la lengua española y portuguesa, principalmente en áreas como epistemología y Filosofía del Lenguaje y de la Mente. Aquí se reúnen ensayos de filósofos de Argentina, Brasil, Colombia, España, Perú y Uruguay que expresan un rico diálogo que nació a partir de intereses comunes por los argumentos davidsonianos.
Esta disciplina terá como objetivo apresentar o horizonte temático da pesquisa em filosofia conte... more Esta disciplina terá como objetivo apresentar o horizonte temático da pesquisa em filosofia contemporânea e os marcos de excelência do PPGF. Será considerado, sobretudo, que a filosofia é uma prática intelectual que recorre a ferramentas da investigação histórica, exegética e do enfrentamento argumentativo de problemas canônicos da tradição filosófica, sem ignorar os temas e desafios presentes na contemporaneidade. Nesse sentido, tratar-se-á da atividade do filósofo também como intelectual público em franco diálogo com sua época. O curso está dividido em duas partes. Na primeira parte do curso será abordado um tema clássico da filosofia, qual seja, o diálogo e o desacordo racional. As ideias centrais são: (a) a filosofia é uma forma de garantir o espaço de confrontos de opinião mediados pela linguagem e a busca de esclarecimento e (b) o espaço natural da investigação filosófica é a esfera pública. Serão usadas referências antigas, modernas e contemporâneas. A segunda parte será um exercício do diálogo filosófico. Nessa parte, os estudantes irão debater com seus colegas os temas e metodologias das suas próprias pesquisas de pós-graduação como investigações filosóficas que se inscrevem na arena da comunidade filosófica. METODOLOGIA As aulas serão ministradas na modalidade on-line e referenciadas em bibliografia específica que deve ser lida com antecedência. AVALIAÇÃO Os estudantes deverão apresentar um ensaio (entre 3 e 5 páginas) para responder uma das três perguntas abaixo: (a) Por que uma filósofa ou filósofo deveria se interessar por ...? (as reticências devem ser preenchidas por um e somente um dos seguintes tópicos: arte, democracia, educação, igualdade de gênero, injustiça, liberdade, mudança climática, política, racismo, verdade, violência); (b) Qual a atitude racional diante de um desacordo intelectual legítimo? (c) Por que a minha pesquisa (de cada estudante) é uma investigação filosófica? O ensaio deverá ser entregue no dia 31 de maio de 2021. Caso a estudante ou o estudante queira apresentar uma versão preliminar do ensaio, poderá o apresentar no dia 19 de maio (esta versão preliminar não receberá nota e poderá ser reescrita e entregue em versão definitiva no dia 31.05).
In this chapter, we will argue that, faced with this new scenario, one of the university’s missio... more In this chapter, we will argue that, faced with this new scenario, one of the university’s missions is to lead the defence of the public epistemic arena. To this end, among other things, the university should train students in the intellectual skills required to participate as “public intellectuals” in the public debate, while, at the same time, constituting an arena for this public debate and a vehicle for information that reduces polarization. The central concept here is the conversation: a cooperative task between epistemic agents in search of the best means and reasons on which to base their beliefs in the case of a disagreement or difference of opinion. The university can and should contribute to civil conversation.
The chapter is divided into four sections. In the first, entitled “Epistemic Quagmire”, we will present what, in our opinion, describes the erosion of the public epistemic arena in current societies. In the second and more extensive section, “The Art of Conversation”, we present a theoretical formulation about conversation as a public arena of dispute from epistemic disagreements; here we propose that the conversation is an epistemically regulated practice of vital importance for the life of democratic societies. In the third, “Conversation and Polarization”, we discuss one of the consequences of the erosion of the public epistemic arena. In the last section, “The University and the Public Intellectual,” we outline how the university can contribute to understanding and confronting the cultural movement eroding the public epistemic arena.
In this chapter, we will argue that, faced with this new scenario, one of the university’s missio... more In this chapter, we will argue that, faced with this new scenario, one of the university’s missions is to lead the defence of the public epistemic arena. To this end, among other things, the university should train students in the intellectual skills required to participate as “public intellectuals” in the public debate, while, at the same time, constituting an arena for this public debate and a vehicle for information that reduces polarization. The central concept here is the conversation: a cooperative task between epistemic agents in search of the best means and reasons on which to base their beliefs in the case of a disagreement or difference of opinion. The university can and should contribute to civil conversation.
The chapter is divided into four sections. In the first, entitled “Epistemic Quagmire”, we will present what, in our opinion, describes the erosion of the public epistemic arena in current societies. In the second and more extensive section, “The Art of Conversation”, we present a theoretical formulation about conversation as a public arena of dispute from epistemic disagreements; here we propose that the conversation is an epistemically regulated practice of vital importance for the life of democratic societies. In the third, “Conversation and Polarization”, we discuss one of the consequences of the erosion of the public epistemic arena. In the last section, “The University and the Public Intellectual,” we outline how the university can contribute to understanding and confronting the cultural movement eroding the public epistemic arena.
Uploads
Papers by Waldomiro Silva Filho
For this reason, our life at the university is marked by epistemic disagreements in practically all subjects. And the absence of such disagreements should cause us a certain amount of discomfort because it may mean that academic power is excessively concentrated in the hands of someone arrogant and oppressive.
The public intellectual shaped by a university is somebody prepared to converse, to dialogue. They are trained to recognize that there are disagreements, and that this recognition is not trivial. Recognizing that the person we disagree with is an epistemic peer (is, at least ideally, as able and competent as we are in producing good epistemic achievements) is the central pillar of epistemic cooperation and one of the principles of democracy. In daily life, this type of recognition is rarer: in day-to-day situations when we enter into a disagreement, we almost always assume that our divergence is only a matter of viewpoint and taste; at other times we assume that our interlocutor is an opponent and must be less capable and rational than we are. In these cases, we doubt the competence, taste, honesty, and reasonableness of our opponent. But in epistemic disagreements between virtuous epistemic agents, our challenger must be someone who has good reason to believe things that are different from the things we believe.
Escrito na forma ensaística, este livro cruza a própria experiência pessoal do autor com referências filosóficas e literárias. Em vez de avançar, como normalmente acontece com livros de filosofia, para uma conclusão ou na defesa de uma teoria, o texto mostra como uma interrogação inicial sobre qual o bem que podemos conquistar com a reflexão foi se transformando numa dúvida sobre por que algumas vezes a reflexão é importante e porque razões importam.
Nesse movimento, o autor se dá conta de um episódio da vida comum, a conversa, é a chave para entender como a própria vida humana frequentemente espera de nós racionalidade, justificativa e reflexão. “Este livro não informa – escreve o autor –, não argumenta, não apresenta teorias novas, ele somente testemunha esse movimento”.
Eles foram os vencedores da primeira edição do Prêmio da Sociedade Brasileira de Filoso fia Analítica (SBFA), anunciado durante a V Conferência da SBFA, realizada em Salvador, Bahi a, entre 10 e 14 de setembro de 2018.
Concorreram ao prêmio doutorandos e jovens filósofos em início de
carreira que submeteram artigos e ensaios inéditos que poderiam compreender qualquer uma das áreas da Filosofia Analítica Epistemologia, Lógica, Filosofia da Linguagem, Ética etc. Para compor a comissão julgadora, a direção da SBFA convidou filósofos reconhecidos pela comunidade filosófica brasileira: Adriano Naves de Brito (UNISINOS), André Leclerc (UnB), Eleonora Orlando (Universidad de Buenos Aires, SADAF), Guido Imaguire (UFRJ), Luiz Carlos Pereira (PUC Rio, UERJ), Marco Ruffino (UNICAMP), Oswaldo Chateaubriand (PUC Rio) e Sofia Stein (UNISINOS)
This volume is meant to be a starting point, an invitation to reflection, rather than a dogmatic statement about a closed theory. We think that the first step towards reflection is the open-minded and critical attitude. As the exchange between philosophy, epistemology, and cultural psychology has shown, thinking about reasons, generating knowledge, giving reasons, thinking about oneself and acting are not independent activities. They are rather sub-parts of an open system, dynamically interacting and feeding one into the other. The work of the philosophers and psychologists in this book aims to show that even though these activities can be studied individually by each specialization field, an interdisciplinary work is essential to focus on what connects each other, in this case, on reflection.
Yet, it is not possible in only one volume try to answer all the questions about reflection and explains its complete role in our lives. But we hope that, after reaching the end of this volume, we have triggered some intellectual curiosity and some positive thought about the need for cultivating dialogue beyond boundaries.
The chapter is divided into four sections. In the first, entitled “Epistemic Quagmire”, we will present what, in our opinion, describes the erosion of the public epistemic arena in current societies. In the second and more extensive section, “The Art of Conversation”, we present a theoretical formulation about conversation as a public arena of dispute from epistemic disagreements; here we propose that the conversation is an epistemically regulated practice of vital importance for the life of democratic societies. In the third, “Conversation and Polarization”, we discuss one of the consequences of the erosion of the public epistemic arena. In the last section, “The University and the Public Intellectual,” we outline how the university can contribute to understanding and confronting the cultural movement eroding the public epistemic arena.
The chapter is divided into four sections. In the first, entitled “Epistemic Quagmire”, we will present what, in our opinion, describes the erosion of the public epistemic arena in current societies. In the second and more extensive section, “The Art of Conversation”, we present a theoretical formulation about conversation as a public arena of dispute from epistemic disagreements; here we propose that the conversation is an epistemically regulated practice of vital importance for the life of democratic societies. In the third, “Conversation and Polarization”, we discuss one of the consequences of the erosion of the public epistemic arena. In the last section, “The University and the Public Intellectual,” we outline how the university can contribute to understanding and confronting the cultural movement eroding the public epistemic arena.