MANUSCRITO brings new contributions to some current topics in philosophical research

Marco Ruffino, Editor, State University of Campinas-UNICAMP, CNPq, Campinas, SP, Brazil

Manuscrito is an international journal of philosophy publishing articles on a wide range of philosophical topics, especially in the history of philosophy, philosophy of language, philosophy of the formal sciences, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, political philosophy and philosophy of mind. The journal does not privilege any particular philosophical approach. Its purpose is to reflect the progress of philosophy as a whole and to increase the exchange of ideas and arguments between different contemporary schools of thought.

In “Inferential Rationality and Internalistic Scarecrows” Paulo Faria takes up a defense of Paul Boghossian’s claim that content externalism is incompatible with the ‘a priority of our logical abilities’ against some recent criticism by Manuel Pérez Otero. Faria elaborates on Boghossian’s own previous reply by showing that, even taken on its own terms, Pérez Otero’s paper fails to engage with internalism through systematically misrepresenting what a truly internalistic account of the semantics of singular terms should be.

In “Transduction and BRICS” Don Peterson takes as starting point the claim that BRICS has philosophical significance, since it creates new pressure on cross-cultural skill. He understands this pressure as requiring transduction: a variety of defeasible practical reasoning. This replaces a simplistic model of the relation between knowledge and action with a more realistic and contemporary model. The transduction format has utility in cross-cultural training.

In “Thomas Kuhn’s Revolutions, a discontinuist view” Pablo Melogno discusses certain discrepancies between The Copernican Revolution (1957) and The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) by Thomas Kuhn. He argues that they present a different consideration of extra-scientific factors, that in the former have a higher explanatory weight. His argument is supported by the fact that in 1957 Kuhn applies a casuistic historiography, focused on the Copernican revolution, while in 1962 he uses a structural historiography, focused on the invariable features of scientific revolutions. The paper concludes that the differences between these two works are significant enough so as not to be considered an expression of the same view of science.

In “On Mumford’s critic against Nomological Realism” Bruno Borge discusses Stephen Mumford’s (2004) proposal of an alternative to Nomological Realism (NR) compatible with the modal commitments commonly associated to a realist position which he calls Realist Lawlessness (RL). The latter is such that the weight of modality is not set on laws but on properties, understood in terms of powers and propensities. However, RL’s relative merits depend on a series of objections presented to NR. The main one is the so-called Central Dilemma, according to which NR is unable to give an account of how laws govern their instances. Melogno argues that neither the Central Dilemma nor the rest of Mumford’s arguments against NR justify its rejection.

In “Compresence of Opposites In Republic V, 478e-480a” Breno Zuppolini analyses the text of Republic V, 478e-480a, in which Plato argues against an opponent who rejects the theory of Forms and confines the domain of knowledge to sensible items. Plato’s argument concludes that his opponent cannot have knowledge, but only opinion. The reasoning relies on a premise stating that the sensible objects, unlike the Forms, suffer a certain compresence of opposite attributes. Zuppolini presents a version of the argument with two aims in mind: on one hand, he intends to solve a set of textual and theoretical difficulties that the reader of the passage has to face; on the other, he avoids committing Plato to the thesis that sensible items are excluded from the domain of knowledge. His strategy involves arguing that the passage assumes a conceptual framework that belongs not to Plato, but to his opponent.

Para ler os artigos, acesse

FARIA, P. Inferential Rationality and Internalistic Scarecrows. Manuscrito [online]. 2015, vol.38, n.3, pp.5-14. [viewed 22^th March 2016]. ISSN 2317-630X. DOI: 10.1590/0100-6045.2015.V38N3.PF. Available from: http://ref.scielo.org/25492t

PETERSON, D. Transduction and BRICS. Manuscrito [online]. 2015, vol.38, n.3, pp.15-24. [viewed 22^th March 2016]. ISSN 2317-630X. DOI: 10.1590/0100-6045.2015.V38N3.DP. Available from: http://ref.scielo.org/4t23rf

MELOGNO, P. Las revoluciones de Thomas Kuhn, una mirada discontinuista. Manuscrito [online]. 2015, vol.38, n.3, pp.25-57. [viewed 22^th March 2016]. ISSN 2317-630X. DOI: 10.1590/0100-6045.2015.V38N3.PM. Available from: http://ref.scielo.org/m72gc8

BORGE, B. Sobre la crítica de Mumford al realismo nomológico. Manuscrito [online]. 2015, vol.38, n.3, pp.59-80. [viewed 22^th March 2016]. ISSN 2317-630X. DOI: 10.1590/0100-6045.2015.V38N3.BB. Available from: http://ref.scielo.org/2xtc4c

ZUPPOLINI, B. A. Copresença de opostos em república v, 478e-480a. Manuscrito [online]. 2015, vol.38, n.3, pp.81-110. [viewed 22^th March 2016]. ISSN 2317-630X. DOI: 10.1590/0100-6045.2015.V38N3.BAZ. Available from: http://ref.scielo.org/2gqfw2

Link externo

Manuscrito – MAN: www.scielo.br/man