abstract: Recently, philosophers have charged that Aristotelian-based virtue theories are empirically inadequate because the conception of character in which they are grounded is largely unfounded by findings in psychology. These philosophers argue in favor of situationism, the theory from social psychology that situational rather than dispositional differences among individuals are in large part responsible for human behavior. Situationists dispute the existence of traits that remain consistent across time and diverse situations and argue that features of situations can better explain and predict human behavior. After analyzing the psychological literature and historical cases put forth as evidence for situationism as well as the basic premises grounding arguments against situationism, I make some conclusions about the best responses to situationism. I agree with situationists that Aristotelian-based virtue and character are not quite empirically adequate but disagree that human behavior owes more to situational rather than dispositional determinants. Basing my theory on literature from social psychology, I argue instead that a concept of character grounded in social-cognitive theory is more psychologically realistic and can explain and predict human behavior and ground a character-based virtue theory. A social-cognitive conception of character would highlight the dynamic role between situations and individual psychological factors like beliefs, values, desires and the way that an individual perceives a situation. I sketch out a non-ideal theory of virtue based in a social-cognitive conception of character that is partially dependent on social networks for its maintenance and is fragmented, or contextualized to particular types of psychological situations. However, fragmented and socially dependent virtue is not an optimal type of virtue because it is vulnerable to situational features that place strong psychological pressures on agents to behave in various ways, including ways they would not have normally endorsed. I agree with Aristotelian virtue ethicists that argue that a type of practical wisdom can help to counter the often unwanted and dangerous influence of these strong situations but also maintain that some measure of moral luck is inevitably involved, even in the development of practical wisdom. / Dissertation/Thesis / Ph.D. Philosophy 2012

No description available.

No description available.

This thesis defends an account of value which emphasizes the central place occupied by experiences among the objects of evaluation, a point that is particularly stark in the case of aesthetic value, to which a chapter is devoted that adumbrates the wider understanding of value subsequently defended. More generally it is argued that values do not transcend the attitudes and institutions in which they are embodied. They nonetheless enjoy in virtue of their structuring by norms of consistency, stability and deference enough in the way of objectivity to do justice to various phenomenological considerations often thought to favour realism. It is argued however that this level of objectivity is compatible with the rejection of any form of reductive naturalism and, more generally, of cognitivism- views which should indeed, it is argued, be rejected in favour of an expressivistic understanding of value.

In Chapter 1, I discuss the background to the problems which confront a realist account of the growth of scientific knowledge. At the beginning of Chapter 2, I explain in what sense relativism constitutes a challenge to this account. Four interconnected questions are then posed which are said to underlie the realist position. The chapter finishes with an explanation of how some of them arise in an actual case study. Chapter 3 deals with a general argument of Quine's for the view that reference is inscrutable. In reply I maintain that the argument does not hold good, either with respect to interpreting our own language or when it comes to translating an alien language. With Chapter 4, I begin to answer the four questions. I explain how Tarski's theory of truth can be seen as a correspondence theory. It is argued, however, that Tarski's theory itself presupposes theories of reference and extension, and certain recent attempts to overcome this lacuna are criticized. In the next chapter I draw an analogy between natural kind predicates, which are of particular importance in science, and proper names, and offer cluster theories of reference for both. This answers the third most basic of the four questions. These theories are defended against criticisms made by Kripke and Putnam, Chapter 6 aims to answer the second most basic question by considering in detail how we can understand what earlier scientific theories were about. I develop some arguments of Davidson's as a counter to Quine's doctrine of the indeterminacy of translation of sentences. I claim that although translation might in fact be indeterminate, Quine, through concentrating on behavioural evidence to the exclusion of other physical evidence, has failed to show that it is, and that in any case indeterminacy of sentence translation does not imply inscrutability of reference of terms. Finally, in Chapter 7, I sum up ray explication of the realist's account of the growth of science with respect to natural kind predicates. I then consider two cases of theory change of different sorts and suggest how my work might be extended.

This article explains the implications and benefits of founding transdisciplinary collaborations of knowledge production in critical realism. We call such equal partnerships of researchers and practitioners knowledge alliances. Drawing on the distinction between the referent to which we refer (the object that our research is about) and our references (our research about this object), we show that practitioners can contribute to the process of knowledge production by providing access to referents and producing references but also by achieving societal relevance. In order to accomplish excellence, knowledge production should be organized in ways that engage different types of knowledge in a constructive interplay and use the respective strong points of researchers and practitioners. Abduction and retroduction, two modes of inference vital to critical realism, are particularly inclined to benefit from involving practitioners in knowledge production. We call such an approach potential-oriented and put it in contrast to problem-orientation and the empiricism of evidence-based research and policy-making.

This thesis Ostalgie in Czech art summarizes recent history of art aimed to fifties and sixties of the twentieth century and also the fundamental notion of Czech cultural time - socialist realism. In opposition to the term 'socialist realism', there is a term 'ostalgie', which is focused on a nostalgic memories during normalization. In the theoretical part of this thesis author presents and explains the two main terms and focuses on the cultural aspects which were brought or denied to the nation by to the socialistic system in those times. In the practical part the author follows the theoretical part, especially in creating posters, which is influenced by nostalgic spirit.

150f. / Submitted by Suelen Reis (suziy.ellen@gmail.com) on 2013-05-17T13:02:02Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Tese Alana El Fahl.pdf: 478136 bytes, checksum: 1642efa0e8de22837fb48552582eb605 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Alda Lima da Silva(sivalda@ufba.br) on 2013-05-28T19:21:51Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 Tese Alana El Fahl.pdf: 478136 bytes, checksum: 1642efa0e8de22837fb48552582eb605 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2013-05-28T19:21:51Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Tese Alana El Fahl.pdf: 478136 bytes, checksum: 1642efa0e8de22837fb48552582eb605 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2009 / A presente tese tem por objetivo estudar a produção contística do escritor português José Maria Eça de Queirós (1845-1900). Estruturada em três capítulos, agrupados a partir dos temas ligados à viagem, às tradições e aos afetos, foram analisados os seguintes contos: A Perfeição (1897) e Civilização (1892), A Aia (1893) e O Tesouro (1894), José Matias (1897) e No Moinho (1880). Através de revisão bibliográfica, as análises buscam estabelecer relações com os romances do autor. Exercício de literatura comparada, o trabalho analítico evoca disciplinas diversas como a História, a mitologia, a filosofia. Motivada pela obra de Eça, tal interdisciplinaridade é uma estratégia usada para demonstrar que, deslocando-se por escolhas formais diferenciadas, a escrita do autor português não traiu seus fundamentais pilares, jamais se desapegando de um intransigente espírito crítico. Além disso, pretende-se evidenciar, nos contos, o escritor permanentemente voltado para a sociedade portuguesa e simultaneamente preocupado com a condição humana. / Salvador

FRANÇA, Clístenes Chaves de. Pragmática formal, verdade e realismo: do conceito epistêmico à indeterminação da verdade em Jürgen Habermans. 2017. 284f. - Tese (Doutorado) - Universidade Federal do Ceará, Pós-Graduação em Filosofia, Fortaleza (CE), 2017. / Submitted by sebastiao barroso (jrwizard2209@hotmail.com) on 2017-10-04T12:37:52Z No. of bitstreams: 1 2017_tese_ccfrança.pdf: 1989334 bytes, checksum: aee408ece4b644c3838224272d5b1e15 (MD5) / Rejected by Márcia Araújo (marcia_m_bezerra@yahoo.com.br), reason: Estamos devolvendo a tese de CLÍSTENES CHAVES FRANÇA para fazer as alterações indicadas pela bibliotecária Eliene Vieira de Moura: atualizar o brasão da UFC; mudar a fonte da dedicatória e corrigir as referências, que estão em desacordo com a ABNT. Qualquer dúvida sobre as alterações, falar com a referida bibliotecária na Biblioteca das Casas de Cultura Estrangeira/UFC. Lembramos que a tese tem que estar de acordo com o Guia de Normalização da UFC que está disponível no sitio http://www.biblioteca.ufc.br/servicos-e-produtos/normalizacao-de-trabalhos-academicos/. on 2017-10-05T14:27:59Z (GMT) / Submitted by sebastiao barroso (jrwizard2209@hotmail.com) on 2017-10-24T17:19:02Z No. of bitstreams: 1 2017_tese_ccfrança.pdf.pdf: 2088161 bytes, checksum: c62e7784615ddfad6b166812814a4ff3 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Márcia Araújo (marcia_m_bezerra@yahoo.com.br) on 2017-11-07T18:12:01Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 2017_tese_ccfrança.pdf.pdf: 2088161 bytes, checksum: c62e7784615ddfad6b166812814a4ff3 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-11-07T18:12:01Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 2017_tese_ccfrança.pdf.pdf: 2088161 bytes, checksum: c62e7784615ddfad6b166812814a4ff3 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017 / The present work exposes and analyzes the theoretical-argumentative route that led Habermas to sustain an antirealist consensual-discursive concept of truth to defend a pragmatic concept that aims to account for the realistic presuppositions inherent to the communicative practices of subjects capable of action and speech. Having initially identified truth as the product of a rational agreement between arguers forged within an ideal speech situation, Habermas was convinced by the criticisms of authors such as Donald Davidson, Ansgar Beckermann, Albrecht Wellmer and Cristina Lafont, of the unsustainability of an antirealist grasp of the truth if, with this concept, we intend to clarify the communicative practices of understanding and intervention in the world of members from a linguistic community. The revision of his concept of truth is performed along with the establishment of a more adequate space in formal pragmatics for non-representational realism and weak naturalism. Knowledge cannot be reduced to mere representation of reality, but rather must incorporate the learning process effected by overcoming the failures concretely experienced in the sphere of action. The revision of his concept of truth is performed along with the establishment of a more adequate space in formal pragmatics for non-representational realism and weak naturalism. Knowledge cannot be reduced to mere representation of reality, but rather must incorporate the learning process effected by overcoming the failures concretely experienced in the action sphere. On the other hand, the de-transcendentalisation of the cognitive structures of the life-world that mediate our experience with the objective world does not authorize a causal explanation of life-world‘s normativity. The distinction between the epistemic concept of justification (rational acceptability) and the non-epistemic concept of truth is at the basis of Habermas's rejection of Richard Rorty's contextualism, since it results from a bad theoretical step that would make it impossible to elucidate our effective communicative practices and would require the reformulation of one's own common sense which would be based on a démodé platonic difference. However, with his pragmatic conception of truth, Habermas defends the existence of an unrenounceable epistemic relationship between truth and justification that finds no support in the discourse sphere. We need to recognize that, in this, what sets in is an epistemic relationship between the process of justification of our beliefs and their rational acceptability and not between the realistically apprehended concept of truth and the justification. In this way, we come to the conclusion that Habermas's pragmatic concept of truth suffers from a fundamental indetermination. This derives from Habermas' refusal to theoretically discuss the relationship between language and world demanded by the realistic non-epistemic apprehension of truth. Habermas argues that the attempt to theoretically explain this relationship would involve metaphysical premises incompatible with a post-metaphysical thought, which implies that our author prefers to bequeath us an indeterminate concept of truth, to advance theoretically in the explanation of what is presupposed by the formal pragmatics itself. / O presente trabalho expõe e analisa o percurso teórico-argumentativo que levou Habermas da defesa de um conceito consensual-discursivo antirrealista da verdade para a defesa de um conceito pragmático que visa dar conta das pressuposições realistas inerentes às práticas comunicativas de sujeitos capazes de ação e fala. Por meio de pesquisa bibliográfica e análise crítica das obras indicadas nas referências, o trabalho mostra que Habermas, tendo inicialmente identificado a verdade como produto de um acordo racional entre argumentantes, forjado no interior de uma situação ideal de fala, vem a ser convencido posteriormente, pelas críticas de autores como Donald Davidson, Ansgar Beckermann, Albrecht Wellmer e Cristina Lafont, da insustentabilidade de uma apreensão antirrealista da verdade se, com este conceito, se pretende esclarecer as práticas comunicativas de entendimento e intervenção no mundo dos membros de uma comunidade linguística. A revisão de seu conceito da verdade é realizada de par com o estabelecimento de um espaço mais adequado na pragmática formal para o realismo não-representacionista e o naturalismo fraco. O conhecimento não pode ser reduzido à mera representação da realidade, mas antes deve incorporar o processo de aprendizagem efetivado pela superação dos malogros concretamente experienciados na esfera da ação. Por outro lado, a destranscendentalização das estruturas cognitivas do mundo da vida que medeiam nossa experiência com o mundo objetivo não autoriza uma explicação causal da normatividade do mundo da vida. A distinção entre o conceito epistêmico da justificação (aceitabilidade racional) e o conceito não-epistêmico da verdade está na base da rejeição de Habermas do contextualismo de Richard Rorty, pois este resulta de um mal passo teórico que inviabilizaria o esclarecimento de nossas práticas comunicativas efetivas e exigiria a reformulação do próprio senso comum o qual se sustentaria em uma diferença platônica démodé. Habermas, contudo, com seu conceito pragmático da verdade, defende a existência de uma relação epistêmica irrenunciável entre verdade e justificação que não encontra amparo na esfera do discurso. Nessa, é necessário reconhecer, o que se instala é uma relação epistêmica entre o processo de justificação de nossas crenças e sua aceitabilidade racional e não entre o conceito da verdade apreendido de maneira realista e a justificação. Dessa forma, este trabalho chega à conclusão de que o conceito pragmático da verdade de Habermas padece de uma indeterminação fundamental. Esta deriva da recusa de Habermas de discutir teoricamente a relação entre linguagem e mundo exigida pela apreensão realista não-epistêmica da verdade. Habermas alega que a tentativa de explicitar teoricamente essa relação envolver-se-ia com premissas metafísicas incompatíveis com um pensamento pós-metafísico, o que implica dizer que ele prefere legar um conceito indeterminado da verdade a avançar teoricamente na explicação daquilo que está pressuposto pela própria pragmática formal.

O Realismo Científico tem sido defendido quase exclusivamente através do Argumento do Milagre, segundo o qual ou assumimos que as teorias científicas são verdadeiras ou tornamos o sucesso da atividade científica em um fenômeno misterioso e inexplicável. No primeiro momento, as principais críticas ao argumento do milagre são reunidas em cinco objeções: (i) apresenta-se uma explicação alternativa para o sucesso da ciência que não assuma a verdade das teorias científicas e que compita com a explicação realista; (ii) defende-se que a hipótese realista não é uma explicação satisfatória para o sucesso da ciência, acusando-a de vacuidade explicativa, ou (iii) acusando-a de não satisfazer os critérios de rigor metodológico científico que ela mesmo impõe à justificação de teorias; (iv) afirma-se que o argumento seja uma petição de princípio, por pressupor uma regra de inferência abdutiva aceita apenas pela posição realista; (v) propõe-se que o argumento constitua uma falácia estatística ao ignorar um índice de fundo relevante. Ao replicar às objeções apresentadas, alguns autores propõem distinguir entre uma versão semântica do argumento, baseada no sucesso empírico obtido pelas teorias científicas enquanto entidades semânticas; e uma versão metodológica do argumento, baseada no sucesso pragmático dos cientistas em escolher teorias férteis e descobrir teorias bem sucedidas. Além disso, outros autores propõem uma segunda distinção entre uma versão geral do argumento, baseada estatisticamente no sucesso generalizado das teorias científicas, e uma versão retalhada do argumento, baseada na sua aplicação específica a uma teoria tomada individualmente. Após comparar as vantagens e desvantagens de cada interpretação, critica-se a relevância das distinções propostas e defende-se uma versão do argumento que sintetize suas diferentes interpretações de modo a solucionar as objeções inicialmente apresentadas. / Scientific Realism has been defended almost exclusively by the Non-Miracle Argument, which states that either it‘s assumed that scientific theories are true or the success of the scientific enterprise becomes a mysterious and unexplainable fact. At first, the main criticisms of the Non-Miracle Argument are gathered in five objections: (i) it‘s presented an alternative explanation to the success of science that competes with the realist explanation and does not assume the truth of the scientific theories; (ii) it‘s defended that the realist hypothesis is not a satisfactory explanation to the success of science, charging it of being an empty explanation, or (iii) charging its capacities to reach the scientific methodological rigorousness that itself imposes to the warrant of theories; (iv) it‘s affirmed that the argument is a petition principii, on account of presupposing an abductive rule of inference accepted only by the realist perspective; (v) it‘s proposed that the argument constitutes a statistical fallacy on account of neglecting a relevant base rate; When replying to the presented objections, some authors come up with the distinction between a semantic version of the argument, based on the empiric success reached by scientific theories considered as semantic entities, and a methodological version of the argument, based on the pragmatic success of scientists at choosing fruitful theories and discovering succeeded theories. Furthermore, other authors offer a second distinction between a general version of the argument, statistically based on the generalized success of science, and a retail version of the argument, based on its specific application to an individual theory. After comparing the advantages and drawbacks of each interpretation, the relevance of each distinction is reanalyzed and a new version of the argument by making a synthesis of its different interpretations is defended in a way to answer the five initial objections.