It could be the most powerful tool any community might have to develop their built environment. Yet, due to political, social/cultural or economic factors, in most cities, it has been relegated to a secondary role or eliminated altogether. The ?City Architect? or ?Urban Design Director? is an underestimated area of professional expertise that can perform a missing role in the implementation of community visions, plans, and codes. The lack of proper tools and community design expertise in planning and architecture has produced a fragmented, flawed ?design? through ad hoc roles in shaping pieces of the built environment. There is a growing need for professionals with city design and urban architecture (?civic art?) expertise and education to guide community visions, plans and codes (particularly form-based codes) through their long-term implementation working with private developers, property owners, architects, elected officials, city departments, and the public on a parcel-by-parcel, building-by-building review and refinement process. This individual should be vested with the knowledge and capacity to direct the form of the city towards the future. The city architect should have the capacity to challenge and change the course of the city urban development as it evolves maintaining an environmentally sustainable and socially conscious vision. As Communities are shaped by different natural and artificial forces, the city?s evolution as an organic process has been the focus of study by many scholars and practitioners. This is a step by step method that procures the development of the city as a series of individual single steps towards a greater vision. Other professionals and urban planners have focused their efforts on developing formulas as a way to shape the city within a preconceived armature. Either way, there is a need of an individual (?Director?) that understands the political power to influence the development of communities and is empowered to enforce regulations that achieve cohesive sustainable and livable places. The city architect must understand of the aesthetic, socio/cultural and economic factors and the importance of context and contextual principles that lie intrinsically within the ?soul? of the community and are fundamental to new place making. The city architect must be capable to interpret and adjust the regulating mechanisms as required maintaining the city?s identity without necessarily imposing prescribed ideas that could alienate some groups and disconnect the community. Design professional rely less on formulas learned at school than on the improvisation learned within the professional practice. This unarticulated, largely unexamined process has been the subject of investigation of individuals interested in the study of the ?practice of the design? and is fundamental in the vital creativity of the city architect.

In this thesis I attempt to introduce Galen Strawson's position, which he adopts in the free will debate followed by the debate about his Basic Argument. While giving a de-tailed account of responsibility as a reflective rational responsiveness, I show that re-sponsibility is in no respect causa sui and therefore it is not impossible for human beings to reach it, explained with the reasons given by Strawson. I refuse steps B, C, 8, 9 and 10 of the Basic Argument. I claim that undetermined self-determination consists in the ability to make a decision in the light of actually revised principles of choice. Such revision is granted by actual ability to reflect the validity and adequacy of principles of choice in relation to motivating values in question by using methodical doubt as a universal tool do to so. Such reflection, with respect to what matters for decision making in question, is potentially ultimate. I claim that Strawson underestimates the uniqueness of reflective rationality especially, when missing the crucial difference between Fido the dog and Nemo the man in the situation of choice. Moreover, I suspect Strawson of excluding the subject of action or choice and its actual principles of choice from the realm of intelligible things. This leads to disruption of request to conception of the world as internally consistent and in principle attainable by human beings. Finally, I show why I find sophisticated fatalism problematic in both of its versions, deterministic as well as indeterministic.

nÃo hà / Esta tese de doutorado considera a crÃtica da racionalidade tÃcnico-cientÃfica e a formaÃÃo do sujeito autÃnomo em Adorno no contexto da sociedade capitalista, com o objetivo de explicitar a dupla funÃÃo da educaÃÃo, no pensamento de Adorno, que se efetiva pelo processo de adaptaÃÃo e de resistÃncia dos indivÃduos à realidade socialmente constituÃda. A adaptaÃÃo à o estÃgio que integra o indivÃduo ao coletivo social e a resistÃncia se configura pelo desenvolvimento de sua capacidade crÃtica para se contrapor ao que a ele se impÃe. Para atingir nosso objetivo analisamos, principalmente, as obras de Adorno: DialÃtica negativa (2009), DialÃtica do esclarecimento (1985), EducaÃÃo e emancipaÃÃo (1995) e Teoria da semicultura (1996). Nessa perspectiva, desenvolvemos a tese com base na racionalidade reflexiva e a racionalidade tÃcnico-cientÃfica. Pela primeira racionalidade se tem a autonomia intelectual do sujeito, mas desvinculada da realidade concreta, a sua subjetividade se efetiva sem as mediaÃÃes histÃricas, à constituÃda de forma abstrata. No caso da segunda racionalidade, na proporÃÃo em que o homem se apropria do saber cientÃfico, menos autonomia ele tem para se conduzir na vida e promover a emancipaÃÃo humana. Essa questÃo à reforÃada pelo processo educacional, agenciado pelo sistema capitalista, para adaptar o sujeito ao padrÃo de comportamento que à conveniente à sua conservaÃÃo. Nele, a cultura se converte em semicultura e a formaÃÃo em semiformaÃÃo, impedindo ao sujeito de se apropriar da cultura para pensar de forma crÃtica e se contrapor Ãquilo que o oprime. Para Adorno, nÃo hà autonomia do sujeito sem o exercÃcio da reflexÃo crÃtica e nem emancipaÃÃo humana enquanto os indivÃduos nÃo recuperarem as suas particularidades. Para isto, ele concebe a educaÃÃo em duas dimensÃes: ela serve para adaptaÃÃo dos indivÃduos à coletividade social e como resistÃncia a toda forma de dominaÃÃo. Fazendo uso da dialÃtica negativa, o desafio da educaÃÃo à promover no sujeito a capacidade de pensar criticamente os conceitos universais a partir de sua nÃo-identidade. / This doctoral thesis considers the criticism of technical-scientific rationality and the formation of the autonomous subject in Adorno in the context of capitalist society, with the objective of explaining the dual function of education, in Adornoâs thought, which is effected by the process of adaptation and resistance of individuals to the socially constituted reality. Adaptation is the stage that integrates the individual into the social collective and resistance is shaped by the development of his critical capacity to counteract what is imposed on him. In order to reach our objective we analyze, mainly, the works of Adorno: Negative dialectic (2009), Dialectics of enlightenment (1985), Education and emancipation (1995) and Theory of Semiculture (1996). From this perspective, we develop the thesis based on reflexive rationality and technical-scientific rationality. By the first rationality one has the intellectual autonomy of the subject, but detached from concrete reality, his subjectivity becomes effective without historical mediations, is constituted in an abstract form. In the case of the second rationality, in proportion as man appropriates scientific knowledge, he has less autonomy to conduct himself in life and to promote human emancipation. This question is reinforced by the educational process, under the influence of the capitalist system, to adapt the subject to the standard of behavior that is convenient for its conservation. In it, culture becomes semi- culture and semiformation training, preventing the subject from appropriating culture to think critically and oppose what oppresses. For Adorno, there is no autonomy of the subject without the exercise of critical reflection or human emancipation as long as individuals do not recover their particularities. For this, he conceives education in two dimensions: it serves to adapt individuals to social collectivity and as resistance to every form of domination. Using the negative dialectic, the challenge of education is to promote in the subject the ability to think critically of universal concepts from their non-identity.

nÃo hà / Esta tese de doutorado considera a crÃtica da racionalidade tÃcnico-cientÃfica e a formaÃÃo do sujeito autÃnomo em Adorno no contexto da sociedade capitalista, com o objetivo de explicitar a dupla funÃÃo da educaÃÃo, no pensamento de Adorno, que se efetiva pelo processo de adaptaÃÃo e de resistÃncia dos indivÃduos à realidade socialmente constituÃda. A adaptaÃÃo à o estÃgio que integra o indivÃduo ao coletivo social e a resistÃncia se configura pelo desenvolvimento de sua capacidade crÃtica para se contrapor ao que a ele se impÃe. Para atingir nosso objetivo analisamos, principalmente, as obras de Adorno: DialÃtica negativa (2009), DialÃtica do esclarecimento (1985), EducaÃÃo e emancipaÃÃo (1995) e Teoria da semicultura (1996). Nessa perspectiva, desenvolvemos a tese com base na racionalidade reflexiva e a racionalidade tÃcnico-cientÃfica. Pela primeira racionalidade se tem a autonomia intelectual do sujeito, mas desvinculada da realidade concreta, a sua subjetividade se efetiva sem as mediaÃÃes histÃricas, à constituÃda de forma abstrata. No caso da segunda racionalidade, na proporÃÃo em que o homem se apropria do saber cientÃfico, menos autonomia ele tem para se conduzir na vida e promover a emancipaÃÃo humana. Essa questÃo à reforÃada pelo processo educacional, agenciado pelo sistema capitalista, para adaptar o sujeito ao padrÃo de comportamento que à conveniente à sua conservaÃÃo. Nele, a cultura se converte em semicultura e a formaÃÃo em semiformaÃÃo, impedindo ao sujeito de se apropriar da cultura para pensar de forma crÃtica e se contrapor Ãquilo que o oprime. Para Adorno, nÃo hà autonomia do sujeito sem o exercÃcio da reflexÃo crÃtica e nem emancipaÃÃo humana enquanto os indivÃduos nÃo recuperarem as suas particularidades. Para isto, ele concebe a educaÃÃo em duas dimensÃes: ela serve para adaptaÃÃo dos indivÃduos à coletividade social e como resistÃncia a toda forma de dominaÃÃo. Fazendo uso da dialÃtica negativa, o desafio da educaÃÃo à promover no sujeito a capacidade de pensar criticamente os conceitos universais a partir de sua nÃo-identidade. / This doctoral thesis considers the criticism of technical-scientific rationality and the formation of the autonomous subject in Adorno in the context of capitalist society, with the objective of explaining the dual function of education, in Adornoâs thought, which is effected by the process of adaptation and resistance of individuals to the socially constituted reality. Adaptation is the stage that integrates the individual into the social collective and resistance is shaped by the development of his critical capacity to counteract what is imposed on him. In order to reach our objective we analyze, mainly, the works of Adorno: Negative dialectic (2009), Dialectics of enlightenment (1985), Education and emancipation (1995) and Theory of Semiculture (1996). From this perspective, we develop the thesis based on reflexive rationality and technical-scientific rationality. By the first rationality one has the intellectual autonomy of the subject, but detached from concrete reality, his subjectivity becomes effective without historical mediations, is constituted in an abstract form. In the case of the second rationality, in proportion as man appropriates scientific knowledge, he has less autonomy to conduct himself in life and to promote human emancipation. This question is reinforced by the educational process, under the influence of the capitalist system, to adapt the subject to the standard of behavior that is convenient for its conservation. In it, culture becomes semi- culture and semiformation training, preventing the subject from appropriating culture to think critically and oppose what oppresses. For Adorno, there is no autonomy of the subject without the exercise of critical reflection or human emancipation as long as individuals do not recover their particularities. For this, he conceives education in two dimensions: it serves to adapt individuals to social collectivity and as resistance to every form of domination. Using the negative dialectic, the challenge of education is to promote in the subject the ability to think critically of universal concepts from their non-identity.