In this article, I present a five-part critique of the main aspects of the second edition of Music Matters by David Elliott and Marissa Silverman. This edition further develops their praxial philosophy, comprising topics on the nature and value of music education from a normative perspective, which in turn is developed to suit all musical education contexts. My analysis is organized in five main arguments concerning, first, an absence of historicity; second, the adoption of universalist premises; third, the inconsistency between (...) the concepts of personhood and musical value; fourth, the adoption of a normative philosophy; and fifth, the relation between synthesis and content in the chapters. I argue that the book is constructed from a universalistic perspective and that its premises have epistemological inconsistencies. I offer a critical analysis of this extensive work for the purpose of engaging in a dialogue about themes which are relevant to the further development of philosophical thought in music education. (shrink)

ABSTRACT For a long time, the question of the existence of free will has fueled philosophical debate with no definitive solution. Libet’s paradigm (1983) seemed to demonstrate that simple and apparently voluntary movements could be triggered not by consciousness, but by preconscious or random brain processes. Such findings had wide repercussions in the academic and scientific circles, triggering an extensive discussion among neuroscientists, philosophers and jurists. Exploring the interfaces between neuroscience and free will, the present work aims to formulate an (...) updated synthesis of the diverse problematizations about the Libetian findings. It appears that Libet’s essay, although repeatedly analyzed and replicated in recent decades, still lacks a definitive interpretation, in part due to methodological controversies and specific conceptual shortcomings. The deepening of these investigations, combined with the new discoveries offered by neuroscience, can enrich research on free will in the coming years. (shrink)

Due to the advent of modern neuroscience, several scientific disciplines have developed entirely new theories, perspectives, and methodologies. The substantial advances and discoveries made in this field over the last decades, especially those concerned with human cognition and behavior, have steered the course of many traditional research areas and given rise to others, like neuroethics and neurolaw. Here we take a look at some of the general characteristics of the growing field of neurolaw, an interdisciplinary field that dwells on the (...) intersection of law and neuroscience. We then discuss the neuroscience of free will, one of the most impacting and pressing topics in the neurolaw debate, with special attention to Libet’s paradigm, recent scientific developments, and novel interpretations that question customary assumptions about it. (shrink)

Neste trabalho, pretende-se analisar o que se quer dizer com “falácia naturalista” e saber se há bons argumentos para sustentarmos a existência de uma falácia desse tipo. Começaremos estudando o que Hume falou sobre o assunto; se realmente ele enunciou algo como uma “Lei” contra derivar um “dever-ser” de um “ser”. Depois da obra de Hume, passaremos à de Moore. Na obra de Moore, veremos se ele quer dizer com o termo o mesmo que dizemos atualmente. Analisadas as obras dos (...) dois autores, passaremos, por último, a estudar o que “falácia naturalista” e “derivar um dever-ser de um ser” quer dizer hoje. Concluiremos que não há bons argumentos para aceitarmos que o que esses termos denotam é de fato uma falácia. Abstract:In this work, our aim is to investigate the meaning of the term “naturalistic fallacy”, and if there are good arguments to sustain the existence of a fallacy of this kind. We will begin studying what Hume said about the matter; if he really enunciated something like a “Law” against deriving a “is” from a “ought”. In the next section, we will proceed to the the arguments brought by Moore, to see whether the meaning of term is the same for him and us. Having analyzed the works of the two authors, we will proceed, in the final section, to study what the terms “naturalistic fallacy” and “deriving an ought from an is” means today. Finally, we will conclude that there aren’t good arguments for us to accept that what these terms denote is in fact a fallacy. (shrink)

O presente artigo pretende analisar a crítica de Arthur Schopenhauer à postulação da liberdade da vontade como a condição de possibilidade da imputabilidade jurídica. Segundo o filósofo, uma vontade intelectualmente determinável, e não uma vontade incondicionada, é que seria o verdadeiro elemento viabilizador da imputação estatal, com a conclusão de que é com o potencial de modificação do agente, e não com a culpabilidade que a sociedade e o Estado devem se preocupar. Isso significa que, no entender de Schopenhauer, uma (...) concepção alternativa e determinista como a sua, ao contrário do que normalmente se diz, não compromete a imputabilidade, antes, potencializa-a, razão pela qual não há o que temer. (shrink)

O objetivo deste artigo é analisar a crítica de Waldron a Rawls, feita no livro “Law and Disagreement”. Queremos saber se nessa crítica está implícita a ideia de que Rawls faz uma má idealização. Para fazer isso, teremos, em primeiro lugar, que esclarecer o que é uma “teoria ideal” e o que são boas ou más idealizações. Falaremos sobre essas distinções na primeira seção do artigo. Waldron ataca a alegada incapacidade da teoria de Rawls de tratar seriamente os desacordos sobre (...) princípios políticos. A exposição dessa crítica e a análise de seu desenrolar vai ocupar as parcelas mais significativas do artigo, e será feita nas seções seguintes. Ao fim da análise, defenderemos que, apesar de a crítica de Waldron ser forte, ela não implica que há más idealizações de Rawls. (shrink)