Suchergebnisse

In the 1950s, Brazil first made science and technology (S&T) an explicit item on its federal policy agenda. The international crises of 1970s interrupted the expansion of public investment in the area. Following 2000, relative macroeconomic stability brought back industrial policies based on systemic approaches to innovation. However, S&T policies initiatives have been overcome by the ongoing macroeconomic crisis and the governments' incapa­bility to maintain the macroeconomic stability. This paper discusses Brazil's S&T policy track record, taking into account institutional path dependence that has held back the orchestration of a long term development model. ; A partir de los años 1950 políticas explícitas de C&T fueron incorporadas a la agenda de los gobiernos federales en Brasil. Las crisis internacionales de la década de 1970 interrumpieron las inversiones públicas en el área. En los años 2000, una relativa estabilización macroeconómica llevó a retomar las políticas industriales basadas en concepciones sistémicas de innovación. Con todo, la reciente crisis financiera internacional y la incapacidad de los gobiernos para mantener la estabilidad macroeconómica han restringido la acción de las políticas de C&T. El objetivo de este artículo es rescatar la trayectoria de la agenda de las políticas de C&T en Brasil, a partir de los caminos de dependencia institucional que han retardado la construcción de un modelo de desarrollo de largo plazo. ; Foi na década de 1950 que o Brasil incluiu explicitamente o item Ciência e Tecnologia (C&T) na agenda política em nível federal. As crises internacionais da década de 1970, entretanto, interromperam o avanço dos investi­mentos públicos nessa área, que acabaram sendo retomados nos anos 2000 com políticas industriais baseadas em concepções sistêmicas de inovação, a partir de um cenário de relativa estabilização macroeconômica. Contudo, a recente crise financeira internacional e a incapacidade dos governos de manter a estabilidade macroeconômica têm restringido a ação de políticas de C&T. O objetivo deste artigo é resgatar a trajetória da agenda das políticas de C&T no Brasil, considerando a dependência de caminhos institucionais que têm retardado a construção de um modelo de desenvolvimento de longo prazo.

Due to the naturalization of the protagonism of the concept of experience in the interpretation of Theodor Adorno's dialectic, this article intends to elucidate some lines of displacement from the category of experience to the category of mediation, from the critical appropriation of this category of Hegel's thought by Adorno; because, since all experience is mediated, mediation presents itself as a condition for the realization of the experience and, for this reason, mediation is established as a privileged instance in the process of knowledge in the scope of the subject and object relationship, given that defines itself as a cause and condition for the organization of experience. Fundamentally, the proposal is to demonstrate that both Hegelian and Adornian dialectics - despite their idiosyncrasies - have in mediation their motivic aspect of determining the subjective and the objective. Therefore, the concept of mediation will be presented as a transversal and reciprocal component that, at the same time that it brings together, distinguishes the related aspects, making dialectics a procedure, within which mediation becomes a condition and fundamental for the development and the determination of the concepts circumscribed in a given context or situation. In this sense, mediation will emerge as the structuring agent of experience, a fact that justifies its priority in relation to experience, as described by Hegel.

In this paper will investigate the criticisms presented by Gerald Allan Cohen of the difference principle asserted by the American philosopher John Rawls. Cohen claims that the difference principle allows for exorbitant inequalities and that these inequalities would undermine the ethos of solidarity assumed by Rawls. Against Cohen's criticisms, it will be emphasized the fact that the principles of justice as fairness must be read together (holistic reading), and therefore the inequalities allowed by the difference principle are much smaller than Cohen believed, since equal liberty, fair equality of opportunity, and the fair value of the equal political liberties must also be ensured. Thus, to ensure that the principles work together, it will be argued that the scope of the principle is much narrower than Cohen thought. It is emphasized that in Rawlsian thought there is no need for constant economic growth, and the principle of difference should not be seen as a market principle, on which its objective is not to be a mere principle of reparation, but a principle that affirms reciprocity between fellow citizens of a democratic society.

The quantum mechanics instituted a completely new mathematical language. This change in physics required physicists and philosophers to rethink the concepts by which reality could be represented, since classical notions were limited in the understanding of atomic phenomena. The French philosopher G. Bachelard and the German physicist W. Heisenberg are authors who have discussed the major changes that have occurred in physics and have dealt with the problem of language in quantum mechanics. In this article, the objective is to resort to the arguments of both authors to evidence relations between their ideas about the referred subject. It is noteworthy that Bachelard and Heisenberg criticize the application of the usual language and philosophical concepts of modernity in the new physics, but, through his notion of rupture, the French philosopher proposes that quantum mechanics be restricted to mathematical language. This idea runs counter to Bohr's principle of complementarity, which Heisenberg acknowledges in the understanding of quantum phenomena and an interpretation of quantum physics.