RESUMODuas das principais controvérsias que têm ocupado aqueles que se dedicam à teoria aristotélica do movimento animal são a controvérsia acerca da forma da cognição através da qual um animal irracional apreende um objeto como um objeto de desejo e a controvérsia acerca da função desempenhada pela cognição na explicação aristotélica dos movimentos voluntários de locomoção animal. Neste artigo, eu apresento uma teoria acerca das formas como o desejo e a cognição se articulam na teoria aristotélica segundo a qual um animal irracional apreende um objeto como um objeto de desejo através da percepção incidental deste objeto e, ao contrário do que a maioria parece acreditar, esta percepção não tem sempre a mesma função na produção destes movimentos. Se o que for dito aqui estiver correto, em alguns casos esta percepção é responsável tanto pela geração do desejo quanto pela sua orientação, mas em outros ela é responsável apenas pela sua orientação.Palavras-chave: Aristóteles, voluntário, movimento. ABSTRACTTwo of the main controversies that have occupied specialists who dedicate themselves to the study of Aristotle's theory of animal locomotion are the controversy about the form of the cognition through which an animal apprehends an object as an object of desire, and the controversy about the function of cognition in Aristotle's explanation of the voluntary locomotion of animals. In this article, I present an interpretation about the ways in which desire and cognition are articulated in Aristotle's theory according to which an animal apprehends an object as an object of desire through an incidental perception of this object and, contrary to what most seem to think, this perception does not have the same function in the production of these movements. If what is said here is correct, in some cases this perception is responsible for the generation and the orientation of a desire, but in other cases it is only responsible for its orientation.

This article offers a new formulation of the Socratic principle known as the Principle of the Sovereignty of Virtue (PSV). It is divided in three sections. In the first section I criticize Vlastos’ formulation of the PSV. In the second section I present the weighing model of practical deliberation, introduce the concepts of reason for action, simple reason, sufficient reason and conclusive reason that were offered by Thomas Scanlon in Being realistic about reasons (2014), and then I adapt these concepts so as to render them apt to be used in the formulation I intend to offer. In the third section I present my formulation of the PSV using the concepts introduced in the second section and explain why I believe this formulation is better than the one offered by Vlastos.

Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld was an American jurist who published a series of articles between 1909 and 1917 that were very important for 20th century analytical philosophy of right. In these articles, Hohfeld analyzed how jurists and judges alike use the word ‘right’ to speak of the rights of groups and individuals. Since he presented his articles, it has been commonplace among ‘hohfeldian specialists’ to distinguish rights into four groups: privileges, or claims, powers and immunities. This paper has four sections. In section I, I present Hohfeld’s notion of privilege and point to a difficulty that has long been known by specialists, namely, that there are actually two significantly different legal relations that this notion is supposed to cover. In section II, I analyze and criticize the way (Wenar 2005) proposes we should define these two legal relations. In section III, I do the same with suggestion proposed by (Moritz 1960, 1073). In section IV, I present my own suggestion about how we should understand them.

In Nascimento (2015) I criticized the thesis defended in Irwin (1983) according to which two of the most famous characters in Euripides’ plays. In that article, I’ve pointed out several weakness in these thesis in order to justify my disagreement. I also suggested that, although there was no reason why we should stop looking for examples and explanations of akratic behavior in Euripides’ plays, that should not be the only kind of irrational behavior we ought to be interested in finding there. In this paper, I argue that Medea actually instantiates a form of irrational behavior that is different from akratic behavior. The argument that follows is divided in four parts. After a brief introduction (section I), I clarify what sort of irrationality I believe to be instantiated by Medea’s behavior using Michael Bratman’s theory of plan stability (section II). Then, I analyze Euripides’ text in order to show why I think we should say that Medea does display that kind of irrationality (section III). The paper concludes with a brief summary of the argument (section IV). --- Original in English.

Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld was an American jurist who published a series of articles that were very important for 20 th century analytical philosophy of right. Since they appeared, it has become common to distinguish between four kinds of right, one for each of the four 'Hohfeldian incidents': privileges (or liberties), claims, powers and immunities. Although Hohfeld's theory has drawn much attention, very little of it has been directed to his concept of duty. In this article, I offer a clarification of this concept that takes into account both Hohfeld's original intentions and the new uses that have been made of his theory. In section I, I analyze and clarify the definition of the concept of duty that we find in Hohfeld (1913) to show that it was employed in order to denote a legal obligation and that this use is purely descriptive. In section II, I discuss what kinds of duties may appear as correlatives of privileges and claims inside a Hohfeldian model. In section III, I conclude with a brief summary of the argument.