Repositório RCAAP

The myocardium consists of numerous cell types embedded in organized layers of ECM (extracellular matrix) and requires an intricate network of blood and lymphatic vessels and nerves to provide nutrients and electrical coupling to the cells. Although much of the focus has been on cardiomyocytes, these cells make up <40% of cells within a healthy adult heart. Therefore, repairing or regenerating cardiac tissue by merely reconstituting cardiomyocytes is a simplistic and ineffective approach. In fact, when an injury occurs, cardiac tissue organization is disrupted at the level of the cells, the tissue architecture, and the coordinated interaction among the cells. Thus, reconstitution of a functional tissue must reestablish electrical and mechanical communication between cardiomyocytes and restore their surrounding environment. It is also essential to restore distinctive myocardial features, such as vascular patency and pump function. In this article, we review the current status, challenges, and future priorities in cardiac regenerative or reparative medicine. In the first part, we provide an overview of our current understanding of heart repair and comment on the main contributors and mechanisms involved in innate regeneration. A brief section is dedicated to the novel concept of rejuvenation or regeneration, which we think may impact future development in the field. The last section describes regenerative therapies, where the most advanced and disruptive strategies used for myocardial repair are discussed. Our recommendations for priority areas in studies of cardiac regeneration or repair are summarized in Tables 1 and 2 .

Recent work in the ethics of care is used as a point of departure for thought about the kinds of social conditions that lead to terrorism. Allusion is made to the work of Bayoumi, Held and others, and it is concluded that political acts of terror are often a response to a climate of hostility, including microaggression.

Monroe Beardsley apresenta uma definição estética de arte em “An Aesthetic Definition of Art” (1983), defendendo a ligação necessária entre arte e estética. Beardsley propõe que uma obra de arte é algo feito com a intenção de ter a capacidade de satisfazer um interesse estético. Noël Carroll alega que existem obras de arte criadas sem intenções estéticas e que algumas obras não possuem a capacidade de proporcionar experiências estéticas. Além disso, Carroll argumenta que existem obras cujo estatuto de arte é anterior à apreciação destas obras como arte. Este artigo pretende apresentar a definição estética de arte de Beardsley e analisar como as objeções a ela podem ser respondidas.

No summary/description provided

O objetivo do presente artigo é avaliar, a partir de aspectos pontuais e específicos, a interpretação que o pensador dinamarquês Georg Brandes apresenta de Kierkegaard e Nietzsche como importantes críticos da cultura europeia do século XIX e da filosofia produzida no período.

No summary/description provided

No summary/description provided

No summary/description provided

Hegel conceptualized the capitalist economy as a system of needs, with commodities and money serving as means to human ends. While anticipating Marx’s criticisms of certain tendencies in capitalism, Hegel insisted that higher‑order institutions, especially those of the modern state, could put them out of play and establish a reconciliation of universality, particularity, and individuality warranting rational affirmation. Hegel, however, failed to comprehend the emergence of capital as a dominant subject, subordinating human ends under its end (“valorization”). The structural coercion, domination, and exploitation inherent in the capital/wage labor relationship illustrate that point, as does the depoliticization of inherently political matters in capitalist market societies. The reconciliation of universality, particularity, and individuality Hegel endorsed requires a form of socialism incorporating deliberative democracy in local workplaces and communities, conjoined with representative bodies on regional, national, and ultimately global levels.

Theories about mathematics teacher education depend critically on how one responds to questions such as: What is the nature of teacher knowledge? And how is such knowledge to be appraised? By the external views of the researcher, by the internal views of the teacher group, or by any other way? The external perspective of the researcher is able to mobilize important theoretical and empirical tools, however, this external perspective is often unable to grasp essential elements of the complexity of teacher knowledge, practice, and identity. Just capturing the views of teachers brings with it the concern that these views are often contradictory, assuming different values, orientations, and agendas from one teacher group to another, depending on grade level, school system, country, world region, and so forth. Another approach is to combine the experiences and perspectives of teachers and researchers. This paper explores the question of relevant theories in mathematics teacher education from all three perspectives.

Hegel is sometimes regarded as a defender of the market system. Recently, Heisenberg (2018) argued that the prevailing view of Hegel is incomplete, as it overlooks a fundamental advantage of the market: its educational role. In his reading, the Hegelian defence of the market system includes seeing the market as the sphere where persons learn both to regard others as individuals with equal standing and equally relevant desires and to see the well‑ordered civil society as the space where all social members can find protection and fulfil their needs. I argue that this focus, while inadequate as a sole ground for a critique of today’s market systems, can potentially bring forward new normative critiques of the market. These in turn require departing from Hegel’s baseline assumptions regarding the market sphere and applying this analysis to the locus where the educational impact of markets arguably subsists: the local or national levels.

Pretendemos analisar a abordagem materialista da categoria de totalidade desenvolvida por Marx, nomeadamente a sua aplicação teórica na interpretação dialéctica do conceito de produção no sistema económico capitalista.

My article does not aim at a comparison between Hegel’s and Marx’s points of view on Asia as such. The Hegelian motives are employed to understand the place and the significance of the Orient in Marx’s writings from the 1850s onwards. The more Marx learns from original and/or updated sources on the Oriental societies, the more Hegel’s authority seems inadequate to provide a reliable and comprehensive account of their history and social organization. Yet his “spirit” still holds together the different perspectives from which the subject is approached by Marx (economy, history and praxis, above all). In other words, Marx’s interest in Asia is here considered through the lens of Hegel’s legacy in order to reflect on the endless effort of the materialistic dialectic to encompass the complexity of reality and global history.

Taking its cue from the untimely paradoxes manifesting themselves in some of the most visible instances of Hegel’s and Marx’s reception in the twentieth century, this essay proceeds to explore the ground between the two thinkers with particular reference to their philosophico‑historical grasp of repetition. After a number of preliminary observations on the ideological subtext involved in Marx’s reference to Hegel in the Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte and the temporality their intertextual conjuncture stages, I focus on four major complications that attend the comparison of Hegelian and Marxian notions of repetition, as well as on their correlation to the historical events of Revolution, Counter‑Revolution and Restoration. I conclude with some reflections on the “exit strategies” Marx and Hegel adopt vis‑à‑vis the specter of iteration as a sign of submission to the gravitational pull of the past upon the present and future.

A teoria da reflexão de Hegel desempenha um papel tanto lógico quanto ontológico na teoria do trabalho e da propriedade privada de Marx. Qual é o ponto de comparação entre a teoria hegeliana da reflexão e a teoria marxiana? A teoria da alienação. Em Hegel econtramos a alienação do pensamento no pensar reflexionante – o modo de operação do entendimento; em Marx, a alienação do trabalho sob a propriedade privada. Como atividade, o trabalho tem, de acordo com Marx – tal como a atividade do pensar, em Hegel – a estrutura da negatividade: a estrutura da exteriorização e do retorno a si mesmo. Nos Manuscritos Econômicos e Filosóficos (1844), em particular, Marx desenvolveu uma teoria da exteriorização do trabalho na qual a alienação impede que este cumpra o seu retorno a si. O trabalho torna‑se alienado, sai de si e permanece fora de si, pois é apropriado pela propriedade privada.

O texto que apresento incide sobre as representações culturais do feminino e as práticas de exploração da mulher, que se manifestam na cultura ocidental, na sociedade e no trabalho, através de conceitos deformados e mecanismos discriminatórios, num quadro de relações de produção capitalista. Num longo percurso histórico, de confronto entre o capital e o trabalho assalariado, o processo de emancipação social da mulher tem sido objecto de debate e reflexão, nomeadamente através de uma abordagem materialista e dialéctica, mantendo toda a actualidade no plano político e ideológico. Tomando como referência as «Teses sobre Feuerbach», de Marx pretendo contribuir para a reflexão do tema, partindo da tese 8, onde se enuncia: «O viver social é essencialmente prático», mostrando a pertinência das teses do autor sobre relações sociais de classe no viver humano, a sua ligação com as questões do feminino e a condição social da mulher na sociedade contemporânea. Do meu ponto de vista, o contributo do pensamento de Marx permite contextualizar a questão, perspectivar horizontes de orientação teórica e prática, chegar à compreensão do problema e contribuir para o exercício de uma prática transformadora, tendo em vista a emancipação social do ser humano.

In this article we shall try to explore the ethical aspects of the Dao De Jing and the fragments of the pre‑Socratic philosopher Heraclitus based on the symbolism of the infant that they both use. At first a very short introduction needs to be made concerning the basis of morality and the difference between China and Greece. Needless to say we must take into account the general ethical context in the civilizations of ancient China and ancient Greece and indicate (if possible) whether the DDJ is to be seen as a strictly ethical/political text as well as whether Heraclitus’ fragments work as an ethical map for the people of his time and place.63 I intent to structure this article in two chapters each one dedicated to each of the philosophers along with a short introduction in the beginning. As far as the main chapters are concerned the Lao‑Zi’s DDJ will be analyzed at first from the perspective of ethics in connection to the symbol of the infant not rarely used by Lao‑Zi. Secondly I shall deal with the ethical thought of Heraclitus and his perspective of the infant found in some of his fragments. Let us keep in mind that apart from the fragments themselves, the witnesses (i.e. stories about his life) play a not less important role in our extracting his philosophical opinions.64 Lastly we shall try to come to a conclusion concerning the similarities and dissimilarities between Lao‑Zi and Heraclitus regarding their views on ethics and especially regarding the use of the infant as a symbol or a pattern.

Este artigo oferece uma leitura sobre o “perigoso dilema” cético de David Hume, comparando‑o com o pensamento de autores do século XVII como Descartes, Pascal e Huet no que diz respeito à oscilação entre o nosso sentimento natural e a dúvida cética. A partir daí, propomos uma leitura diferente sobre a relação entre sentimento e razão no Tratado da Natureza Humana, muitas vezes, tomada somente de modo negativo e tensionado pelos intérpretes do ceticismo de Hume.

In 1781, prior to any Kantian reference in favor of the epigenesis – a direct, nominal reference, published in life –, two comparative passages of the “Architectonic of Pure Reason” will have drawn no attention from his readers. But, despite omitting that “augmentation” [Vermehrung], such passages shall lead, both on its own and jointly, to the possibility of a retrospective conflict regarding that theory; a conflict of a conceptual nature which may have repercussions on Kant’s position on the epigenesis, be it directly, on a metaphorical-speculative level, be it indirectly, on an embryological level. The present, ongoing study shall deal with the collocation of the problem, the presentation of some elements in view of its analysis and, finally, a possible solution for the difficulties which the two passages of both editions of the Critique indirectly raise.

No summary/description provided