Montaigne & Descartes. A philosophical genealogy

When we resolved to begin a multi-voiced research into \u201cMontaigne and Descartes\u201d and described it, in the subtitle, as a \u201cphilosophical genealogy\u201d, we took two important decisions. The first relates to the cultural problem of revising the traditional classifications of the authors; the second to the even harder theoretical problem of the interpretation of the category of \u201cphilosophical genealogy\u201d in historical, philosophical and hermeneutical terms. First decision The subtitle of our research \u2013 \u201ca philosophical genealogy\u201d \u2013 asserts the possibility of a philosophical reading of Montaigne, against interpretations stressing only the literary aspects of the Essais or just emphasising the psychological epic of the discovery of the self, whilst underestimating the place of the Essais in philosophy: this because of the absence of systematic thought as well as of his writing in the first person, too close to the style of the fragment. But are these elements not philosophical options? Is this absence of a doctrinal unity not the philosophical decision of renouncing the being for the becoming? Is his penchant for variety not the result of a research that chooses a sceptical questioning, rejecting the safety and the negations of the dogmatism? Is his free, \u201cfirst person writing\u201d not the personal choice of writing a \u201cliving book\u201d living in the temporality of a moi, so that this moi-m\ueame becomes \u201cla matiere de mon livre\u201d (I, 3), offering at the same time \u201cla forme entiere de l\u2019humaine condition\u201d (III, 2, 804)? And is this erratic style of writing not the philoso\uacphical answer that Montaigne delivers to the god Theuth of Phaedrus, by writing a book that does not aim to contain clear and solid teachings, but simply to recall to memory a man: Michel de Montaigne (III, 2, 805)? Then, Montaigne belongs to philosophy and to its history. He does not belong to philosophy as the protagonist of a philosophical life following the ideal of wisdom of the mind and quietness of the soul. The \u201cApologie\u201d multiplies the attacks on philosophical virtue and on stoical firmness, whilst the philosopher always has to face change and difference. \u201cJe ne suis pas philosophe\u201d (III, 9, 949), writes Montaigne in the chapter \u201cDe la vanit\ue9\u201d: he refuses to incarnate the philosopher who has \u201cband\ue9 son esprit\u201d (II, 6, 370) acknowledging the vanity of a firm resolution and a rigid inflexibility. If he is a philosopher, he is the interpreter of a new type of philosopher: \u201cun philosophe impremedit\ue9 et fortuite\u201d (II, 12, 546) who can recognize \u201cde bonne foy son irr\ue9solution, sa foiblesse et son ignorance\u201d (II, 17, 634). A philosopher, as he writes, \u201cnaturel et ordinaire\u201d (II, 10, 409). Furthermore, Montaigne belongs to the history of philosophy: not as a living library of Ancient philosophy or as a cultured intermediary between Medieval and Modern philosophy, but as the interpreter of a philosophy close to the \u201cpens\ue9e de l\u2019essai\u201d, always open to research and to inquiry, listening with \u201cfacilit\ue9\u201d (I, 26,162) to a diversity of opinions and accepting with \u201chumilit\ue9\u201d (II, 12, 488) a variety of traditions. Second decision The sub-title of our research \u2013 \u201ca philosophical genealogy\u201d \u2013 again asserts the existence of a continuity between Montaigne and Descartes and, moreover, of an affiliation and lineage between these two authors. These aspects of continuity, affiliation and lineage, nevertheless, have been differently received, discussed and interpreted in contemporary literature according to different modalities that interweave with each other. The philological-philosophical modality of \u2018the text\u2019, based on the literary comparison of the works \u2013 e.g. textual occurrences, primary or secondary quotes, direct and indirect connections, explicit and implicit cross-references -, tries to retrace the role and the influence of the Essais in the construction of Cartesian philosophy. An influence that, as with any philosophical influence, becomes the acceptance of arguments or their discussion or even the explicit denial of theoretical positions, distinct and peculiar to the two authors. Hence, the question of \u2018the text\u2019 is converted into the question of \u2018the theory\u2019 and refers to the theoretical modality of \u2018the concept\u2019. Starting from the historical and philosophical \u2018dialogue\u2019 between the two authors, this modality permits conceptual analogies, theoretical variations, thematic discontinuities to emerge through the analysis of subjects and arguments and comparative studies of demonstrative practices involved. Thus, the philosophical research on the \u201cphilosophical genealogy\u201d from Montaigne to Descartes raises the philosophical question of the actual pertinence of these philosophies, setting them in dialogue with other philosophers. This philosophical experiment, built on philological and historical data, exceeds, however, the classical categories of both text and history and nourishes a philosophical reflection on the present, for the present. Therefore, a broader view of the literature presents a long \u201cbibliographical genealogy\u201d of our research on Montaigne and Descartes, and confirms the relevance and also the problematic complexity of our decisions concerning their \u201cphilosophical genealogy\u201d: namely, the literary contacts, conceptual proximities and hermeneutic continuities, and also the epistemological breaks, theoretical distances, and philosophical discussions between these authors. In their works and in their \u201cgenealogies\u201d, they bear the signs of the first Modernity and interpret its various aspects, showing, at the same time, its ambiguities and its contradictions. The collection of texts we are presenting in this volume aims to be, above all, evidence that these subjects have not lost any of their contemporary relevance

Quelantes como aditivos anti-hidratação da magnésia Chelants as magnesia anti-hydration additives

A magnésia confere aos concretos excelentes propriedades refratárias aliadas a uma elevada resistência a escórias básicas. Entretanto, na presença de água, ela se hidrata em uma reação expansiva formando o hidróxido de magnésio. A expansão gerada, se não for controlada ou reduzida, danifica a estrutura do material podendo até levar à sua completa desintegração. Neste trabalho, aditivos conhecidos como quelantes foram adicionados à suspensão de sínter de magnésia, com e sem cimento de aluminato de cálcio, a fim de evitar a reação de hidratação da magnésia. Sob o ponto de vista químico, foram realizadas medidas de potencial zeta e grau de hidratação, correlacionando a mudança da carga superficial da magnésia gerada pela presença dos aditivos à quantidade de hidróxido formada. Sob o ponto de vista mecânico e físico, foram realizados o monitoramento da expansão volumétrica aparente e o registro de imagens das amostras. O melhor aditivo anti-hidratação para as amostras com aluminato de cálcio foi o ácido cítrico. A adição de apenas 0,3%-p foi capaz de quase anular a quantidade de hidróxido formada e adicionalmente zerar a expansão.<br>Magnesia addition to the refractory castables improves the refractoriness and basic slag corrosion resistance. However, in contact with water, magnesia hydrates by an expansive reaction resulting magnesium hydroxide, Mg(OH)2. If this expansion is not controlled or reduced, it can lead to the rupture and under harsh conditions, to material dusting. In this study, additives known as chelants were added to the magnesia sinter suspensions, with or without calcium aluminate cement, with the objective to inhibit the hydration reaction. Considering the chemical aspects, zeta potential and hydration degree were measured and the changes on the surface charge of magnesia caused by the additives adsorption were correlated to the hydroxide amount generated. Concerning the physical and mechanical aspects, apparent volumetric expansion was recorded. The best additive anti-hydration for the samples containing cement was citric acid. Just 0.3wt% was enough to almost inhibit completely the Mg(OH)2 formation, and led to no expansion