Local: online

Início: sexta-feira, 17 de abril 2026

Término:  sexta-feira, 19 de junho de 2026

Horário: 10h00 – 12h00 (Brasília) |14h00 – 16h00 (Lisboa – GMT+1)

Contato: animalphilosophy.diversitas@gmail.com

Colóquio de finalização: 20 de junho de 2026

Inscrições: bit.ly/sercomido

A atividade é aberta e é necessário realizar inscrição. A periodicidade é semanal, às sextas-feiras. Serão emitidos certificados de participação a partir de 70% de frequência.  Para o encerramento do ciclo, será realizado um colóquio no dia 20 de junho.

DESCRIÇÃO

O décimo ciclo do Grupo de Leitura Filosofia Animal (Diversitas–FFLCH/USP e Grupo Praxis–CFUL), sob o tema “Comer. Ser comido”, abre convite para a leitura coletiva de alguns capítulos do livro O Olho do Crocodilo (2012), de Val Plumwood, e da entrevista “É preciso comer bem” ou o cálculo do sujeito, de Jacques Derrida, em conversa com Jean-Luc Nancy (1988).

Desta vez, está no cerne do nosso estudo a questão da carne e da ingestão da carne do Outro, entendida como um ato que desloca e dissolve a separação entre sujeito e objeto e que, em geral, é abordado sob os conceitos de antropofagia e canibalismo em contextos histórico-culturais, etnográficos e etológicos.

Enquanto Val Plumwood, em sua experiência-limite de confronto com um crocodilo, se percebe não mais como um sujeito humano superior, mas efetivamente como presa e elemento comestível na cadeia alimentar, Jacques Derrida concentra sua atenção na questão da estrutura sacrificial, buscando “reconhecer um lugar aberto, na própria estrutura desses discursos — que são também os das ‘culturas’ —, para uma matança não criminal: com ingestão, incorporação ou introjeção do cadáver” (Derrida, 1988).

Os dois textos principais serão acompanhados por uma seleção de literatura secundária, a fim de ampliar o tema e os conceitos centrais.

Bibliografia principal

Plumwood, Val (2024). El ojo del crocodilo. (Trad.) Valentin Huarte. Cuidad Autónoma de Buenes Aires. Cactus. Ed. original (2012). The Eye of the Crocodile. Canberra. ANU Press The Australian National University.

Derrida, Jacques (1992) É preciso comer bem ou o cálculo do sujeito. (Trad.) Denise Dardeau e Carla Rodrigues. Revista Latinoamericana do Colégio Internacional de Filosofia. Nº3. Enero 2018. pdf em https://revistalatinoamericana-ciph.org/numero-3/

SOBRE O GRUPO DE LEITURA FILOSOFIA ANIMAL

O Grupo de Leitura Filosofia Animal é um trabalho de parceria entre o Grupo de Pesquisa sobre Ética e Direitos dos Animais do Núcleo Diversitas/FFLCH da Universidade de São Paulo e o Grupo Praxis do Centro de Filosofia da Universidade de Lisboa. Tem como objetivo reunir pessoas dispostas a, coletivamente, ler e discutir textos clássicos e contemporâneos que se dediquem à análise das complexas relações entre humanos e outros animais, abarcando também o tema da animalidade, nos âmbitos da ontologia, da política, da cultura, da ética e da atual crise ecológica, transitando por diferentes campos do conhecimento.

Realizamos um ciclo de leitura por semestre. Os encontros são semanais, sempre no período da manhã no horário do Brasil e no início da tarde no horário de Portugal.

O primeiro ciclo foi dedicado à leitura do livro “O animal que logo sou (a seguir)”, de Jacques Derrida. O segundo, foi dedicado ao tema “Devires-animais?”. O terceiro, a leituras de Donna Haraway. O quarto, a textos de Judith Butler e Emmanuel Levinas, respectivamente, sobre os conceitos de precariedade e alteridade). O quinto, ao livro “O que os animais nos ensinam sobre política”, de Brian Massumi. O sexto, ao tema “Sobre a alma e a razão dos animais: perspectivas históricas”. O sétimo, a leitura do livro “As Origens Animais da Cultura”, de Dominique Lestel. O oitavo, a leitura do livro “Filosofia de la Animalidad”, de Felice Cimatti. O nono, a leitura de alguns capítulos do livro “A Besta e o Soberano”. Volume 1. Seminário (2001-2002)”., de Jacques Derrida.

A cada finalização de ciclo são realizados eventos na forma de colóquios ou palestras com convidadas(os) externas(os), com o objetivo de melhor aprofundar os estudos e ampliar as discussões para além do trabalho realizado pelo grupo.

ORGANIZAÇÃO
Grupo de Pesquisa sobre Ética e Direitos dos Animais do Diversitas – FFLCH/USP (Núcleo de Estudos das Diversidades, Intolerâncias e Conflitos – Universidade de São Paulo)
http://diversitas.fflch.usp.br/

Grupo Práxis do Centro de Filosofia da Universidade de Lisboa
https://cful.letras.ulisboa.pt/praxis/

COORDENAÇÃO

Luanda Francine Garcia da Costa – CFUL (Lisboa) / Diversitas (FFLCH/USP)

Dirk Michael Hennrich – CFUL (Lisboa) / Diversitas (FFLCH/USP)

Katerina Standish

University of Northern British Columbia

Encounter Theory: A Pathway Forward

28 October 2025, 17h00 (Lisbon Time — GMT+1)

Sala Mattos Romão (Room C201.J – Department of Philosophy)

School of Arts and Humanities – University of Lisbon

Abstract

Encounter Theory: A Pathway Forward is a theory and practice for dealing with conflict in the 21st Century. We are living in a world of anger, prejudice, trauma, and destitution. We need a way forward that creates human unity from responsible and nourishing attention—to change the future and step away from the violence and vitriol of the recent decades. Designed to both illustrate and agitate our perception and utilization of conflict transformation, Encounter Theory offers scholars, peacebuilders, and students a unique opportunity to see the work of violence transformation in a comprehensive and complementary way. Bringing together frames, concepts, pedagogies, and praxis from several interventional disciplines, Encounter Theory is a platform for understanding and addressing violence in society, culture, community, and the self.

This event is funded by Portuguese national funds through FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P., within the project UID/00310, Centro de Filosofia da Universidade de Lisboa

Sjoerd van Tuinen

Erasmus University Rotterdam

Agamben’s modal metaphysics

21 October 2025, 17:15 (Lisbon Time — GMT+1)

Sala Mattos Romão (Room C201.J – Department of Philosophy)

School of Arts and Humanities – University of Lisbon

Abstract

Starting from an observation made by the Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben, I draw the outline of what could be called a ‘continental modal metaphysics’. Agamben suggests that the difference between analytical and continental philosophy goes back to the unresolved tension between the logical notion of modality (the four modal categories of necessity, possibility, contingency, impossibility that quantify the reality of some quidditative thing) and the ontological concept of a mode that is itself real yet not like things, and that is more fundamental than the distinction between essence and existence. My argument consists of two steps. First, I discuss two problems in the dominant form of modal metaphysics, analytical modal logic and its Aristotelian antecedents: the problems of the indeterminacy of the possible and its exhaustion by the actual. Drawing on Agamben, I then develop a concept of mode of existence that revolves around difference rather than identity. I argue that we must modalize the relation itself between the possible and the real: what passes from potential to actual is not an essence mirroring existence according to varying degrees of perfection, but the modality or sense in which existence alters itself. Accordingly I argue that continental philosophy defends a sense of possibility that is, firstly, not separate from the real but strictly a part of it, and secondly, that is more rather than less than the actual.

This event is funded by Portuguese national funds through FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P., within the project UID/00310, Centro de Filosofia da Universidade de Lisboa

Tuğba Sevinç

Kadir Has University

Solidarity: A defense of its plurality

7 October 2025, 17h00 (Lisbon Time — GMT+1)

Sala Mattos Romão (Room C201.J – Department of Philosophy)

School of Arts and Humanities – University of Lisbon

Abstract

In this talk I will discuss two distinct accounts on the emergence and cultivation of solidarity: one emphasizing cooperation (harmonious solidarity) and the other highlighting adversity and joint struggle (antagonistic solidarity). In so doing, I challenge Andrea Sangiovanni’s recent attempt to develop a single, overarching definition of solidarity―as “a joint action against (some) significant adversity” (2024). Sangiovanni argues that all historically paradigmatic cases of solidarity, such as Bourgeois’ solidarism, Durkheim’s organic solidarity, nationalist solidarity, Christian solidarity, and the solidarity of social movements, have an “underlying unity” and can be translated into this basic antagonistic formula. While the philosophical endeavor of developing a unified framework for solidarity is captivating, I contend that we should embrace the diversity of solidarity since each account points out distinct possibilities and challenges calling for different strategies to create and foster solidarity. Thus, the paper highlights (and reconstructs) a significant strand in the history of solidarity literature that posits solidarity as emerging from cooperative actions and interactions among individuals and groups (Durkheim, the French Solidarists such as Léon Bourgeois and Alfred Fouillée, Hegel, Marx, Józef Tischner, and Rawls). Overall, my aim will be to challenge the prevailing emphasis on antagonistic theories of solidarity within recent scholarship and to bring forth the unique characteristics of cooperative (harmonious) approaches to solidarity.

This event is funded by Portuguese national funds through FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P., within the project UID/00310, Centro de Filosofia da Universidade de Lisboa.

Reading Group as part of the Praxis-CFUL activities

The Science of Logic is probably one of the fundamental texts for understanding the Hegelian thought. Indeed, the Logic represents the first sphere of Hegel’s encyclopedic system, and its comprehension is essential to grasp the structure of the Philosophy of Nature and the Philosophy of Spirit.

After reading the first book in the previous cycle, in this reading group we propose a detailed reading of the second book of the Science of Logic, the Doctrine of Essence.

Working language: English

Format: Online

Organizers: Silvia Locatelli and Iñigo Baca

The reading group will be online. It will be held every two weeks, on Fridays 16h00-18h00 Lisbon Time (GMT+0)

To register and ask for the link, please send an email to locatelli.silvia.96 [at] gmail.com

We will use the following recommended edition:

Hegel, G.W.F. The Science of Logic. Trans. George Di Giovanni. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Program

Session 1 | 3 October 2025

Section I: Essence as reflection within
Chapter 1. Shine (pp. 337-354)

Session 2 | 17 October 2025

Chapter 2. The essentialities or the determinations of reflection (pp. 354-386)

Session 3 | 31 October 2025

Chapter 3. Ground (pp. 386-418)

Session 4 | 14 November 2025

Section II: Appearance
Chapter 1. Concrete existence (pp. 418-437)

Session 5 | 28 November 2025

Chapter 2. Appearance (pp. 437-449)

Session 6 | 12 December 2025

Chapter 3. The essential relation (pp. 449-465)

Session 7 | 16 January 2026

Section III: Actuality
Chapter 1. The absolute (pp. 465-477)

Session 8 | 30 January 2026

Chapter 2. Actuality (pp. 477-489)

Session 9 | 13 February 2026

Chapter 3. The absolute relation (pp. 489-507)

Iracema Duley

ICS/Universidade de Lisboa

The Fetish in Translation: Reflections from Central Angola

14 October 2025, 17h00 (Lisbon Time — GMT+1)

Sala Mattos Romão (Room C201.J – Department of Philosophy)

School of Arts and Humanities – University of Lisbon

Abstract

This presentation investigates the relationship between translation and fetishism, fixation and instability. Proposing that the concept of fetishism be understood beyond its formulation within so-called Western intellectual production by authors such as Marx and Freud, it considers its insertion into the history of the iterations of the concept of “fetish”. In Central Angola, the chain of substitutions related to terms such as feitiço, fetiche, fetish, Fetisch, etc., was expanded through translations of feitiço into Umbundu by Christian missionaries during the colonial period. The essay explores how, despite the missionaries’ attempt to bifurcate and fix the translation of feitiço into a positive and a negative pole — with umbanda juxtaposed with “remedy” and owanga equated with “harmful spell” — such a distinction is constantly called into question in Umbundu. Thus, if translation contains the promise of fixation and equivalence, it cannot contain displacement, manifested in Umbundu through the dissemination of terms that designate “spells”: umbanda, owanga, and the proliferation of names that express the materialization of desire in this language.

This event is funded by Portuguese national funds through FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P., within the project UID/00310, Centro de Filosofia da Universidade de Lisboa

Ana Miranda Mora

Utrecht University

Rage against Violence: An Affective Conceptualization of Feminist Resistance

3 June 2025, 17h00 (Lisbon Time — GMT+1)

Sala Mattos Romão (Room C201.J – Department of Philosophy)

School of Arts and Humanities – University of Lisbon

Abstract

This paper explores the philosophical significance of rage as an affective force in practices of political resistance, challenging prevailing accounts that dismiss or marginalize the role of emotions in politics. Drawing on contemporary affect theory and feminist political philosophy, the paper situates rage not merely as a reaction to injustice but as a constitutive element in forming political subjectivity and collective action. By distinguishing rage from ressentiment and violence, I argue that rage can embody a form of political praxis against structural violence. Rather than viewing affect as irrational or apolitical, this conceptualization frames rage as a generative and intelligible response to the lived experience of domination. The paper thus contributes to ongoing debates on the role of emotions in political agency, offering a re-evaluation of resistance that foregrounds affective life as an embodied and affective response to systemic injustice.

This activity is funded by Portuguese national funds through FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P., within the project UID/00310/2025, Centro de Filosofia da Universidade de Lisboa
(https://doi.org/10.54499/UID/00310/2025)

Filipe Nobre Faria

NOVA University Lisbon

Liberalismo em Crise? Desafios Demográficos e o Declínio da Confiança Social

20 May 2025, 17h00 (Lisbon Time — GMT+1)

Sala Mattos Romão (Room C201.J – Department of Philosophy)

School of Arts and Humanities – University of Lisbon

Abstract

A comunicação examina dois desafios fundamentais enfrentados pelas sociedades liberais modernas: o declínio da natalidade e a erosão da confiança social. Estes problemas são analisados em função dos princípios centrais do liberalismo, como a liberdade individual e a igualdade. Embora estes princípios visem promover inovação e prosperidade, podem também enfraquecer os laços sociais e fomentar normas culturais que dificultam a coesão comunitária. No caso da natalidade, serão abordados fatores como a urbanização, a mudança de valores culturais e a valorização da autonomia individual, que reduzem o incentivo à formação de famílias e contribuem para o envelhecimento populacional. Quanto à confiança social, a comunicação explorará como a mobilidade populacional, a diversidade cultural e a fragmentação social enfraquecem os laços de confiança entre os cidadãos. Por fim, a apresentação analisará as causas destes problemas ao nível dos valores que sustentam as sociedades liberais, os fatores que os reforçam e os possíveis cenários para a evolução destas sociedades.

Ricardo Mendoza-Canales

Praxis-CFUL, University of Lisbon

What Is An Act of Resistance?

29 April 2025, 17h00 (Lisbon Time — GMT+1)

Sala Mattos Romão (Room C201.J – Department of Philosophy)

School of Arts and Humanities – University of Lisbon

Abstract

In his conference “What Is the Creative Act?,” Gilles Deleuze defines the work of art as counter-information, closely linking artistic creation with the act of resistance. Both, he argues, short-circuit established positions and hegemonic discourses propagated by systems of communication and information. In this paper, I argue that Gilbert Simondon operates as a kind of gravitational force in Deleuze’s formulation—an invisible yet active presence whose influence has remained largely unacknowledged. To unpack the enigma of Deleuze’s definition, I proceed in three steps. First, I offer a close reading of the conference to trace the train of thought that binds together the creative act, the work of art, and the act resistance as counter-information. Second, I turn to Giorgio Agamben’s commentary on the conference to examine his interpretation of resistance as inoperativity, focusing in particular on his brief but suggestive reference to Simondon. Finally, I return to Simondon’s cybernetics-inspired account of signification. For Simondon, resistance involves the significative inscription of action and emotion within the broader, reticular structure of the transindividual—a form of signification capable of resonating collectively across time. Any human act that expresses itself creatively through material concretion carries within it a potentiality capable of continuing to transform—through resonance—both the individual and their milieu. I conclude by suggesting that Deleuze’s definition of the work of art as an act of resistance implicitly relies on Simondon’s philosophical framework—particularly his account of ontogenesis as a fundamentally informational process.

Shai Tubali

University of Leeds

Will Humans Ever Become Conscious? Jiddu Krishnamurti’s Thought About AI as a Fresh Perspective on Current Debates

22 April 2025, 17h00 (Lisbon Time — GMT+1)

Sala Mattos Romão (Room C201.J – Department of Philosophy)

School of Arts and Humanities – University of Lisbon

Abstract

Discussions about AI often center on whether machines can think, understand, or even become conscious. However, in our fascination with AI’s capabilities, we overlook a more pressing question: What happens to human consciousness when machines replicate and outperform our cognitive functions? Drawing on Jiddu Krishnamurti’s radical insights, this talk shifts the debate from AI’s potential consciousness to the mechanization of human thought. The Indian philosopher and spiritual teacher saw AI not as an existential threat but as a mirror reflecting our own conditioned, repetitive mental patterns. If thinking is merely an accumulation of experience, memory, and knowledge, then AI’s rapid processing power forces us to ask: Is our intelligence truly intelligent, or is it merely mechanical? Krishnamurti’s challenge is not to fear AI’s progress but to recognize the urgency of cultivating a non-mechanical mind—one that transcends habitual thought and awakens a deeper intelligence. This talk explores how AI compels us to reconsider the nature of human awareness and whether we can move beyond programmed cognition to discover a consciousness that no machine could ever replicate. Instead of asking whether AI will ever become conscious, we must ask: Will we?