This is a reply to Ryszard Wójcicki's polemics against the view expressed in the author's paper „Ajdukiewicz's Theory of Meaning Many Years Later” which have been published together in the previous issue of Filozofia Nauki. Contrary to Ryszard Wójcicki, the author is of the opinion that Ajdukiewicz's theory of meaning is pragmatic, and more exactly syntactico-pragmatic. The reason for this claim is the indisputable fact that while formulating the meaning-directives and the definition of synonymity and meaning, Ajdukiewicz has used merely (...) syntactical and pragmatical notions (the notion of meaning, which could have semantic implications, was the subject of explication). Since (for obvious reasons) Ajdukiewicz did not want to make use of the semantic notions as primitive notions, he had no other option. (shrink)

Many contemporary philosophers, especially the \"post-modern ones,\" claim that analytical philosophy has committed self-destruction by undermining the position of cognitive realism and questioning its main pillars: theory of objective reference of expressions and correspondential theory of truth. One of such philosophers is Rorty, an indefatigable critic of the conception of \"right representations,\" a concept that - according to him - is \"an empty compliment which we pay to helpful beliefs while realising our intentions.\" In order to support his nihilistic position, (...) Rorty many times refers to Quine. In my paper I seek to answer the question whether Rorty\'s and the views of other post-modern philosophers can be supported by Quine\'s philosophical conceptions. Analysing some selected trends of his philosophy, in particular the thesis about indeterminacy of reference (ontological relativity), I seek to prove that - contrary to Rorty\'s claim - Quine did not devalue the idea of objective reference. I also prove that the semantic concept of truth as relativised to the model of language plays in Quine\'s epistemology an equally essential role to the role of the immanent concept of truth as \"disquotational.\" The former is closer to the correspondential conception of truth. The conclusions which Rorty draws from the conception of Quine are rash, and sometimes they are an outcome of biased interpretation. (shrink)

Tarski believed that the notion of truth should be relativised not to the notion of meaning - as many philosophers would claim - but rather to the notion of language. In general terms, he would identify a language with a structure L = containing an alphabet, a class of sentences and an operation of consequence. As to the specific languages of deductive sciences Tarski maintained that they should be inseparably conjoined with theories, so that the notion of language should be (...) supplemented with a set of axioms and a set of true sentences: L' = . First four elements of L' are quite conveniently expressable in syntactic terms. About the set of Ver, to the contrary, it can be said only that it is one of many complete and coherent sets of sentences containing Ax and closed for the operation Cn. For a very general characteristic it could perhaps be enough. For a more specific definition of Ver, however, Tarski needed some semantic tool. As is well known, he used the notion of satisfying, defined for every particular language L* . Thus, as it seems, according to Tarski, the general notion of truth relative to language is a primary notion of the theory of formalized languages. Were we after introducing it as a secondary notion, we would have to enrich the notion of language with some semantic (referential) aspects, what in turn would require some standarization of syntax and thus narrow the notion of formalized language. (shrink)

The author claims that Ingarden's ontology is a contemporary version of Platonism. He argues that the concepts of distinct realizations of pure and ideal qualities in ideas and in individuals are unclear and unnecessary. In authors opinion the essential parts of Ingarden's ontology may by explained in terms of possible and real individuals and its possible properties.