The paper discusses the unique relationship that exists between the ego and one’s own body. There are two fundamental possibilities to grasp it – using the verb “to be” or “to have,” which results in two known formulas: “to be the body” or “to have the body.” However, after careful examination, it turns out that they are one-sided and entangle us in numerous aporias. A more complete picture of the relationships with one’s own body is made possible by a phenomenological (...) description, which is a first-person and direct approach. The body, given in numerous experiences, turns out to be paradoxical and ambiguous. This is also my relation with it – it is feeling myself and others, getting to know myself and the world; an internal and at the same time external bond, at most my own experience along with the need to transcend the body. Finally, we consider whether the category of “relationship” resp. “relation” matches the experience of one’s own body. Perhaps a better solution is to give up this term and describe the body as a character of human being. (shrink)

The paper deals with reconstruction of the unique reductivecounterpart of the deductive logic. The procedure results in the deductivereductive form of logic. This extension is illustrated on the base of intuitionistic logics: Heyting’s, Brouwerian and Heyting-Brouwer’s ones.

ABSTRACT The following text is a large fragment of the lectures on heresy that Leszek Kołakowski (1927–2009) gave between November 1982 and February 1983 on the Polish radio station Radio Free Europe. These lectures have never been published in English. They were only published under the title ‘Herezja’ in Poland after the author’s death in 2010 by the publishing company Znak. Kołakowski raises the universal and timeless issues of tolerance, ideological struggles, protection of doctrine by religious institutions and the changing (...) attitude of the Catholic Church towards heretical challenges (tackling them and attempting to annex and colonize certain ideas). The concept of heresy is an opportunity to describe the history of ideological conflicts, show how they arise and how they can be resolved. The story of struggle between dogmatists and heretics is an endless story of changing social order and giving new shapes to the reality created by people and their ideas. Kołakowski points out that any doctrinal, political or ideological system must allow for criticism and otherness. Nearly 40 years after these lectures were given, they retain a special freshness in the context of the political, ideological and social crisis that Europe is experiencing in the early twenty-first century. (shrink)

The mainstream concept of death—the biological one—identifies death with the cessation of an organism. In this article, I challenge the mainstream position, showing that there is no single well-established concept of an organism and no universal concept of death in biological terms. Moreover, some of the biological views on death, if applied in the context of bedside decisions, might imply unacceptable consequences. I argue the moral concept of death—one similar to that of Robert Veatch—overcomes such difficulties. The moral view identifies (...) death with the irreversible cessation of a patient’s moral status, that is, a state when she can no longer be harmed or wronged. The death of a patient takes place when she is no longer capable of regaining her consciousness. In this regard, the proposal elaborated herein resembles that of Veatch yet differs from Veatch’s original project since it is universal. In essence, it is applicable in the case of other living beings such as animals and plants, provided that they have some moral status. (shrink)

In their insightful article, Brent Kious and Margaret Battin (2019) correctly identify an inconsistency between an involuntary psychiatric commitment for suicide prevention and physician aid in dying (PAD). They declare that it may be possible to resolve the problem by articulating “objective standards for evaluating the severity of others’ suffering,” but ultimately they admit that this task is beyond the scope of their article since the solution depends on “a deep and difficult” question about comparing the worseness of two possible (...) scenarios: letting someone die (who could have been helped) with not letting someone die (whose suffering could only be alleviated by death). In our commentary, we argue that creating such standards is more difficult than the authors assume because of the many types of deep uncertainties we have to deal with: (1) diagnostic, (2) motivational, and (3) existential. (shrink)

Singer claims that there are two ways of challenging the fact that brain-dead patients, from whom organs are usually retrieved, are in fact biologically alive. By means of the first, the so called dead donor rule may be abandoned, opening the way to lethal organ donation. In the second, it might be posited that terms such as “life” and “death” do not have any primary biological meaning and are applicable to persons instead of organisms. This second possibility permits one to (...) acknowledge that brain-dead patients are deceased because they are irreversibly unconscious. In the commentary which follows, I will argue that Singer’s second option is preferable since it provides a higher amount of organs available for transplant, and is better suited to the meaning of “death” which occurs in ordinary language. I will also defend such a concept of death against the objections raised by Michael Nair-Collins in the article Can the brain-dead be harmed or wronged? On the moral status of brain death and its implications for organ transplantation. (shrink)

It seems that nonmonotonicity of our reasoning is an obvious truth. Almost every logician not even believes, but simply knows very well that a human being thinks in a nonmonotonic way. Moreover, a nonmonotonicity of thinking seems to be a phenomenon parallel to the existence of human beings. Examples allegedly illustrating this phenomenon are not even analyzed today. They are simply quoted. Nowadays, this is a standard approach to nonmonotonicity. However, even simple analysis of those “obvious” examples shows that they (...) illustrate various problems of our thinking, among which none concerns nonmonotonicity. (shrink)

The paper is a continuation of A deductive-reductive form oflogic: general theory and intuitionistic case and considers the problem of definability of modal operators on the intuitionistic base. Contrary tothe classical case, it seems that the fact whether the connective is Heyting’sor Brouwerian is essential for the intuitionistic logic. The connective of possibility has the classical interpretation, i.e. w |= ✸α iff ∃t, if it is defined on the base of the logicwith Brouwerian connective of coimplication.

As far as existence of enduring subjects of change is concerned, Roman Ingarden's substance ontology stands in direct opposition to Whitehead's process metaphysics. However, with regard to domain of necessary relations, both systems are deeply platonic. Thus in this paper I pursue towards revealing some parallels and differences between both systems regarding views on ideal entities, necessary relations and pure possibilities. I examine whether having assumed contrary concepts of reality (substantial/procesual) both philosophers are forced to accept diverse conclusions in respect (...) to ideal entities domain. I also point out some crucial problems that are to be found in both systems: what is the ground of necessary relations – is it a nature of so called ideal qualities, or is it content of ideas (Ingarden); is it an individual or a relational essence of eternal objects, so called "primordial nature of God", or evolving actuality (Whitehead). Finally I investigate whether points of convergence between both concepts could serve as a basis for some modifications to overcome relevant problems. (shrink)

On the base of the classical logic the connectives of necessity and possibility have the equivalent positions in this sense that each of them is definable by the other one. The consequence of this fact is the possibility to define of the both modalities using the connective of identity. Thus, the connective of propositional identity defining the congruence of the propositional language has become the base of the reconstruction of necessity operator in some modal systems. Already in 1957 Greniewski [9] (...) obtained system S5 on the base of the propositional calculus with identity. Next, Cresswell [3], [4] reconstructed S4 and S5 in a similar way. Systematic investigations of this problem were undertaken by Suszko within the broader frame of SCI programme [16], [17], [18]. The connections between modal connectives and the connective of identity settle some philosophical sense of both modalities. Something is necessary, if it is identical with a logical truth. If something is different from the negation of some logical truth, it is possible. It is however, the “ontological” characteristics typical for modalities defined on the base of the classical logic. The settling of similar connections between intuitionistic identity and intuitionistic modalities uncover the philosophical sense of the “epistemic” necessity and possibility. Unfortunately, the symmetry between the classical and intuitionistic case is not entire. The acceptance of both equalities: = ¬ ¬ and = ¬ ¬, in the intuitionistic logic yields the classical versions of both modalities . Thus, there is a problem with defining the connective of intuitionistic possibility by the connective of identity. In Sections 2 and 3 two “partial” solutions of the mentioned problem are presented. They are “partial” because the connective of possibility has undesirable properties. The second solution yields the strengthening of the necessity connective, too. The main aim of this paper is obtained in Section 5, where a definition of the intuitionistic possibility is given. This definition uses the new connective of nonidentity, presented in Section 4. The new approach bases on the idea that some connectives like implication, negation, identity, necessity are “Heyting's” ones. The case of possibility is different. Together with coimplication, weak negation, and nonidentity, possibility belongs to the so-called “Brouwerian” connectives. The connectives of the first kind have such property that in Kripke's style semantics their interpretations in each point of this semantics are related to the interpretations in next points. In the case of the “Brouwerian” connectives the interpretations in each point depend on the interpretations in previous points. In this sense, “Heyting's” connectives are interpreted from the point of view of the future, while the interpretations of the “Brouwerian” connectives are from the point of view of the past. The relations between nonidentity and possibility connectives allow to say that in temporal semantics something is possible in the moment a, if before a there was such moment b in which it was different from the contradiction. Thus, “something is possible” does not mean that it held once in the past. A broader philosophical remarks about the nature of intuitionistic possibility are contained in two Comments in the last Section. (shrink)

In this text I take into account Roman Ingarden's theory of general objects. Polish phenomenologist avoided most of paradoxes implied by traditional theories of universals pointing out the difference between two kinds of form inherent in general object, namely form of subject of properties and form of whole and parts. Every idea has twofold construction: as an idea (qua idea) it is a subject of peculiar properties and on the other hand it has a content consisted of so called constants (...) and variables. The content of the idea has a whole-parts form. This however is inconsistent with other analyses of whole-parts form and of the character of constants and variables given by Roman Ingarden. In the consequence I claim that a third form, unique for general object, is needed. I also point out difficulty of indicating positive characteristic of general object (i.e. other than negation of properties of individuals). (shrink)

ABSTRACTThe author traces the impact of Abramowski's ideas on the recent history of Poland. His concepts were not only popular in the Polish Socialist Party and the syndicalist movement in the interwar period, but they also exerted a profound influence on the cooperative movement and democratic left-wing opposition in the 1970s and 1980s. The leaders of the Workers’ Defence Committee were much influenced by Abramowski's ideas and, according to some researchers, the Solidarity movement from 1980 to 1981 in Poland was (...) the culmination of his concepts. Today's anti-systemic movements in Poland are also inspired by Abramowski. The author also draws attention to certain similarities between Abramowski's ideas, Kropotkin's idea, Gramsci's concept of civil society and the thought of the young Marx. The author also outlines Abramowski's social ideas in the context of ideas promoted by the main theoreticians of the Polish left in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. (shrink)

Volume 17, Issue 5, November 2020, Page 566-588.

ABSTRACT The article analyses the language used by the Polish nationalist right in relation to LGBT communities and the right to abortion. The authors show links between the language of Church hierarchs and right-wing columnists as the ideological backbone of the governing right-wing populist right. According to the authors, the attack on gender is the same method of political mobilisation and power management as the campaign against refugees and the anti-immigrant hysteria. On the one hand, the anti-gender discourse may strengthen (...) the narrative against the ‘liberal EU’ and, on the other hand, it is used to show substitute ‘scapegoats’ in Poland. Moral panic makes it possible to release class tensions in the manner that is safe for the system through the artificially induced cultural and ideological conflict. However, the dispersed anti-gender discourse has a real impact on social attitudes – on the one hand, it polarises social sympathies and, on the other hand, it strengthens conservative attitudes. The analysis is based on right-wing press articles, Church hierarchs’ statements, videos on YouTube and a parliamentary debate about the right to abortion. (shrink)

Interpretations of logics with only truth-functional connectives create a number of problems regarding the understanding of interpreted sentences. A particular problem is caused by the understanding of a sentence that is the negation of another. What is the meaning of sentence ¬p, for a particular sentence p? Even when we know what the semantic correlate of the sentence p is, we still do not know how to understand the semantic correlate of the sentence ¬p. The standard algebraic approach does not (...) explain much. The problem is still open, because it is still unclear how to understand the element of algebra −v(p). The propositional logic with the connective of the content implication, as it is a non-Fregean logic, proposes a simple solution to this problem. The key to understanding the content of the sentence ¬p is to understand the content of the sentence p. Because, the content of the natural language sentence usually has a partial understanding, so it can be understood differently. Therefore, the negation ¬p is here understood adequately to the current and partial understanding of the sentence p. It seems that the proposed approach is consistent with our daily thinking. (shrink)

Epistemicism seems to be the most dominating approach to vagueness in the recent twenty years. In the logical and philosophical tradition, e.g. Peirce, vagueness does not depend on human knowledge. Epistemicists deny this fact and contend that vagueness is merely the result of our imperfect mind, our dearth of knowledge, sort of phantom, finally, that it simply does not exist. In my opinion, such a stance not only excludes vagueness comprehended in terms of human knowledge, but which is worse, stems (...) from spurious logical arguments. The part of arguments called Sorensen’s Arguments or even Proofs were the subject of my analysis in the book Paradoksy and in the paper “Epistemicism and Roy Sorensen Arguments” published in the Bulletin of the Section of Logic. Here I shall only briefly refer to these works and focus mainly on the arguments launched by Tymothy Williamson. One of them is to uncover why we are not able to recognize the alleged sharp boundary between positive and negative extensions of any vague predicates. Williamson’s reasoning is based on his margin for error principle. Another argumentation of Williamson aims at the refutation of the principle I know that I know. It should be emphasized that all the aforementioned arguments are fundamental for epistemicism and all of them are fallacious because of either formal or false-premise fallacy. There is the circumstance that we cannot deem epistemicism logical. Finally, we show that within the epistemic frame the following thesis is valid: if what epistemicism states is the case, then what epistemicism states is not the case. This immediately implies → ¬p’) that it is not the case what epistemicism states. So, either epistemicism or logic. (shrink)

The idea of belief revision is strictly connected with the notion of contraction given by the set of postulates formulated by Alchourrón, Gärdenfors and Makinson. In the present paper expansion and contraction are defined by Tarski's consequence relation and Tarski-like elimination relation. The logic of falsehood (i.e. a logic dual in Wójcicki's sense to the given logic of truth) plays a key role for defining the elimination relation. A decision of adding or refusing of some sentences is arbitrary and depends (...) on our wish only. This decision cannot be logical and logic cannot justify it. In our approach logic is a tool for faultless and precise realization of extension or reducing of the set of our beliefs. Step forward extends the set of our beliefs and it is used when some new belief appears. Step backward reduces the set of our beliefs and it is used when we reject from some previously accepted belief. But why some "initial" sentences should be added or refused depends on extralogical reasons. The logic for the back-reasoning uses the class of models adequate for the logic extending the set of our beliefs. However, the class is used in a specific i.e. dual form. That is why the step forward (expansion) and the step backward (contraction) constitute the one whole. Procedure of contraction satisfies the well known AGM postulates. We limit our considerations to first six conditions for contraction. Satisfaction of almost every postulate is a good sign that our approach is reasonable. The only exception we make for the controversial fifth postulate. (shrink)

A few years ago, believing that human thinking is nonmonotonic, I tried to reconstruct a nonmonotonic reasoning by application of two monotonic procedures. I called them “step forward” and “step backward” . The first procedure is just a consequence operation responsible for an extension of the set of beliefs. The second one, defined on the base of the logic of falsehood reconstructed for the given logic of truthfulness, is responsible for a reduction of the set of beliefs. Both procedures taken (...) together were successfully verified by using so-called AGM , postulates for expansion, contraction and revision formulated by Alchourrón, Gärdenfors and Makinson . Reasoning composed of the mutual application of both procedures seemed to be quite natural for modeling our thinking. At that time, I supposed that it should be nonmonotonic but I was wrong. It turned out impossible to satisfy a definition of the nonmonotonic inference by reasoning composed both steps. To understand why this is impossible, I began to analyze how nonmonotonicity is obtainable in some well-known cases in the literature. I analyzed the problem from two points of view: non-formal examples for nonmonotonicity and formal constructions of nonmonotonic operations/relations. The result of those investigations was astonishing: none of the considered by me cases of nonmonotonicity belonging to point and almost none belonging to satisfies the definition of nonmonotonic inference. Arguments against the nonmonotonic character of well-known examples for nonmonotonicity of human thinking are more precisely presented in [6]. I present them below an abbreviated version of them. (shrink)

The ancient paradox of Protagoras had the opinion of an unsolved problem. The two solutions proposed in the 20th century by W. Lenzen and L. Aqvist are considered to be the best. In fact none of them may be treated as proper. In the paper we show that both of authors avoid contradiction solely by means of mere neglect. However quite a simple solution seems to be feasible when the paradox is approached as an amphibolic construction, thus an ambiguity.

This book, provides a critical approach to all major logical paradoxes: from ancient to contemporary ones. There are four key aims of the book: 1. Providing systematic and historical survey of different approaches – solutions of the most prominent paradoxes discussed in the logical and philosophical literature. 2. Introducing original solutions of major paradoxes like: Liar paradox, Protagoras paradox, an unexpected examination paradox, stone paradox, crocodile, Newcomb paradox. 3. Explaining the far-reaching significance of paradoxes of vagueness and change for philosophy (...) and ontology. 4. Proposing a novel, well justified and, as it seems, natural classification of paradoxes. (shrink)

As shown in (Łukowski, Gensler, 2013), the paradox of the stone is a failed attempt to show that “omnipotence” is a contradictory concept. An element of the argument presented there is that God, while unable to lift the stone, can nevertheless annihilate it. This work considers the amplification of the paradox of the stone to the form generated by the question: can God create a stone which He will not be able to lift, nor, once created, will He be able (...) to destroy. (shrink)

This paper is a proposal of continuation of the work of C. Rauszer. The logic of falsehood created by her may constitute the starting point for construction of logic formalising reductive reasonings. The extension of Heyting-Brouwer logic to its deductive-reductive form sheds new light upon those classical tautologies which are rejected in intuitionism. It turns out that among HBtautologies there can be found all the classical ones. Some of them are characteristic for deductive reasoning and they are accepted by intuitionism. (...) Others formulate the laws of reductive reasoning. Many of them, including the law of excluded middle has been rejected in Heyting’s intuitionism. Intuitionism only permits for those reductive tautologies, which at the same time bear deductive character. Thus, the complete HB intuitionism does not reject any of the classical tautologies. Every classical tautology appears in HB logic in its deductive or reductive part. Some are even present in both parts. At the end it is shown that the law of excluded middle α∨¬α is a law of the reductive part of the traditional, Heyting’s intuitionistic propositional calculus. (shrink)

ABSTRACT How can we understand the term ‘utopia’ and does the adjective ‘utopian’ discredit the social thought to which it refers? The author discusses the role of utopia in the emergence of social sciences and alludes to Immanuel Wallerstein and his analysis of utopistics. He also defends the hypothesis that in the times of political, economic and ecological crisis which is sweeping through Europe and the world in the first decades of the twenty-first century, utopian thinking may be reborn not (...) only as a way of showing possible social alternatives, but also as a means of democratizing public debate and the existing status quo. In this perspective, utopianism can be invigorating not only for democracy, but also for independent and critical social thought. Social utopias, which contributed to the rise of the mass workers’ movement in the nineteenth century, today may become a force mobilizing human imagination and sensitivity to the struggles for a more emancipatory and democratic social order. (shrink)

Copernicus Festival, held annually, aims to demonstrate various dimensions of the relationship between science and culture. The third edition of the festival was devoted to the concept of beauty. During the six days of the festival about 7 thousand people took part in lectures, debates, discussions, workshops, concerts and other events.

Copernicus Festival, held annually, aims to demonstrate various dimensions of the relationship between science and culture. The third edition of the festival was devoted to the concept of beauty. During the six days of the festival about 7 thousand people took part in lectures, debates, discussions, workshops, concerts and other events.

This paper provides moderate criticism of so-called normative theories of thinking and reasoning. The discussion focuses on the problems of idealization, adequacy, inconsistent yet non-trivial logics, logical omniscience etc. I called them “internal” to the normative approach, because they stem from the very properties of formal systems used to model these two human activities. Some arguments, however, refer to the current theories in cognitive science, including those which are developed within “descriptive” framework.

The 20 th Cracow Methodological Conference took place on May 30-31, 2016, at the Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences in Kraków. The meeting brought together physicists, cosmologists, mathematicians and philosophers interested in research program called philosophy in science started and popularized by Michał Heller. It is worth noting that the 20 th Cracow Methodological Conference was dedicated to Professor Heller and can be considered as a contribution to the celebration of the 80 th anniversary of his birthday.

The 20 th Cracow Methodological Conference took place on May 30-31, 2016, at the Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences in Kraków. The meeting brought together physicists, cosmologists, mathematicians and philosophers interested in research program called philosophy in science started and popularized by Michał Heller. It is worth noting that the 20 th Cracow Methodological Conference was dedicated to Professor Heller and can be considered as a contribution to the celebration of the 80 th anniversary of his birthday.

In 2017, Michael Nair-Collins formulated his Transitivity Argument which claimed that brain-dead patients are alive according to a concept that defines death in terms of the loss of moral status. This article challenges Nair-Collins’ view in three steps. First, I elaborate on the concept of moral status, claiming that to understand this notion appropriately, one must grasp the distinction between direct and indirect duties. Second, I argue that his understanding of moral status implicit in the Transitivity Argument is faulty since (...) it is not based on a distinction between direct and indirect duties. Third, I show how this flaw in Nair-Collins’ argument is grounded in the more general problems between preference utilitarianism and desire fulfillment theory. Finally, I present the constructivist theory of moral status and the associated moral concept of death and explain how this concept challenges the Transitivity Argument. According to my view, brain death constitutes a valid criterion of death since brain death is incompatible with the preserved capacity to have affective attitudes and to value anything. (shrink)

The following text is a voice in the discussion around normative problems of innovative therapies. It particularly refers to the meaning of the concept of innovation, also discussed in this issue in the article by Tomasz Rzepiński "Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMP) as products of innovative biotechnologies.".