This is the second book by Michael Heller which presents to English readers his previously written papers on science and theology. The first one, The New Physics and a New Theology is worth mentioning in this context because in it, Michael Heller proposes a new direction in theology - the theology of science. The theology of science as envisioned by Heller is defined as an authentic theological reflection on the existence, foundations, methods, and results of modern science. Its purpose is (...) to break down the mutual lack of trust between science and theology and to help theology advance to a new stage, where it can participate creatively in the currents of modern thought. Philosophers of science examine the boundaries of natural science and what can be known by the methods of science alone. Theology extends beyond these boundaries to include the supernatural, although Heller is far from embracing any kind of dualism. His way of extending these boundaries is different. A good example is provided by Einstein's famous question, „Why is the world comprehensible?" Neither Einstein nor any other philosopher or scientist is able to answer this question. It is theology that has to take over and seek the answer to Einstein's question. Heller provides more similar issues. (shrink)

This is the second book by Michael Heller which presents to English readers his previously written papers on science and theology. The first one, The New Physics and a New Theology is worth mentioning in this context because in it, Michael Heller proposes a new direction in theology - the theology of science. The theology of science as envisioned by Heller is defined as an authentic theological reflection on the existence, foundations, methods, and results of modern science. Its purpose is (...) to break down the mutual lack of trust between science and theology and to help theology advance to a new stage, where it can participate creatively in the currents of modern thought. Philosophers of science examine the boundaries of natural science and what can be known by the methods of science alone. Theology extends beyond these boundaries to include the supernatural, although Heller is far from embracing any kind of dualism. His way of extending these boundaries is different. A good example is provided by Einstein's famous question, „Why is the world comprehensible?" Neither Einstein nor any other philosopher or scientist is able to answer this question. It is theology that has to take over and seek the answer to Einstein's question. Heller provides more similar issues. (shrink)

A specific shift has recently occured in the philosophy of science. This shift consists in stressing the importance of experiment in science. This enable one to find conclusive arguments in favor of „manipulative realism”. According to the author, a growing intrest in Bacon's thought is the source of the mentioned tendencies.

Democracy - hope or illusion? Blooming, failing or declining? Our doubts and hesitation make part of unbending efforts to endorse and explain democracy. Who is right - the custodians of promise or the prophets of decline? The book concentrates on doubts. The author tries to explore «the other side of the moon», emphasizing the role of critical thinking, opposing a main-current optimism. Defending democracy we want to generate hope, but hoping may be a dangerous craft. Protecting our hope we are (...) prone to believe that democracy - even if it is not a full success story - is justified in its nature and out of question. How much do we have to forget to sanction this view? This is, in fact, the main question the book raises. It gives voice to those who never, in their writing on democracy, used a flattering tone. Starting with Greek giants - Plato and Aristotle - up to modern and most recent times, going through a broad field of revealing criticism, leaving us with an unsettling feeling that democracy is rather something to be explained than something to be celebrated. Living in democracy, lamenting its underperformances, we must not overlook a fundamental question - in what part do our disappointments reflect the «art of forgetting», allowing us to cast into oblivion all serious doubts originating in a critical discourse on modernity and democracy? (shrink)

The book by professor Stanisław Kowalczyk, renowned scholar in the field of social philosophy, is, without doubt, one of the most important studies on the idea of freedom. The concept of freedom is as old as mankind. It has many meanings and has been interpreted in many different ways. For instance, we also have the word „liberty," which means „freedom or right" and is synonymous with the word freedom, which means „the condition of being free." The author indicates that in (...) our times the notion of freedom is most frequently used; however, it is often misused or deceptive. Mass media and people of all walks of life talk of liberty; everyone talks of freedom and, for many, it is the highest value. Longing for freedom is rooted in the heart of every human being, for freedom is an existential correlate and the fulfilment of the rational human being. The semantic confusion about the notion of freedom leads to many misuses of the concept. Personalism, as a philosophical concept in which a person stands in the centre of all discussion, serves as a framework for the author's delineation on the concept of freedom. He further states that the appropriate understanding of this value is possible in the context of the personalistic interpretation of a human being. This is the focus of this informative and insightful book. (shrink)

In the first part I focus on the issue of progress, in particular progress in philosophy. Philosophical progress has a special property that it shares with the process of becoming a better person. It is constantly finding yourself “on the way”. This path is not only anchored in the Absolutely Perfect but it conditions and stimulates the reflection towards the truth about the relationship between Him and us. We can assume that the core of this reflection is philosophy. The second (...) part is devoted to the paradoxical nature of the most generally understood memory. I assume that the condition of awareness of a certain content is its outdatedness, that is, its transfer to the sphere of memory. Memory is a constantly updated and constantly re-ordered picture of everything that the subject has ever relegated from being, so that it can be replaced by something else. The foundation of this order is a certain axiology. In the third part I show how the sketched concept of memory is used to describe the mechanism of the evolution of philosophical thought. The “on the way” philosophy would consist of two constantly repeated activities: on reconstructing what is to be denied, and thus on the recognition of the previous philosophical achievements in its totality, and on its negation. This denial would concern the whole of this achievement as an axiologically reconstructed unity. The new system is only realized as a series of consequences of the negation of the current state. The vast majority of philosophical reflection focuses on the constitution of this current state, its supposed unity. In the short part of the fourth, I draw up prospects for further deliberations. (shrink)

The book is devoted to the thought of one of the 20th century's most interesting philosophers of religion. Heschel, a traditional Polish Jew who became a modern thinker, was also an impressive prophet of interreligious dialogue.

Stosunek polskiej filozofii katolickiej do Augusta Cieszkowskiego był ambiwalentny. Z jednej strony, uważano go za wybitnego filozofa polskiego, żarliwie religijnego i inspirowanego tradycją chrześcijańską, z drugiej strony, jego myśl budziła liczne zastrzeżenia doktrynalne (ewolucyjna perspektywa religii, możliwość realizacji Królestwa Bożego na ziemi, wątki panteizujące, ograniczanie wolnej woli, uzurpowanie sobie prawa do absolutyzmu poznawczego, jeśli chodzi o "Boże plany", uznanie Boga przed stworzeniem świata za nierozwiniętą jeszcze Możność, "elitarna" koncepcja nieśmiertelności jednostkowej za zasługi). Z dzisiejszej perspektywy filozofia Cieszkowskiego budzi opór ze (...) względu na próbę "totalizacji" rzeczywistości i eksponowanie utopijnego modelu ustroju teokratycznego. (shrink)

Polish conservative thinker Władysław Leopold Jaworski developed an interest for the theories of Austrian philosopher Othmar Spann. Both accepted universalism, both also believed that universalism was inspired by romantic tradition, although Spann sought its roots much further back in history, even as far as Aristotle. Both authors staunchly criticized modern-day individualism and liberalism, which they considered fatal. In their opinion individualism and liberalism upset the primacy of totality in social thought, which led to multiple pathologies. Despite their accentuation of totality, (...) both philosophers displayed very decided anti-totalitarian convictions typical for many conservatives. (shrink)

The purpose of the essay is to critically analyze the influence of J. Derrida’s deconstruction on David J. Gunkel’s book Deconstruction (MIT Press 2021). Gunkel’s handbook is aimed at making deconstruction a tool of critical thinking accessible to non-professionals. It turns out that accomplishing this task comes at the expense of precisely the critical potential of deconstruction itself. Gunkel is well aware that his arguments are sometimes superficial and overlook deeper problems that should be addressed. Such a failure takes the (...) form of a fetishistic denial, which in psychoanalysis is summarized by the formula “I know well, but all the same.” In turn, deconstruction itself, insofar as it is separated from Kant’s transcendental philosophy and Hegel’s dialectics, becomes an academic ideology. Restoring its proper subversive potential can only be done by returning to a philosophy of reflection, in which the thinker himself must ultimately consider his own position as an author and bring it under criticism. This is the path that Gunkel avoids, because he could then no longer be the author of a handbook on deconstruction, rather than someone who practices deconstruction. -------------------------- Received: 4/11/2022. Reviewed: 13/12/2022. Accepted: 20/12/2022. (shrink)