Materialism is a family of naturalistic ontologies, according to which matter is the only material of all reality. One of the modern proponents of the materialistic doctrine is an philosopher Mario Bunge. According to his version of materialism, called emergentist materialism or, shortly, „systemism”, all material entities are divided into at least five qualitatively different complementary levels: physical, chemical, biological, social and technical. Accordingly these levels correspond to several types of matter: physical, chemical, animated, social and technical. „Systemism” was inspired by the ideas of the Hungarian biologist and philosopher, Ludwig von Bertalanffy’ general system theory. „Systemism”, according to the author's intention, should avoid the simplifications of physicalism, as well as the ambiguity of dialectical materialism. The system materialism is a specific view of the world, the axis of which being emergentism. Emergentism accepts the formation of qualitatively new forms and properties as a result of interactions between the elements of a given system. The opposite concept to the concept of emergence is submergence, which means the loss of one or more of the properties of an entity or system because of its metamorphosis into something else. System materialism („Everything is related to some other things”) is a middle path between the two extreme directions: holism („Everything is related to all other things”) and atomism („Everything follows its own way”). In his explanation of systems, Bunge dissociates himself from naive reductionism („Just explain the whole with the knowledge you have about the elements”), while recommending that a strategy of moderate reductionism („You can reduce anything that just might be reduced, but without ignoring the diversity and emergence” ). In the center of the materialistic system ontology is the thesis that there are no absolutely isolated things: everything works together with (some) others. Together they form coherent systems.
According to Islamic anthropology, man was created by God and is existentially absolutely dependent on Him. God is the Creator and Lord of every human being. Man as a creature of God is a being composed of a material element and a spiritual element. God is a being composed of the element material and spiritual element. This perspective on man and the soul-body relationship has existed in Islam from its beginnings. Despite this, Muslim thinkers, in order to make the doctrine of Islam more attractive, have tried to combine it with Greek philosophy. The work of Aristotle had a particularly strong influence on Muslim thinkers. For Stagirite, the body-soul relationship is a relationship of unity and complementarity, a psychosomatic whole. Particularly influential, until the end of the Middle Ages, was Aristotle’s view that the fetus becomes a full human being forty days after conception if the fetus is male, and ninety days after conception in the case of the female fetus. In this article, we follow the “footsteps” of Aristotelian decisions still present in contemporary bioethical thinking of Islam, paying particular attention to the debate about the ontological status of the human fetus. There is a difference in opinion of contemporary Muslim thinkers as to the status of the human fetus in the early stages of pregnancy. Some authors believe that regardless of the circumstances the fetus is fully human from 40th day after conception. Others argue that the fetus becomes a human being in the full sense of the word only from 120th day from the moment of conception, from when – as they claim – it has not only the body, but also the soul. Abortion, from the moment at which the fetus becomes fully human, and therefore has a soul, is seen as a form of murder and is one of the worst sins in Islam.
This is areview of the „The Orders of Nature” by Lawrence E. Cahoone, Professor of Philosophy at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester.It touches upon the subject of naturalism, which assumes that everything is all or a part of nature. Lawrence E. Cahoone has made this issue the subject of his thorough, multi-dimensional analysis, which results in the mentioned position. The reviewer presents the main ideas of specific chapters (the book has three parts, which include four, six and three chapters respectively). The author of this review shows the importance of this position for contemporary philosophy, as well as presents these aspects of „The Orders of Nature”, which can be considered controversial.
PL
Autor poddaje recenzji książkę profesora filozofii College of the Holy Cross w Wor-cester Lawrenca E. Cahoone zatytułowaną: „The Orders of Nature”. Pozycja ta poru-sza temat naturalizmu, który zakłada, iż wszystko jest w całością lub częścią natury. La-wrence E. Cahoone uczynił tę kwestię przedmiotem swoich gruntownych, wieloaspekto-wych analiz, czego owocem jest wspomniana pozycja. Recenzent prezentuje główne myśli poszczególnych rozdziałów (książka posiada 3 części zawierające kolejno cztery, sześć i trzy rozdziały). Autor recenzji ukazuje znaczenie tej pozycji dla współczesnej filozo-fii, jak również przedstawia te aspekty „The Orders of Nature”, które uznać można za kontrowersyjne.
Dla św. Tomasza z Akwinu celowość, jako istotny element w wyjaśnianiu świata, obejmuje całą przyrodę, zarówno nieożywioną, jak i ożywioną, w tym byty rozumne. Widoczna jest ona w aktywności bytów fizycznych, które działają w taki sposób, aby osiągnąć to, co jest dla nich najlepsze. Tak rozumiana celowość wyklucza przypadek i jest argumentem wskazującym na istnienie Boga. Kazimierz Kłósak dostrzega konieczność reinterpretacji piątej drogi św. Tomasza, w punkcie wyjścia kładąc nacisk na porządek występujący w świecie bytów ożywionych, a nie na celowość. Według Christopha Schönborna wnikliwa obserwacja wszechświata, Ziemi, życia dostarcza nam „przytłaczających dowodów” na istnienie porządku, planu i celu. Przestrzega jednak przed zbyt pochopnymi próbami doszukiwania się wszędzie „inteligentnego projektu”. Richard Dawkins przekonuje, że silne złudzenie, że świat został zaprojektowany lub stworzony w jakimś celu, da się łatwo wytłumaczyć jako skutki działania darwinowskiego doboru naturalnego i mutacji. Francisco J. Ayala twierdzi, że nie ma sprzeczności między mechanizmami ewolucji a działaniem Boga Stwórcy. Ewolucję postrzega on jako naturalny proces, za pomocą którego Bóg stworzył istoty żywe, a także rozwinął je zgodnie ze swoim planem. Paul Davies, choć nie uważa, że wszystkie bez wyjątku złożone układy stanowią wynik końcowy naturalnych procesów, podkreśla jednak, że należy zachować ostrożność w wyciąganiu jednoznacznego wniosku o istnieniu projektodawcy na podstawie powierzchownych obserwacji. Dla Roberta Jamesa Berry logiczne i naukowo poprawne jest komplementarne podejście do zagadnienia przyczynowości: naturalistyczne i teistyczne. John C. Polkinghorne podkreśla, że Bóg pozostaje ze światem w nieustannej interakcji, chociaż nie interweniuje doraźnie w zachodzące w nim procesy. Wreszcie, według Michała Hellera, Bóg stwarzając świat, „określił strategię wkomponowywania przypadków w działanie praw przyrody”.
EN
For St. Thomas Aquinas, purposefulness covers the whole of nature, both inanimate and animate, including sentient beings, as an important element in explaining the world. It is visible in the activity of physical entities that operate in such a way as to achieve what is best for them. Such an understanding of purposefulness excludes accident and is an argu-ment pointing to the existence of God. Kazimierz Kłósak recognizes the need to reinterpret the fifth guideline of St. Thomas, at the starting point placing emphasis on the order found in the world of living beings, and not on purposefulness. According to Christoph Schönborn, thorough observation of the Universe, Earth and life provides us with “over-whelming evidence” for the existence of an order, a plan and a purpose. However, he warns against too hasty attempts to see “intelligent design” everywhere. Richard Dawkins argues that the strong delusion that the world was designed and created for a purpose can be easily explained as the effect of Darwinian natural selection and mutation. Francisco Ayala says that there is no conflict between evolution and mechanisms of action of God the Creator. He sees evolution as a natural process by which God created living things, and developed them in accordance with His plan. Paul Davies, although he does not believe that all complex systems without exception are the end result of natural processes, emphasizes that caution should be exercised in drawing a clear conclusion about the existence of designers based on superficial observation. For Robert James Berry, a logical and scientifically correct approach is complementary to the issue of causality: naturalistic and theistic. John C. Polkinghorne emphasizes that God remains in constant interaction with the world, although He does not intervene directly in processes that occur in it. Finally, according to Michał Heller, God created the world, “setting out the strategy of incorporating cases the laws of nature.” It follows from the considerations carried out in this article that we can provide numerous positive answers to the question concerning the compatibility of scientific claims with the faith in the existence of God-Creator. Only extreme, often pervaded with ideology, positions do not leave any place for a constructive dialogue.
Edward Osborne Wilson does not want to follow Richard Dawkins's example and ignore religion. He expresses the belief that as a result of our genetic makeup religion is a part of our inherent nature. Wilson explains religion as a kind of illusion which is neces-sary for effective survival and reproduction. Organisms that have faith are more able to survive and reproduce than those that are devoid of it. In Wilson's opinion, nobody will ever be able to eliminate religion. At the most we can promote Darwinian evolution as an alternative to „lay religion”. In this article Wilson's views on the relationship between science and religion are to be addressed and evaluated, which will then be supported by the arguments of well-known authorities in the fields of biology and philosophy.
PL
Edward Osborne Wilson nie chce bagatelizować religii na wzór Richarda Dawkinsa. Wyraża przekonanie, że dzięki naszym genom religia jest częścią naszej wrodzonej natury. Wilson wyjaśnia religię jako rodzaj iluzji, która jest konieczna dla efektywnego przetrwa-nia i reprodukcji. Organizmy posiadające wiarę są w stanie lepiej przetrwać i się reprodu-kować niż te, które jej nie mają. Zdaniem Wilsona, religii nigdy nikomu nie da się wyeli-minować. Co najwyżej możemy promować darwinowską ewolucję jako alternatywną „świecką religię”. W niniejszym artykule zreferowano poglądy Wilsona na relację nauka-religia oraz dokonano ich krytycznej oceny, wspierając się argumentami znanych autorytetów w dziedzinie biologii i filozofii.
Książka Petera Godfrey’a-Smitha Philosophy of biology, oprócz Wstępu zawierająca dziewięć Rozdziałów (Filozofia i biologia, Prawa, mechanizmy i modele, Ewolucja i dobór naturalny, Adaptacja, budowa i funkcja, Indywidua, Geny, Gatunki i „Drzewo Życia”, Ewolucja i zachowanie społeczne, Informacja), Bibliografię oraz Indeks rzeczowy, jest świadectwem niezwykłej fascynacji fenomenem życia, przykuwającym uwagę myślicieli i uczonych od niepamiętnych czasów, wciąż skrywającym wiele nieodkrytych tajemnic. Recenzowany tom został napisany dla filozofów zainteresowanych problemami biologicz-nymi i biologów zainteresowanych kwestiami filozoficznymi i dedykowany jest czołowe-mu przedstawicielowi filozofii biologii XX i pierwszej dekady XXI wieku Dawidowi Hullowi. Pisanie do dwóch rodzajów adresatów umożliwia wgląd w fenomen życia z po-dwójnej perspektywy, filozoficznej i biologicznej, co czyni książkę niezwykle interesującą i pouczającą.
EN
The book of Peter Godfrey-Smith Philosophy of Biology, which besides the Introduc-tion, contains nine chapters (Philosophy and Biology; Laws, Mechanisms, and Models; Evolution and Natural Selection; Adaptation, Construction, Function; Individuals; Genes; Species and the Tree of Life; Evolution and Social Behavior; Information), Bibliography and Subject Index, is a testimony to the extraordinary fascination with the phenomenon of life, that since time immemorial has been catching the attention of thinkers and scholars, yet still hides many undiscovered secrets. The reviewed volume was written for philosophers interested in biological problems and biologists interested in philosophical issues, and it is dedicated to the leading representative of the philosophy of biology of the 20th and the first decade of the 21st centuries – David Hull. Writing to two types of readers an insight into the phenomena of life from a double perspective, philosophical and biological is given which makes the book extremely interesting and informative.
In this essay I would like to outline the Christian perspective on solving economic issues based on documents of the Catholic Church. The term ‘economic personalism’ appeared in literature several years ago and has been used as a proposal of a new economic model which is supposed to be a synthesis of achievements of economic sciences and Christian moral theology. Pope John Paul II is believed to be one of its precursors or even founding-fathers. We shall sum up these significant elements of papal personalism under the following heads: (1) A man is a person, namely an independent existence in material and personal, spiritual and material sense, rational and free. All these characteristics of a human being constitute a basis for his dignity and greatness; (2) A man is a free being. This means that he has to make choices between various values. Human freedom is closely related to the truth. The final objective of human freedom is love; (3) We can protect ourselves against alienation by acting and being together with others. We will avoid the danger of alienation when we make ourselves a gift for the other person and especially for God. Economic personalism develops John Paul II’s personalistic view in a creative way. Its program can be summarized by the following theses: (1) a man is the centre of economy; (2) a human being is the most important economic good; (3) work is part of the man’s calling; (4) reproducibility of goods is subordinated to the man’s integral development; (5) the right to participate constitutes inalienable human right; (6) the principle of subsidiary is an „intellectual” frame for social and economic order; (7) the market should not be absolutized; (8) solidarity with the poor and social justice constitute a basis of each economy.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.