Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 9

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Józef M. Bocheński
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

The Philosophy of the Business Enterprise by Józef Maria Bocheński

100%
Gasparski W. W.
Prakseologia
|
2020
|
vol. 162
43-59
EN
The article aims at discussing the crucial theses of Józef Maria Bocheński’s dissertation in which the concept of philosophy of the industrial enterprise was presented in outline. The dissertation is a record of the lecture titled Zur Philosophie der industriellen Urternehmung, which was given by the author on March 18th, 1985 in Zürich, at the invitation of Bank Hofmann AG.
PL
W artykule zaprezentowano najważniejsze tezy rozprawy Józefa Marii Bocheńskiego, w której przedstawiona została filozofia przedsiębiorstwa przemysłowego w zarysie. Rozprawa jest zapisem wykładu wygłoszonego przez jej autora 18 marca 1985 r. w Zunfthaus zur Meisen w Zürichu, na zaproszenie Banku Hofmann AG. Wykład nosił tytuł Zur Philosophie der industriellen Urternehmung.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Filozoficzna biografia Józefa M. Bocheńskiego

99%
Andrzejuk A.
Rocznik Tomistyczny
|
2020
|
vol. 1
|
issue 9
245-264
EN
Józef Bocheński was born on 30th August 1902. He graduated from the Secondary School in 1920 and immediately after the final exam (matura) he joined the 8th Ulhan (light cavalry) Regiment and took part in a final part of a Polish-Bolshevik war. After the war, in 1922, he joined studies in law at the University of Lwów and after two years he attended the University in Poznań in order to study political economy. These studies were interrupted in 1926 when Bocheński joined the Seminary in Poznań which he left when moving to the Dominican novitiate in Cracow. There he adopted names Innocenty Maria. After one year of a novitiate he was sent to philosophical studies at the University in Fribourg in Swizerland, he graduated in 1934 . Two years earlier however, he was ordained a priest and in 1936, along with Jan Salamucha, Franciszek Drewnowski and Bolesław Sobociński, he organised the so called Cracow Circle. After receiving a doctorate in theology he was appointed a professor of logic at Angelicum, and he officially remained there until 1940. In 1938 he got habilitation in philosophy at the Faculty of Theology at the Jagiellonian University in Cracow. Along with the Polish Corpus of Gen. Władysław Anders he took part in the Italian campaigne. He fought in the battle at Monte Cassino (May 1944). After the end of the Second World War he became a professor of philosophy at Fribourg University and remained at that position until the retirement (1945-1972). He occupied a position of a Dean of Faculty of Philosophy (1950-1952) and a Rector. There he initiated soviet studies which brought him recognition and political significance. He visited Poland in 1987 for the first time since he left in 1939. In the next year he was awarded doctorates honoris causa at the Jagiellonian University and at the Academy of Catholic Theology (ATK) in Warsaw. Moreover, during his emigration he co-operated regularly with the Polish University Abroad established in Londyn. He died in Fribourg on 8th February 1995. During his lifetime Józef Bocheński was changing philosopical schools and views. In his youth he was a Kantian, next, he „converted” to neo-Thomism in its most traditional (handbook and essential) version, which actually was more Aristotelian than Thomistic. The next step was an attempt to „modernise” this sort of Thomism by tools of mathematical logic in order to make Thomas - as Bocheński said himself - no longer his „guru”. In the result, Bocheński ceased to explore the problems and style of classical philosophy in favour of analytical mode of philosophying. He himself divided his scientific work into four periods distinguished as follows, according to interest and passions (and views as well) dominated in particular time: 1) neo-Thomistic (1934–1940), 2) historical- logical (1945–1955) 3) sovietological (1955–1970) 4) systematical- logical (1970–1995).
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Towards the Philosophy of the Industrial Enterprise

85%
Bocheński J. I. M.
Prakseologia
|
2020
|
vol. 162
19-41
EN
In this dissertation, Józef Innocenty Maria Bocheński presented the analytical model of philosophy of industrial enterprise. The model can be also applied to agriculture (as the author points out); with some reservations it could be referred to different kinds of services as well. Thus, it can be called the analytical model of business enterprise. The crucial theses of the paper are: 1. the enterprise should be perceived and analyzed as “a system”; 2. in such a system, the bonding element is the entrepreneur (distinguished from the capitalist) 3. production of goods is the “main immanent goal” of the enterprise. The paper was first presented in German, under the title: Zur Philosophie der industriellen Unternehmung, in the lecture given by the author in Zürich on March 18th 1985; in the following years, the dissertation has had several editions in German and in Polish.
4
Content available remote

Pluralizm logiczny a relatywizm w logice

80%
Czernecka-Rej B.
Diametros
|
2018
|
issue 56
51-68
PL
Celem artykułu jest analiza sytuacji logiki współczesnej w aspekcie pytania o związek pluralizmu systemów logicznych z relatywizmem w logice. Poszukuję odpowiedzi na pytania: Czy wielość logik, a dokładniej wielość i różnorodność systemów skonstruowanych przez logików, da się w jakiś racjonalny sposób usprawiedliwić? Czy pluralizm w logice nieodzownie prowadzi do uznania tezy relatywizmu? Czy we współczesnej filozofii logiki logiczny relatywizm jest zabobonem czy też poglądem prawdziwym i należycie uzasadnionym?
EN
The aim of the article is to analyze the situation of contemporary logic with reference to the issue concerning connections between the pluralism of logical systems and relativism in logic. Accordingly, I seek answers to the following questions: Can the plurality of logic, more specifically, a large number and variety of systems constructed by logicians, be justified in a rational way? Does pluralism in logic imply the thesis of relativism? Is logical relativism in the contemporary philosophy of logic just a superstition or is it a duly substantiated view?
5
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

The Development of Immanent Ends in Professor Bocheński’s »Towards the Philosophy of the Industrial Enterprise«

80%
Airaksinen T.
Prakseologia
|
2020
|
vol. 162
61-82
EN
In this paper, I comment on Professor Bocheński’s article Towards Philosophy of the Industrial Enterprise and its important final chapter on “Dynamic Analysis.” Methodologically, Bocheński’s article is interesting because he applies a teleological paradigm to business ethics. He discusses ends and goals. Th e main problem is what is the main, immanent end of an industrial enterprise? Bocheński answers, p roduc t ion. I agree that this is what industrial enterprise does and must do to survive, but in what sense can we call production an end and a goal? I dwell deeper into this and try to find the developmental principle that explains in what sense production cannot only be a fact but also an immanent goal. I then identify and describe this principle in terms of invention, innovation, and design. Any industrial enterprise must subscribe to such a developmental principle if it hopes to survive; and the result is a good product, which is the desired end.
PL
W artykule komentuję artykuł prof. J. M. Bocheńskiego Uwagi filozoficzne o przedsiębiorstwie przemysłowym i jego ważny rozdział końcowy pt. „Analiza dynamiczna”. Metodologicznie artykuł Bocheńskiego jest interesujący, ponieważ stosuje się w nim paradygmat teleologiczny do etyki biznesu. Omówione są w nim cele przedsiębiorstwa. Kluczowe pytanie wiąże się z określeniem głównego immanentnego celu przedsiębiorstwa przemysłowego. Bocheński odpowiada, że jest nim produkcja. Zgadzam się, że przedsiębiorstwo przemysłowe produkuje i musi produkować, aby przetrwać. Ale w jakim sensie możemy nazwać produkcję celem? Zgłębiając zagadnienie próbuję znaleźć zasadę rozwoju, która wyjaśnia, w jakim sensie produkcja to nie tylko rzeczywistość przedsiębiorstwa, ale i jego cel immanentny (finis operis). Następnie identyfikuję i opisuję tę zasadę w kategoriach wynalazczości, innowacji i projektowania. Każde przedsiębiorstwo przemysłowe musi podporządkować się takiej zasadzie rozwoju, jeśli ma przetrwać — a rezultatem jest dobry produkt, będący pożądanym właściwym celem.
6
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Metafizyka w marksizmie? – Materializm dialektyczny i jego konsekwencje w ujęciu o. Józefa Marii Bocheńskiego

71%
Pawlikowski T.
Rocznik Tomistyczny
|
2020
|
vol. 1
|
issue 9
301-316
EN
Father Józef Maria Bocheński OP (1902– 1995) was considered a leading sovietologist. At the University of Fribourg, he founded in 1957 the Institute of Eastern Europe, in which the doctrine of Marxism-Leninism was studied scientifically. The results were published in the journal „Studies in Soviet Thought”. He initiated the uprising in Cologne Ost-Kolleg, where knowledge about Soviet philosophy and communism was disseminated. In the years 1961–1962 he was also its director. In his publications he undertook, among others the question of the metaphysics of Marxism, seeing it generally in dialectical materialism and, in specific applications, also in historical materialism. Criticizing this trend of thought, he focused on its latest findings, developed in the Soviet philosophy in the fifties of the twentieth century. Approaching the criticism from an external point of view, he pointed out some significant inconsistencies of Marxist materialism. According to the first law of dialectics, it proclaims a universal cause-effect determinism, and at the same time allows for the occurrence of random events. Explaining the existence of consciousness in matter with the adopted concept of cognition, Marxism mixes the epistemological and ontological order. Moreover, this trend uses the unscientific understanding of matter. On the basis of the considerations of Father Bocheński, it can also be concluded that the fundamental inconsistency of Marxist materialism is the acceptance of the existence of a spiritual element (consciousness) different in quality from mat-ter, while maintaining the thesis that there is only matter and what comes from it.
7
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

The Philosophy of Industrial Enterprise from a Praxeological and Personalistic Perspective

70%
Gniadek J.
Prakseologia
|
2020
|
vol. 162
83-101
EN
In the text entitled Zur Philosophie der industriellen Unternehmung / Uwagi filozoficzne o przedsiębiorstwie przemysłowym („Towards the Philosophy of Industrial Enterprise”), Józef I. M. Bocheński OP (†1995) attempts at discovering the function of the entrepreneur as a factor connecting capital and labor. The Dominican philosopher fails to notice, however, that there is no artificial division of consumer goods and capital goods. This is determined by the calculating mind of the acting man, whose point of reference is private property. It is a necessary element of economic calculation, without which there is no economic rationality. In his analysis, Bocheński does not take into account private property, and therefore he does not distinguish between the functions of a manager and an entrepreneur. The Dominican thinker’s attempt to defi ne philosophically an enterprise is innovative, based on anthropological principles consistent with Christian personalism, but incomplete. Ludwig von Mises and the Austrian School of Economics advocate a subjectivist theory of value that explains the essence of economic exchange based on private property. The author of this article, as a theologian, also reaches for economic personalism and John Paul II who taught that without private property man is not able to understand his dignity fully.
PL
Filozofia przedsiębiorstwa przemysłowego z perspektywy prakseologicznej i personalistycznej Józef I. M. Bocheński OP (†1995) w tekście pt. Zur Philosophie der industriellen Unternehmung / Uwagi filozoficzne o przedsiębiorstwie przemysłowym dochodzi do odkrycia funkcji przedsiębiorcy, jako czynnika łączącego kapitał i siłę roboczą. Dominikański filozof nie zauważa jednak, że nie istnieje sztuczny podział na dobra konsumpcyjne i kapitałowe. O tym decyduje kalkulujący umysł działającego człowieka, którego punktem odniesienia jest własność prywatna. Jest ona koniecznym elementem kalkulacji ekonomicznej, bez której nie istnieje ekonomiczna racjonalność. Bocheński nie uwzględnia w swojej analizie własności prywatnej i dlatego nie odróżnia funkcji menadżera od funkcji przedsiębiorcy. Próba zdefiniowania przez dominikańskiego myśliciela przedsiębiorstwa na gruncie filozofii jest innowacyjna, oparta na antropologicznych zasadach zgodnych z chrześcijańskim personalizmem, ale niepełna. Z pomocą przychodzi tutaj Ludwig von Mises i szkoła austriacka ekonomii z subiektywistyczną teorię wartości, która tłumaczy istotę ekonomicznej wymiany w oparciu o własność prywatną. Autor niniejszego artykułu, jako teolog, sięga także do ekonomicznego personalizmu i Jana Pawła II, który nauczał, że bez własności prywatnej człowiek nie jest w stanie do końca zrozumieć swojej godności.
8
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Business Enterprise in the Logic and Ontological Analysis of Józef I. M. Bocheński

70%
Bukała M. W.
Prakseologia
|
2020
|
vol. 162
103-114
EN
The article proposes a new look at J. M. Bocheński’s OP classical philosophical concept of the business enterprise as a “system” (presented in the text Zur Philosophie der industriellen Unternehmung). The referred author analyzed the industrial enterprise – or business enterprise – from the logic and ontological perspective. The discourses conducted in the article focus mainly on: the significance of Bocheński’s model (1), the ontological perspective and the author’s references to Aristotelian terms (2), the reservations and objections to the concept (especially regarding the role of ownership) (3), the possibilities of extending the analysis and new interpretations of the concept, with regard to the idea of entrepreneur’s contribution to the common good (4).
PL
W artykule proponuje się nowe spojrzenie na klasyczną filozoficzną koncepcję przedsiębiorstwa, pochodzącą od J. I M. Bocheńskiego OP. Autor ten analizował “przedsiębiorstwo przemysłowe” – lub szerzej, przedsiębiorstwo sfery gospodarczej – jako “system”, w perspektywie logicznej i ontologicznej. Rozważania prezentowane w artykule dotyczą głównie: znaczenia modelu Bocheńskiego (1); jego ukierunkowania na perspektywę ontologiczną i nawiązań do Arystotelesa (1), zastrzeżeń, które mogą być formułowane (dotyczących zwłaszcza roli własności) (2), możliwości jego nowej interpretacji w kontekście wkładu przedsiębiorcy do dobra wspólnego (4).
9
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Józefa M. Bocheńskiego koncepcja historii filozofii

57%
Andrzejuk A.
Rocznik Tomistyczny
|
2020
|
vol. 1
|
issue 9
433-451
EN
The notion of history of philosophy is initiated by Bocheński by presentation of the notion of history itself which, according to him for the fact of treating the past („that what happened”), has two meanings: subject meaning (past events) and object meaning (historiosophy). Both of them can be further divided into two parts: history of facts and history of doctrines. History of philosophy is a typical history of doctrines. The second element of the name „history of philosophy”- which is philosophy-is etymologically linked to wisdom, present in numerous meanings: in antiquity its was simply a synonim of science. In the Middle Ages we observe division of human knowledge to revealed knowledge and natural knowledge, the latter one, in its aspect of exploring the ultimate principles and causes is called philosophy. In modern times philosophy was questioned at all or the entire science was included in its scope. For that reason Bocheński establishes the set of topics which are constantly present in the history of philosophy and which can be classified as strictly philosophical issues. They are: 1) the question of cognition (can we cognize truth?); 2) the question of science; 3) ontological issues (universalities, existence or non-existence of plurality); 4) questions of relation of science and psychic; 5) axiological issues (ethics, esthetics, philosophy of religion); 6) the question of absolute (God, eternal matter). Bocheński stresses that questions proper to philosophy can not be classified as one of the science and, what is more, contemporary methodology of science will rather not change this situation. Striking in that presentation is the lack of issues regarding philosophy of being (existence, essence, substance, accidental properties, relations, causes) with little exemption of philosophy of being inc-luded in the question of absolute. When it comes to division of history of philosophy, we may say that according to Bocheński it should follow analogically the traditional division of the European history such as classic, medieval, modern and contemporary times
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.