My comments are focused on the debate between Izydora Dąmbska and Ludwik Fleck. In the course of their debate, which took place in the 1930's, they discussed some basic issues of epistemology, focusing on the problems of the sources of scientific knowledge, objectivity of knowledge, and truth. The aim of the paper is to place their debate in a the historical context and to demonstrate the novelty of Fleck's arguments, especially in comparison with Thomas S. Kuhn's later contribution. I also examine the dominant interpretations of Fleck's theory of knowledge, as well as the reasons for which his philosophical ideas, especially Entstehung und Entwiklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache (1935) have fallen into the philosophical oblivion. I argue that Fleck's views, although innovative, were less radical than it is commonly thought.
The paper is an analysis of the arguments contained by Kazimierz Ajdukiewicz in his article on the applicability of pure logic to philosophical issues (1934). The author argues that philosophers in support of their claims can not use pure logic statements as evidence. Because theses formulate their common language, they can only appeal to the logic of everyday language, an alternative to the modern systems of symbolic logic.
For Plato, language was the way to cognize the universe. The philosophy of language, which was primarily initiated by Plato in the Cratylus, still has not received answers to the questions settled by this great Greek thinker. In fact, it just offered various solutions formed in different conceptions and approaches in the ancient, scholastic, modern and postmodern periods. The questions raised by Plato in his dialogue have been continued in various nativistic theories of language, especially in works of Noam Chomsky. Language—as it is seen by Plato, i.e., as uniting our inner world with the outer world, is a significant feature of humankind, is still underinvestigated.
Distinctively mathematical explanations (DMEs) explain natural phenomena primarily by appeal to mathematical facts. One important question is whether there can be an ontic account of DME. An ontic account of DME would treat the explananda and explanantia of DMEs as ontic items (ontic objects, properties, structures, etc.) and the explanatory relation between them as an ontic relation (e.g., Pincock, 2015; Povich, 2021). Here I present a conventionalist account of DME, defend it against objections, and argue that it should be considered ontic. Notably, if indeed it is ontic, the conventionalist account seems to avoid a convincing objection to other ontic accounts (Kuorikoski, 2021).
For Plato, language was the way to cognize the universe. The philosophy of language, which was primarily initiated by Plato in the Cratylus, still has not received answers to the questions settled by this great Greek thinker. In fact, it just offered various solutions formed in different conceptions and approaches in the ancient, scholastic, modern and postmodern periods. The questions raised by Plato in his dialogue have been continued in various nativistic theories of language, especially in works of Noam Chomsky. Language-as it is seen by Plato, i.e., as uniting our inner world with the outer world, is a significant feature of humankind, is still underinvestigated.
The aim of the paper is to establish a theoretical elaboration of objectivity in law which would conform exiting linguistic practices in the legal field. It starts from a brief characterization of legal practice in this respect which allows for an exposure of semantic complexity of the term ‘objectivity’ in law. The term is said to take two basic meanings: objectivity as a fact and objectivity as a moral ideal. On this ground requirements towards a reliable theory of legal objectivity are defined: such a theory should not only make o room for both distinct meanings of legal objectivity, but also should consider their mutual relations. These requirements stemming from existing linguistic practice serve as criteria for examination of up to date theoretical concepts of objectivity. The paper discusses realistic, conventionalist, and idealistic theories of objectivity in law subsequently and exposes shortcomings of each of these. Eventually, key assumptions of an institutional theory of objectivity are presented which is claimed to offer a plausible understanding of objectivity in law in both its factual and ideal aspects.
The aim of the article is to present a few criticisms of the foundations of Leon Chwistek’s philosophy. Completeness postulate, imposed on all correct philosophical systems by Chwistek, and which is supposed to be in conflict with conventionalism, is criticised. Correctness of some Chwistek’s axioms is called into question. Axioms for six intermediate realities are given. I argue in favour of model theory interpretation of manifold reality.
This article aims to emphasize epistemological aspects of Leszek Kołakowski’s critique of the radical conventionalism of Kazimierz Ajdukiewicz, as well as his critique of the French representatives of the so-called new critique of sciences. These aspects presuppose or imply, implicitly or explicitly, a stance close to radical empiricism and oppose the views of Marx and Engels, although they harmonize with Lenin’s theory of reflection. Scholars rarely appreciate these aspects of Kołakowski’s early thought. They do so despite their potential role in the analysis of the evolution of his views towards a so-called revisionist stance. Kołakowski’s attitude to different variants of conventionalism and positivistic thought in general should be explored further, since he never abandoned his critique of these doctrines.
Two traditions, which are the philosophical and educational foundations of the Western culture, were characterised and compared in this article. Classical natural law theory and modern, conventionalist vision of state, law and morality were analysed. In the last part of the article, the concept of values was critically discussed.
PL
W artykule scharakteryzowano i porównano ze sobą dwie tradycje tworzące – również w perspektywie edukacji – filozoficzne podstawy kultury zachodniej. Zanalizowano klasyczną koncepcję prawa naturalnego oraz nowożytną, konwencjonalistyczną wizję państwa, prawa i moralności. W końcowej części artykułu przeprowadzono krytyczną analizę pojęcia „wartości”.
Michael Moore broni ujęcia własności naukowych, umysłowych, moralnych i prawnych, zgodnie z którym istnieją nie tylko rodzaje naturalne, ale także rodzaje moralne i funkcjonalne; a dokładniej utrzymuje, że: 1) zjawiska wyraźnie prawne, takie jak prawa (legal rights), precedens, zła wola itp. są rodzajami funkcjonalnymi w tym sensie, że ich natura polega na funkcji, jaką pełnią w prawie, 2) funkcją rodzaju funkcjonalnego jest ten skutek lub te skutki rodzaju funkcjonalnego, które przyczyniają się bardziej niż jakikolwiek inny skutek do osiągnięcia celu większego systemu, w którym występują, 3) rodzaje funkcjonalne można zredukować do nieokreślenie dużych dysjunkcji własności naturalnych, 4) właściwą wersją naturalizmu jest metafizycznie redukcjonistyczny naturalizm, oraz 5) rodzaje funkcjonalne odgrywają niezbędną rolę w wyjaśnianiu ludzkiego zachowania. Twierdzę jednak, 1) że metoda określania funkcji (rzekomego) rodzaju funkcjonalnego zaproponowana przez Moore’a jest zbyt nieokreślona, by można było tę funkcję ustalić. Twierdzę również, 2) że bardzo trudno jest zidentyfikować własności, które są częścią nieokreślenie dużej dysjunkcji własności naturalnych, która w analizie Moore’a jest tożsama z rodzajem funkcjonalnym, 3) że rodzaje funkcjonalne nie mogą być częścią najlepszego wyjaśnienia ludzkiego zachowania, ponieważ brakuje im jedności nomologicznej, a brakuje im takiej jedności, ponieważ są z konieczności realizowane na różne sposoby, oraz 4) że Moore będzie musiał w związku z tym zrezygnować: a) z poglądu, że rodzaje funkcyjne są identyczne z nieokreślenie dużymi dysjunkcjami naturalnych własności, b) z poglądu, że rodzaje funkcyjne są częścią najlepszego wyjaśnienia ludzkiego zachowania, lub z obu (a i b). Twierdzę również, 5) że idea rodzaju funkcjonalnego nie powinna odgrywać centralnej roli w żadnej teorii prawa czy rozumowania prawniczego. [tłumaczenie Redakcja]
EN
Michael Moore defends an account of scientific, mental, moral, and legal properties, according to which there are not only natural kinds, but also moral and functional kinds; and he maintains, more specifically that: 1) distinctively legal phenomena, such as legal rights, precedent, malice, etc. are functional kinds, in the sense that they have a nature that consists in the function they fulfill in law, 2) the function of a functional kind is that effect, or those effects, of the functional kind that causally contribute more than does any of its other effects to the goal of the larger system within which it occurs, and 3) functional kinds can be reduced to indefinitely large disjunctions of natural properties, 4) the relevant version of naturalism is metaphysically reductionist naturalism, and 5) functional kinds play an indispensable role in the explanation of human behaviour. I argue, however, 1) that the method for determining the function of a (purported) functional kind proposed by Moore is too indeterminate to be able to pin down the function. I also argue 2) that it turns out to be very difficult to identify the properties that are part of the indefinitely large disjunction of natural properties which, on Moore’s analysis, is identical to a functional kind, 3) that functional kinds cannot be part of the best explanation of human behaviour, because they lack nomological unity, and that they lack such unity because they are necessarily multiply realizable, and 4) that Moore will therefore have to give up: a) the view that functional kinds are identical to indefinitely large disjunctions of natural properties, b) the view that functional kinds are part of the best explanation of human behaviour, or both (a and b). I also argue 5) that the idea of a functional kind should not play a central role in any theory of law or legal reasoning.
Celem niniejszego artykułu jest omówienie Arystotelesowskiego ujęcia homonimii. Proponowana tutaj teza zakłada, iż Stagiryta za homonimiczne uznaje zarówno rzeczy, jak i słowa w zależności od wchodzącego w grę kontekstu polemicznego. Gdy zatem Arystoteles nawiązuje krytycznie do filozofii Platona, to wówczas pojmuje on homonimię bardziej ontologicznie (homonimiczne są wtedy rzeczy). Gdy natomiast filozof podejmuje dyskusję z egzegetami czy sofistami, to wówczas pojmuje on homonimię bardziej semantycznie (homonimiczne są wtedy słowa/nazwy). Następnie podkreślona zostaje okoliczność, iż Arystoteles negatywnie ocenia homonimię w dyskusjach dialektycznych, a pozytywnie w naukach wytwórczych. Zwieńczeniem przedstawionych tu rozważań jest konkluzja, iż rozpoznanie homonimii systematycznej traktuje Stagiryta jako warunek wstępny adekwatnego ujęcia każdego problemu, ponieważ dostrzeżenie homonimii umożliwia z jednej strony zachowanie różnorodności zjawisk, a z drugiej wprowadzenie do nich określonego porządku.
EN
The purpose of the paper is to discuss Aristotle’s account of homonymy. The major thesis advocated here is that Aristotle considers both entities and words to be homonymous, depending on the object of his criticism. Thus, when he takes issue with Plato, he tends to view homonymy more ontologically, upon which it is entities that become homonymous. When, on the other hand, he gainsays the exegetes or the sophists, he is inclined to perceive homonymy more semantically, upon which it is words that become homonymous. Subsequently, this article shows that Aristotle values homonymy negatively in dialectical discussions, but positively in rhetorical and poetic arts. Finally, the present paper demonstrates that Aristotle regards systematic homonymy as a very useful theoretical tool that makes it possible to critically examine the basic terminological assumptions of any philosophical inquiry.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.