In the course of the development of physics until the beginning of the twentieth century there was an evolutionary progress within its ontological frameworks. Its continuity was violated by A. Einstein’s works of 1905 and his so-called „quantum and relativistic revolution.” In its course people gave up a series of results they had achieved, and replaced them by some radical solutions that differed from common sense intuitions. In particular, in the context of the theory of relativity the concept of electromagnetic (...) ether was rejected. Then the concept of absolute time and absolute geometry of space were removed, facts that eliminated the „flow” of time and change of the ontology of physics from the substantialist one into the eventist one. The changes turned out unnecessary, they resulted not from the very theory of relativity, but from some arbitrary solutions within the frameworks of its philosophical interpretation. On the other hand, they clash with clear ontological intuitions and make an explanation of the „flow” of time impossible. What is more, they are also not beneficial for a further progress in the development of physics, especially in the context of seeking a quantum theory of gravitation. It seems right to return to pre-relativistic concepts, starting from ether. For it is the elimination of the latter that had started the „revolution.”. (shrink)

Interpretation of Hetvābhāsasāmānyanirukti of Gaṅgeśa, 13th cent., treatise on Nyaya philosophy; based on other classical commentaries.

The paper aims at describing the discussion about the model-theorethic argument of Hilary Putnam in the past thirty years. First of all it presents the view of Timothy Bays, who through scrupulous examination of the formal side of the argument demonstrates that in fact it has very little in common with the model-theory. It is rather a simple and purely philosophical argument, which isn't more reliable and conclusive than any other argument in philosophy. Putnam tries to block the answer of (...) followers of the causal theory of reference by insisting that it is "just more theory", which could be erased by argument like any other language structure. In response meta-physical realists, like David Lewis and James Van Cleve, claim that "it is not causal language that fixes reference; it is causation itself". David Leech Anderson agrees with metaphysical realists that in principle causal theory could fix the reference, but in his opinion we do not have reliable and substantive theory of that kind, and it doesn't even seem probable that we will have such a theory in future. In conclusion, I agree with Putnam that the metaphysical realist says that "we-know-not-what fixes the reference relation we-know-not-how", and he doesn't have any chance of avoiding the demolition by the model-theorethic argument, because he still tries to separate sharply the realms of language and reality. (shrink)

Można wyróżnić dwa rodzaje powiązań między antyrealizmem semantycznym a teizmem. Pierwsze z nich ma swoje źródło w antyrealistycznym twierdzeniu, że język rozumiemy dzięki naszej znajomości uzasadnień sądów lub zdań. W konsekwencji tego staje się czymś niemożliwym przekazanie wiedzy Boga wierzącemu, jeśli ten ostatni osobiście nie zna uzasadnienia odpowiedniego zdania. Ze szczególnie mocnym przedstawieniem tej doktryny mamy do czynienia na ostatnich stronach Logicznej podstawy metafizyki Michaela Dummetta. Można to rozumieć jako całkowite odrzucenie każdego rodzaju iluminacjonizmu, a także pewnych w jakiś sposób (...) pokrewnych mu stanowisk, takich jak idealizm transcendentalny. Drugie powiązanie ma charakter bardziej pozytywny dla teizmu. Antyrealizm musi przyjąć, że każdy sąd może być poznany, co wydaje się sprzeczne ze zdrowym rozsądkiem. Istnieje jednak prosty sposób na uczynienie tej sugestii czymś prawdziwym, a mianowicie przyjęcie istnienia wszechwiedzącego Boga, który zna każdy sąd. Ten sposób myślenia po raz pierwszy został wyeksponowany trzydzieści lat temu przez Alvina Plantingę i stał się przedmiotem szczegółowych dyskusji różnych filozofów. Należy podkreślić, że po szczegółowym zbadaniu te dwa rodzaje powiązań nie są równie mocno uzasadnione, ponieważ tylko pierwsze z nich jest silnie zakorzenione w antyrealistycznej semantyce, podczas gdy drugie jest jedynie pewną spekulatywną sugestią. (shrink)

W artykule streszczam tzw. Debatę Dummett Lash, która miała miejsce na łamach czasopisma angielskich dominikanów New Blackfriars w latach 1987-1989. Rozróżniam trzy główne nurty debaty. W pierwszym głównym oponentem filozofa Michaela Dummetta, inicjatora debaty, był benedyktyn Bede Griffith, który proponował symboliczne rozumienie Biblii. Według Dummetta jednak rozumienie symboliczne opiera się na wcześniejszym rozumieniu dosłownym, które z tego powodu nie może być odrzucone. W drugim Dummett argumentował za potrzebą intersubiektywnego uzasadnienia naszej przynależności do konkretnego Kościoła, ponieważ w innym przypadku nie bylibyśmy (...) w stanie podać żadnych racji na rzecz zmiany poglądów przez tych, którzy nie wyznają chrześcijaństwa. Jego główna teza nie była atakowana, niektórzy uczestnicy debaty kwestionowali jednak niektóre szczegóły natury tego uzasadnienia i całego paradygmatu myślenia w kategoriach wyznaniowych. Trzeci i kluczowy nurt debaty miał swoje źródło w nacisku Dummetta na to, że współczesna katolicka biblistyka odeszła od tradycyjnego katolickiego nauczania i stąd konieczne jest ogłoszenie granic możliwej interpretacji katolickich artykułów wiary. Wielu teologów, którzy brali udział w debacie, postrzegało to żądanie Dummetta jako zagrożenie dla naukowej wolności, a najważniejszy z nich, Nicholas Lash, profesor University of Cambridge, wskazywał, że także postulowane przez Dummetta ogłoszenie będzie wymagało interpretacji, stąd wyznaczenie granic możliwej interpretacji jest po prostu niemożliwe. Na końcu artykułu dochodzę do wniosku, że możemy postrzegać Dummetta zarówno jako filozofa, który stara się traktować religię w sposób racjonalny, jak i prostego katolickiego świeckiego, chcącego mieć bezpośredni dostęp do Objawienia bez pośrednictwa ekspertów od biblistyki. (shrink)

This paper is a reply to Jan Wolenski's polemics (Filozofia Nauki 1/2000) against the author's essay „On the Epistemic Impotence of Analytical Philosophy” (Filozofia Nauki 3-4/1998). The author expresses his conviction that it is in analytical philosophy that the most interesting - and at the same time well-established - cognitive results have been reached, but many of these results have been obtained, not thanks to the declared semantic method, but thanks to the phenomenological method, which have been used at least (...) unconsciously. Therefore the gap between phenomenology and analytical philosophy is not so huge as it might seem at first glance. (shrink)

Leszek Kolakowski delves into some of the most intellectually vigorous questions of our time in this remarkable collection of essays garnished with his characteristic wit. Ten of the essays have never appeared before in English. "Exemplary.... It should be celebrated." —Arthur C. Danto, _New York Times Book Review_ "This book... express[es] Kolakowski's thought on God, man, reason, history, moral truth and original sin, prompted by observation of the dramatic struggle among Christianity, the Enlightenment and modern totalitarianism. It is a wonderful (...) collection of topics." —Thomas Nagel, _Times Literary Supplement_ "No better antidote to bumper-sticker thinking exists than this collection of 24 'appeals for moderation in consistency,' and never has such an antidote been needed more than it is now." —Joseph Coates, _Chicago Tribune_ "Whether learned or humorous, these essays offer gems in prose of diamond hardness, precision, and brilliance." —Thomas D'Evelyn, _The Christian Science Monitor_ A "Notable Books of the Year 1991" selection, _New York Times Book Review_—a "Noted with Pleasure" selection, _New York Times Book Review_—a "Summer Reading 1991" selection, _New York Times Book Review_—a "Books of the Year" selection, _The Times_. (shrink)

Leszek Kolakowski delves into some of the most intellectually vigorous questions of our time in this remarkable collection of essays garnished with his characteristic wit. Ten of the essays have never appeared before in English. "Exemplary.... It should be celebrated." —Arthur C. Danto, _New York Times Book Review_ "This book... express[es] Kolakowski's thought on God, man, reason, history, moral truth and original sin, prompted by observation of the dramatic struggle among Christianity, the Enlightenment and modern totalitarianism. It is a wonderful (...) collection of topics." —Thomas Nagel, _Times Literary Supplement_ "No better antidote to bumper-sticker thinking exists than this collection of 24 'appeals for moderation in consistency,' and never has such an antidote been needed more than it is now." —Joseph Coates, _Chicago Tribune_ "Whether learned or humorous, these essays offer gems in prose of diamond hardness, precision, and brilliance." —Thomas D'Evelyn, _The Christian Science Monitor_ A "Notable Books of the Year 1991" selection, _New York Times Book Review_—a "Noted with Pleasure" selection, _New York Times Book Review_—a "Summer Reading 1991" selection, _New York Times Book Review_—a "Books of the Year" selection, _The Times_. (shrink)

Artykuł dotyczy zagadnienia charakteru przedmiotów matematyki. Autor stara się określić ich charakter w perspektywie definicji naoczności (którą przyjmuje od Kanta). Podstawową kwestią jest tu zagadnienie: w jaki sposób przedmioty te przedstawiają się ludzkiemu umysłowi.

The quantum-relativistic breakthrough in physics has radically changed the scientific worldview. Several basic intuitions, which underlie traditional philosophy of nature, has been abandoned. As a result of this fact, scientists started to pronounce themselves as the highest authority in the philosophy of nature, leaving for the philosophers only the role of commentators. However, it is not physical theories, but their certain interpretations, or disinterpretations, which contradict common intuitions. In the case of relativistic theory, there is an alternative interpretation which allows (...) us to reconcile its content with pre-relativistic intuitions. Therefore it suggest that we should be critical also to other alleged consequences of the „new physics”. (shrink)

Dowód twierdzenia Bella sprowadza się do wyprowadzenia którejś z nierówności Bella. W ich standardowych wyprowadzeniach jednak kluczową rolę odgrywa warunek faktoryzowalności łącznego prawdopodobieństwa warunkowego, który można uzyskać jako konsekwencję dwóch innych warunków, znanych jako parameter independence i outcome independence. Pierwszy z nich jest dość oczywistym wyrazem warunku lokalności, natomiast drugi budzi wątpliwości. Ponieważ jednak jest on uszczegółowieniem warunku screening off zasady wspólnej przyczyny, jego podważenie wymagałoby zakwestionowania również tego warunku. Gdyby się to powiodło, efektywny dowód twierdzenia Bella wymagałby wyprowadzenia nierówności (...) Bella nie wykorzystującego żadnego uszczegółowienia warunku screening off. Przestawiona zostanie sugestia kierunku, w jakim powinny iść poszukiwania modelu naruszającego ten warunek. (shrink)

This is a defence of some kind of reality of relativistic effects, against the thesis that they are mere kinematic appearances or deceptions.

Putnam’s proof that time flow is incompatible with Relativity is underestimated, mostly due to Stein’s interpretation of the notion of reality in it as a two-term relation. This interpretation makes it vulnerable to easy criticism and makes various ways of escaping its conclusion possible. An alternative approach is proposed, resulting in a formalization which seems closer to Putnam’s intentions where reality is interpreted as a non-relational property. Although it makes the proof immune to all standard strategies of blocking the proof, (...) it reveals its real weak point which consists in assuming an overly strong interpretation of the principle of relativity. (shrink)

The observation that the standard solution of the paradox of the Liar is not satisfactory as a pragmatic solution of a semantic problem restores its former status as a semantic antinomy. Since the antinomy originates from Tarski's T scheme, a conservative modification of the standard semantics is looked for, which would prevent applying the scheme T to anomalous statements. Two such modifications are considered. The first is simpler and implies Kleene's weak tables for three-valued logic. The second, more complex but (...) also more intuitive, agrees with Kleene's strong tables. This undermines the seemingly natural intuition that a sentence and the sentence attributing truth to it have the same truth conditions, which is compatible only with the weak tables. (shrink)

"[An] important essay by a philosopher who more convincingly than any other I can think of demonstrates the continuing significance of his vocation in the life of our culture."—Karsten Harries, _The New York Times Book Review_ With _The Presence of Myth_, Kolakowski demonstrates that no matter how hard man strives for purely rational thought, there has always been-and always will be-a reservoir of mythical images that lend "being" and "consciousness" a specifically human meaning. "Kolakowski undertakes a philosophy of culture which (...) extends to all realms of human intercourse—intellectual, artistic, scientific, and emotional.... [His] book has real significance for today, and may well become a classic in the philosophy of culture."—_Anglican Theological Review_. (shrink)

"[An] important essay by a philosopher who more convincingly than any other I can think of demonstrates the continuing significance of his vocation in the life of our culture."—Karsten Harries, _The New York Times Book Review_ With _The Presence of Myth_, Kolakowski demonstrates that no matter how hard man strives for purely rational thought, there has always been-and always will be-a reservoir of mythical images that lend "being" and "consciousness" a specifically human meaning. "Kolakowski undertakes a philosophy of culture which (...) extends to all realms of human intercourse—intellectual, artistic, scientific, and emotional.... [His] book has real significance for today, and may well become a classic in the philosophy of culture."—_Anglican Theological Review_. (shrink)

The author proposes a formalization of Hilary Putnam's proof of the thesis that time does not pass. This enables one to eliminate difficulties connected with the original formulation.

Collected articles on spiritual life based on the life of Bābu Rāṇapurā, mystic-saint poet from Gujarat; previously published in Kacchamitra, a Gujarati daily.