The hereby introduction gives an insight into the topics and themes discussed in the hereby presented issue of the journal Ethics in Progress, devoted to the topic of transhumanism in its numerous contexts.

The paper considers the problem of various different forms of pre‑cognitive affective appraisal and their role in the process of gaining self-knowledge. According to the phenomenological approach, if we are to understand our inner states (our emotional experiences), these cannot be extracted from the context within which they arise. Emotions not only refer to the inner states of the subject, but also to the outer world to which they are a form of response. Brentano, Husserl and Scheler claimed that emotions (...) are directed towards values. It is to this essential feature of emotional experience that I would like to turn. I shall therefore re-examine Sartre’s views concerning affectivity (i.e. the capacity to reveal evaluatively significant qualities of one’s environment), as well as the dual-aspect theory of (reflective and non-reflective) consciousness. The main argument of this paper is that a plausible account of the essential role of affectivity in the emotions may be provided on the basis of a phenomenological theory of pre-reflective consciousness and its relation to reflexivity. I will focus on three different claims about pre-reflective (affective) consciousness. According to the first of these, a large part of cognition is of a prelinguistic (pre-reflective) nature; I argue that the evaluative content of emotion is not only conceptually determined, but may also take a non-conceptual form (as affective appraisal). The second claim refers to the notion of affect, which ought to be distinguished from (unintentional) bodily sensations. The third conceives of the relation between pre-reflective (affective) consciousness and reflective consciousness (propositional attitudes) as normative (rather than causal). I aim to demonstrate that a plausible view of emotional affectivity must appeal to a phenomenological account of the pre-reflective aspect of consciousness. (shrink)

What I would like to study is the presence of Cartesian manner of thinking in the Ricoeurian comprehension of subjectivity. I focus particularly on what is not saying expressis verbis in his argumentation. I do not say that the Ricoeurian conception of dialectical subject which is expressed as “oneself as another” places itself as continuation of the tradition of absolutization of cogito. By no means. Ricoeur’s investigation that pertains to subjectivity aims at elaborating its new formulation. Philosophy of Descartes might (...) be interpret in various ways not only as the synonym of “egology”. In my paper I indicate two formulas of ego which are included in Cartesian Meditations (ego cogito, ergo sum and ego sum, ego existo) that give rise to the different interpretations of ego. I analyse the Ricoeurian stance that relates to the consequences of introducing by Descartes the very formula ego sum, ego existo. In the second part I concentrate on issue on what sense rereading Meditations could be helpful in entering into discussion with structuralist critique of the subject. Also I get an approach to the theoretical framework of Ricoeurian argumentation which is established according to defend the subject. -/- W artykule staram się pokazać obecność elementów Kartezjańskiego sposobu rozumowania w Ricoeurowskim deklaratywnie „antykartezjańskim” ujęciu subiektywności. Nie twierdzę, że Ricoeur w proponowanej przez siebie koncepcji podmiotu dialektycznego wyrażonego jako "ten-który-jest-sobą-jak-i-innym" sytuuje sie po stronie tradycji absolutyzującej cogito. Moim celem jest przesledzenie tych momentów Ricoeurowskiej argumentacji prowadzonej na rzecz wypracowania nowej formuły podmiotowości, w których obecny jest (najczęściej implicite) wątek Kartezjański. W samej filozofii Kartezjusza obecna jest droga, która nie prowadzi do egologii. By pokazać dwie różne perspektywy odczytania Kartezjańskiego cogito, przywołuję dwie formuły: ego cogito ergo sum oraz ego sum, ego existo, by następnie poddac je analizie. W pierwszej cześci artykułu skupiam się na ukazaniu konsekwencji płynących z wykorzystania formuły ego sum, ego existo w dyskusji dotyczącej subiektywności. W drugiej cześci staram się dowieść, na jakiej drodze możliwe jest wykorzystanie Kartezjańskiej koncepcji podmiotu w konfrontacji ze strukturalistyczną krytyką podmiotu. (shrink)