Wiek osiemnasty – wiek rozumności, wyzwalania umysłu z błędów, doskonalenia i rozwoju ludzkości – często uważa się także za szczególnie istotny czas postępowej dyskusji o kobiecie, jej roli społecznej, czas torujący drogę do jej instytucjonalnej edukacji i w konsekwencji emancypacji. Analizując treści prac znaczących myślicieli Oświecenia, należy jednak dojść do wniosku, że Kantowskie słowa wskazujące jako ideę przewodnią Oświecenia: „Odważ się posługiwać własnym rozumem!”, nie odnoszą się do kobiety. Podmiotem myślenia filozoficznego pozostaje mężczyzna, choć używany w dziełach filozoficznych tego okresu (...) z upodobaniem i konsekwencją termin „człowiek” może pozornie wskazywać na ogólne zainteresowanie obiema płciami i równe traktowanie mężczyzn i kobiet. Kobiety nadal postrzega się jako istoty niższe pod względem umysłowym. Umieszcza się je w pułapce małżeństwa rozumianego jako związek tworzący „jedną osobę moralną”, czy też „jedną osobę duchową”. Zmiany w edukacji kobiet, choć w dobie Oświecenia się dokonały, nadal polegają na kontroli wiedzy im przekazywanej, a nadto wiedzy ukierunkowanej na uformowanie określonych cech związanych z rolą żony i matki. Wskazane zagadnienia w artykule są rozważane na przykładzie trzech myślicieli Oświecenia: J.-J. Rousseau, I. Kanta oraz H. Kołłątaja. (shrink)

Artykuł przywołuje poglądy liderów polskiej myśli oświeceniowej na temat sprawiedliwości i równości. W dobie oświecenia dokonał się niewątpliwy awans tej problematyki, co wyrażało się nie tylko w wydatnym wzroście ilościowym wypowiedzi na temat sprawiedliwości, a zwłaszcza równości, ale także w ujawnianiu bogactwa konstytuujących je zagadnień oraz w merytorycznej dojrzałości ich interpretacji i analiz. Przegląd poglądów na ww. zagadnienia zaczynamy od wypowiedzi Stanisława Leszczyńskiego, w których pojawiły się idee prooświeceniowe, następnie przedstawiamy poglądy przedstawicieli philosophiae recentiorum: Stanisława H. Konarskiego, Antoniego Wiśniewskiego, Józefa (...) K. Skrzetuskiego, z kolei dojrzałą fazę myśli oświeceniowej reprezentują tu jej liderzy: Stanisław Popławski, Franciszek S. Jezierski, Hugo Kołłątaj, Hieronim Stroynowski (Strojnowski), Stanisław W. Staszic. Przedstawiony zestaw poglądów wymienionych wyżej myślicieli na temat sprawiedliwości i równości wymownie zaświadcza o tym, że problematyka ta budziła żywe zainteresowanie ówczesnych elit intelektualnych, które wypowiadały się na ich temat z dużą kompetencją, zaangażowaniem i znawstwem, co w konsekwencji sprawiło, że ich znaczenie znacznie wybiegało poza epokę,która je zrodziła. (shrink)

ABSTRACTThe aim of the article is to analyse the most intellectually challenging conceptions of Polish political thought at the time of the Four Year Seym, specifically those of Stanisław Staszic and Hugo Kołłątaj, when viewed from the perspective of the dilemmas of the republicanism of the period. At its heart, it places the issue so provocatively put forward by Rousseau’s Considérations sur le gouvernement de Pologne, that of reforming a previously noble republic against the monarchical tendencies that prevailed in (...) Europe. The analysis shows that, indeed, in both reformers’ advocacy for the hereditary throne, having no other justification but geopolitical reasons, and especially in some Kołłątaj’s later proposals, one can find evidence of their doctrinal compromises. On the other hand, their argumentations revealed an extraordinarily modern approach that could pave the way for new promising prospects of Polish republicanism. Its value lay mainly in the fact that they combined the ideals of more passionate civic patriotism with those of an economically free and active society. At any rate, all their endeavours can confirm, especially when juxtaposed with those of their political adversaries, that that tradition was approaching perhaps one of its most challenging turning points. (shrink)

Much evidence has accumulated in favor of such a dual view of reasoning. There is however some vagueness in the way the two systems are characterized. Instead of a principled distinction, we are presented with a bundle of contrasting features - slow/fast, automatic/controlled, explicit/implicit, associationist/rule based, modular/central - that, depending on the specific dual process theory, are attributed more or less exclusively to one of the two systems. As Evans states in a recent review, “it would then be helpful to (...) have some clear basis for this distinction”; he also suggests that “we might be better off talking about type 1 and type 2 processes” rather than systems. We share the intuitions that drove the development of dual system theories. Our goal here is to propose in the same spirit a principled distinction between two types of inferences: ‘intuitive inference’ and ‘reflective inference’. We ground this distinction in a massively modular view of the human mind where metarepresentational modules play an important role in explaining the peculiarities of human psychological evolution. We defend the hypothesis that the main function of reflective inference is to produce and evaluate arguments occurring in interpersonal communication. This function, we claim, helps explain important aspects of reasoning. We review some of the existing evidence and argue that it gives support to this approach. (shrink)

According to the argumentative theory of reasoning, humans have evolved reasoning abilities for argumentative purposes. This implies that some reasoning skills should be universals. Such a claim seems to be at odd with findings from cross-cultural research. First, a wealth of research, following the work of Luria, has shown apparent difficulties for illiterate populations to solve simple but abstract syllogisms. It can be shown, however, that once they are willing to accept the pragmatics of the task, these participants can perform (...) at or near ceiling. Second, historical, sociological and anthropological research has been used to claim that some Eastern cultures have not developed argumentation. These claims are the result of oversimplifications and of a selective view of the data. A closer looks reveals instead very elaborate forms of argumentation, in Chinese culture particularly. Third, cross-cultural psychologists have carried out an extensive research program aimed at showing that Easterners do not rely on the principle of non-contradiction and that they use holistic rather than analytic thinking. A review of these experiments shows that no qualitative difference emerges in the way Easterners and Westerners deal with argumentation and that in the proper context both populations can easily have recourse to holistic or analytic thinking. It is possible to conclude from this critical review that the reasoning skills involved in argumentation seem to be universal even though they can be used in different ways in various cultural contexts. (shrink)

The idea that simplicity matters in science is as old as science itself, with the much cited example of Ockham's Razor, 'entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem': entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity. A problem with Ockham's razor is that nearly everybody seems to accept it, but few are able to define its exact meaning and to make it operational in a non-arbitrary way. Using a multidisciplinary perspective including philosophers, mathematicians, econometricians and economists, this 2002 monograph examines simplicity (...) by asking six questions: what is meant by simplicity? How is simplicity measured? Is there an optimum trade-off between simplicity and goodness-of-fit? What is the relation between simplicity and empirical modelling? What is the relation between simplicity and prediction? What is the connection between simplicity and convenience? The book concludes with reflections on simplicity by Nobel Laureates in Economics. (shrink)

We introduce the Profinite Hull functor of special groups, showing that it gives rise to a new local - global principle, the subform reflection property. We also indicate applications of this principle to the abstract algebraic theory of quadratic forms.

Reasoning is generally seen as a means to improve knowledge and make better decisions. However, much evidence shows that reasoning often leads to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This suggests that the function of reasoning should be rethought. Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade. Reasoning so conceived is adaptive given the exceptional dependence of humans on communication and their vulnerability to misinformation. A wide range of evidence (...) in the psychology of reasoning and decision making can be reinterpreted and better explained in the light of this hypothesis. Poor performance in standard reasoning tasks is explained by the lack of argumentative context. When the same problems are placed in a proper argumentative setting, people turn out to be skilled arguers. Skilled arguers, however, are not after the truth but after arguments supporting their views. This explains the notorious confirmation bias. This bias is apparent not only when people are actually arguing, but also when they are reasoning proactively from the perspective of having to defend their opinions. Reasoning so motivated can distort evaluations and attitudes and allow erroneous beliefs to persist. Proactively used reasoning also favors decisions that are easy to justify but not necessarily better. In all these instances traditionally described as failures or flaws, reasoning does exactly what can be expected of an argumentative device: Look for arguments that support a given conclusion, and, ceteris paribus, favor conclusions for which arguments can be found. (shrink)

The Pigeonhole Principle states that if n items are sorted into m categories and if n > m, then at least one category must contain more than one item. For instance, if 22 pigeons are put into 17 pigeonholes, at least one pigeonhole must contain more than one pigeon. This principle seems intuitive, yet when told about a city with 220,000 inhabitants none of whom has more than 170,000 hairs on their head, many people think that it is merely likely (...) that two inhabitants have the exact same number of hair. This failure to apply the Pigeonhole Principle might be due to the large numbers used, or to the cardinal rather than nominal presentation of these numbers. We show that performance improved both when the numbers are presented nominally, and when they are small, albeit less so. We discuss potential interpretations of these results in terms of intuition and reasoning. (shrink)

Although there might seem to be a natural continuity and interplay between the cognitive sciences and the social sciences, the integration of the two has, on the whole, been fraught with difficulties. In some areas the transition was relatively smooth. For instance, political psychology is now a well-recognized branch both of psychology and of political science. In economics, things have been more difficult, with the entrenched assumption of a perfectly rational homo economicus, but behavioral economics is now well recognized, and (...) one of the founders of the field, Daniel Kahneman, went on to win a Nobel Prize.Social and cognitive sciences have proven more difficult to bridge in anthropology and sociology. Most of the efforts have been pursued—and resisted—in anthropology (although, for sociology, see Clément and Kaufmann 2011). At first, scholars attempted to import the methods of evolutionary biology straight into the study of culture (Dawkins 1976; Lumsden and Wilson 1981). This prom .. (shrink)