Open peer commentary on the article “Neurodialectics: A Proposal for Philosophy of Cognitive and Social Sciences” by Nicolas Zaslawski. Abstract: In this commentary I maintain that in order to improve the dialectical approaches of cognition by using the Hegelian concept of the dialectical process it is necessary to take into account Hartmann’s ontology of processual being.

Karl Jaspers’ Post-Neo-Kantian project of metaphysics. -/- In this paper I propose an interpretation of Karl Jaspers’ project of metaphysics as a form of Post-Neo-Kantianism. Jaspers makes Kantian philosophy one of the most important starting points of his own philosophical thinking. But, like Nicolai Hartmann and Martin Heidegger, he rejects the Neo-Kantian epistemological interpretation of Kant’s philosophy. Neo-Kantians claimed that Kant rejected metaphysics and wished to set up the theory of cognition as a new philosophia prima. In opposition to this, (...) Jaspers emphasizes the metaphysical sense of Kant’s philosophy. Moreover, in his project of the philosophy of the Umgreifenden he gives a positive meaning to transcendental physiology, the part of metaphysics which, according to the common reading of Kant, was definitely rejected by him. (shrink)

The aim of the article is to present an interpretation of the Kantian concept of transcendental idealism, which would make it possible to understand the status of things from the perspective of transcendental philosophy. The main claim of the article is that Kant’s standpoint can be situated beyond metaphysical realism and idealism, or, to use contemporary terms, beyond representationalism and constructivism. The standpoint in question can thus be regarded as an inspiration to reject the Cartesian dualism of substance and to (...) propose a new philosophical perspective. In addition, the author claims that the understanding of transcendental philosophy presented in the article has provided a basis for the new, pluralist and relationalist ontology advanced by Nicolai Hartmann. She also suggests considering this ontology as another, after neo-Kantianism, stage in the development of German transcendental philosophy. (shrink)

Outplacement dla pracowników organizacji - wyniki badań Andrzej Klimczuk & Katarzyna Alicja Łagoda In Magdalena Klimczuk-Kochańska (ed.), Bariery I Potencjały Rozwoju Outplacementu Dla Firm I Pracowników. Narodowe Forum Doradztwa Kariery. pp. 169--209 (2013) .

Outplacement dla przedsiȩbiorstw - wyniki badań .

The aim of the paper is to briefly present the philosophy of Hans Wagner (1917-2000) as belonging to the last phase of the development of the German transcendental philosophy. Hans Wagner’s philosophy is presented as an attempt to synthesize earlier positions developed on the basis of this tradition, namely the synthesis of (a) neo-Kantianism with post-neo-Kantianism, (b) Kant's philosophy with Hegel's philosophy, (c) neo-Kantian transcendentalism with Husserl's transcendentalism, (d) the philosophy of transcendental subject (Kant, neo-Kantianism, phenomenology) with the philosophy of (...) empirical subject (Hönigswald, Heidegger, Sartre). The main theoretical figure of Hans Wagner’s philosophy is the problem of two aspects of human thinking: its absoluteness and finiteness. According to Wagner development of the philosophical reflection, which we can observe on the example of the evolution of - originating from Kant - transcendental philosophy, leads to an explanation of the possibility to reconcile these two aspects of human thinking, and thus to answer the very question: how is it possible that our thinking can be both absolute and finished, and what are the consequences of this fact for the status of all cultural products of human thinking, such as science, morality or law. (shrink)

The non-dualizing philosophy of Josef Mitterer as a contemporary version of Heglism -/- The aim of this paper is to present an analogy between philosophy of contemporary Austrian thinker Josef Mitterer and philosophy of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. In his works (Das Jenseits der Philosophie and Die Flucht aus Beliebigkeit) Mitterer presents the project of non-dualizing way of speaking. He rejects fundamental philosophical assumption of ontological distinction between language and reality. He claims that when we realize that this assumption is (...) arbitrary we understand that one of the most important contemporary question about relationship between language and reality is not relevant. Analogical considerations we can find in Hegelian Introduction to the Phenomenology of Spirit, where Hegel proposes to reject the assumption of ontological distinction between subject and object. He notices that “fear of error” characteristic for modern critic of cognition is a result of this assumption and it can be rejected when we reject this assumption. I claim that the starting point of this two philosophical projects is the same thought although it is expressed in two different philosophical languages. In the second part of my paper I try to consider quality of this characteristic for Mitterer and Hegel way of thinking. (shrink)

Tłumaczenie artykułu N. O. Łosskiego pt. Czy jest prawdą, że filozofia rosyjska nie jest naukowa? opublikowanego w gazecie „Nowe ruskie słowo” («Новое русское слово») 1 czerwca 1952 roku. Tłumaczenie z języka rosyjskiego: Pylyp Bilyi i Alicja Pietras.

In this paper the author shows that Emil Lask’s philosophy starts with considering of typical Neo-Kantian’s questions but at the same time it grounds a new philosophical perspective – Post-Neo-Kantianism. The origin of Lask’s research is Heinrich Rickert’s theory of judgment, however Lask finds many new solutions and initiates new ideas adopted from him by Martin Heidegger. The article discuss an innovative elements of Lask’s thought like: problem of the material side of cognition, logic of object, logos-immanency of object, doctrine (...) of the material determination of form, ontological theory of truth, problem of the individual subject. Although Lask does not create ontology, he makes transcendental philosophy to ask ontological questions. When we study his considerations it starts to be obvious that theory of cognition is not possible without ontology. (shrink)

The aim of the paper is to present the problem of principium individuationis from the point of view of Nicolai Hartmann’s ontology. The German philosopher considers this classical ontological issue by using his method of analysis of philosophical problems. He brings out adequate content of this problem from its standpoint-oriented, historical contents. According to Hartmann, the problem of principle of individuation is generated by accepting a position of realism in regards to the problem of universals. The problem of individuation arises (...) as long as we accept that general being is prior to individual being. But when we reject this assumption and accept, like Hartmann, that individual beings are as real as general beings, the principium individuationis is no longer needed. There is no place in Nicolai Hartmann’s ontology for such a thing as a principle of individualization because there is no place for such a thing as an individualization. However, the category of individuality is one of the most important categories of real being and should be analyzed. With refer to history of this problem Hartmann distinguishes between quantitative and qualitative individuality. This distinction helps him explain the differences between various theories of individual being and fi nd the core of the problem which is shared by all of them. (shrink)

The subject of the book is two twentieth-century ontological projects: the critical ontology of Nicolai Hartmann and the fundamental ontology of Martin Heidegger. The author presents their works as well in a historical as a systematical perspective. The book focuses on those contexts of their thoughts, which have been often overlooked. Hartmann and Heidegger’s ontology is presented first in their relation to Kant, secondly in reference to neo-Kantianism, and thirdly in relation to each other. One of the main thesis of (...) the book is that the most important difference between Hartmann and Heidegger’s interpretation of Kant, and - in consequence - also between their own projects of a new ontology, results from the ambiguity of Kant’s notion of things in themselves, which they interpret and use in a different way. (shrink)

In this paper I propose an interpretation of Nicolai Hartmann and Martin Heidegger's projects of ontologies as a result of metaphysical interpretation of Kant's philosophy. I explore both Hartmann and Heidegger relation to Kant's and neo-Kantian philosophy, especially the differences between their understanding of such notions as "things in themselves", "being" and "irrationality".