Metaethical non-analytical naturalism consists in the metaphysical thesis that normative properties are identical with or reducible to natural properties and the epistemological thesis that we cannot come to a complete understanding of the nature of normative properties via conceptual analysis alone. In On What Matters, Derek Parfit (2011) argues that non-analytical naturalism is either false or incoherent. In § 1, I show that his argument for this claim is unsuccessful, by showing that it rests on a tacit assumption about the (...) nature of normative thought that non-analytical naturalists need not accept. In § 2, I show that escaping Parfit’s argument in this way is no ad hoc maneuver; as I demonstrate, the idea that non-analytical naturalists can exploit to escape Parfit’s argument is a familiar one. (shrink)

Analytic reductivism in metaethics has long been out of philosophical vogue. In Confusion of Tongues: A Theory of Normativity (2014), Stephen Finlay tries to resuscitate it by developing an analytic metaethical reductive naturalistic semantics for ‘good.’ He argues that an end-relational semantics is the simplest account that can explain all of the data concerning the term, and hence the most plausible theory of it. I argue that there are several assumptions that a reductive naturalist would need to make about contextual (...) parameter completion to derive reductive naturalism from an end-relational semantics—assumptions that nonnaturalists might forcefully resist. I also argue for the claim that an end-relational semantics could provide surprising resources for nonnaturalists to address semantic worries about their views—the upshot of which paints the way for a new and sophisticated nonnaturalism about the semantics of moral discourse. Nonnaturalists have long suspected that they need not worry about semantics and this paper lends support to that suspicion. (shrink)

Many prominent ethicists, including Shelly Kagan, John Rawls, and Thomas Scanlon, accept a kind of epistemic modesty thesis concerning our capacity to carry out the project of ethical theorizing. But it is a thesis that has received surprisingly little explicit and focused attention, despite its widespread acceptance. After explaining why the thesis is true, I argue that it has several implications in metaethics, including, especially, implications that should lead us to rethink our understanding of Reductive Realism. In particular, the thesis (...) of epistemic modesty in ethics implies a kind of epistemic modesty about the metaphysical nature of ethics, if Reductive Realism about the metaphysical nature of ethics is true, and it implies that normative concepts are indispensable to practical deliberation in a way that answers an influential objection to Reductive Realism from Jonathan Dancy, David Enoch, William FitzPatrick, and Derek Parfit. (shrink)

While intimately familiar, gender eludes theorizing. We argue that well-known challenges to gender’s analysis originate in a subtle ambiguity: questions about gender sometimes express questions about gender categories themselves (e.g., womanhood, manhood, and so on), while at other times expressing questions about what makes someone a member of these categories. Distinguishing these questions accentuates gender’s connections to morality, making a novel “antirealist” view of gender, or as we call it, “unrealist” view, especially natural. Gender’s relations to identity, sex, and social (...) position are illuminated along the way. Taking cues from both historical and contemporary debates in metaethics about the roles that attitudes can play in metaphysical and semantic analysis, we introduce and begin developing a comprehensive non-ameliorative framework for explicating gender’s nature and our thought and talk about it. In a slogan, on the view we defend, you belong to the gender category to which you intrinsically desire to belong. (shrink)

Are words like ‘woman’ or ‘man’ sex terms that we use to talk about biological features of individuals? Are they gender terms that we use to talk about non-biological features e.g. social roles? Contextualists answer both questions affirmatively, arguing that these terms concern biological or non-biological features depending on context. I argue that a recent version of contextualism from Jennifer Saul that Esa Diaz-Leon develops doesn't exhibit the right kind of flexibility to capture our theoretical intuitions or moral and political (...) practices concerning our uses of these words. I then float the view that terms like 'woman' or 'man' are polysemous, arguing that it makes better sense of the significance of some forms of criticisms of mainstream gender ideology. (shrink)

It is often said that normative properties are “just too different” to reduce to other kinds of properties. This suggests that many philosophers find it difficult to believe reductive theses in ethics. I argue that the distinctiveness of the normative concepts we use in thinking about reductive theses offers a more promising explanation of this psychological phenomenon than the falsity of Reductive Realism. To identify the distinctiveness of normative concepts, I use resources from familiar Hybrid views of normative language and (...) thought to develop a Hybrid view of normative concepts. In addition to using this new Hybrid view to explain why reductive theses are difficult to believe, I show how to preserve several patterns of inference involving normative concepts that, intuitively, it is possible to make, and hence answer an important recent challenge to Hybrid views from Mark Schroeder. (shrink)

Upon doing something generous for someone with whom you are close, some kind of reciprocity may be appropriate. But it often seems wrong to actually request reciprocity. This chapter explores the wrongness in making these requests, and why they can nevertheless appear appropriate. After considering several explanations for the wrongness at issue (involving, e.g. distinguishing oughts from obligation, the suberogatory, imperfect duties, and gift-giving norms), a novel proposal is advanced. The requests are disrespectful; they express that their agent insufficiently trusts (...) the hearer to recognize their own reasons to reciprocate, and the close relationship between them morally requires this kind of trust. This proposal is articulated and situated in the recent discussion of the normativity of requests. The chapter concludes by explaining how these requests may appear appropriate. Agents in these relationships often have standing to make requests, though the standing is lacking in these particular cases. (shrink)

A critical survey of various positions on the nature, use, possession, and analysis of normative concepts. We frame our treatment around G.E. Moore’s Open Question Argument, and the ways metaethicists have responded by departing from a Classical Theory of concepts. In addition to the Classical Theory, we discuss synthetic naturalism, noncognitivism (expressivist and inferentialist), prototype theory, network theory, and empirical linguistic approaches. Although written for a general philosophical audience, we attempt to provide a new perspective and highlight some underappreciated problems (...) about normative concepts. (shrink)

Ethicists struggle to take reductive views seriously. They also have trouble conceiving of some supervenience failures. Understanding why provides further evidence for a kind of hybrid view of normative concept use.

ABSTRAKT: Centralnym tematem artykułu jest pojęcie wolności, które – wespół z odpowiedzialnością – było dla Szasza pojęciem najważniejszym, „cywilizującym”. W części pierwszej przedstawiam i analizuję definicję i uwarunkowania wolności w ujęciu Szasza, w części zaś drugiej przypominam odpowiedź Szasza na fundamentalne, zawsze aktualne pytanie: „jak ocalić nie tylko religijną, lecz i medyczną wolność”? Na zakończenie staram się uwidocznić sens tytułu książki Szasza na tle jego własnych poglądów. -/- *** -/- ABSTRACT: The central topic of the article is the concept of (...) freedom, which – together with responsibility – was the most important, “civilizing” concept for Szasz. In the first part, I present and analyse the definition and conditions of freedom according to Szasz, and in the second part I recall Szasz’s answer to the fundamental, always relevant question: “how to save not only religious, but also medical freedom”? Finally, I try to highlight the meaning of the title of Szasz’s book against the background of his own views. (shrink)

Throughout his career, Derek Parfit made the bold suggestion, at various times under the heading of the "Normativity Objection," that anyone in possession of normative concepts is in a position to know, on the basis of their competence with such concepts alone, that reductive realism in ethics is not even possible. Despite the prominent role that the Normativity Objection plays in Parfit's non-reductive account of the nature of normativity, when the objection hasn't been ignored, it's been criticized and even derided. (...) We argue that the exclusively negative attention that the objection has received has been a mistake. On our reading, Parfit's Normativity Objection poses a serious threat to reductivism, as it exposes the uneasy relationship between our a priori knowledge of a range of distinctly normative truths and the typical package of semantic commitments that reductivists have embraced since the Kripkean revolution. (shrink)

Ze słynnego passusu w Metafizyce Arystotelesa (984 a8-16) wynika jasno, że Anaksagoras urodził się wprawdzie wcześniej niż Empedokles, lecz to myśliciel z Akragas opublikował dzieła swe szybciej. Zaskakuje to, iż niemal jednogłośnie się przyjmuje, że fakt ów decyduje o hierarchii między Anaksagorasem i Empedoklesem: niemal wszyscy badacze zakładają, że starszy myśliciel był mocno zależny od młodszego. W artykule swoim staram się pokazać, iż aby utrzymać taki obraz historii filozofii starożytnej niektórzy słynni uczeni współcześni czynią zły użytek ze świadectw i wyrządzają (...) krzywdę nie tylko Stagirycie i Klazomeńczykowi, lecz również owej przyzwoitej mniejszości badaczy, którzy nie czują się zdolni przeoczyć faktu, że – według Alkidamasa – to Empedokles wysłuchał wykładów Anaksagorasa i mu zazdrościł, a nie – vice versa. *** A famous passage in Aristotle’s Metaphysics (984 a8-16) clearly implies that although the Clazomenian sage was born earlier than the philosopher from Acragas, it was Empedocles who was faster in publishing his own works. Surprisingly, it is almost unanimously assumed that this fact is decisive in establishing the hierarchy between Anaxagoras and Empedocles: almost all scholars presume that the older thinker depended heavily upon the younger. In my article I try to show that in order to maintain such image of the history of ancient philosophy some famous modern scholars misuse the testimonia and abuse not only Aristotle and Anaxagoras, but also that decent minority of researchers who feel unable to overlook the fact that – according to Alcidamas – it was Empedocles who had heard Anaxagoras and was jealous of him, not vice versa. (shrink)

Artykuł zawiera filologiczno-filozoficzną weryfikację „szkicu przekładu” fragmentów księgi Heraklita z Efezu, jakiego przed rokiem 1921 dokonał Henryk Elzenberg. Własnej próby tłumaczenia maksym Efezyjczyka nie oparł Elzenberg na ich źródłach, lecz na trzeciej edycji zbioru Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (1912) Hermanna Dielsa, który wyimki z oryginalnych passusów redagował czterokrotnie i rozmaicie przekładał. By jak najlepiej ocenić i zweryfikować Elzenbergowy „szkic przekładu”, autor przytoczył – kolejno – (1) źródła greckie, (2) własne ich tłumaczenia, (3) teksty greckie analizowanych „fragmentów” Efezyjczyka w redakcji Dielsa, (...) (4) ich niemieckie przekłady autorstwa Dielsa i – na tle ich wszystkich – (5) translatorskie próby Elzenberga. Zastosowana metodologia ułatwiła sformułowanie wniosku, że wierny był wprawdzie młody Elzenberg własnej zasadzie, by niczego – przekładów niemieckiego filologa nie pomijając – nie czytać „potulnie”, na niwie jednak stricte filologicznej bezwiednie padł ofiarą „bezradności” Dielsa, gdyż w jego „szkicu przekładu” aforyzmów Heraklita nic doprawdy nie świadczy o tym, aby (1) odkrył – albo przynajmniej przeczuwał – jakąkolwiek między nimi „współzależność” (Zusammenhang), i by (2) na jej podstawie sformułował jakiekolwiek własne wnioski filozoficzne, odzwierciedlające myśl Efezyjczyka. Najlepiej tego dowiodło porównanie fragmentu B67 z maksymą B53 na tle ich źródeł oraz ich przekładów. *** HERACLITUS IN ELZENBERG’S INTERPRETATION PART I: WHAT MISTAKES COULD THE AUTHOR OF THE TROUBLE WITH EXISTENCE HAVE EASILY AVOIDED, IF ONLY HE HAD VALUED THE SOURCES MORE THAN DIELS’ COLLECTION AND TRUSTED THEM AND HIMSELF MORE? SUMMARY The article contains a philological and philosophical verification of a “sketch of a translation” of the fragments of the book of Heraclitus of Ephesus, which Henryk Elzenberg made before the year 1921. Elzenberg did not base his own attempt to translate maxims of the Ephesian sage on their sources, but on the third edition of the collection Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker (1912) compiled by Hermann Diels, who had four times edited and variously translated excerpts from the original passages. In order to best evaluate and verify Elzenberg’s “sketch of a translation”, the author has quoted – in succession – (1) the Greek sources, (2) his own translations of them, (3) Diels’ versions of the Greek texts of the Ephesian’s fragments analyzed here, (4) Diels’ German translations of them and – against all of these – (5) Elzenberg’s attempts at translation. The methodology used in the article has facilitated the formulation of a conclusion that although the young Elzenberg was faithful to his own principle of reading nothing whatsoever “meekly” – without overlooking the translations of the German philologist – nevertheless, on strictly philological grounds, he unwittingly fell victim to Diels’ “helplessness”, because in fact nothing in his “sketch of a translation” of Heraclitus’ aphorisms provides evidence that (1) he discovered – or at least presaged – any “connection” (Zusammenhang) between them, or that (2) he formulated on the basis thereof any philosophical conclusions, reflecting the Ephesian’s thought. The best proof of this emerges from a comparison of fragment B67 with maxim B53 based on the sources and the translations. (shrink)

What is sexual orientation? The contemporary consensus among philosophers is that it is a disposition. Unsurprisingly, recent debates about the metaphysics of sexual orientation are almost entirely intramural. Behavioral dispositionalists argue that sexual orientation is a disposition to behave sexually. Desire dispositionalists argue that it is a disposition to desire sexually. We argue that sexual orientation is not best understood in terms of dispositions to behave or dispositions to desire before arguing that dispositions tout court fail to illuminate sexual orientation. (...) We then introduce and defend the idea that sexual orientation is best understood in terms of categorical phenomenal properties of sexual arousal. (shrink)

On one way of talking about a traditional metaethical topic, realists accept that some items appear on the list of what exists in the moral or more broadly normative domain of inquiry. They then divide over whether those items are like what science and experience suggest that all other items on the list of what exists across all domains are like – naturalistic and secular. Reductive naturalists answer this further question affirmatively. Why don’t nonnaturalists? I explore the answer that it’s (...) because normative entities are “just too different” in the sense that they are countably different things. However, I argue that this answer rests on the subtle presupposition that the normative domain doesn’t also contain uncountable entities of the sort that analytic metaphysicians call “stuff”. Taking intuitions of difference seriously points the way to a novel form of metaethical reductive naturalism. The key is to identify the stuff that matters. (shrink)

In this paper, a formal theory is presented that describes syntactic and semantic mechanisms of philosophical discourses. They are treated as peculiar language systems possessing deep derivational structures called architectonic forms of philosophical systems, encoded in philosophical mind. Architectonic forms are constituents of more complex structures called architectonic spaces of philosophy. They are understood as formal and algorithmic representations of various philosophical traditions. The formal derivational machinery of a given space determines its class of all possible architectonic forms. Some of (...) them stand under factual historical philosophical systems and they organize processes of doing philosophy within these systems. Many architectonic forms have never been realized in the history of philosophy. The presented theory may be interpreted as falling under Hegel’s paradigm of comprehending cultural texts. This paradigm is enriched and inspired with Propp’s formal, morphological view on texts. The peculiarity of this modification of the Hegel-Propp paradigm consists of the use of algebraic and algorithmic tools of modeling processes of cultural development. To speak metaphorically, the theory is an attempt at the mathematical and logical history of philosophy inspired by the Internet metaphor. And that is why it belongs to the tradition of doing metaphilosophy in The Lvov-Warsaw School, which is continued today mainly by Woleński, Pelc, Perzanowski, and Jadacki. (shrink)

Lawrence Nelson (2018) criticizes conscientious objection (CO) to abortion statutes as far as they permit health care providers to escape criminal liability for what would otherwise be the legally wrongful taking of a pregnant woman’s life by refusing treatment (i.e. abortion). His key argument refers to the U.S. Supreme Court judgment (Roe v. Wade 1973) that does not treat the unborn as constitutional persons under the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, Nelson claims that within the U.S. legal system any vital interests of (...) pregnant women must always take precedence over fetuses’ interests. While agreeing with the main thesis of the article, we believe that the author’s argument neither vindicates his claim, nor explains why those who believe that fetuses are equally protectable human beings do not have the right to refuse to perform an abortion in lifethreatening emergency circumstances (AE). Therefore, the main aim of our commentary is to outline, by referring to our earlier works on conscientious objection in health care (Z_ uradzki 2016) and cultural exemptions (Ciszewski 2016), a better and universalizable argumentative path that would lead to the same conclusion. (shrink)

Consciousness attracts the attention of researchers representing various disciplines. Hence, there is a demand for a theoretical tool that could integrate data and theoretical concepts originating from distinct fields. The paper proposes to use the framework of the theory of integrative levels. The development and the definitions of the concept of levels are briefly discussed. The final part of the paper presents a proposal for incorporating the levels of consciousness into the framework of the integrative levels theory.

In his highly engaging book, Speech and Morality, Terence Cuneo advances a transcendental argument for moral realism from the fact that we speak. After summarizing the major moves in the book, I argue that its master argument is not as friendly to non-naturalist versions of moral realism as Cuneo advertises and relies on a diet of insufficient types of speech acts. I also argue that expressivists have compelling replies to each of Cuneo's objections individually, but taken together, Cuneo's objections provide (...) the resources for issuing a new and interesting challenge to expressivists. (shrink)

In Unbelievable Errors, Bart Streumer argues via elimination for a global error theory, according to which all normative judgments ascribe properties that do not exist. Streumer also argues that it is not possible to believe his view, which is a claim he uses in defending his view against several objections. I argue that reductivists and nonreductivists have compelling responses to Streumer's elimination argument – responses constituting strong reason to reject Streumer’s diagnosis of any alleged incredulity about his error theory.

When asked which of our concepts are normative concepts, metaethicists would be quick to list such concepts as GOOD, OUGHT, and REASON. When asked why such concepts belong on the list, metaethicists would be much slower to respond. Matti Eklund is a notable exception. In his recent book, Choosing Normative Concepts, Eklund argues by elimination for “the Normative Role view” that normative concepts are normative in virtue of having a “normative role” or being “used normatively”. One view that Eklund aims (...) to eliminate is “the Metaphysical view” that normative concepts are normative in virtue of referring to normative properties. In addition to arguing that Eklund’s objection looks doubtful by its own lights, we argue that there are several plausible versions of the Metaphysical view that Eklund doesn’t eliminate, defending various claims about normative concepts and their relationships to deliberation, competence, reference, and possession along the way. (shrink)

Analytic Philosophy, Volume 63, Issue 1, Page 16-27, March 2022.

Dogłębna wiwisekcja zdań ocalałych z arcydzieła Heraklita oraz korespondujących z nimi świadectw ułatwia sformułowanie tezy, że „dobro” i „prawda” oraz ich konsekwentnie odróżniane, z całą pewnością nieutożsamiane ze sobą przeciwieństwa, są centralnymi pojęciami heraklitejskiej (1) „etyki” (zob. DK B: 78, 119; DL, IX,12,8) – na poziomie zarówno (1a) prymarnym, tj. prywatnym, indywidualnym, jak i (1b) sekundarnym, tj. wspólnotowym, politycznym – oraz na wskroś od niej uzależnionej (2) „epistemologii”.

This paper addresses a certain objection to the quantificational theory of definite descriptions. According to this objection, the quantificational account cannot provide correct interpretations of definite descriptions embedded in the non-doxastic attitude ascriptions and therefore ought to be rejected. In brief, the objection says that the quantificational theory is committed to the view that a sentence of the form “The F is G” is equivalent to the claim that there is a unique F and it is G, while the ascription (...) such as, e.g., “S wants the F to be G” is not equivalent to the statement that S wants there to be a F and for it to be G. I argue that this objection is invalid as it rests on a false assumption concerning the substitutivity of the relative clauses in the non-doxastic attitude ascriptions. (shrink)

Some rules seem more important than others. The moral rule to keep promises seems more important than the aesthetic rule not to wear brown with black or the pool rule not to scratch on the eight ball. A worrying number of metaethicists are increasingly tempted to explain this difference by appealing to something they call “authoritative normativity” – it’s because moral rules are “authoritatively normatively” that they are especially important. The authors of this chapter argue for three claims concerning “authoritative (...) normativity”: (1) that motivation for it originates in a parochial conception of “normative flavours”; (2) that arguments against alternative ways of explaining e.g., morality’s importance are overblown; and (3) that there are strong reasons against theorizing in terms of “authoritative normativity”. The overarching aim is not to show that “authoritative normativity” is incoherent or entirely unmotivated. Rather, it is to discuss some of “authoritative normativity’s” deeper commitments to correct the impression that is it largely benign or that it is entailed by familiar and popular “metanormative” positions. Authoritative normativity, it seems to us, is a solution in search of a problem. (shrink)

Aἰών. Eternity in the Theology of Heraclitus of Ephesus -/- This article presents an attempt to establish the Heraclitean meaning of the word αἰών in the fragment B52 (Diels-Kranz). In the author’s view the very starting-point and only sound basis for that kind of endeavor should be meticulous, unbiased analysis of relevant aphorisms of the Ephesian sage and corresponding testimonies. Synoptic scrutiny of them substantiates the understandable conclusion that proud Heraclitus had an unambiguous and independent opinion about eternity. His God (...) – identified with the one and common world – is eternal not only in his „material” aspect as πῦρ ἀείζωον (‘an ever-living fire’, B30), but also in „rational” one as Λόγος ἐὼν ἀεί (‘Logos existing always’, B1). Consequently, one of his various names is Aἰών (‘He Who Always Is’). (shrink)

In a recent letter, Dillion et. al (2023) make various suggestions regarding the idea of artificially intelligent systems, such as large language models, replacing human subjects in empirical moral psychology. We argue that human subjects are in various ways indispensable.

There is much to indicate that the German scholars began a real, global revolution. I have become convinced that, apart from a very few exceptions, everyone in the last century, including world-renowned academics, put their trust in them. How is this possible? I am far from repeating the words: credo, quia absurdum, but it turns out that, up to the present, Diels’ and Kranz’s proposal has never been verified by anyone. This is clearly reflected as well in LSJ. It seems, (...) then, that Zeller, Diels and Kranz aliique permulti bear full responsibility for – ut ita dicam – the “ambiguities” that have since accumulated and piled up, layer on layer, all around B67. -/- I cannot connect ὀνομάζεται with <πῦρ> because of three clamant facts: (1) the absence of the relative pronoun ὅ between <πῦρ> and ὁκόταν (ut supra, passim); (2) the audacious attempt to give the phrase καθ’ ἡδονήν a sense that it never possessed; (3) the context in which fragment B67 was quoted. These are, in my opinion, real impediments to the road chosen by Zeller, Diels, Kranz, Kirk, Marcovich, Conche and countless others. I cannot circumvent them or pass them by in silence. Why was this so difficult for me, while for others it was so easy…? -/- Yes, I understood that, in order to somehow justify associating ὀνομάζεται with <πῦρ>, one must: (1) insert <ὅ> between <πῦρ> and ὁκόταν, and then (2) fit the word ἡδονή to <πῦρ>. But at the same time I realised that, unfortunately, the matter is not so simple, especially when one seeks at all cost to give the rather uncertain, and not the only, conjecture <πῦρ> some kind of name – whatever name, in fact – not according to someone’s pleasure, but according to the scent of those roots with which πῦρ was supposed to be mixed during sacrificial offerings. The whole enterprise is really perilous when we consider that for fire mixed with roots we have no name whatsoever attested by tradition, and that the context in which Hippolytus quoted B67 in no way indicates either the making of sacrifices or the smells associated therewith. -/- Wojciech Wrotkowski: Pleasure. New Research on Fragment B67 of Heraclitus of Ephesus, pp. 143-145. (shrink)

There’s a long but relatively neglected tradition of attempting to explain why many researchers working on the nature of phenomenal consciousness think that it’s hard to explain.1 David Chalmers argues that this “meta-problem of consciousness” merits more attention than it has received. He also argues against several existing explanations of why we find consciousness hard to explain. Like Chalmers, we agree that the meta-problem is worthy of more attention. Contra Chalmers, however, we argue that there’s an existing explanation that is (...) more promising than his objections suggest. We argue that researchers find phenomenal consciousness hard to explain because phenomenal concepts are complex demonstratives that encode the impossibility of explaining consciousness as one of their application conditions. (shrink)

The paper provides an analysis of the relationship between the concepts of justice and solidarity. The point of departure of the analysis is Ruud ter Meulen’s claim that these concepts are different but mutually complementary, i.e. are two sides of the same coin. In the paper two alternative accounts of the relationship are proposed. According to the first one, solidarity can be defined in terms of justice, i.e. is a special variety of liberal justice, viz. social liberal justice, which, apart (...) from the value of liberty, also stresses the importance of the value of equality. An example of such a theory is Rawls’s theory of justice, within which the value of equality is ‘encoded’ in the principle of fair equality of opportunity and in the difference principle. According to the second account, solidarity is an expression of a special type of social relationships – the so-called ‘thick relationships’, which are non-superficial, positive, their paradigmatic examples being family and friendship; in other words, the rules of solidarity are rules that are built into ‘thick relationships’. On the first account, justice and solidarity are not different, while on the second account they are different but mutually exclusive rather than mutually complementary. In the last part of the paper some remarks on the social causes of solidarity are made. (shrink)

Through an analysis of Kierkegaard’s and Dostoevsky’s approaches to the theme of the death of Christ – one of the major leitmotifs in the debate of their contemporaries conveyed through theological and philosophical considerations, but also expressed in novels and in art – I show how the thinkers comprehended and articulated in their works the religious challenges awaiting the modern man.

English title: The Problem of the Synthetic a priori Judgements According to Hermann Lotze. The present article compares Kant’s and Lotze’s concepts of synthetic judgements. Lotze’s aim is a renewing of the Kant’s solutions, what he achieves thanks to introduction of the distinction between analytic (identical) content and synthetic form of these judgements which Kant recognised as synthetic. This distinction makes possible to lay down the concept of intentional sense which has influence over Frege and Husserl.

Celem tego artykułu jest przebadanie i objaśnienie platońskiego wpływu na rady Williama Oslera dla wszystkich lekarzy, które dotyczą ich autonomii, charakteru i stosunku do prawdy i fałszu w medycynie. W sugestiach „Ojca współczesnej medycyny” wprawne ucho może dosłyszeć echo niektórych opinii ucznia Sokratesa. Jego ideały i wartości powinny kształtować nie tylko lekarski etos, lecz i wiedzę o zasadach zdrowego życia i zwalczania choroby. Zwłaszcza dzisiaj to jest niesłychanie istotne w obliczu zagrożeń i nieszczęść, jakie stwarza farmakracja. -/- *** -/- Platonic (...) reminiscences in Osler’s advice about physicians’ autonomy, character and relation to truth and falsehood in medicine The aim of this article is to examine and explain Plato’s influence on William Osler’s advice to all physicians about their autonomy, character and relation to truth and falsehood in medicine. In the suggestions of “the Father of Modern Medicine” an experienced ear can detect an echo of certain opinions propagated by the pupil of Socrates. His ideals and values should shape not only the medical ethos, but also knowledge on the principles of a healthy life and overcoming disease. This is extremely important especially today, in the face of the threats represented – and the misfortunes caused – by pharmacracy. (shrink)

Platońskie inspiracje w sugestiach Oslera dotyczących edukacji lekarzy i wyboru autorytetów Celem tego artykułu jest przebadanie i objaśnienie platońskiego wpływu na rady Williama Oslera dla wszystkich lekarzy, które dotyczą ich zawodowej edukacji, literackiej kultury, moralnego postępu, duchowego rozwoju oraz – last but not least – wyboru autorytetów. Całkowicie świadomy siły i znaczenia przewodnictwa, „Ojciec współczesnej medycyny” bierze pełną za nie odpowiedzialność i zwięźle charakteryzuje – w czysto platoński sposób – cechy naukowca, właściwości spraw międzyludzkich, cnoty wyrosłe z nawyków oraz usposobienie (...) umysłu, które jest konieczne i oczekiwane w postawie i osobowości lekarza. -/- *** -/- Platonic Inspirations in Osler’s Suggestions about the Education of Physicians and the Choice of Authorities The aim of this article is to examine and expound the Platonic influence on William Osler’s advices for all physicians about their professional education, literary culture, moral progress, spiritual growth and – last but not least – the choice of authorities. Entirely aware of the force and meaning of guidance, "the Father of Modern Medicine" takes full responsibility thereof, and concisely characterizes - in a purely Platonic way - traits of the scientist, peculiarities of inter-human affairs, habitual virtues and the mindset, which are all necessary and required in a physician’s attitude and personality. (shrink)

... ἐκ πολλῆς συνουσίας ... καὶ τοῦ συζῆν ... (Pl., Ep. VII, 341 b7 – 342 a1). Platonic Models and Summits of Philosophical Knowledge in Giovanni Reale's Conception -/- The article presents a succinct, and yet meticulous analysis of several audacious statements made by one very influential historian of ancient philosophy, with regard to a certain passage, newly translated into Polish, from Plato's Seventh Epistle. The author tries to show, how disquieting may be the consequences of preferring the doctrine voiced (...) in one of the modern Schools over original Greek texts. (shrink)

Jakiej filozofii warto być wiernym, zwłaszcza w sofistopolis? Prolegomena do książki Seweryna Blandziego Między aletejologią Parmenidesa a ontoteologią Filona *** Artykuł unaocznia potrzebę wierności kilku ponadczasowym postulatom filozofii, które pobrzmiewają głośnym echem w książce Seweryna Blandziego Między aletejologią Parmenidesa a ontoteologią Filona. Służąc bezinteresownie prawdzie, rzetelny historyk filozofii musi – zarówno w samym sobie, jak i w kręgu osób sobie najbliższych – pielęgnować nie tylko dar uważnej obserwacji, bez którego nie nabywa nikt mądrości, lecz i cnotę męstwa, bez którego ani (...) w czynie, ani w słowie nie znajduje mądrość odzwierciedlenia. Słynne pytanie Leopolda von Rankego: Wie es eigentlich gewesen? powinien każdy współczesny badacz historii filozofii rozszerzyć: (1) jako filolog – do postaci: Wie es eigentlich geschrieben ist?; (2) jako filozof – do problemu: Wie es eigentlich gemeint ist? Jak długo historia filozofii będzie się wyrzekać ambicji ustalania jasnych i jednoznacznych odpowiedzi na pytania tego rodzaju, tak długo nie wydźwignie się z kryzysu, w jaki popadła zakwestionowawszy wartość i status prawdy. *** What kind of philosophy is deserving of our loyalty – especially in the sophistopolis? Prolegomena to Seweryn Blandzi’s book Between Parmenides’ Aletheiology and Philo’s of Alexandria Ontotheology The article reveals that one must be faithful to several timeless demands of philosophy, demands that resound loudly in Seweryn Blandzi’s book Between Parmenides’ Aletheiology and Philo’s of Alexandria Ontotheology. Serving the truth selflessly, a reliable historian of philosophy ought – both in himself and in the circle of his intimates – cultivate not only the gift of careful observation, without which nobody acquires wisdom, but also the virtue of courage, without which wisdom will not be expressed in deed or in word. Every modern researcher of the history of philosophy should broaden the famous question of Leopold von Ranke: Wie es eigentlich gewesen?: (1) as a philologist – to the form: Wie es eigentlich geschrieben ist?; (2) as a philosopher – to the problem: Wie es eigentlich gemeint ist? As long as the history of philosophy abdicates from providing clear and unambiguous answers to questions of this kind, it will not overcome the crisis it suffered after questioning the value and status of truth. (shrink)

This little tract from Corpus Hippocraticum, the authorship of which is usually denied to Hippocrates by hipercritical modern editors and commentators, alas, without giving any convincing and compelling arguments, contains the spiritual testament of the “Father of Medicine” for all future generations of adepts of “the most eminent of all arts”. The new Polish rendition of the original text is equipped with translator’s notes, which include: (1) philological analysis of some Greek words and idioms and their Latin, English, German and (...) French counterparts; (2) extracts from other ancient works, in which the reminiscences of Law are recognizable; (3) commentaries about selected philosophical questions. (shrink)

Over the course of summarizing Volume Three and Does Anything Really Matter?, I argue that Parfit does not give us strong reason to think that Naturalists, Expressivists, and Non-Realist Cognitivists agree.

Amongst the entities making up social reality, are there necessary relations whose necessity is not a mere reflection of the logical connections between corresponding concepts? We distinguish three main groups of answers to this question, associated with Hume and Adolf Reinach at opposite extremes, and with Searle who occupies a position somewhere in the middle. We first set forth Reinach’s views on what he calls ‘material necessities’ in the realm of social entities. We then attempt to show that Searle has (...) not identified a sustainable position somewhere between the Humean and the Reinachian extremes. This is because Searle’s position is threatened by circularity, and to steer clear of that danger it must incorporate at least some elements of Reinach’s essentialism. (shrink)

As systems based on opaque Artificial Intelligence (AI) continue to flourish in diverse real-world applications, understanding these black box models has become paramount. In response, Explainable AI (XAI) has emerged as a field of research with practical and ethical benefits across various domains. This paper not only highlights the advancements in XAI and its application in real-world scenarios but also addresses the ongoing challenges within XAI, emphasizing the need for broader perspectives and collaborative efforts. We bring together experts from diverse (...) fields to identify open problems, striving to synchronize research agendas and accelerate XAI in practical applications. By fostering collaborative discussion and interdisciplinary cooperation, we aim to propel XAI forward, contributing to its continued success. Our goal is to put forward a comprehensive proposal for advancing XAI. To achieve this goal, we present a manifesto of 27 open problems categorized into nine categories. These challenges encapsulate the complexities and nuances of XAI and offer a road map for future research. For each problem, we provide promising research directions in the hope of harnessing the collective intelligence of interested stakeholders. (shrink)