{"id":2674,"date":"2018-05-25T09:50:21","date_gmt":"2018-05-25T07:50:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/filozofiainauka.studiafilozoficzne.edu.pl\/?p=2674&lang=en"},"modified":"2023-02-11T17:40:52","modified_gmt":"2023-02-11T16:40:52","slug":"6-2018-en","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/filozofiainauka.studiafilozoficzne.edu.pl\/en\/abstracts\/6-2018-en\/","title":{"rendered":"6\/2018"},"content":{"rendered":"

Ignacy S. Fiut <\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

AGH University of Science and Technology, al. Adama Mickiewicza 30, 30\u2013059 <\/span><\/span> Cracow, Poland<\/span><\/span>. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

E-mail: isf1949@o2.pl; isfiut@agh.edu.pl \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

IS THE \u201cFOURTH WORLD\u201d POSSIBLE IN KARL R. POPPER\u2019S EVOLUTIONARY EPISTEMOLOGY MODEL? <\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

ABSTRACT <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The work analyses the concept of three worlds formulated by Karl R. Popper. His arguments make it possible to distinguish in this field of research the fourth world\u2014 that of the development and application of human knowledge. The criteria of Popper’s division are accepted and some doubts concerning his conception are dispelled by the arguments of researchers dealing with the evolution and development of traditional, electronic and Internet media. Those arguments point the need of the concept of fourth world. The author discusses the views of technological determinants in communication authored by M. McLuhan, D. De Kerckhove, P. Levinson, H. Jenkins and J. Pleszczy\u0144ski who provide reasonable arguments for this new classification. The Popper\u2019s model of three worlds is thus enriched by the fourth world\u2014the world created by users of old and new media, the internet, and multimedia in communication. It is a real world, rooted in the three other worlds. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Keywords<\/strong>: Karl R. Popper\u2019s three words, fourth world, new media of communication, M. McLuhan, D. De Kerckhove, P. Levinson, H. Jenkins and J. Pleszczy\u0144ski. \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013<\/p>\n

\n

Stanis\u0142aw Czerniak <\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Institute of Philosophy and Sociology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, ul. Nowy \u015awiat 72, 00-330 <\/span><\/span> Warsaw<\/span><\/span>, Poland<\/span><\/span>. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

E-mail : stanislaw.l.czerniak@wp.pl \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

J\u00dcRGEN MITTELSTRASS: THE HUMANITIES IN THE CONTEXT OF THE UNITY OF SCIENCE CONCEPTION <\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

ABSTRACT <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The author recounts the main threads of J\u00fcrgen Mittelstrass\u2019s philosophy of the humanities. In it, the German philosopher starts out with the critique of J. Ritter\u2019s and O. Maquard\u2019s so-called functionalistic and dualistic conception of the human sciences, stating preference for methodological monism, which sees all sciences united by the universal rules of rationality. Mittelstrass seeks this unity both in the trans-disciplinary trends in contemporary science, as well as in certain epistemological similarities and similarities in research praxis between scientific disciplines. The author also points to Mittelstrass\u2019s Kantian inspirations, and his clever adaptation of the \u201cpower of judgement\u201d concept for the purposes of his own argumentation. In a final resume, he passes a generally positive opinion about the discussed conception with some critical comments. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Keywords: <\/strong>The humanities\/the human sciences, rationality, the compensatory functions of the humanities, power of judgement, trans-disciplinary, research praxis. \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013<\/p>\n

\n

Ma\u0142gorzata Czarnocka <\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Institute of Philosophy and Sociology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, ul. Nowy \u015awiat 72, 00-330 <\/span><\/span> Warsaw<\/span><\/span>, Poland<\/span><\/span>. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

E-mail: mczarnoc@ifispan.waw.pl \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

HOW IS SCIENCE UNIVERSAL? <\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

ABSTRACT <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

I examine the problem of universalities of science and the thesis on the antiuniversality of science commonly postulated in socialized conceptions of science. In the paper epistemic universality, ethical-axiological and global cultural-social universality, and in the latter\u2014global universality of the basic level are distinguished. It is investigated why in epistemology science is necessarily viewed as universal in its basic aspects. It is shown that universality is a necessary effect of validity and autonomy of science. It is also demonstrated that multiculturalism improperly treats science as necessarily anti-universalistic. I propose the position of global universalism of the basic level which claims that science emerges from the cultural basis, common for all the cultures. This universalism adopts multiculturalism (cultural pluralism) on higher levels of culture. I also consider how epistemic and global universality\u2014features of science\u2014become its values, and what are their significance for the human world. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Keywords<\/strong>: epistemology, socialized conceptions of science, the universality of science, epistemic universality, global social-cultural universality, universality as a value. \u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013<\/p>\n

\n

Marek Suwara <\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Institute of Philosophy, Jagiellonian University in Krak\u00f3w, Grodzka 52, 31-044 Krak\u00f3w, Poland<\/span><\/span>. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

E-mail: marek marek.suwara@uj.edu.pl \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

ANALOGIES REFERRING TO INFORMATION SCIENCE AND BIOLOGY IN EXPLAINING THE DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE AND CULTURE <\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

ABSTRACT <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The level of adequacy of an analogy determines its effectiveness in scientific explanation. This thesis is examined in the context of analogies to information science and biology used in the concept of cultural meme, which is supposed to be substantial in explaining science or culture in the terms of evolution. It is shown that the choice of the cultural equivalent of biological specimen is crucial to interpreting the evolution of culture as that of the Lamarckian or Darwinian type. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Keywords<\/strong>: evolution, culture, analogy, meme. \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013<\/p>\n

\n

Jagna Brudzi\u0144ska <\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Husserl-Archiv der Universit\u00e4t zu K\u00f6ln, Albertus-Magnus-Platz, D-50923 K\u00f6ln, Niemcy. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

E-mail: jbrudzinska@gmail.com \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

PHENOMENOLOGY AS A THEORY OF EXPERIENCE AND SOME CHALLENGES OF THE TODAY HUMANITIES\u2014NEW PERSPECTIVES IN HUMAN STUDIES <\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

ABSTRACT <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Phenomenology is a philosophical project with vast potential, mainly methodological one, which has been not exploited in full until now. It is not limited to 20thcentury hermeneutics based on Heidegger\u2019s views, nor to analytically founded contemporary investigations on language. Today this potential is revealed when the humanities and social studies face new challenges requiring new interpretations of human experience. Here transcendental phenomenology\u2014as a theory of experience from the living perspective based on the intentional-genetic method\u2014offers new research possibilities. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Keywords<\/strong>: transcendental phenomenology, intentional experience, experiential living perspective, motivation, developmental process. \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013<\/p>\n

\n

Rafa\u0142 Michalski<\/strong> <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Institute of Philosophy, Nicholas Copernicus University, Fosa Staromiejska 1 a, 87-100 Toru\u0144, Poland<\/span><\/span>. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

E-mail: metasis@umk.pl \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

WAS ARNOLD GEHLEN A NATURALISTIC REDUCTIONIST? <\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

ABSTRACT <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The article takes up a polemic with an accusation of naturalist reductionism, which allegedly constitutes the philosophical anthropology of Arnold Gehlen. In the first section of the article I will analyze the legitimacy of the charge of reductionism in the context of Gehlen\u2019s considerations on human nature, in turn the subjcekt of the second part will be the concept of nature as an objective world, while the third and fourth sections will deal with issues concerning morality (3) and culture and human consciousness (4) in view of the allegation of the naturalism of his anthropological project. The author argues that Gehlen\u2019s anthropology is aimed at integrating the results of the biological and social sciences, but he derives philosophical implications from them on such a level of generality that they go beyond the competence of specific sciences. Their findings acquire a universal meaning in his concept within the framework of a system of philosophical categories describing man as a whole project of nature. Gehlen rejects all attempts to create a general human theory on the basis of comparative studies that derive the property of the human condition from the animal world. Gehlen\u2019s anthropobiology resigns from the concept of man\u2019s nature in the biological sense, i.e. as a set of evolutionarily determined morphological, physiological and behavioral features, he also abandons the objectiveist concept of \u201cexternal nature\u201d as an ontical area independent of cultural mediation. Language, consciousness and culture are the result of processes compensating for biological deficits, and at the same time they represent the area of competence and values that are autonomous and autotelic, and therefore completely independent of biological conditions. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Keywords: <\/strong>Arnold Gehlen, naturalistic reductionism, philosophical anthropology, culture, language, morality, institutions. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013<\/p>\n

\n

Marcin Urbaniak <\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Pedagogical University of Krakow , Podchor\u0105\u017cych 2, 30-084 <\/span><\/span> Cracow, Poland<\/span><\/span>. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

E-mail: murbaniak78@gmail.com \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

A VIEW ON HUMAN HERMENEUTIC CAPABILITIES FROM THE ZOOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE <\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

ABSTRACT <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The article attempts to present the philosophical idea of origin of human capability to interpret and understand meanings. I am inspired by the results of contemporary cognitive and natural sciences as well as psychology. In view of those sciences one can defy hermeneutical concepts, which are embedded in the modern anthropocentric tradition. I would like to explain the ontological status of so-called hermeneutical skills in a naturalized form that does not avoid the continuous gradation of subject\u2019s structures or abilities without falling into trivial reductionism. I demonstrate that the comprehensive formation of understanding processes is reserved for particular groups of human beings. However, it can be justified that different animal species and direct human ancestors are equipped with some elements of hermeneutical skills. These skills are a ground of the notion of Dasein<\/em>. This paper begins my reflection on the natural history of human understanding and on polemics with anthropocentric philosophical hermeneutics. The basic aim of this work is to closely consider the hypothesis which states that the fundamental aspect of human existence (primordial modes) such as comprehension, attuning towards meanings or being-in-the-world can be grasped as natural adaptations of human and non-human organisms. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Keywords<\/strong>: hermeneutics, understanding, interpretation, evolution, sense, symbol. \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013<\/p>\n

\n

Jaros\u0142aw Mrozek <\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Institute of Philosophy, Sociology and Journalism, University of Gdansk<\/span><\/span>, Jana Ba\u017cy\u0144skiego 8, 80-309 Gdansk, Poland.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

E-mail: filjam@ug.edu.pl \u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

IS THERE A CHANGE IN THE CRITERIA OF BEING A SCIENCE IN CONTEMPORARY PHYSICS? <\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

ABSTRACT <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The contemporary physical and cosmological theories confront philosophers and methodologists with a problem of scientific character of the considered ideas. It is mainly connected with the issue of their empirical testing. We know that many conceptions of contemporary physics, such as the conceptions of superstrings or of multiverse, have not been confirmed by even a single observation or experiment. In this situation there appear attempts to \u201cweaken\u201d methodological requirements imposed on theories to consider them as scientific after all. The challenge that physicists, philosophers and methodologists face is to attempt to define a feasible, possible to perform, non-empirical verification procedure in the case when these theories postulate the existence of basically non-observable areas of reality. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Keywords<\/strong>: testability; falsifiability; demarcation criteria; Popper; Bayesian methods; non-empirical theory confirmation. \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013<\/p>\n

\n

Adam Krawiec, Marek Szyd\u0142owski, Pawe\u0142 Tambor <\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Adam Krawiec \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Institute of Economics, Finance and Management of the Jagiellonian University, ul. \u0141ojasiewicza 4, 30\u2013348 Krak\u00f3w. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

E-mail: adam.krawiec@uj.edu.pl <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Marek Szyd\u0142owski \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Astronomical Observatory of the Jagiellonian University, ul. Orla 171, 30\u2013244 Cracow, Poland. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

E-mail: marek.szydlowski@uj.edu.pl <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Pawe\u0142 Tambor \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Al. Rac\u0142awickie 14, 20-950 Lublin, Poland. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

E-mail: pawel.tambor@kul.lublin.pl \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

THE ONTOLOGICAL AND EPISTEMOLOGICAL SPECIFICITY OF COSMOLOGY AS A SCIENCE ON THE UNIVERSE <\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

ABSTRACT <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

We discuss the specificity of modern cosmology understood as the physics of the Universe. We can treat cosmology as specific because of its object, i.e. the physical Universe is specific, as well as the ways of acquiring the knowledge about the Universe are specific. We argue that the specific and, in some sense, unique methodological nature of modern cosmology compared to physics is not controversial, as it is claimed among others by Helge Kragh. In our view this specificity is natural of cosmology itself and has its foundations in: 1) the asymmetry of prediction (which favors retrognosis), 2) the temporal nature of observations applied in cosmological investigations, 3) the horizon problem and the relevance of initial conditions for cosmological evolution. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Keywords: <\/strong>modern cosmology, philosophy of science, methodological specificity of cosmology, the evolution of the Universe. \u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013<\/p>\n

\n

Marek Gurba <\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Institute of Philosophy, Jagiellonian University, Grodzka 52, <\/span><\/span> 31-044<\/span><\/span> Cracow, Poland. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

E-mail: marek.gurba@doctoral.uj.edu.pl \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

ON NICHOLAS RESCHER\u2019S ORIENTATIONAL PLURALISM IN METAPHILOSOPHY <\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

ABSTRACT <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The article discusses Nicholas Rescher\u2019s metaphilosophical view of orientational pluralism. In his essay Philosophical Disagreement: An Essay towards Orientational Pluralism in Metaphilosophy <\/em>Rescher explains a substantial difference between philosophy and science\u2014namely, that philosophers\u2014differently than scientists\u2014 continuously propose and undermine various solutions to the same old problems. In philosophy it is difficult to find any consensus or convergence of theories. According to Rescher, this pluralism of theoretical positions is caused by holding by philosophers different sets and hierarchies of cognitive values, i.e. methodological orientations. These orientations are chosen in virtue of some practical postulates, they are of axiological, normative, but not strictly theoretical character. Different methodological orientations yield different evaluations of philosophical theses and arguments. This article shows that Rescher\u2019s account does not determine clearly acceptable cognitive values. If there are no clear criteria of evaluation of methodological orientations, then the described view seems to be identical to relativism adopting the everything goes <\/em>rule. In addition, accepting orientational pluralism it is hard to avoid the conclusion that discussions between various philosophical schools are futile or can be reduced to non-rational persuasion. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Keywords: <\/strong>metaphilosophy, Nicholas Rescher, relativism, methodology of philosophy, orientational pluralism. \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013<\/p>\n

\n

Karolina Owczarek<\/strong> <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Institute of Philosophy, University of Warsaw, Krakowskie Przedmie\u015bcie 3, 00-047 Warsaw, Poland<\/span><\/span>. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

E-mail: karolina.m.owczarek@gmail.com \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

CONSIDERATIONS ON THE PHILOSOPHY OF MIND ON THE BASIS OF STANIS\u0141AW LEM\u2019S DIALOGUES <\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

ABSTRACT <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The aim of this article is to present Lem\u2019s philosophy of mind. The author bases it on Dialogues \u2014 <\/em>the first Lem\u2019s philosophical essays published in 1957. It is emphasized that at that time Lem was influenced by cybernetics. I present connections between cybernetics and Lem’s theory. He considered such issues as: consciousness, machine consciousness, personal identity. What is more, he investigated if immortality was available to human. I reconstruct his conception of mind and its anthropological and ontological consequences. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Keywords: <\/strong>Lem, philosophy of mind, mind uploading, cybernetics, personal identity, consciousness. \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013<\/p>\n

\n

Andrzej Bronk, Monika Walczak <\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Andrzej Bronk \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Aleje Rac\u0142awickie 14, 20-950 Lublin, Poland. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

E-mail: bronk@kul.lublin.pl <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Monika Walczak <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Aleje Rac\u0142awickie 14, 20-950 Lublin, Poland. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

E-mail: aktor@kul.pl \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

STANIS\u0141AW KAMI\u0143SKI\u2019S METHODOLOGICAL OPTIONS <\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

ABSTRACT <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Stanis\u0142aw Kami\u0144ski (1919\u20131986) was a philosopher, philosopher of science and historian of science. His all academic carrier was pursuing at the Catholic University in Lublin (KUL). The main interests of Kami\u0144ski was the history of science and logic, general and special methodology, methodology of philosophy and (medieval) semiotics. He himself saw his main achievements in the domain of the theory of science and the methodology of classical philosophy, especially in the studies of the method and language of metaphysics. He gave a methodological description of general metaphysics, philosophical anthropology, ethics, philosophy of religion, philosophy of history and studies on religion (religiology). He investigated the beginnings of the mathematical induction in the Middle Ages and in modern times, the modern history of the theory of definition, theory of argumentation (reasoning), the structure and the evolution of scientific theory, deductive method, the achievements of logic and philosophy in Poland. A characteristic feature of Kami\u0144ski’s philosophical and methodological approach was a specific historicism, consisting of referring to the heritage of the past and at the same time to the latest achievements in logic and philosophy of science. He had a broad concept of knowledge and was a maximalist both in raising questions and in giving answers. In accordance with classical philosophy he saw the substance of person as ens rationale<\/em>, a being realizing himself in a disinterested search for a theoretical truth, whose highest expression is philosophy. He stressed the epistemological and methodological plurality of knowledge, distinguished and investigated material and formal parts of knowledge. He also distinguished\u2014besides commonsense knowledge\u2014the scientific, philosophical and theological knowledge, nonreducible each to other. At the top he set sapiential knowledge which is much more than a simple generalization of all particular kinds of knowledge. Kami\u0144ski derived his understanding of science from contemporary as well as classical philosophy. He determined the nature of science from the point view of its subject matter, aims, methods, logical structure and genesis. The question of what science was for him a philosophical question, presupposing an appropriate understanding of the nature of the world. Kami\u0144ski opted for a pluralistic approach to the world: the principal object of science is the objective world, subjective states of man and products of his mind and language. The best diagnostic test of the scientific character of science is the scientific method. Kami\u0144ski assumes here pluralism: different subject matter and different goals of scientific cognition require different research strategies and types of cognitive procedures. He also accepts an antinaturalistic position in the humanities which he regards as methodologically autonomous in regard to natural sciences. The publications of S. Kami\u0144ski include over 350 positions. During his life three books have been published: Georgonne’a teoria definicji <\/em>[Georgonne’s Theory of Definition<\/em>], Lublin 1958; Poj\u0119cie nauki i klasyfikacja nauk <\/em>[Concept of Science and Classification of Sciences<\/em>], Lublin 1961, 19813; and (together with M. A. Kr\u0105piec) Z teorii i metodologii metafizyki <\/em>[On the Theory and Methodology of Metaphysics<\/em>], Lublin 1962. After his death five volumes of Collected Papers <\/em>have been published: vol. I: Jak filozofowa\u0107? <\/em>[How to Philosophize? Studies in Methodology of Classical Philosophy<\/em>], edited by Tadeusz Szubka, Lublin 1989; vol. II: Filozofia i metoda. Studia z dziej\u00f3w metod filozofowania <\/em>[Philosophy and Method. <\/em>Studies from the History of the Method of Philosophizing<\/em>], edited by J\u00f3zef Herbut, Lublin 1993; vol. III: Metoda i j\u0119zyk. Studia z semiotyki i metodologii nauk <\/em>[Method and Language. <\/em>Studies in Semiotics and Philosophy of Science<\/em>], edited by Urszula \u017begle\u0144, Lublin 1994; vol. IV: Nauka i metoda. Poj\u0119cie nauki i klasyfikacja nauk <\/em>[Science and Method. <\/em>Concept of Science and Classification of Sciences<\/em>], edited by Andrzej Bronk, Lublin 1992); vol. V: \u015awiatopogl\u0105d \u2013 Religia \u2013 Teologia <\/em>[Worldview \u2013 Religion \u2013 Theology<\/em>], edited by Monika Walczak and Andrzej Bronk, Lublin 1998. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Keywords: <\/strong>definition of science, classification of sciences, ethics of science, humanities and natural sciences, methodology, philosophy, philosophy of science, rationality of science, science, scientific method, Stanis\u0142aw Kami\u0144ski, theology, theory of science. \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013<\/p>\n

\n

J\u00f3zef D\u0119bowski<\/strong> <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Institute of Philosophy, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn,<\/span><\/span> ul. Obitza 1, 10-725 Olsztyn, Poland. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

E-mail: jozef.debowski@uwm.edu.pl \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

THE DISPUTE ON THE SCIENTIFIC STATUS OF PHILOSOPHY. ON ZDZIS\u0141AW CACKOWSKI\u2019S DISCUSSION WITH PHENEMENOLOGY <\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

ABSTRACT <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In the article I analytically reconstruct Zdzis\u0142aw Cackowski\u2019s basic ways of the understanding character of philosophy and science. I emphasize that according to Cackowski philosophy is a science (a nomothetic one) but simultaneously it is the most general science. Philosophy, like other sciences, satisfies conditions and criteria of being science. Besides its cognitive function, philosophy, like other sciences, plays practical functions; especially it is a basis of worldviews and ideologies. According to Cackowski, the specific character of philosophy arises from its universalistic aspirations and consists in a very high level of generality of discovered principles; those principles refer to the objective reality and knowledge on it. The specificity of philosophy also consists in\u2014according to Cackowski\u2014revealing the nature of qualitative jumps between basic segments of the real world, e.g. between quantum objects and macroscopic ones, between non-organic and organic nature; between neuronal processes and mind process etc. However, tending to not break the link between philosophy and reality, Cackowski grounds philosophical synthesis in scientific discoveries, results, and scientific praxis. Cackowski\u2019s way of understanding of philosophy is, on the one hand, close to positivistic, scientific and Marxist concepts of philosophy, and on the other hand, it is opposite to the phenomenological concept of philosophy. Cackowski\u2019s reservations and objections to the phenomenological project of philosophical investigations appear continuously in his works (they change only slightly in the course of time), and they refer to: (1) the scope and the meaning of the autonomy of sciences, (2) the rule of assumptionless standpoint (regardless of the level of its radicalism), (3) Husserl\u2019s \u201crule of the all rules\u201d as a basic methodological principle, (4) the phenomenological concept of direct experience, (5) the possibility and the range of eidetic knowledge, (6) the idea of transcendentalism and the concept of pure consciousness, (7) the essential fundamental position, motivated by Descartes\u2019s ideas and irrational longing to discover the metaphysical and epistemological absolute. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Keywords: <\/strong>philosophy, science, phenomenology, Marxist philosophy, epistemology, reality, action, acquisition, knowledge, empiricism, inductionism, positivism, scientism, praxism, assumptionlessness (Voraussetzungslosigkeit, Vorurteilslosigkeit<\/em>), the rule of assumptionlessness (das Prinzip der Voraussetzungslosigkeit<\/em>), transcendentalism, eidetism, direct experience. \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013<\/p>\n

\n

Anna Michalska <\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Institute of Philosophy and Sociology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, ul. Nowy \u015awiat 72, 00-330 Warszawa, Poland<\/span><\/span>. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

E-mail: michalskanna@gmail.com \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

STEFAN AMSTERDAMSKI\u2019S CONCEPTION OF IDEAL OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE: TOWARDS A NEW CONCEPTION OF THE SUBJECT OF SCIENCE <\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

ABSTRACT <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The conception of ideals of science was Stefan Amsterdamski\u2019s contribution to the dispute about scientific rationality. In assuming that scientific method is not an ahistorical phenomenon, and comes with rather strong normative pressupositions, Amsterdamski sides with Thomas Kuhn in his debate with Karl Popper and the latter\u2019s followers and supporters. Essentially, however, Amsterdamski is a Popperian; he is intent on enlarging the scope of critical analysis by applying it to what he calls the modern ideal of science. His works, especially the monograph Pomi\u0119dzy histori\u0105 a metod\u0105 <\/em>[Between History and Method] are an attempt to safeguard the status of philosophy of science a normative instance with respect to ideals of science. In the paper I offer a reconstruction of Amsterdamski\u2019s conception as well as scrutinize the relationship between his expressed philosophic goals and methods he employed in order to attain these goals. I indicate what I find most problematic in the concept of ideal of science and suggest an alternative view on the problems as raised by Amsterdamski. I argue that Amsterdamski\u2019s work warrants an attempt at the formulation of a new conception of subject of science which would provide guidelines for a proper critique of modern science. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Keywords: <\/strong>ideals of science, scientific rationality, history of science, Stefan Amsterdamski, subject of science. \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013<\/p>\n

\n

Mariola Kuszyk-Bytniewska <\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Institute of Philosophy, Maria Curie-Sk\u0142odowska University, Lublin, Pl. Marii Curie-Sk\u0142odowskiej 4, Poland<\/span><\/span>. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

E-mail: mkuszyk@poczta.umcs.lublin.pl \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

FLORIAN ZNANIECKI ON SCIENCE. THE ONTO-EPISTEMOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE <\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

ABSTRACT <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

I include Florian Znaniecki\u2019s understanding of cultural sciences into a wider philosophical project which I call social onto-epistemology. The main aim of the paper is to reconstruct Znaniecki\u2019s philosophy as a research effort to set the foundation of social sciences; the \u201cfoundation\u201d is meant here as it is meant in 19th philosophical fundamentalism, i.e. as the search for the basis of legitimisation of social sciences. Despite of the non-originality of this aim, the measures and modes of its application in Znaniecki\u2019s approach were fruitful. The onto-epistemological approach avoids Cartesian and Kantian dualisms and, pre-eminently, the monosubjective understanding of the cognitive subject. The graduation of realness with regard to the object of social science, objectivity as belonging to many systems of cultural objects are main invention on this path. The main onto-epistemological premise of Znaniecki\u2019s strategy is as follows: Human knowledge is deeply rooted in human social existence, and the human mode of existence, in turn, contains necessarily and essentially an epistemic component. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Keywords<\/strong>: Znaniecki, onto-epistemology, science, social sciences. \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013<\/p>\n

\n

Grzegorz Pyszczek<\/strong> <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The Maria Grzegorzewska Academy of Special Education, Szcz\u0119\u015bliwicka 40, 02-353 Warszawa, Poland<\/span><\/span>. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

E-mail: gpyszczek@poczta.onet.pl \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

THE SOCIAL ROLE OF THE SAGE. ON FLORIAN ZNANIECKI\u2019S CONCEPTION <\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

ABSTRACT <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The article concerns Florian Znaniecki\u2019s problem of social role of the sage. The first part of the article presents the concept of social role of the sage in the context of other social roles of scholars. In the second part, Znaniecki\u2019s view is confronted with the contemporary social and scientific realities. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Keywords<\/strong>: Florian Znaniecki, sage, wisdom, social role of the man of knowledge. \u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013<\/p>\n

\n

Marta B\u0142aszczy\u0144ska <\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Graduate School for Social Research, <\/span><\/span> Institute of Philosophy and Sociology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Nowy \u015awiat 72, 00-330 Warszawa, Poland<\/span><\/span>. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

E-mail: marta.blaszczynska@hotmail.co.uk \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

ARNOLD GEHLEN\u2019S MAN, PHILOSOPHICAL ANTHROPOLOGY AND SOME QUESTIONS ASKED DBY CONTEMPORARY READERS <\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

ABSTRACT <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

I examine the key elements of Arnold Gehlen\u2019s concept of human being as it is presented in his book Man, His Nature and Place in the World<\/em>. I analyze his attempt to interpret the human as a whole and to define humanity as a species which is \u201clacking\u201d and whose acts must compensate for its \u201cprimitive\u201d traits. I briefly present selected questions and difficulties that might be posed by the contemporary reader upon learning about Gehlen\u2019s understanding of the human being and his vision of philosophical anthropology, its aims and methodology. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Keywords: <\/strong>Arnold Gehlen, philosophical anthropology, German philosophy, human nature. \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013\u2013<\/p>\n

\n

Grzegorz Smoli\u0144ski <\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Institute of Sociology, <\/span><\/span> University of Wroclaw<\/span><\/span>, Koszarowa 3, 52\u2013007 Wroc\u0142aw, Poland. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

E-mail: grzegorz.smolinski@uwr.edu.pl \u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

SCIENCE AND ITS CRITIQUE: THE CONTEXT OF ACTOR-NETWORK THEORY <\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

ABSTRACT <\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The article starts with the considerations presented by Ma\u0142gorzata Czarnocka in her paper O krytyce nauki <\/em>[On a Critique of Science] (Czarnocka 2017) in order to consider the critical potential of dualism\u2014the ideal of science\u2014practice of science. These considerations are compared with the Actor-Network Theory, which, on the one hand, in its theses about science approaches to the image criticized by Czarnocka, but, on the other hand, retains a similar critical potential. This is despite the fact that ANT this theory programmatically rejects the duality ideal\u2013praxis. Presented considerations focus on designating common points and differences between the dualistic and non-dualistic approaches in the context of Czarnocka\u2019s article. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Keywords<\/strong>: dualism, non-dualism, criticism of science, Latour, Actor-Network Theory. \u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Ignacy S. Fiut AGH University of Science and Technology, al. Adama Mickiewicza 30, 30\u2013059 Cracow, Poland. E-mail: isf1949@o2.pl; isfiut@agh.edu.pl \u00a0 IS THE \u201cFOURTH WORLD\u201d POSSIBLE IN KARL R. POPPER\u2019S EVOLUTIONARY EPISTEMOLOGY MODEL? ABSTRACT The work analyses the concept of three worlds formulated by Karl R. Popper. His arguments make it possible to distinguish in this […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[15],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2674","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-abstracts"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/filozofiainauka.studiafilozoficzne.edu.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2674","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/filozofiainauka.studiafilozoficzne.edu.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/filozofiainauka.studiafilozoficzne.edu.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/filozofiainauka.studiafilozoficzne.edu.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/filozofiainauka.studiafilozoficzne.edu.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2674"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/filozofiainauka.studiafilozoficzne.edu.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2674\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5313,"href":"https:\/\/filozofiainauka.studiafilozoficzne.edu.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2674\/revisions\/5313"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/filozofiainauka.studiafilozoficzne.edu.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2674"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/filozofiainauka.studiafilozoficzne.edu.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2674"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/filozofiainauka.studiafilozoficzne.edu.pl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2674"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}