The claim of this paper is that theism and atheism as beliefs about the nature of the universe are equally distant from any sort of proper justification by reasoning, but that faith cannot be reduced to any sort of belief. This claim is illustrated by a survey of several case-studies, including the case of moral sense, the so-called “God gene” and discoveries of Benjamin Libet on “free” movement. The illustrations attempt to show that only some imagerial associations connected with these (...) cases, and respectively with religious beliefs, would make an impression of incoherence, not their actual content. The conclusion of the paper would echo the statements of Cardinal John Henry Newman, who said in his Oxford University Sermons: “Faith is an instrument of knowledge and action, unknown to the world before, a principle sui generis, distinct from those which nature supplies, and independent of what is commonly understood by Reason”. Some implications of this conclusion, such as the notion of the rationality of faith, an account of the relation between science and theology, or the problem of agnosticism, are discussed, too. (shrink)

In the paper the author tries to show that semantico-categorial analysis in the traditional Ajdukiewiczian application as a tool of evaluating semantic completeness of complex expressions is ineffective. There is, however, another application, to which the analysis is much better fitted. Namely, it allows to precisify the actual uses of natural language - in all those cases in which on the one hand precision is a superior value, and on the other hand, the formalisation is not possible and one has (...) to stay within natural language. Obviously, in order to achieve this aim many particular problems, sometimes not at all trivial, have to be solved. Amongst the most important the author sees determining a binding canon of the rules of analysis and determining pragmatic criteria of the admissibility of paraphrases and of filling in ellipses. (shrink)

In his literary works, Witold Gombrowicz has developed an interesting concept of a person entangled in a social sphere. A human being, according to the author of Ferdydurke, is an intrinsic being autonomically shaping his or her attitude in relations with other people. It is rather other people's circle, a social form, that fundamentally conditions the way a particular person thinks and acts. The depiction of an individual, portrayed by Gombrowicz, is a scale of attitudes ranging from the attitude of (...) total submission to a social form to the attitude of peculiar freedom from the form. In my article I raise the questions of broadly understood “province-center” relations in the context of Gombrowicz's anthropological theses. Is the attitude of conformity and imitative adopting of thinking and behavior patterns characteristic of the “province” or of the “center” does? Is the “province” doomed to imitative nature of thinking and copying of what the “center” does? Where is it easier to free oneself from the social influence and reach intellectual and cultural autonomy? (shrink)

In the paper we discuss criticisms against David Armstrong’s general theory of truthmaking by Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra, Peter Schulte and Benjamin Schnieder, and conclude that Armstrong’s theory survives these criticisms. Special attention is given to the problems concerning Entailment Principle, Conjunction Thesis, Disjunction Thesis and to the notion of explanation.

The paper is a rejoinder to a challenge against the particularist version of the mental files framework posed by the relationist approach based on the notion of content coordination [such as recent attempt by Rachel Goodman and Aidan Gray in ]. Relationists argue that important explanatory goals of MFF: could be achieved without positing files as mental particulars, as there is a relationist notion of content coordination at hand that can be aptly used for “filing without files”; and should be (...) so achieved, as there are difficulties that afflict the particularist approach to MFF and the relationist account is simply better. However, both claims should be rejected. The particularist approach to MFF, properly interpreted, would not get into the troubles it is accused of generating. Indeed, it is the relationist approach that gets in trouble. Specifically, it lacks resources for explanation of nuances, which can be easily accounted for in terms of particularist interpretation, and, furthermore, it lowers the interdisciplinary standing of the whole framework. The particularist version is therefore better. (shrink)

The editor rounds up the discussion between Tadeusz Ciecierski and Leopold Hess by pointing out that their conclusions are not as opposed as they are trying to show. On the contrary, on some interpretation one may even suggest that both views can convergently approach to some picture of the semantics of proper names. Roughly, the interpretation is that historical form of the debate about proper names has some drawbacks (as Hess points out) that could be mended if shifted to the (...) problem of nominal use (as Ciecierski would have it). (shrink)

The starting point of my considerations is the idea that the criteria of rationality should be distinguished from the essence of rationality (in linguistic formulation: from a non-criterional connotative definition) and that the question of the universality of rationality arises separately for the criteria and for the essence. I notice that a similar distinction between the essence (or a definition) and the criteria applies to the notion of truth. The thesis which constitutes ny standpoint is a compromising one: the criteria (...) (the sets of criteria) of rationality change in time and in space, the essence of rationality is universal and unchangeable. Therefore, the principal challenge for the comprehensional conception of rationality, which is to back up my standpoint, is a formulation of a good, non-criterional connotative definition of the rationality of science. My definition is the following: „Science is rational” means „the consecutive stages of its development allow us to better understand (in an identificatory sense) the world”. (shrink)

This paper initially follows the final part of the debate between singularism and descriptivism to the point of convergence, and discusses the notion of acquaintanceless singular thought. Then a sketch of a mental files model is presented. Firstly, the triggering mechanisms for opening files are discussed. Two kinds of discourse situations, acquaintance-situations and decoding-situations, are identified and different triggering mechanisms are postulated for each. Secondly, a bipartite structure of a file is introduced, combining an objectual part, encompassing what traditionally has (...) been associated with the notion of a mental file, serving the purpose of storing information about the referent of the file, and a metadata part, serving the purpose of storing information about the file itself. Being capable of encoding a variety of types of mental files, this structure is then employed to illustrate how singularity/descriptivity of the files can be manipulated and how we can account for the cognitive discernibility of files containing identical objectual information and grounded with the same acquaintance relations. (shrink)

Quantifiers are a test case for an interface between psychological questions, which attempt to specify the numerical content that supports the semantics of quantifiers, and linguistic questions, which uncover the range of possible quantifier meanings allowable within the constraints of the syntax. Here we explore the development of comprehension of most in English, of particular interest as it calls on precise numerical content that, in adults, requires an understanding of large exact numerosities (e.g., 23 blue dots and 17 yellow is (...) an instance of “most of the dots are blue”). In a sample of 100 children 2 to 5 years of age we find that (a) successful most comprehension in cases with two salient subsets is achieved at 3 years, 7 months of age, and (b) most comprehension is independent of knowledge of large exact number words; that is, knowledge of large exact number words is neither necessary, as evidenced by children who understand “most” but not “four,” nor sufficient, as evidenced by children who understand “nine” but not “most.”. (shrink)

The paper is divided into two parts. Part one (published in Filozofia Nauki, no 1-2/1995) contains revies of main types of rationality that can be found in literature, and an attempt to point out various relations among these types. Part two is devoted to analysis of some issues concerning detailed problems of rationality (e.g.: How to define rationality? Is rationality decidable? Does it come in degrees?).