PL
 |
EN
Nowa wersja platformy, zawierająca wyłącznie zasoby pełnotekstowe, jest już dostępna.
Przejdź na https://bibliotekanauki.pl
Preferencje help
Polish version English version Język
Widoczny [Schowaj] Abstrakt
Liczba wyników

Znaleziono wyników: 12

Liczba wyników na stronie
first rewind previous Strona / 1 next fast forward last
Wyniki wyszukiwania
help Sortuj według:

help Ogranicz wyniki do:
first rewind previous Strona / 1 next fast forward last
1
Content available Cantor’s paradise from the perspective of non‐revisionist Wittgensteinianism
100%
Gomułka J.
ARGUMENT: Biannual Philosophical Journal
|
2020
|
tom 10
|
nr 2
351-372
EN
Cantor’s paradise from the perspective of non‐revisionist Wittgensteinianism: Ludwig Wittgenstein is known for his criticism of transfinite set theory. He forwards the claim that we tend to conceptualise infinity as an object due to the systematic confusion of extension with in‐ tension. There can be no mathematical symbol that directly refers to infinity: a rule is the only form by which the latter can appear in our symbolic operations. In consequence, Wittgenstein rejects such ideas as infinite cardinals, the Cantorian understanding of non‐denumerability, and the view of real numbers as a continuous sequence of points on a number line. Moreover, as he understands mathematics to be an anthropological phenomenon, he rejects set theory due to its lack of application. As I argue here, it is possible to defend Georg Cantor’s theory by taking a standpoint I call quietistic conventionalism. The standpoint broadly resembles Wittgenstein’s formalist middle period and allows us to view transfinite set theory as a result of a series of definitions established by arbitrary decisions that have no ontological consequences. I point to the fact that we are inclined to accept such definitions because of certain psycho‐ logical mechanisms such as the hypothetical Basic Metaphor of Infinity proposed by George Lakoff and Rafael E. Núñez. Regarding Wittgenstein’s criterion of applicability, I argue that it presupposes a static view of science. Therefore, we should not rely on it because we are unable to foresee what will turn out to be useful in the future.
2
Metafizyka Karola Rarnowskiego – rozumienie poszukujące wiary I nadziei
100%
Gomułka J.
Kwartalnik Filozoficzny
|
2013
|
tom 41
|
nr 3
43-53
EN
The article concerns the philosophy of Karol Tarnowski. I depict his perspective as metaphysical in its goals but phenomenological and hermeneutical in its starting point and method. Tarnowski begins with an experience called “eschatological awareness”, particularly vivid in recent times, marked by a feeling of uncertainty about the sense of life. It includes a sense of the fundamental inadequacy of the factual world that is grounded in a much less obvious metaphysical longing. Tarnowski's analyses of metaphysical longing are deeply rooted in both Plato and Levinas. However, his thought is closer to the views of the former, since he does not accept the latter's claim that the longing is structurally unsatisfiable. He believes that longing without any hope of satisfaction is absurd, desperate, and irrational. The only way to avoid despair is to maintain hope and faith in God as the source of being and the real and attainable aim of our metaphysical longing. There is, however, no rational necessity of choosing this particular hermeneutics of our existential situation, so the metaphysics of (satisfiable) longing remains conditioned by faith and hope.
3
Content available Wittgenstein i zagadka Anzelma
100%
Gomułka J.
Analiza i Egzystencja. Czasopismo Filozoficzne
|
2013
|
nr nr 23
71 - 98
EN
The paper is devoted to the problem of the two paradoxes: the paradox of absolute value in Wittgenstein’s Lecture on Ethics and the paradox of Anselm’s Name of God from the Proslogion. I try to present semantic determinants of the paradoxes as well as similarities of their structures. However, the main part of the article focuses on the solution of Anselm’s paradox given by Cora Diamond, the prominent Wittgensteinian scholar in her paper Riddles and Anselm’s Riddle. Diamond develops extensive comparison of the concept of that than which nothing greater can be conceived and a series of peculiar riddles – she calls the Anselm’s concept the great riddle, since, as in other riddles presented, we cannot deal with it in a usual way. The author shows that what enables us to resolve, say, the riddle of Sphinx, is our obtaining a new way of understanding the words which compose the riddle itself, for the old way will not lead us to the proper answer. However, when it comes to the great riddle we know that we cannot obtain any way of understanding which will enable us to conceive it. This does not mean that the riddle cannot make any sense for us. We can believe that there is a solution (in fact, we have the solution – it has been given to us in the Revelation – but we cannot understand it) so we can treat the great riddle as an euqation which we lack proof but we know there is one. As Diamond calls it, we have the promissory meaning of the riddle. In my opinion the idea of the promissory meaning is an interesting solution of Anselm’s paradox, but I notice that the idea itself is conditioned by religious faith or by something I call the empathic atheism (in short: an attitude which lets atheists take the believers’ point of view).
4
Content available Nieintuicyjna czy niekonsekwentna teoria intencjonalności? Spór między Dennettem i Searlem
100%
Gomułka J.
Filozofia i Nauka
|
2016
|
tom 4
119-139
EN
The paper compares the conceptions of intentionality held by the two leading figures in the contemporary philosophy of mind: John Searle and Daniel Dennett. I explain the relation between Searle’s theories in philosophy of language and his theory of intentionality and his idea of three kinds of intentionality. Then I present Dennett’s theory of intentionality as an adaptive feature and his idea of intentional stances. I underline the fact that, using Searle’s vocabulary, according to Dennett no creature or artifact possesses intrinsic intentionality - all we deal with is just derived intentionality: the intentionality the observer attributes to a being in order to form a better prediction of the being’s behavior. The consequence of this standpoint is highly counterintuitive: Dennett must (and in fact does) accept a claim that the observer’s own intentionality is also only attributed to one by some other observers in order to form better prediction of one’s behavior. This claim is rejected by Searle as an obvious absurd. I argue that Searle’s standpoint is founded on the Cartesian grounds and point to the similarity between his critique of Dennett and Husserl’s critique of naturalism. Since Searle claims his conception to be naturalistic, his theory is inconsistent.
PL
W artykule zestawiam dwie koncepcje intencjonalności: Johna Searle’a oraz Daniela Dennetta. Wyjaśniam związek pomiędzy teoriami Searle’a w dziedzinie filozofii języka a jego stanowiskiem w kwestii intencjonalności, następnie prezentuję jego ideę trzech rodzajów intencjonalności. W dalszej kolejności przedstawiam Dennetta teorię intencjonalności jako cechy adaptacyjnej, a także jego koncepcję nastawienia intencjonalnego. Podkreślam fakt, że według Dennetta – używając terminologii Searle’a – żadna istota bądź wytwór techniki nie posiada intencjonalności wewnętrznej, a jedynie pochodną, tj. taką, którą przypisujemy danemu bytowi w celu utworzenia lepszych przewidywań zachowania tego bytu. Konsekwencja tej tezy jest nieintuicyjna: Dennett musi przyznać (i faktycznie to robi), że także intencjonalność obserwatora jest intencjonalnością tylko przypisywaną mu przez jakichś innych obserwatorów w celu tworzenia lepszych przewidywań jego zachowania. Searle odrzuca to twierdzenie jako jawnie absurdalne. Staram się pokazać, że stanowisko Searle’a jest zakorzenione w kartezjanizmie i wskazuję na podobieństwa pomiędzy jego krytyką Dennetta i Husserlowską krytyką naturalizmu. Biorąc pod uwagę fakt, że Searle uważa się za naturalistę, należy uznać jego teorię za niekonsekwentną.
5
Content available Podmiot jako wewnętrzny biegun symbolizmu. Antymentalistyczna wykładnia "Traktatu logiczno-filozoficznego"
100%
Gomułka J.
Analiza i Egzystencja. Czasopismo Filozoficzne
|
2016
|
tom 35
69-86
EN
The purpose of this paper is to offer a radical anti-mentalistic interpretation of Wittgensteinʼs Tractatus. Contrary to mentalistic approaches postulating that thetask of projection must be performed by a subject (transcendental or psychological), the author claims – after Rhees, Diamond and McGinn – that the projection itselfis an intrinsic relation within the symbol. The main point of the paper is the thesis that the transcendenal subjectivity – or, as Wittgenstein calls it, the metaphysical subject – is the inner pole of the symbol, and since the meaning of the symbol isitʼs other inner pole (as anti-realist interpretations point out), the whole intentionalrelation of symbolizing is intrinsic to the symbolism.
6
Content available Meaning before Subjectivity: The Primäre Sprache of the Tractatus
100%
Gomułka J.
Analiza i Egzystencja. Czasopismo Filozoficzne
|
2019
|
tom 47
79-102
EN
I defend an interpretation of the Tractatus based on the following three theses: 1) The Wittgenstein’s work offers a double-layered vision of language, similar to the vision developed during his brief phenomenological period. 2) The so-called Tractarian ontology is actually a purely formal construction, entailed by the structure of what we shall refer to as the inner layer of language. 3) It should be recognized that the metaphysical residuum within the early Wittgenstein’s thought is a certain minimal form of transcendentalism, according to which language – or strictly speaking its ore – performs the function of the transcendental subject for itself. A crucial element of my position is the conclusion that, according to the Tractarian conception of language, the meaning of propositions is not only independent of empirical subjects, but also the condition of their possibility. This amounts to a resolute adaptation of Frege’s principled anti-psychologism on Wittgenstein’s part.
7
Content available Mathematics in the Tractatus. Formal Series, the Status of Equations, and the Metaphysical Subject
100%
Gomułka J.
Filozofia Nauki
|
2016
|
tom 24
|
nr 2
77-93
8
Content available Okres fenomenologiczny w myśli Ludwiga Wittgensteina
88%
Gomułka J.
Semina Scientiarum
|
2016
|
tom 15
9
Content available Wittgenstein a problem reguł
63%
Gomułka J. , Sajdek Z.
Racjonalia. Z punktu widzenia humanistyki
|
2015
|
tom 5
PL
The problem of rules and the private language argument are among the most renowned and disputable themes of Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations. Presumably today’s best known interpretation of the themes was presented in Saul Kripke’s famous and often commented book Wittgenstein on Rules and the Private Language, published in 1982. The interpretation, nicknamed “Kripkenstein”, became the target of numerous attacks of authors convinced that it did justice neither to Wittgenstein nor to the real way our language worked.This article begins with the examination of Wittgenstein’s problem of identification of action which may be counted as justified by the rule, that is, the problem of criteria of correctness. This is Kripke’s starting point in his binding the problem of rules with the private language argument. He believes that Wittgenstein did not question the mere possibility of such a language but the possibility of any language at all. Further, we survey the rejected solutions to the problem of criteria: the mentalistic and the dispositional. This leads us toKripke’s sceptical solution: there are no reasons of actions which occur before these actions. There are certain trained ways of doing things which “tell” us what to do in typical situations but they are not criteria of correctness. Such criteria may only be public and therefore social.In conclusion it’s argued that Kripkenstein’s view is really Wittgenstein’s view: contrary to the popular opinion Kripke did not put forward a new solution, he just gave us a different way of presenting it.
10
Content available Konferencja: "Chrześcijaństwo w popkulturze", Wrocław, 10–12 grudnia 2015
63%
Sajdek Z. , Gomułka J.
Racjonalia. Z punktu widzenia humanistyki
|
2015
|
tom 5
11
Content available Człowiek jako wytwór siebie samego. Lem, transhumanizm i dwie koncepcje autentyczności
51%
Gomułka J. , Klimas M. , Palm J.
Semina Scientiarum
|
2018
|
tom 17
EN
Stanisław Lem, a philosopher and futurologist, in his many works devoted much attention to the condition of human and the relation between human and technology. He coined the term ‘autoevolution’ in the course of forecasting unlimited technological augmentation of human abilities. Nowadays, the term may be associated with the conceptions presented by transhumanism, a 20th-century-born philosophical movement which advocates radical transformation of Homo sapiens by means of the achievements of scientific and technological progress. Lem’s attitude towards such a transformation of human is complicated yet ultimately critical due to the fact that it poses a threat to human culture as such. The phenomenon of autoevolution undermines existing values and raises a question of authenticity of a future posthuman. We examine dependence between technology and culture, present Lem’s conception of autoevolution and his philosophy of culture, then we sketch a post-metaphysical dispute about authenticity, and finally show that Lem’s thought ­belongs to one of the arguing sides.
12
Content available Bernard Suits, Konik Polny. Gry, życie i utopia.
51%
Gomułka J.
ARGUMENT: Biannual Philosophical Journal
|
2017
|
tom 7
|
nr 2
387-391
first rewind previous Strona / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.