The article discusses W.V.O. Quine's critique of the classical distinction 'analytic vs. synthetic sentences'. The author claims that the debate concerning this distinction is essential for semantic and lexicographic analysis, which nowadays must face certain well known metaphysical problems. She discusses five strategies of argumentation formed against Quine's position, inluding four explicit definitions of analyticity. The author claims that A. Bogusławski's (1998) definition seems to be the most effective one, and the same time closest to Kant's approach. This definition can be adopted in order to verify claims on the analyticity of propositions which include two predicates under discussion.
The article includes an overview of syntactic and semantic features of expressions jednocześnie, równocześnie and zarazem. The analysis is divided into two main parts. In the first one the author discusses the relationship between temporal adverbs and meta-textual units of language. She shows that the meta-textual expressions in question are semantically close to adverbial units – their function is not pointing to the coexistence of events but to organize a sentence and connect two functionally equal units. The second part focuses on the function of the lexical units in question within deviant sentences. The article also brings forth some remarks on the semantic consequences and effects of using the unit jednocześnie in the negation test.
Is it possible to affirm the existence of eidetic a priori laws, if these laws can be contradicted by positive law propositions? How is it possible a deviation from a priori juridical propositions? These are the two questions to which the present paper “Deviation without contradiction in Adolf Reinach’s ontology” is devoted. The aim of the paper is to analyse the relations between a priori juridical propositions and propositions of positive law as investigated by Adolf Reinach. The Author presents and illustrates Adolf Reinach’s conception of conditioned a priori connections.
4
Dostęp do pełnego tekstu na zewnętrznej witrynie WWW
The concept of dialetheia and the claim of dialetheism has been examined and compared to such related concept as contradiction, antinomy, consistency and paraconsistency. Dialetheia is a true contradiction and dialetheism is the claim that there exists at least one dialetheia. It has been observed that dialetheism is equivalent to the negation of the traditional principle of contradiction. Hence, dialetheism itself is no new idea in whatsoever. The novelty of dialetheism consists in the arguments delivered for its case. Key justification the partisans deliver for dialetheism has been examined and evaluated: antinomies, an alleged Gödel’s paradox, and existence of limits of thought. The structure of those arguments has been analyzed. It has been claimed that they share one and the same simple structure which may be called reverse paradox. The vital content dialetheists add to the traditional paradoxes is only the thesis of reliability of the vernacular prima facie knowledge. Three objections have been raised against the justification of dialetheism: firstly, it has been claimed that exactly the same argument supports principle of contradiction, secondly, it has been questioned whether the arguments preserve their value when logic is subject to revision, and thirdly, it has been claimed that the underlying logic of dialetheism is classical.
In this article, Beata Śmigielska describes the questions used to determine the number and nature of arguments of predicates within the framework of Stanisław Karolak’s semantics-based grammar. Since syntactic structures do not directly reflect the semantic structures of predicates, the distinction between arguments and adjunct elements (modifiers) often becomes problematic. This fact is related to the lack of a single methodology by which this can be done in a simple and unambiguous way, resulting in different results of analyses of the same predicates. To solve this problem, it is necessary clearly to define the theory within which we work, because it is the adopted perspective and its well-defined principles that will decide both the path of thought during the research and its results. In her analyses of the selected predicates, Śmigielska defines the tools that can be used in predicate description such as the semantic decomposition of predicates into simpler elements, supplemented, where necessary, by contradiction tests and paraphrasing.
The article elaborates on the legal and practical aspects of the application of the General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR). For tax proceedings to be taken over and for a decision regarding tax assessment to be issued by the Head of the National Revenue Administration, it must be examined whether the conditions specified in Article 119a of the Tax Ordinance have been met. It is extremely important to establish the mode of operation and the order of consideration of individual conditions. This applies both to the Head of the National Revenue Administration and the Council for Prevention of Tax Avoidance that issues opinions on the legitimacy of the application of Article 119a in proceedings.
PL
Artykuł omawia prawne i praktyczne aspekty stosowania klauzuli przeciwko unikaniu opodatkowania (GAAR). Przejęcie postępowania podatkowego i wydanie decyzji wymiarowej przez Szefa Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej (KAS) wymaga zbadania, czy zachodzą przesłanki określone w art. 119a Ordynacji. Kwestią niezwykle istotną jest ustalenie schematu postępowania i kolejności rozpatrywania poszczególnych przesłanek. Dotyczy to zarówno Szefa KAS, jak i Rady do Spraw Przeciwdziałania Unikaniu Opodatkowania, wydającej opinię co do zasadności zastosowania art. 119a w prowadzonym postępowaniu.
The paper draws upon so-called disscusive logic which does not refute the principle of contradiction directly, but accepts contradicting statements of different parties of the discourse or of the same subject but in different time. On the ground of recentivism every statement contrary to the system is sifted through the axiology of the system in a recentiori mode. That is, it is rejected by the system just as it falls into contradiction in the moment of being expressed (sermo). In short: the moment of expression eliminates contradiction in the content, for according to recentivist epistemology the description of an event is not true or false in general, but in the present time only and it changes its truthfulness with the time.
DE
Der Artikel knüpft an sog. Diskussionslogik an, die den Satz vom Widerspruch nicht direkt ablehnt, sondern stattdessen widersprüchliche, von verschiedenen Diskutanten oder von derselben Person, aber zu anderer Zeit geäußerten Meinungen zulässt. Wird der Standpunkt in rezentivistischen Kategorien betrachtet, so heißt er: jede systemwidrige Meinung wird mittels Axiologie des Systems a recentiori ausgewählt, und das bedeutet, dass sie das rezentivistische System verlässt, sobald sie sich während der Äußerung (sermo) mit der Aussage in Widerspruch verwickelt. Kurz gesagt: die Zeit der Aussage behebt den im Gegenstand der Aussage steckenden Widerspruch. Es folgt aus der Epistemologie des Rezentivismus, laut der die Beschreibung eines Ereignisses nicht im allgemeinen, sondern nur in der Gegenwart richtig ist, und nur samt der Gegenwart unterliegt sie einer Änderung hinsichtlich ihrer momentanen Richtigkeit.