Jan Wolenski

Kazimierz Twardowski is most commonly known as the teacher of great philosophers and the founder of the Lvov-Warsaw School. As a philosopher however, he is primarily remembered for his famous comparison of the contents and objects of various kinds of representations, a comparison that remains enshrined in European thought.In fact, he attained important results in many other branches of philosophy as well. For instance, in ontology, he laid the foundations for the modern theory of formal structure of objects, and he introduced the theoretically fruitful pair of terms, action-product. In epistemology, he developed a profound analysis of the notion and criteria of truth; and he provided a forceful account of the errors underlying relativist theories of truth. In methodology, he drew an explicit distinction between the processes of discovering, systematising, and grounding in science, and he offered accurate descriptions of the nature of psychology and other humanities. In logic, he offered decisive arguments on behalf of the idiogenetic conception of judgement, and he improved the traditional typology of adjectives.These achievements are of significance that is not only historical. Kazimierz Twardowski's work, formulated in plain, precise language, are instructive and inspiring for contemporary students of philosophy.

This paper compares Kotarbiński’s reism and naturalism. It argues that basic ontological and epistemological reistic principles fit naturalism very well. In particular, the thesis claiming that there are only spatiotemporal things (bodies) gives a very simple naturalistic account of reality. Radical realism defended by Kotarbiński is a version of direct realism, a view about perception which is very accurate for naturalism. On the other hand, since difficulties of reism are also problems for naturalism, the former illuminates typical challenges for the latter

The theory of double truth was proposed in the Middle Age by Latin Averroists as a solution of how the relation between faith (religion, theology) and reason (science) should be conceived. In general terms, according to this theory, there are two orders, one dictated by faith and second dictated by reason. Both are epistemologically different and cannot mutually remain in logical relations such as (in)consistency or entailment. This view was used in the Middle Ages for defending science against a claim that it is the ancilla thelogiae only. The author compares the theory of double truth with other solutions like the model of identity of science and theology or the model of two overlapping regions (Thomas Aquinas). It is argued that the substantial difference of the language of faith and the language of reason makes logical relations between statements of science and statements of theology impossible. In particular, all cosmological proofs of God's existence as well as projects of intelligent design fail if the theory of double truth is adopted

Metalogic (as a part of metamathematics) deals with the properties of formalised mathe- matical theories. Its applicability to empirical theories is an object of debate. The paper defends the moderate view that although it is difficult to expect such spectacular results, as have been obtained on mathematical theories, nevertheless the metalogical analysis of the first two gives us some benefits. Empirical theories may be understood as axiomatised sets of propositions closed with the operation of logical consequence. Two questions illustrate the thesis of this paper, namely the question of the elimination of theoretical terms and the question of the so- called philosophical presuppositions of science. As regards the second problem, a negative thesis is defended here: science is not based on philosophical presuppositions as premises of scientific reasonings

Traces of the coherence theory are to be found in rationalistic epistemological systems of Leibniz, Spinoza, Kant, Hegel and Fichte. However, the first fully advanced coherence theory was proposed by Bradley in XIX century. He was followed by Joachim, McTaggart, and particularly Blanshard and Ewing. The coherence theory later became popular among philosophers of the Vienna Circle, notably in Neurath and Hempel.2 Recently, Rescher tried to combine various proposals of coherentists into one fully unified view.

Globalization consists in the universality of the web of international economic and cultural interactions; this means that they comprise the entire world, not only its particular regions. Globalization processes are evaluated in various manners. Whereas some consider them to be an essential danger, others maintain that globalization is a device for solving many problems worrying humanity. This second perspective assumes that globalization will contribute to a relative equilibrium of the social structure of the world. The problem of the distribution of deficit goods, e.g. food or water, is a good example of questions related to globalization. The claim that distribution should be just seems natural. This paper introduces the category of participatory justice as a conceptual device which can help in considerations about the just distribution of goods.

This paper outlines an approach to the principle of bivalence based on very general, but still elementary, semantic considerations. The principle of bivalence states that “every sentence is either true or false”. Clearly, some logics are bivalent while others are not. A more general formulation of uses the concept of designated and non-designated logical values and is captured by “every sentence is either designated or non-designated”. Yet this formulation seems trivial, because the concept of non-designated value is negative. In order to refine the analysis, the class of anti-designated values has been distinguished. The non-trivial version of the principle of bivalence is expressed by “every sentence is either designated or anti-designated”. The last part of the paper mentions some extralogical reasons for considering the principle of bivalence with truth being a designated value as intimately connected to human thinking and behavior

There are two possible strategies for investigating questions on logic and mathematics. First, one can adopt the pattern recommended by the phenomenologists, which consists in looking for the actual essences of logic and mathematics in order to relate both fields. The second approach, adopted in this paper, starts with a historical review of the foundational standpoints. I will then try to extract on this base some insights on how logic and mathematics are mutually related. In particular, I am interested in the concept of logic suggested by the development of the foundational debate. Yet one more preliminary remark is here in order. I will take into account the classical foundational positions: logicism, intuitionism, and formalism, as well as their later modifications and changes.1 Of course, this, so to speak, Foundational Trinity, does not exhaust the complete map of the foundations and philosophy of mathematics. For instance, I entirely neglect views wich might be exemplified by Lakatos, Dieudonné or Hersh, who, roughly speaking, radically deny that the study of logic and its relation to mathematics provides any interesting problem. I do not feel competent myself to judge this matter from the point of view of working mathematicians. On the other hand, philosophers are traditionally interested in the nature of logic and its links with other fields. Consequently, I regard my problem rather as a way of understanding what logic is, than whether it is important for mathematics or not

Naturalism is the view that only the so-called Natural World that surrounds us exists and that it is knowable by means of general cognitive tools. This has consequences for epistemology, because it determines what is an object of knowledge and how it comes to be known. Epistemological naturalism can be either radical or moderate, granting a certain autonomy to the theory of knowledge with respect to science. The article defends the second position and shows that it justifies the existence of certain problems whose discussion requires going beyond purely scientific data. Nevertheless, naturalized epistemology in any of its forms is incompatible with transcendentalism.