Mieszko Tałasiewicz

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”

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)