Jolanta Żelazna

Spinoza searched for a language that could help him to create a monistic system of ethics. Latin was in the 17th century a fairly malleable medium of communication. In its philosophical use it was largely a creation of Descartes. Spinoza wanted to use it in a way that would resemble Euclid's treatment of geometry. He needed a language that would clearly and precisely describe the process by which a man could liberate himself from the power of affection that hamper naturaly propensity for social peace and mental equaenimity. He decided to begin by describing nature, which was responsible for man's proclivities and abilities. Consequently he needed a new conception of substance which on the one hand could be definied by some initial axioms, and on the other hand would sufficiently flexible to include various aspects of human thought. It is interesting that when Spinoza had to make a choice between flexibility and content, he resolved to adopt a strict method of reasoning at the cost of the received understanding of substance. It is possible that these linguistic considerations led him to adopt the view that substance is identical with God and as such encompasses all principles of operations of the human mind and premises for the deriving of all fundamental notions popular in his times.

Copernicus "De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium" as an exapmle of a discourse on a method In addition to the calculations conmprehensible to the astronomers, the work of Copernicus presented to Pope Paul III for approval, De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium, includes also a descriptive introduction. The author uses it to report on the current astronomical knowledge, explains the importance of the accomplishments of his great predecessors, as well as the reasons for which a correction of their theories is necessary. In this part of the work the importance of discovery and adjustment of a proper method to a specific area of nature research is stressed as well-long before the Descartian "Discourse on the Method"". Copernicus stresses that the misteakes of his predecessors occurred because "something necessary" would be often discarded, and replaced by something "alien, not belonging to the matter". The selective treatment of the phenomena and justification of the relations between them using non-meritorical indications and arguments might, but does not have lead to the correct conclusions. The introduction and the first tome of "De Revolutionibus" provide an example of a discourse on a method of creating knowledge. Copernicus displayed the benefits of his method, relating mainly to the authority of Aristotle, Ptolemy and Euclid. His accomplishment opened the way leading to revealing many other invisible assumptions, limiting the possibilities of researching nature. Some of them - the relation of subject and object, the trap of idealisation and usage of the models of researched phenomena - are discussed in the following article

Substance, attributes, modi - misunderstandings connected with the reception of Spinoza's "Ethics" The text tries to answer the question of the sources of misunderstandings connected with the reception of Spinoza's philosophy, especially with his understanding of the substance, attributes, modifications and infinity in "Ethics". Assumptions made by Spinoza, for instance the postulate of describing the human being as a "state in state" of Nature during a research procedure comply with the rules of model of the modern science. In "Ethics", based on "The Elements" by Euclid, the author presents the attempt to define the basic terms used by the philosophers and scholars of the 17th century, and, on this basis and taking axioms into account, he works out a number of theorems concerning Nature, including the nature of a human being. Euclid's "Elements" served as a template of the construction of a theory, which in a logically necessary manner, precisely and at the same time "suspending" the interference of destructive human emotions, proves the properties of the objects of geometry. Spinoza tried to establish a theory which would examine the properties of human mind and body treated as a subject of science in an equally rational, precise and emotionless matter, starting from the basic definitions. Its basics became, among others, definitions of substance, attribute and modification, inspired by the Aristotelian- Scholastic tradition. Those terms, interpreted in Christian Europe through the teaching of the Old and New Testament, have taken a completely different character and meaning in "Ethics". Upon encountering the text of definitions and theorems the readers were unable and, quite often, unwilling to resist the temptation of adding their own beliefs to the contents. This article treats of this conflict of language and beliefs

I've got a "predecessor", and what a fine one too!" Circumstances of the creation of Nietzsche's "Zarathustra" The name of SSpinoza appears in the notes of F. Nietzsche from the beginning of the eighties. Basing on information contained in K.Fisher's History of Philosophy he hails the sage from den Haag as his predecessor. In the course of next few years the greatest works of Nietzsche are written and his professional, personal and health matters become very complicated. At the end of his life embittered, lonely and deeply misunderstood Nietzsche pens remarks concerning Spinoza's writings once again - this time drastically different in style and the judgement of their worthiness. As both of the philosophers use the term of "power", both reject personalised God and propose the reversion of the hierarchy of the moral values, many researcherswere inspired by Nietzsche's notes to investigate the connections of the two philosophies. However, is the connection real, or is it but an illusion, a delusion of a link caused by the use of similarndevices and terms in different contexts? How did such a radical change in Nietzsche's views come to pass - a change of views not only of Spinoza's philosophy, but of Schopenhauer's and Wagner's musical work as well? The answers to those questions may be sought with use of Jung's theory of archetypes, as an example. In reference to Nietzsche's biography it shows one of the possible interpretations of his approach to the persons mentioned

This article is a summation of work devoted to the main themes of Heidegger's and Nietzsche's philosophies. Heidegger's interpretation of Nietzscheanism and his evaluation of it prompt one make a more precise analysis of the relationship which hypothetically should exist between the "essential thought" of the two philosophers. A comparative analysis of the "essential" themes of the two philosophers shows, however, that questions which were undoubtedly most essential for Nietzsche are compeltely outside the area definied in Heidegger's philosophy as "essential thought", while very many elements of Nietzsche's thought indicate that it is not "essential" philosophy in Heidegger's understanding.