Adriana Warmbier

The paper considers the problem of various different forms of pre‑cognitive affective appraisal and their role in the process of gaining self-knowledge. According to the phenomenological approach, if we are to understand our inner states (our emotional experiences), these cannot be extracted from the context within which they arise. Emotions not only refer to the inner states of the subject, but also to the outer world to which they are a form of response. Brentano, Husserl and Scheler claimed that emotions are directed towards values. It is to this essential feature of emotional experience that I would like to turn. I shall therefore re-examine Sartre’s views concerning affectivity (i.e. the capacity to reveal evaluatively significant qualities of one’s environment), as well as the dual-aspect theory of (reflective and non-reflective) consciousness. The main argument of this paper is that a plausible account of the essential role of affectivity in the emotions may be provided on the basis of a phenomenological theory of pre-reflective consciousness and its relation to reflexivity. I will focus on three different claims about pre-reflective (affective) consciousness. According to the first of these, a large part of cognition is of a prelinguistic (pre-reflective) nature; I argue that the evaluative content of emotion is not only conceptually determined, but may also take a non-conceptual form (as affective appraisal). The second claim refers to the notion of affect, which ought to be distinguished from (unintentional) bodily sensations. The third conceives of the relation between pre-reflective (affective) consciousness and reflective consciousness (propositional attitudes) as normative (rather than causal). I aim to demonstrate that a plausible view of emotional affectivity must appeal to a phenomenological account of the pre-reflective aspect of consciousness.

What I would like to study is the presence of Cartesian manner of thinking in the Ricoeurian comprehension of subjectivity. I focus particularly on what is not saying expressis verbis in his argumentation. I do not say that the Ricoeurian conception of dialectical subject which is expressed as “oneself as another” places itself as continuation of the tradition of absolutization of cogito. By no means. Ricoeur’s investigation that pertains to subjectivity aims at elaborating its new formulation. Philosophy of Descartes might be interpret in various ways not only as the synonym of “egology”. In my paper I indicate two formulas of ego which are included in Cartesian Meditations (ego cogito, ergo sum and ego sum, ego existo) that give rise to the different interpretations of ego. I analyse the Ricoeurian stance that relates to the consequences of introducing by Descartes the very formula ego sum, ego existo. In the second part I concentrate on issue on what sense rereading Meditations could be helpful in entering into discussion with structuralist critique of the subject. Also I get an approach to the theoretical framework of Ricoeurian argumentation which is established according to defend the subject. W artykule staram się pokazać obecność elementów Kartezjańskiego sposobu rozumowania w Ricoeurowskim deklaratywnie „antykartezjańskim” ujęciu subiektywności. Nie twierdzę, że Ricoeur w proponowanej przez siebie koncepcji podmiotu dialektycznego wyrażonego jako "ten-który-jest-sobą-jak-i-innym" sytuuje sie po stronie tradycji absolutyzującej cogito. Moim celem jest przesledzenie tych momentów Ricoeurowskiej argumentacji prowadzonej na rzecz wypracowania nowej formuły podmiotowości, w których obecny jest (najczęściej implicite) wątek Kartezjański. W samej filozofii Kartezjusza obecna jest droga, która nie prowadzi do egologii. By pokazać dwie różne perspektywy odczytania Kartezjańskiego cogito, przywołuję dwie formuły: ego cogito ergo sum oraz ego sum, ego existo, by następnie poddac je analizie. W pierwszej cześci artykułu skupiam się na ukazaniu konsekwencji płynących z wykorzystania formuły ego sum, ego existo w dyskusji dotyczącej subiektywności. W drugiej cześci staram się dowieść, na jakiej drodze możliwe jest wykorzystanie Kartezjańskiej koncepcji podmiotu w konfrontacji ze strukturalistyczną krytyką podmiotu.

In the paper, the author asks whether what we have all heard over and over again of the “end of man” means the real end of man or, on the contrary, it has given rise to profound and necessary reevaluation of self-transparent subjectivity. The debate on the notion of selfhood has not been closed yet. The author analyses two different approaches to the problem. One pertains to the “self” that is taken as a monad. The other refers to dialogical theory of selfhood which, as she tries to explain, one may regard as a way of overcoming the essential problem with the constitution of ourselves. According to this, the author claims that it is necessary to reconsider the claims of modern philosophy. She suggests that many of the objections that have been made against subjectivity derive from narrow view of philosophy in the 17th century.

In this article I discuss one of the most significant areas of bioethical interest, which is the problem of moral enhancement. Since I claim that the crucial issue in the current debate on human bioenhancement is the problem of agency, I bring out and examine the conditions of possibility of self-understanding, acting subjects attributing responsible authorship for their actions to themselves. I shall argue that the very idea of moral enhancement, properly understood, fails to justify the claims that enhancing the “biological” factor that plays a part in the process of making moral choices, whether through biomedical or genetic interventions, will actually increase the probability of having “morally better future motives”.