Artur Szutta

The article concerns the question of civic virtues, the aim being to present and argue for the personalist conception of citizenship. It consists of four parts. Inthe first part, following Will Kymlicka, I argue for the need of active citizenship; my claim is that personalism offers an attractive concept of such attitude. In thesecond part I make an outline of the personalist idea of authentic community, including the idea of authentic political community, and thus set the necessaryconceptual context for further considerations. In the third, central part I focus on characterizing authentic civic attitudes that constitute a true political community.In the fourth part I supplement the outline of civic attitudes with the characterization of unauthentic attitudes. In the conclusion, I briefly point out in what waythe personalist concept of authentic citizenship presented here may find a fruitful application to the contemporary debates in political philosophy.

In this paper I focus on Roger Crisp’s objection to moral intuitionism. The objection is that in the face of disagreement, especially between ethical experts (understood here as epistemic peers), the mere fact of one’s having a moral intuition, even after reflection, is insufficient to hold a given moral belief. The core assumption of the objection is the consensus condition (or Sidgwick’s principle) according to which in the face of reasonable disagreement with one’s epistemic peers one should suspend one’s contested view. My goal is a critical analysis of this objection (with special attention paid to the idea of consensus condition). I offer five counter-arguments to show that Crisp’s argumentation is not conclusive. They are as follows: an argument from self-reference, from the doubt about the possibility of voluntarily suspending one’s judgment, from the priority of the first-person evidential basis, from epistemic luck, and from practical consequences of observing the consensus condition.

Author: Szutta Artur Title: WŁADYSŁAW TATARKIEWICZ’S CONCEPT OF THE ‘THIRD STATES’ (Stany trzecie w ujęciu Władysława Tatarkiewicza) Source: Filo-Sofija year: 2011, vol:.13/14, number: 2011/2-3, pages: 617-627 Keywords: “THIRD STATES”, LEISURE, PHILOSOPHY, THEORY, INTELLECT, SENSE OF LIFE, WŁADYSŁAW TATARKIEWICZ, JOSEPH PIEPER Discipline: PHILOSOPHY Language: POLISH Document type: ARTICLE Publication order reference (Primary author’s office address): E-mail: www:The article treats on the concept of “third states” (as opposed to the other two kinds of states: those of work and entertainment) introduced by Władysław Tatarkiewicz in his treatise On Happiness. A thorough analysis of the passage on “third states” as well as of the very concept allows to see its relevance to the considerations on such important philosophical questions as those of the nature of doing philosophy, the meaning of life, intellectual intuition, theoria or contemplation. The paper consists of five parts. The first part is focused on Tatarkiewicz’s understanding of “third states” as well as on a phenomenological analysis of the concept itself. The second part is a kind of extension of the analysis enriched by Josef Pieper’s interpretation of the idea of leisure which I find very close to what Tatarkiewicz means by “third states”. In the light of the analysis the concept of the ‘third states’ turns out to be very inspiring and useful in dealing with a number of philosophical questions, which is shown in the fourth part of the paper. The final step consists of questioning the above conclusion by short outlining a possible naturalistic interpretation of the ‘third states’ in the light of which the picture of philosophy, human life or human cognition, based on the concept of the ‘third states’ might turn out to be a mere illusion. I do not give a final answer to this question but treat the conclusion of the paper as an invitation to a deeper consideration of the matter

Przedmiotem artykułu jest krytyka Arystotelesowskiego republikanizmu, którą przeprowadza Kymlicka, oraz jego alternatywna propozycja tzw. republikanizmu instrumentalnego. Podejmę dyskusję ze stanowiskiem Kymlicki, która skoncentruje się wokół dwóch kwestii. Po pierwsze, czy celem życia ludzkiego jest uczestnictwo w polityce? Po drugie, czy cnoty powinny być traktowane przez państwo jako coś więcej niż środki konieczne do utrzymania i dobrego funkcjonowania jego instytucji, to znaczy jako konieczny (autoteliczny) element dobrego życia, który winien stać się przedmiotem zabiegów państwa?