Jacek Jarocki

In the article, I present changes that analytic philosophy of mind underwent throughout the twentieth century, as well as consequences these transformations have for the latest debates. I argue that over the past century, the analytical movement abandoned its anti-metaphysical stance and accepted materialism that supposed to respect main assumptions of the early program of analysis. However, by the end of the last century, materialism found itself in a crisis, and attempts to resolve it led to significant changes in the field of the latest philosophical investigations about the mind. Observing current trends allows for making conjectures about the shape of analytic philosophy of mind in the coming decades.

Although panpsychism and pantheism were seen as natural allies in the past, in contemporary philosophy it is widely common to stress differences rather than similarities between them. As a result, only few panpsychists (e.g. so-called cosmopsychists) acknowledge that their view may imply pantheism. In my paper, I argue that at least some popular versions of panpsychism do lead to pantheism. My main argument is that panpsychism meets the minimal requirements for pantheism, defined as a view that the world is identical to all-encompassing Unity and that this Unity is divine. Although there are kinds of panpsychism that allow one to avoid these consequences, the most popular versions of this view pave the way to pantheism. Many philosophers will find this a serious challenge for panpsychism. On the other hand, it can be argued that this conclusion is not as grim as it seems. An all-encompassing Cosmic Mind has little to do with the God of Abrahamic religions, so it does not necessarily deprive panpsychism of its naturalistic flavor that many find non-negotiable. Be that as it may, the aim of this paper is to turn the attention of proponents of panpsychism to yet another problem they need to solve.

Panpsychism may be roughly defined as a view that at least some of the properties constituting the fundamental level of reality are mental or proto-mental. Despite its long history, it has been revived in recent discussions as a solution to the problems raised by the mind, especially to the so-called hard problem of consciousness. Contemporary panpsychism differs significantly from incarnations known from the history of philosophy mainly due to the fact that the former is often combined with so-called Russellian monism. According to Russellian monism, the intrinsic properties of physical things remain unknown. This encourages panpsychists to argue that those properties are in fact mental. In my paper, I examine the three most common arguments for panpsychism: the Continuity Argument, the Hegelian Argument, and the Agnostic Argument. I take a closer look at each of them to assess their advantages and weaknesses. As I point out, the way in which one argues implies the version of panpsychism one adopts. This turns out to be especially important with regard to the Hegelian Argument and the Agnostic Argument. Both can be combined with Russellian monism, resulting in Russellian panpsychism. However, I claim that the philosophical consequences of these arguments are different, so it is legitimate to distinguish two kinds of Russellian panpsychism. In conclusion, I hold that there are reasons to prefer panpsychism based on the Agnostic Argument, which is more promising, as it responds to some general problems of panpsychism.

Świadomość, wolna wola i jaźń to kanoniczne zagadnienia filozoficzne od setek lat frapujące kolejne pokolenia uczonych. Podjął je również współczesny brytyjski filozof analityczny Galen John Strawson (ur. 1952), który w trakcie czterdziestoletniej kariery poświęcił tym tematom liczne książki i artykuły. Jego myśl wyróżnia się odwagą, z jaką broni niepopularnych w nurcie filozofii anglosaskiej poglądów, takich jak panpsychizm, koncepcja pojęciowej sprzeczności moralnej odpowiedzialności czy teoria krótkotrwałych jaźni. Choć pomysły te wzbudzają wiele głosów polemicznych, mają coraz większe znaczenie w najnowszych debatach. Celem książki jest krytyczne przedstawienie poglądów Strawsona odnoszących się do tytułowych kwestii. Monografia zarysowuje zarazem szerszy kontekst historycznych i współczesnych dyskusji. Nie jest ona zatem wyłącznie streszczeniem idei Brytyjczyka, ale także próbą wskazania ich miejsca we współczesnych sporach, a ponadto – odpowiedzi na pytanie, jaką rolę odgrywa filozofia Strawsona w analitycznej metafizyce.

The purpose of this article is to present contemporary varieties of panpsychism, i.e. a metaphysical view according to which at least some of the fundamental properties which constitute the world are mental. Despite its popularity in the history of philosophy, the view has been thought, in the analytic tradition, to be unscientific. Nevertheless, in light of some insolvable problems with the explanation of mind, panpsychism has become a view which is taken seriously as a correct metaphysical theory. In this article, I propose a broad definition of panpsychism in order to uncover the possible causes of its variety. Subsequently, I argue that there are two main motivations to embrace panpsychism: the law of continuity and the acceptance of fundamental monism. Further, I present some problems with panpsychism, especially the problem of combination. In the final part, I suggest that panpsychism should be taken seriously in the recent debates about the mind, regardless of its difficulties.

Michel Houellebecq to pisarz francuski, autor sześciu powieści, a także poeta, reżyser oraz muzyk. Jego literaturę najczęściej traktuje się jako bezkompromisową krytykę współczesnego społeczeństwa, zwłaszcza takich zjawisk, jak konsumpcjonizm czy seksualizacja kultury. W niniejszym artykule zamierzam wykazać, że powieści Houellebecqa współdzielą myśl, która jest charakterystyczna dla filozofii egzystencjalnej. Opierając się nie tylko na epice, ale również na poezji, esejach i wywiadach Houellebecqa, staram się dowieść, że rozważany przezeń problem — tzw. problem egzystencji — dotyczy relacji między subiektywną jednostką a obiektywną, rozumianą w kategoriach naukowych rzeczywistością, bohaterowie jego powieści natomiast to przedstawiciele możliwych odpowiedzi na pojawiające się tu napięcie. Jeżeli uznać, że ów problem stanowi kluczową cechę egzystencjalizmu, a — jak staram się wykazać — tak właśnie jest, to zasadne staje się nazwanie Houellebecqa prawdopodobnie ostatnim wpływowym przedstawicielem tego nurtu.

DAVID CHALMERS’ ARGUMENT FOR THE LOGICAL POSSIBILITY OF ZOMBIES S u m m a r y This paper presents a reconstruction of the argument for the logical possibility of zombies, proposed by David Chalmers, which has been debated in analytical philosophy for at least fifteen years now. Beside discussing it, I’m trying to analyze every of its premises. My aim is, especially, to present how the reasoning can show that: (a) zombies/zombie worlds are genuinely conceivable; (b) conceivability is a good guide to possibility; (c) the possibility of zombies is philosophically significant. I’m particularly putting emphasis on some issues concerning two-dimensional semantics and distinctions of conceivability. The conclusion of this paper is that the argument is still not refuted, so a discussion over it should be conducted, instead of a priori refutation. The debate over zombies may have a positive influence on many fields of philosophical investigation.