Jakub Gomułka

The present paper concerns the Wittgenstein ontology project: an attempt to create a Semantic Web representation of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s philosophy. The project has been in development since 2006, and its current state enables users to search for information about Wittgenstein-related documents and the documents themselves. However, the developers have much more ambitious goals: they attempt to provide a philosophical subject matter knowledge base that would comprise the claims and concepts formulated by the philosopher. The current knowledge representation technology is not well-suited for this task, and a non-standard approach is required. The creators of the Wittgenstein ontology project are aware of this fact; recently, they have been discussing conceptual devices adjusting the technology to their needs. The main goal of this paper is to present examples of a representation of philosophical content that make use of both the devices already proposed and some new inventions. The represented content comes from the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus; more specifically, its theses concerning the problems in philosophy of mathematics.

Wittgenstein's conception of the general form of a truth function given in thesis 6 can be presented as a sort of a trade-off: the author of the Tractatus is unable to reconcile the simplicity of his original idea of a series of forms with the simplicity of his generalisation of Sheffer's stroke; therefore, he is forced to sacrifice one of them. As we argue in this paper, the choice he makes – to weaken the logical constraints put on the concept of a series of forms, thus effectively metaphorising that concept for the sake of upholding the N-operation's role of generating the series – is unfortunate. An actual expansion of a series of truth functions as defined in 6 would require either making decisions at each step (Anscombe) or outwardly rejecting the concept of a series (Sundholm). However, neither is faithful to Wittgenstein's own fundamental intuitions regarding the nature of logic. For this reason, a different trade-off that prioritises upholding the basic features of a series of forms over the simplicity of the operation that generates that series seems to be much more reasonable. We offer such a trade-off by developing the schema already present in the Tractatus (5.101). The key element of our alternative solution is the construction of an operation that can perform the task of producing all consecutive truth functions of a given collection of atomic propositions as an invariant difference between any base and its successor throughout the series. We define it as a composition of three functions (in an algebraic sense): the first turns a symbol of a given truth function into a binary number, the second increments that number, the third turns the result back into a symbol of another truth function. We also show how the operation can be defined by means of a different notation without invoking binary arithmetic.

Stanisław Lem, a philosopher and futurologist, in his many works devoted much attention to the condition of human and the relation between human and technology. He coined the term ‘autoevolution’ in the course of forecasting unlimited technological augmentation of human abilities. Nowadays, the term may be associated with the conceptions presented by transhumanism, a 20th-century-born philosophical movement which advocates radical transformation of Homo sapiens by means of the achievements of scientific and technological progress. Lem’s attitude towards such a transformation of human is complicated yet ultimately critical due to the fact that it poses a threat to human culture as such. The phenomenon of autoevolution undermines existing values and raises a question of authenticity of a future posthuman. We examine dependence between technology and culture, present Lem’s conception of autoevolution and his philosophy of culture, then we sketch a post-metaphysical dispute about authenticity, and finally show that Lem’s thought belongs to one of the arguing sides.

The purpose of this paper is to offer a radical anti-mentalistic interpretation of Wittgensteinʼs Tractatus. Contrary to mentalistic approaches postulating that the task of projection must be performed by a subject (transcendental or psychological), the author claims – after Rhees, Diamond, and McGinn – that the projection itself is an intrinsic relation within the symbol. The main point of the paper is the thesis that the transcendental subjectivity – or, as Wittgenstein calls it, the metaphysical subject – is the inner pole of the symbol, and since the meaning of the symbol is itʼs another inner pole (as anti-realist interpretations point out), the whole intentional relation of symbolizing is intrinsic to the symbolism.

The main question of our article is: What is the logical form of statements containing expressions such as “… is true” and “it is true that …”? We claim that these expressions are generally not used in order to assign a certain property to sentences. We indicate that a predicative interpretation of these expressions was rejected by Frege and adherents to the prosentential conception of truth. We treat these expressions as operators. The main advantage of our operational reading is the fact that it adequately represents how the words, “true” and “truth,” function in everyday speech. Our approach confirms the intuition that so-called T-equivalences are not contingent truths, and explains why they seem to be—in some sense—necessary sentences. Moreover, our operational readingof truth expressions dissolves problems arising from the belief that there is some specific property—truth. The fact that we reject that truth is a certain property does not mean that we deny that the concept of truth plays a very important role in our language, and hence in our life. We indicate that the concept of truth is inseparable from the concept of sentence and vice versa—it is impossible to explicate one of these concepts without appeal to the other

Zawarta w niniejszym artykule dyskusja z tekstem Saula Smilansky’ego O wątpliwej moralności pewnych form modlitwy składa się z dwóch części. W pierwszej bronimy tezy, że fikcyjne przykłady prezentowane przez autora albo nie stanowią powszechnie akceptowalnych form modlitwy, albo dają się interpretować tak, że nie stanowią etycznego problemu. Życzenie komuś śmierci jest bowiem zawsze nieetyczne, ale w każdej wyobrażalnej sytuacji zagrożenia życia możliwa jest modlitwa o rozwiązanie, które nie pomnaża śmierci.W drugiej części bronimy tezy, że prezentowany w przykładach Smilansky’ego stosunek ludzi do Boga w ogóle nie jest religijny, a w konsekwencji działania w nich opisane nie zasługują na miano „modlitwy”. Kiedy bowiem w naszym nastawieniu do Boga liczy się tylko to, że jest On zdolny zmienić bieg zdarzeń na naszą korzyść, a to, że jest On dobry umyka naszej uwadze, wówczas nie mamy na myśli Boga tradycji religijnej. W tym punkcie przywołujemy myślicieli należących do nurtu tzw. Wittgensteinowskiego fideizmu, których krytyka modlitwy błagalnej idzie być może zbyt daleko, skłania jednak do refleksji nad granicami właściwego stosunku do Boga.

Wittgenstein’s phenomenological period is a subject to a variety of interpretations which give different answers to the questions why and when did the author of the Tractatus start doing phenomenology, when and why did he stop it and what meaning had it for him. In my paper I argue for the view that Wittgenstein tried to overcome difficulties of his early philosophy by applying phenomenological investigations loosely inspired by Mach. Firstly he assumed that they may be carried out as grammatical investigations of the structure of a so­‑called phenomenological language. However, finally Wittgenstein came to the conclusion that such a language is impossible. Contrary to many interpreters I believe that the rejection of phenomenological language did not put an end to the whole Wittgenstein’s phenomenology, for it persisted thereafter for a couple of years in a form of investigations of grammatical invariants of the part of our ordinary language devised to express our sensual experience.