Michał Wieczorkowski

This paper examines whether inferentialism – particularly the form developed by Robert Brandom – has substantive implications for the longstanding debate between minimalism and contextualism about context-dependence. Traditionally, the context-dependence debate has been approached by examining whether the route to the semantic content of an utterance runs exclusively via conventional, lexico-syntactic elements of a sentence uttered in a given context. While minimalists claim that contextual contributions are narrowly triggered by some formal constituents of the sentence, contextualists maintain that conversational context can freely shape an utterance’s content. Against the view that inferentialism entail substantive consequences for this debate by supporting one of its positions over others, this paper argues for a “transparency” view, which suggests that inferentialism should be regarded as a novel theoretical environment within which both minimalism and contextualism can be reformulated rather than refuted.

Disagreement is a pervasive feature of human discourse and a crucial force in shaping our social reality. From mundane squabbles about matters of taste to high-stakes disputes about law and public policy, the way we express and navigate disagreement plays a central role in both our personal and political lives. Legal discourse, in particular, is rife with disagreement - it is the very bread and butter of courtroom argument and legal scholarship alike. Consider a debate between two legal philosophers, Ronald and Herbert, about the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits ‘cruel and unusual punishment’. Ronald asserts: ‘It is the law that capital punishment is prohibited’. In response, Herbert states: ‘It is not the law that capital punishment is prohibited’. We intuitively think Ronald and Herbert are disagreeing, which reveals in the fact that they are licensed to use ex¬pressions like no (it isn’t) and nuh-uh when responding to their opponent’s claim. But despite the ubiquity and significance of legal disagreement, its precise nature remains elusive. This chapter discusses what exactly is going on when two people disagree about what the law requires, and how can hybrid theory may answer this question.

This paper advances a novel hybrid theory addressing a fundamental puzzle in legal philosophy: how legal statements can simultaneously have both cognitive and practical features. Drawing on contemporary developments in metaethics and philosophy of language, we argue that legal statements express both beliefs and desire-like attitudes. My analysis yields three key findings. First, I demonstrate that within any given legal system, the descriptive content of legal statements remains invariant across different contexts of use and assessment – a feature that explains persistent patterns of legal disagreement, retraction and attribution of responsibility for content. Second, I show that the desire-like states expressed by legal statements are uniformly directed at the general property picked out by “It is the law that…” rather than at particular legal norms, regardless of the speaker – thereby preserving their inference-licensing property and evidential function. Third, I identify generalized conversational implicature as the mechanism through which legal statements convey desire-like states explaining their distinctive practical features. This theoretical framework offers a novel solution to the puzzle of legal motivation: rather than positing a necessary conceptual link between legal judgment and motivation, it explains their characteristic connection through the general action-guiding purpose of legal discourse and Gricean conversational principles.

How do we ensure agents formulating legal statements are not systematically in error? In this paper I assume that the success of legal statements follows from the fact that propositions expressed by legal statements adequately represent legal reality. I argue that the content of legal statements hinges implicetly on the sources of law and methods in which we attribute meaning to these sources. In this regard, I identify the primary obstacle to the success of actions that consist of asserting legal statements as a systematic failure to refer to the proper method of interpretation by the agents formulating these statements. The paper explores several solutions to this challenge, focusing on the solution explaining the success in referring to the proper method of interpretation in virtue of meta-interpretive considerations. Subsequently, the paper discusses a challenge to this solution following from the claim that there are many different theories of meta-interpretation, and there is no fact (neither natural, nor conventional or intentional, anchored in the collective consciousness of society), determining that one of them is more accurate than the other ones. Given all the intricacies, this study focuses on exploring a coherent framework for understanding how different interpretive methods and meta-interpretative theories can be evaluated and applied in legal practice. It seeks to articulate a model that accommodates the diversity of interpretations while striving for a reasoned consensus on how legal texts should be understood and applied.

According to the factualist interpretation, the skeptical solution to the skeptic’s problem hinges on rejecting inflationary accounts of semantic facts, advocating instead for the adoption of minimal factualism. However, according to Alexander Miller, this account is unsound. Miller argues that minimal factualism represents a form of semantic primitivism, a position expressly rejected by Kripke’s Wittgenstein. Furthermore, Miller states that minimal factualism presupposes the conformity of meaning ascriptions with rules of discipline and syntax. However, he contends that this maneuver is also undermined by Kripke’s skepticism. In this paper, I demonstrate that Miller’s arguments against minimal factualism are unsound. To achieve this goal, I argue that the minimalist account of semantic facts should not be equated with semantic primitivism. Moreover, I argue that statements regarding the conformity of meaning ascriptions are either beside the criticism of Kripke’s skeptic or should be interpreted from the perspective of the account on assertibility offered by the skeptical solution. On this basis, I conclude that the factualist interpretation provides a conducive environment for solving the problem posed by Kripke’s skeptic.

The skeptical solution is based on two assumptions — the rejection of semantic facts and the denial of semantic nihilism. On the basis of the non-factualist interpretation of this solution, these two assumptions are reconciled by stating that meaning ascriptions possess non-descriptive function. Nonetheless, Alexander Miller argues that this position is self-refuting since, as despite its non-descriptivism, by rejecting any kind of semantic facts, it inevitably leads to semantic nihilism. In this text, I demonstrate that Miller’s argument is not sound. I argue that a coherent non-factualist way of formulating the conditions of correct use of meaning ascriptions may be performed by rejecting the closure principle of assertibility of meaning ascriptions. On this basis, I demonstrate that argument formulated against non-factualist interpretation by Miller may be refuted. What is more, I argue that rejection of the closure principle should be regarded as the central aspect of Kripke’s skeptical solution.

„O pełnej znajomości prawa można mówić tylko wówczas, gdy zna się prawo i wytworzone przez praktykę reguły posługiwania się nim” – pisał swego czasu Marek Zirk-Sadowski. Pogląd ten wiąże się z niezwykle istotnym sporem o kryterium poprawności dokonywanej przez sędziów wykładni prawa. Zlokalizowanie takiego kryterium wydaje się być szczególnie ważne choćby ze względu na zawartą w naszym systemie prawnym konieczność realizowania zasady trójpodziału władzy, zgodnie z którą w procesie stosowania prawa nie może dochodzić do tzw. kryptoprawotwórstwa. Celem niniejszego tekstu jest zaprezentowanie wybranych koncepcji poprawności wykładni prawa oraz ich krytyka w świetle neopragmatyzmu Stanley'a Fisha, filozofa prawa oraz profesora literaturoznawstwa, którego głównym przedmiotem refleksji był problem interpretacji. Filozofia amerykańskiego neopragmatysty opiera się na dwóch koncepcjach: reader-response criticism i wspólnotach interpretacyjnych. Reader-response criticism polega na skupieniu się na afektywnym aspekcie procesu interpretacji, uznając czytelnika za kluczową instancję tego procesu; koncepcja wspólnot interpretacyjnych z kolei ma wytłumaczyć, dlaczego podmiot interpretuje w taki a nie inny sposób. Zaproponowana przez Fisha metoda pozwala uznać, że de facto jedynym możliwym kryterium poprawności wykładni są inne decyzje sędziowskie. W świetle powyższych uwag wydaje się zasadnym stwierdzenie, że podejście Fisha umożliwia pogłębienie refleksji na temat jednej z kluczowych kwestii zarówno dla praktyki jak i teorii prawniczej, tj. poprawności wykładni prawa.

Post-truth is described as a phenomenon existing at the public sphere, which consists in special emphasis on the ideologic aspect of expression, while at the same time marginalizing aspect of facts. it seems that in looking for the reasons for this behavior, statement that this practice is simply more effective is insufficient. It's not possible to describe well the phenomenon of post-truth without analyzing transformations of the epistemological plane from which the phenomenon of post-judgment emerged. One of the most important moments in history that could serve as a point of reference for these considerations may be the modern project, which was especially developed in philosophy of Immanuel Kant. His epistemology, based on Enlightend Reason, says that objective truths may be obtained through empirical cognition. The rejection of this approach can be linked to the fragmentation of the Logos, which consisted in the recognition that there is no point of reference capable of guaranteeing and justifying the only true, objective cognition. Thus it seems that the fact, that in public debates rhetoric wins over dialectic, is closely related to the transformations that have taken place on the philosophical plane.

Kara – jako immanentny element społeczeństwa – jest obiektem szeroko zakrojonych badań teoretyków różnych dziedzin – prawników, filozofów jak i socjologów. Bardzo często refleksje na jej temat wiązały się z artykułowaniem określonych postulatów – analiza tego, czym jest kara, przybierała tu postać twierdzeń o tym, czym kara być powinna. Dopiero wiek XIX przyniósł głębsze zainteresowanie historią kary. To wtedy właśnie analizy karania zaczęły przyjmować charakter deskryptywny, starając się ująć, jaką funkcję przypisywano karze w danym społeczeństwie w określonym momencie historycznym. Wydaje się, że właśnie w tym paradygmacie należy osadzić to, co na temat przeobrażeń systemów karania miał do powiedzenia Michel Foucault. Charakterystyczne dla Foucaultowskiego ujęcia procesu przeobrażeń systemu karania byłoby przy tym to, że karę traktuje on jako „złożoną funkcję społeczną” a towarzyszące jej metody analizuje nie jako „proste konsekwencje przepisów prawa (…), ale jako swoiste techniki, które należałoby widzieć w szerszym kontekście metod sprawowania władzy”. Dokonana przez Foucaulta analiza ukazuje, że dana forma karania jest ściśle sprzężona z aktualną technologią władzy – służy wsparciu władzy i realizacji właściwych jej celów. Przyjęte przez Foucaulta założenie, by karę ujmować w pierwszym rzędzie jako funkcję polityczno-społeczną, a właściwie środek sprawowania władzy, otwiera nowe możliwości zrozumienia nie tylko historycznych metod karnych, lecz umożliwia również zrozumienie wciąż kontrowersyjnego zjawiska więziennictwa. Opis dostarczony przez francuskiego historyka idei pozwala uzasadnić fakt, że trwające od prawie 200 lat więziennictwo, mimo często druzgocącej krytyki, wciąż stanowi podstawę systemu karnego. Paradoksalny - bo permanentny - kryzys więziennictwa oznacza, że więziennictwo – w takiej samej mierze, w jakiej kiedyś starało się realizować funkcje właściwe władzy dyscyplinarnej – dzisiaj jest narzędziem realizującym funkcje właściwe biowładzy. Na kanwie analizy karania zaproponowanej przez Foucaulta trwanie więziennictwa wynika z faktu, że to, co z perspektywy starego modelu władzy dyscyplinarnej jawi się jako porażka - a więc zjawisko recydywy czy niesprawiedliwość systemu karnego – z perspektywy biowładzy jawi się jako pochodna nowych sposobów sprawowania władzy.

The purpose of the paper is to analyze the thesis that an agreement between representatives of two different cultures can and should be reached at a theoretical level. The author tries to verify the Theory of Communicative Action proposed by Jürgen Habermas in the light of philosophical reflections of American neopragmatist Stanley Fish. Habermas is one of the most important and widely read social theorists in the post-Second World War era. He is also one of the authors of the concept of deliberative democracy, which holds that, for a democratic decision to be legitimate, it must be preceded by authentic deliberation – disinterested exchange of reasons – not merely the aggregation of preferences that occurs in voting. The foundation of deliberative democracy is, according to the German thinker, a communicative action based on communicative rationality. Stanley Fish, in turn, is one of the most eminent American philosophers of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. The main area of his scientific activity is the theory of literature, law, and history. In the course of his reflections, Fish constructed the concept of an interpretive communities, which implies an original view on the nature of the process of cognition, status of human convictions or beliefs, nature of communication situation and capabilities of theory. The final conclusion stemming from the reflection on Fish’s philosophy explains why Habermas’ theory is not an adequate tool to reach an intercultural agreement.

It causes many difficulties for jurisprudence to define the notion of judicial activism. At the very beginning it had rather a journalistic character, but but over time it has become a serious charge against these judges who act on the basis of their vision of what the law ought to be like rather than what it actually is like. On the ground of the polish legal theory the echoes of the dispute about judicial activism are reflected in the discussions about the nature of legal interpretation. Transposing the problem of activism into the problem of interpretation allows the use of analysis tools that were previously unavailable. One of these tools are concepts emerged on the neopragmatist philosophy of Stanley Fish. Fish tries to describe the nature of the interpretation in the context of reader-response criticism and the concept of interpretive communities. Application of Fish's philosophy in the field of legal theory provides constructive conclusions about the concepts of judicial activism and judicial law-making.

The purpose of this article is to discuss Kant’s concept of juridical state as the foundation of the contemporary rule of law. Therefore, the article tries to answer two questions: (1) what character can be attributed to Kant’s concept of juridical state taking into account the obligations arising from it; (2) can the analysis of the Kantian juridical state have any impact on the contemporary understanding of the rule of law and if so, what can this impact be. In order to accomplish this task, moral presuppositions of Kant’s juridical state are discussed, according to the commonly accepted view that Kant’s political philosophy is closely linked with his moral and ethical reflection. Then, two interpretations of Kant’s juridical state – the liberal one and the authoritarian one – are analysed. The crucial difference between these interpretations lies in establishing the circumstances in which the duty of obedience to state power should be carried out. Then, Kantian juridical state is compared with two ways of understanding the rule of law – the material one and the formal one – in order to evaluate whether the rule of law should be considered as continuity of or rupture with the Kantian concept.