Robert Kublikowski

Since antiquity, humans have traditionally been characterised as animal rationale or homo sapiens. Such a definition takes into account, on the one hand, the physical aspect, referring to the human body, but also, on the other hand, the mental aspect. With this in mind, the present article seeks to develop a philosophical approach to the problem posed in its title. Various aspects of human language use and cognition are, in the era of the information revolution, being increasingly taken over by AI. So what still remains specific to humans—or, more precisely, to human, natural intelligence, given this dynamically developing context? The article addresses this question in a series of steps. Initially, it considers whether rationality is a good candidate for a uniquely human trait. In defence of the distinctiveness of human intelligence, and using Robert B. Brandom’s semantic inferentialism, it then points to our ability and skill in understanding, as well as the normativity of language use and cognition. The ensuing discussion focuses on the normative categories of deontic status and deontic attitude, and related notions of commitment and entitlement that these in turn imply.

The paper aims at reconstructing Karl R. Popper's critical standpoint with regard to essentialism, as anti-essentialism is the main presupposition of his anti-definitionism. Popper criticised essentialism for claiming that it is justified to apply the concept of things' essential properties within the procedure of scientific explanation. He argued that the essentialists' "faith in essence" is not scientific because of the lack of a criterion which would allow us to tell whether a certain definition grasps the essential properties of a given object. He doubted also that it is justified to apply the concept of intellectual intuition to the procedure of scientific explanation. Popper claimed that falsificationism gives a better concept of explanation, than that motivated by essentialism. He was convinced that falsificationism is logically more correct and more appropriately describes the real practice of scientists

The main goal of this paper is to explicate the meaning of such words as “reason”, ”knowledge” and “faith.” In addition, some relationships between these notions are analysed.Two attitudes can be distinguished: “faith — reason/knowledge” and “reason/knowledge — faith”. In the first case faith is initial, but a believer can take a rational (intellectual) effort to analyse what faith is. The second attitude is realised in the rational search to find faith.Many different types of arguments for the sentence “God exists” have been invented over years. These arguments have been the tools used in the cases of both attitudes. The arguments are analysed and discussed. The notion of argument is related to the notion of persuasion. Some different situations can be distinguished: a claim is rightly argued and somebody is persuaded by this claim; a claim is rightly argued, but somebody is not persuaded; a claim is not rightly argued, but somebody is persuaded by such a claim (e.g. by an influential leader); and a claim is not rightly argued and somebody is not persuaded.The attitude “faith — reason/knowledge” (a religious attitude) is existential and practical. It consists of some components. One of them is a religious knowledge (doctrine). If a believer confesses his or her faith using the official (institutional) text — called in Latin Credo (The Creed) — then really they believe and accept a set of rational religious beliefs, which belong to the religious knowledge (doctrine). A religious faith, understood as God’s influence, is acknowledged as the basis for such an act of believing and accepting.So the religious attitude consists of a religious faith, beliefs, emotions and also free choice (decision, acceptance). The act of an acceptance does not only concern beliefs. A believer also accepts moral and religious rules (principles). This is the type of morality motivated by religion. A religious attitude is the rational, theoretical and practical synthesis of all these components.

The goal of this paper is to present a way of reading Alfred Tarski\'s T-scheme as a definitional - and not material - equivalence. Anil Gupta and Nuel Belnap in their book The Revision Theory of Truth (MIT 1993), develop a theory of truth and a theory of definition, which are called Revision Theories - of Truth (RTT) and of Definition (RTD). They accept Tarski\'s T-sentences (such as: \"snow is white\" is true iff snow is white) and their central role for the signification of truth. According to RTT and RTD the centrality of Tarski\'s T-sentences can be maintained only by accepting interdependent definitions. Gupta and Belnap claim that it is worthy to read the T-scheme as a definitional equivalence rather than as a material equivalence, for the former understanding allows us to solve the Liar paradox. To obtain this result, it is important to notice a structural similarity between the T-scheme and the general scheme of definition. Gupta and Belnap reject Tarski\'s demand for formal correctness of definitions and claim that it is logically justified to accept circular definitions. This is why they modify a general scheme of definition by adding a predicate which is being defined (definiendum) - e.g. an arbitrary predicate G — to the definiens, i.e. to the defining formula which occurs on the right side of the definitional scheme. A circular definition, which is constructed in such a way, is helpful in showing that different patterns of behaviour of the predicate G are similar to respective patterns of behaviour of the predicate \"true\". Such a result suggests that the concept of truth is itself circular

Robert B. Brandom’s semantic inferentialism is an important and new theory of meaning in the contemporary, analytical philosophy of language. This theory is presented in an extensive way in the monograph entitled Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing and Discursive Commitment. The theory is pragmatic, normative, holistic and discursive. On the one hand, Brandom’s standpoint is glorified and on the other hand, it is controversial. This is why a metaphilosophical question arises: How to evaluate the impact of this theory into the philosophy of language? Inferentialism emphasises a material inference, de re ascription and the usage of demonstratives. Such categories are “vertical” and they accent „connection” with reality. Nevertheless, Brandom also emphasises an anaphoric concept of reference and truth. It makes his standpoint valuable because anaphoric understanding of reference and truth delivers an additional explication of the usage of words “refer to” or “is true.” But such categories are “horizontal.” Brandom grasps the problem of acquiring empirical meaning by expressions which initiate anaphoric chains. This is why he proposes — as an attempt of solving the problem — a modification of semantic inferentialism by adding revisionary and fallibilistic epistemology. In addition, Brandom enforces his theory by normative pragmatics which applies categories of assertion, entitlement, various commitments and a “score-keeping.” However, it seems that what is still missing is a notion of truth stronger than the one proposed in the anaphoric conception. What is requested is a notion of truth expressed in terms of the relation of the correspondence between a language and a reality. The disadvantage of the idea of correspondence is that it is difficult to define in a satisfactory way. But an important advantage is that it is “a language-reality” relation and not only “a language-language” relation. The objection does not demolish inferentialism. It expresses only a general epistemological difficulty of defining truth. However, the importance of inferentialism is that it tries to unite various elements. The theory attempts to explicate — in a more adequate way — what a meaning is and to explain how it is acquired by expressions.

This article develops the inferentialist idea of discursive practice, construed as “the game of giving and asking for reasons”, with a focus on the relationships between meaning, normativity and knowing, particularly in empirical statements and scientific definitions. The principal claim – following from these considerations – is that, in the inferentialist backdrop, the traditional division between perceptual and discursive knowledge is no longer in effect since all knowledge is discursive in the last resort. This, in turn, involves three indispensable stances, i.e. reliabilism, revisionism and fallibilism, all being characteristic of the normativity of discourse. In the following sections, we first analyze the normative nature of meaning and inference; next, we scrutinize the concept of assertion, commitment, entitlement and scorekeeping; finally, we intertwine normativity with reliabilism, revisionism and fallibilism, taking as an exemplification the case of the definitions of scientific concepts. Particularly, we emphasize the historical changeability of the definitions of acid indicating their context of a discursive and normative practice.

Building on our diverse research traditions in the study of reasoning, language and communication, the Polish School of Argumentation integrates various disciplines and institutions across Poland in which scholars are dedicated to understanding the phenomenon of the force of argument. Our primary goal is to craft a methodological programme and establish organisational infrastructure: this is the first key step in facilitating and fostering our research movement, which joins people with a common research focus, complementary skills and an enthusiasm to work together. This statement—the Manifesto—lays the foundations for the research programme of the Polish School of Argumentation.

Kategoria prawdy budzi kontrowersje od czasów filozofii starożytnej aż do współczesnej. W związku z dyskusjami na temat korespondencyjnej, klasycznej teorii prawdy powstały teorie nieklasyczne, łączące pojęcie prawdy z oczywistością, skutecznym działaniem, koherencją, powszechną zgodą itp. Ostra polemika próbuje w ogóle wyeliminować kategorię prawdy. Powstaje pytanie: czy taka radykalna krytyka jest słuszna i uzasadniona? Wydaje się, że jest ona przesadna. Celem artykułu jest argumentacja za tezą, że prawda — jako wartość i norma („wzorzec”, element systemu odniesienia itp.) — jest niezbywalna przy epistemicznej ocenie twierdzeń, które mają swoje konsekwencje teoretyczne i praktyczne. Strukturę artykułu wyznaczają następujące punkty: (1) krytyka kategorii prawdy, (2) prawda jako wartość i (3) prawda jako norma w systemie odniesienia. W punkcie wyjścia przyjmuję syntetyczną charakterystykę prawdy sformułowaną przez Michaela P. Lyncha w jego monografii pt. Prawda i życie. Dlaczego prawda jest ważna (2020): (a) Prawda jest obiektywna. (b) Prawda jest wartością, jest dobra. (c) Prawda jest wartościowym celem dociekań. (d) Prawda jest wartościowa ze względu na nią samą. Prawda faktycznie jest wartościowa, umożliwia bowiem stwierdzenie, że ktoś myli się, kłamie, popełnia krzywoprzysięstwo, manipuluje kimś w życiu osobistym czy społecznym. Oprócz tego, bez kategorii prawdy nie można nawet stwierdzić — jak to usiłuje czynić sceptycyzm — że prawdą jest, iż prawda nie jest czymś wartościowym, godnym uwagi itp. Kategoria prawdy — pełniąca funkcję poznawczego celu i normy — pomimo różnych kontrowersji jest wciąż niezbywalna przy ocenie wartości logicznej zdań (i wyrażanych przez nie twierdzeń). Kategoria prawdy jest semantyczna, lecz jej rozpoznawanie — uznawanie zdania przez kogoś za prawdziwe (czyli asercja) — jest kategorią pragmatyczną. Stwierdzana post factum skuteczność działania, podjętego na podstawie jakiegoś zdania, jest mocną racją za tym, aby dane zdanie uznać za prawdziwe. Respekt dla prawdy jest lepszy niż jego brak.

The usage of language and cognition have perhaps been the oldest specific features of a human mental activity. However, is there anything really exceptional in the fact that we use language and that we cognise? Is there anything specific in how we do it? It seems that reasoning is especially important among various linguistic and cognitive human activities. But what is reasoning? What is human reasoning? Is there anything specific about it? Which cases of reasoning are the correct ones and why? I take as my starting point the views on reasoning presented by the logicians and philosophers belonging to the analytic philosophy of language and epistemology, especially to the Polish analytic philosophy. In addressing the above questions I develop an improved view according to which the formal conditions of correctness are based on formal relationships. Such conditions depend on informal conditions of correctness which are based on informal relationships.

The article raises the issue of the relationship between Hilary Putnam’s externalist semantics, with a focus on the concepts of deixis and deictic (ostensive) definition, and Robert B. Brandom’s semantic inferentialism, with a focus on the concepts of observational, noninferential reports and of anaphoric reference and their roles in a broader inferential practice. The analysis of the two respective conceptions shows that despite the differences in philosophical background and terminology, Putnam’s and Brandom’s considerations largely overlap as to their views on reference and ostensive definition, especially in the context of introducing a novel term into a language by a scientist. Either philosopher agrees, first, that the bare act of indicating does not play any semantically constitutive role unless it has some conceptual load and it is used in a sentence, at least such as “This is X”; second, in their accepting semantic holism; third, in their admitting the social aspect of meaning-formation, along with their approving that the constituting of meaning of perceptual, observational terms proceeds in close contact of the language with reality.