Artykuł w całości nawiązuje do dotąd niepublikowanej korespondencji Tadeusza Czeżowskiego z emigracyjnym filozofem Zbigniewem Jordanem zachowanej w rękopisach w zasobach archiwalnych Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika w Toruniu. Ich korespondencja trwała blisko 40 lat i jest dowodem, że nawet przymusowa powojenna emigracja nie zrywała więzów łączących filozofów związanych ze szkołą lwowsko-warszawską. Choć Czeżowski i Jordan należeli do dwóch różnych pokoleń tej szkoły, to wspólne zainteresowania naukowe i podobne zapatrywania polityczne spowodowały, że ich więź, choć tylko korespondencyjna, była w pewnym sensie wyjątkowa, (...) bo nawet ingerencje komunistycznej cenzury nie były w stanie wpłynąć na jej kształt. Dzięki niej Jordan wykazywał się doskonałą orientacją w dorobku samego Czeżowskiego jak i pozostałych przedstawicieli szkoły lwowsko-warszawskiej. To właśnie głównie dzięki tej korespondencji mógł pełnić rolę „ambasadora” polskiej filozofii w świecie i zarazem pierwszego historyka szkoły lwowsko-warszawskiej. Przypomnieniu roli obu filozofów w dziejach polskiej filozofii sprzyja zwłaszcza przypadająca w tym roku 40-ta rocznica śmierci Czeżowskiego oraz 110 rocznica urodzin Jordana. (shrink)

Autor prezentuje mało znane fakty z historii polskiej nauki świadczące o tym, że przedstawiciele polskiej emigracji powojennej mieli bardzo dobre rozeznanie o sytuacji w nauce krajowej. W filozofii przykładem tego były kontakty Zbigniewa Jordana (1911–1977) z przedstawicielami filozofii pracującymi w kraju. Jordan przez wiele lat utrzymywał systematyczne kontakty z około czterdziestoma osobami, stanowiącymi elitę polskiej powojennej filozofii i socjologii. Do grona jego znajomych i korespondentów należeli m.in. Jan Łukasiewicz, ks. Józef Pastuszka, Tadeusz Czeżowski, Maria i Stanisław Ossowscy, Tadeusz i (...) Janina Kotarbińscy, Adam Schaff, Leszek Kołakowski, Jan Szczepański, Andrzej Grzegorczyk, a także przedstawiciele polskiej emigracji pracujący na uczelniach zachodnich. Dzięki tym kontaktom potrafił zrealizować naraz dwa cele. Po pierwsze, popularyzował godne upamiętnienia osiągnięcia nauki polskiej, dzięki czemu jego starania zapewniały ścisły związek między nauką krajową a światową. Po drugie, zapewniał historyczna ciągłość nauki polskiej, której nie przerwało nawet wprowadzenie komunistycznych porządków w kraju, które sprowadzały się do próby odrzucenia całej dotychczasowej tradycji. Autor stoi na stanowisku, że nauka stanowi najważniejszą część kultury i z tej racji dokonania Jordana powinny zostać spopularyzowane w całym środowisku nauki w Polsce jako przykład, którym winni kierować się jej młodzi adepci, koncentrujący się wyłącznie na karierze w zagranicznych instytucjach naukowych. (shrink)

Wakefield’s harmful dysfunction analysis asserts that the concept of medical disorder includes a naturalistic component of dysfunction and a value component, both of which are required for disorder attributions. Muckler and Taylor, defending a purely naturalist, value-free understanding of disorder, argue that harm is not necessary for disorder. They provide three examples of dysfunctions that, they claim, are considered disorders but are entirely harmless: mild mononucleosis, cowpox that prevents smallpox, and minor perceptual deficits. They also reject the proposal that dysfunctions (...) need only be typically harmful to qualify as disorders. We argue that the proposed counterexamples are, in fact, considered harmful; thus, they fail to disconfirm the harm requirement: incapacity for exertion is inherently harmful, whether or not exertion occurs, cowpox is directly harmful irrespective of indirect benefits, and colorblindness and anosmia are considered harmful by those who consider them disorders. We also defend the typicality qualifier as viably addressing some apparently harmless disorders and argue that a dysfunction’s harmfulness is best understood in dispositional terms. (shrink)

A text for normal schools and teachers' colleges.

Rational actions reflect beliefs and preferences in certain orderly ways. The problem of theory is to explain which beliefs and preferences are relevant to the rationality of particular actions, and exactly how they are relevant. One distinction of interest here is between an agent's beliefs and preferences just before an action's time, and his beliefs and preferences at its time. Theorists do not agree about the times of beliefs and desires that are relevant to the rationality of action. Another distinction (...) is between actions that would, in one sense or another, maximize expected utilities given relevant beliefs and desires, and actions, decisions for which would, in one sense or another, be stable. There is disagreement about the relevance of these things to the rationality of actions. Here, in the first part below, several possible positions on these issues are explained and compared. In the second part, I contrast perspectives on these issues, and comment on arguments that might be brought against the position I favor. In the third part, I restate and elaborate on this position. (shrink)

To resolve putative liar paradoxes it is sufficient to attend to the distinction between liar-sentences and the propositions they would express, and to exercise the option of turning would-be deductions of paradox (of contradictions) into reductions of the existence of those propositions. Defending the coherence of particular resolutions along these lines, leads to recognition of the non-extensionality of some liar-sentences. In particular, it turns out that exchanges of terms for identicals in the open-sentence '- does not expression a true proposition' (...) are not invariably truth-preserving because they are not invariably proposition-expression preserving. All of this recommends propositions as fruitful subjects of interesting renewed research. (shrink)

Can humans truly be the measure of all things? Is relativism a corrosive concept, undermining any chance we have of getting clear about things? Should we seek foundations for our values, or is such an effort a waste of time? With David Gallagher, Shannon Jordan, and Joshua Halberstam.

It is plausible that Newcomb problems in which causal maximizers and evidential maximizers would do different things would not be possible for ideal maximizers who are attentive to metatickles. An objection to Eells’s first argument for this makes welcome a second. Against it I argue that even ideal evidential and causal maximizers would do different things in some non-dominance Newcomb problems; and that they would hope for different things in some third-person and non-action problems, which is relevant if a good (...) theory of rational choices of acts should fit smoothly into a good theory of rational desires for facts. (shrink)

Maximizers in isolated Prisoner's Dilemmas are doomed to frustration. But in Braybrooke's view maximizers might do better in a series, securing Pareto-optimal arrangements if not from the very beginning, at least eventually. Given certain favourable special conditions, it can be shown according to Braybrooke and shown even without question-begging motivational or value assumptions, that in a series of Dilemmas maximizers could manage to communicate a readiness to reciprocate, generate thereby expectations of reciprocation, and so give rise to optimizing reciprocations which, (...) in due course, would reinforce expectations, the net result of all this being an increasingly stable practice to mutual benefit. In this way neighbours could learn to be good neighbours: they could learn to respect each other's property, to engage in reciprocal assistance, and perhaps even to make and keep promises covering a range of activities. So maximizers are, Braybrooke holds, capable of a society of sorts. Out of the ashes they might build something. But even under favourable conditions they could not build much and most conditions would defeat them almost entirely, for many-person Dilemmas whether isolated or in series would be quite beyond them, question-begging motivational assumptions aside. In settings at all like those in which we live, utility maximization assuming only ‘traditional’ motivation is self-defeating without remedy, and most certainly not an adequate basis for social life.' The probable inference from as a conception of individual rationality: for surely truly rational agents would be if not perfectly well designed at least better designed for communal living than utility maximizers would be assuming only ‘traditional’, non-question-begging values or motivation. Or, if this inference is denied and maximization is not challenged as a conception of rationality, we can conclude instead, Braybrooke has more recently suggested, that the advice, ‘Be rational,’ is incomplete, and when addressed to groups should be supplemented by, ‘And be somewhat ‘untraditional’ in your values; respect at least some rules that would make coordination and cooperation possible even in many-person interaction problems.’. (shrink)

By using religion to get at the core concepts of Michel Foucault's thinking, this book offers a strong alternative to the way that the philosopher's work is read across the humanities. Foucault was famously interested in Christianity as both the rival to ancient ethics and the parent of modern discipline and was always alert to the hypocrisy and the violence in churches. Yet many readers have ignored how central religion is to his thought, particularly with regard to human bodies and (...) how they are shaped. The point is not to turn Foucault into some sort of believer or to extract from him a fixed thesis about religion as such. Rather, it is to see how Foucault engages religious _rhetoric_ page after page—even when religion is not his main topic. When readers follow his allusions, they can see why he finds in religion not only an object of critique, but a perennial provocation to think about how speech works on bodies—and how bodies resist. Arguing that Foucault conducts experiments in writing to frustrate academic expectations about history and theory, Mark Jordan gives equal weight to the performative and theatrical aspects of Foucault's writing or lecturing. How does Foucault stage possibilities of self-transformation? How are his books or lectures akin to the rituals and liturgies that he dissects in them? _Convulsing Bodies_ follows its own game of hide-and-seek with the agents of totalizing systems and gives us a Foucault who plays with his audiences as he plays for them—or teaches them. (shrink)

A la fin du XIIIe siècle plusieurs ouvrages écrits par les dominicains présentent une forte empreinte de la formation thomiste.

This paper attempts to define the concept of placebo as it is used in the clinical context The author claims that X is a placebo if and only if X has such a property dp, that whenever in a therapeutic situation T a stimulus S appears, then in attending conditions A, it will cause a beneficial reaction R in the patient. Formally, the same structure may be used to define any pharmacologically active drug. The main difference between the drug and (...) a placebo is in the range of possible substitutions for X and the property d. For the active drug there is only one possible substitution for X and property d and it can be scientifically explained why, and how the drug works. In the case of a placebo a set of possible substitutions for X and d is open, and so far it is impossible to offer any scientifically valid explanation of the action mechanism of placebo. (shrink)

A theory of right action is implicit in Hume's delineation of the virtues. It gives qualified priority to 'rules of justice' as Hume's remarks on 'that species of utility which attends this virtue' require. It is a useful actual-rule, not an ideal possible-rule, purely utilitarian theory that discounts rules of justice in 'extraordinary cases', has a problem when rules conflict and invites the question 'Why not hark directly to the supreme law of utility in every case?'. It does not reflect (...) contractarian considerations of mutuality of interests evident in Hume's texts, which while sometimes relevant to what is reasonable, are in his view never also relevant to what is moral.(publisher). (shrink)

I take two passages in a recent paper by Kent Bach—‘Newcomb's Problem: The $1,000,000 Solution,’ Canadian Journal of Philosophy 17 409-25—as occasions for several observations about practical arguments and senses in which they may ‘work’ and be ‘good.’First Passage…one can only be amused by those advocates of BOTH who…realize that takers of BOTH almost always get but $1K whereas takers of ONE almost always get $1M, and proceed to bemoan the fact that rational people do so much worse than irrational (...) ones. Despite their logical scruples, they seem to have a curiously low standard of what constitutes a good argument. Evidently they would rather be right than rich. One would think that a solution requires not merely a seemingly irrefutable argument but an argument that works, one whose use is likely to pay off to the tune of at least $1M. (shrink)

These are the excerpts from the book "Sztuka a prawda. Problem sztuki w dyskusji między Gorgiaszem a Platonem" concerning Gorgias' theory of apate (deception).

Evans distinguishes between superficial necessity and deep necessity in his analysis of the contingent a priori. The distinction between these two notions of necessity is formalized by Davies and Humberstone through the addition of the operator Fixedly to Actuality Modal Logic (AML, S5A), where deep necessity is represented by the combination Fixedly Actually. Wehmeier’s Subjunctive Modal Logic (SML) provides an extension of the expressive capacity of ordinary modal predicate logic alternative to AML. I add Fixedly to SML and show that (...) in the system SML with Fixedly the distinction between deep and superficial necessity disappears. I conclude that the existence of the distinction between deep and superficial necessity, as well as the existence of the contingent a priori, cannot be asserted independently of the choice of background logic. (shrink)

Leslie Tharp proves three theorems concerning epistemic and metaphysical modality for conventional modal predicate logic: every truth is a priori equivalent to a necessary truth, every truth is necessarily equivalent to an a priori truth, and every truth is a priori equivalent to a contingent truth. Lloyd Humberstone has shown that these theorems also hold in the modal system Actuality Modal Logic, the logic that results from the addition of the actuality operator to conventional modal logic. We show that Tharp’s (...) theorems fail for the expressively equivalent Subjunctive Modal Logic, the logic that was developed by Kai Wehmeier as an alternative to AML. We then argue that the existence of Tharp’s theorems for AML is due to a faulty interpretation of the notion of necessary truth, a feature that is not shared by SML. The paper concludes with an argument for the thesis that the existence of the distinction between truth at all worlds w and truth at all worlds w from the point of view of w as the actual world is an artifact owing to the interaction of the necessity and actuality operator. (shrink)

By his definition of them, David Gauthier's co-operative constrained maximizers are not necessarily unsharing and disposed to exclude straight maximizers from benefits of their co-operation. Here is Gauthier's full and exact account, his official account, of constrained maximization.

Thomas Hurka derives rights to punish from what I will term the Libertarian Rights Principle, which is “that there is really only one natural right, namely the equal right of all persons to the most extensive liberty compatible with a like liberty for other persons, and that all other natural rights are species or instances of the right to liberty.” These rights to punish, he says, extend only to punishing violators of rights, never to “punishing” the innocent; extend only to (...) punishing for violations pursuant to intentions publicly announced prior to these violations; are subject to the “upper limit qualification” that a permissible punishment for the violation of a right cannot be an act that would violate a more important right ; and are subject to the “minimum necessary qualification” that a punishment p for violating a right r is not permissible if a punishment p' that would, were it permitted, violate a less important right than would p, would protect r as effectively as would p. (shrink)

We are Ancestors or The Age of Responsibility by Rudolf Jordan CAPE TIMES LIMITED CAPE TOWN 1941 PREFACE THIS treatise outlines the Philosophy of Responsibility...

This is the introduction to the Question 10 (The Eternity of God) of St. Thomas Aquinas' "Summa Theologiae".