Search results

Filters

  • Journals
  • Keywords
  • Date

Search results

Number of results: 4
items per page: 25 50 75
Sort by:
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Published for the fi rst time in 1721, Persian Letters has been relatively underestimated as a source of knowledge about Montesquieu’s philosophy of liberty. This paper analyses one of the main story lines of the novel, namely the relations between Usbek, the Persian traveller, and the wives remaining in his seraglio. It is demonstrated that these wives are in fact the fi gures of subjects — the fl attering and scheming subject of an absolute ruler, the law-abiding subject of a monarch, and the rebel who questions the very legitimacy of the lord’s authority. It is also demonstrated that the story of the seraglio wives’ rebellion explains why subjects rebel and how the rulers who abuse their power lose it.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Aleksandra Porada
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

In this article, I am trying to enquire briefly into a certain issue that was, in a way, the hallmark of Andrzej Walicki’s worldview. The issue concerns his interpretation of freedom, and above all, his preference for negative freedom („freedom from”), which epitomized liberalism, against the concept of positive freedom („freedom to”), which for Walicki was a systemic and pernicious encumbrance in Marxism. However, in his later works, Walicki nuanced his opinions and paid more attention to the weaknesses of liberalism arising from its inability to absorb some aspects of positive freedom associated with contemporary ideas inspired by Marxism.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Janusz Dobieszewski
1
ORCID: ORCID

  1. Uniwersytet Warszawski, Wydział Filozofii, ul. Krakowskie Przedmieście 3, 00‑047 Warszawa
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

This paper aims at presenting a transcendental argument, so termed and constructed by John Rawls, as a justification of his theory of ‘justice as fairness’. The crucial stage in the chain of his reasoning is to establish the necessary condition of the political arrangement of the basic structure of society. This condition turns out to be acceptability of the publicly endorsed principles in the original position. However, the procedure of exercising free choice, as described by Rawls, presupposes a philosophical view of human nature, and consequently undermines the presumably purely theoretical basis for the principles of justice. The author discusses the impact of Kantian moral philosophy on Rawls’s theory of justification. He tries to show that the rejection of moral theory in favour of political philosophy was the result of a profound change in Rawls’s attitude to the idea of transcendentalism, as it is evidenced by his later thought.
Go to article

Bibliography

Allison H. (2016), Transcendental Deduction and Transcendental Idealism, „European Journal of Philosophy” 4 (24), s. 920–933.
Ameriks K. (2001), Text and Context: Hermeneutical Prolegomena to Interpreting a Kant Text, w: D. Schönecker, T. Zwenger (red.), Kant verstehen / Understanding Kant. Über die Interpretation philosophischer Texte, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, s. 11–31.
Białek P. (2017), Pycha i skromność rozumu. Współczesny spór o argumenty transcendentalne a filozofia Kanta i Fichtego, Kraków: Universitas.
Callanan J.J. (2011), Making Sense of Doubt: Strawson’s Anti‑Scepticism, „Theoria” 77 (3), s. 261–278.
Grygianiec M. (2019), Status argumentacji transcendentalnej, „Przegląd Filozoficzny – Nowa Seria” 4 (112), s. 131–160.
Guyer P. (2001), Naturalizing Kant, w: D. Schönecker, T. Zwenger (red.), Kant verstehen / Understanding Kant. Über die Interpretation philosophischer Texte, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, s. 59–84.
Kant I. (1957), Krytyka czystego rozumu, przeł. R. Ingarden, t. I, Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Kant I. (1999), Critique of Pure Reason, przeł. i opr. P. Guyer, A.W. Wood, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kędziora K. (2019), John Rawls. Uzasadnienie, sprawiedliwość i rozum publiczny, Bibliotheca Philosophica 5, Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.
Korsgaard Ch. (1995), Rawls and Kant: On the Primacy of the Practical, „Proceedings of the Eighth International Kant Congress”, t. I, Memphis 1999, s. 1165–1173.
Palmer H. (1985), Presupposition and Transcendental Inference, New York: Routledge.
Poręba M. (2008), Możliwość rozumu. Ćwiczenia z metafizyki, Warszawa: Fundacja Aletheia.
Rawls J. (1977), The Basic Structure as Subject, „American Philosophical Quarterly” 2 (14), s. 159–165.
Rawls J. (1980), Kantian Constructivism in Moral Philosophy, „The Journal of Philosophy” 9 (77), s. 515–572.
Rawls J. (1985), Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical, „Philosophy & Public Affairs” 3 (14), s. 223–251.
Rawls J. (1989), Themes in Kant’s Moral Philosophy, w: E. Förster (red.), Kant’s Transcendental Deductions. The Three Critiques and the Opus postumum, Stanford: Stanford University Press, s. 81–113.
Rawls J. (1993), Political Liberalism, New York: Harvard University Press.
Rawls J. (2000), Lectures on the history of moral philosophy, red. B. Herman, Cambridge, MA – London: Harvard University Press.
Rawls J. (2001), Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, red. E. Kelly, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rawls J. (2013), Teoria sprawiedliwości, przeł. M. Panufnik, J. Pasek, A. Romaniuk, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Rorty R. (1999), Pierwszeństwo demokracji wobec filozofii, w: tenże, Obiektywność, relatywizm i prawda. Pisma filozoficzne, przeł. J. Margański, t. I, Warszawa: Fundacja Aletheia, s. 261–291.
Russell B. (2000), Dzieje filozofii Zachodu i jej związki z rzeczywistością polityczno-‑społeczną od czasów najdawniejszych do dnia dzisiejszego, przeł. T. Baszniak, A. Lipszyc, M. Szczubiałka, Warszawa: Fundacja Aletheia.
Sandel M. (1982), Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sellars W. (1956), Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind, „Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science” I, s. 253–329.
Sellars W. (1967), Some Remarks on Kant’s Theory of Experience, „Journal of Philosophy” 64, s. 633–647.
Sellars W. (1968), Science and Metaphysics. Variations on Kantian Themes, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Strawson P.F. (1959), Individuals: An Essay in Descriptive Metaphysics, London: Methuen.
Strawson P.F. (1966), The Bounds of Sense, London: Methuen. Tampio N. (2007), Rawls and the Kantian Ethos, „Polity” 1 (39), s. 79–102.
Wolniewicz B. (2017), Aksjomat Elzenberga, „Przegląd Filozoficzny – Nowa Seria” 4 (110), s. 277–288.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Stanisław Jędrczak
1
ORCID: ORCID

  1. Uniwersytet Warszawski, Wydział Filozofii, ul. Krakowskie Przedmieście 3, 00‑927 Warszawa
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The paper attempts to place John Rawls’s social theory in an ontological frame of ideas. Józef M. Bocheński’s theory of systems was chosen to describe social reality without prejudging its role in the adequate theory. By adopting this approach the author presents several issues one by one: the characteristics of political philosophy and its relation to the ontology of social reality, Bocheński’s systems theory, the analysis of the industrial enterprise as a model example of a heterogeneous, dynamic and organic system, and Rawls’s structure of society. All this is done in terms of systems theory. The resulting outcome provides, among other things, a formal definition of Rawls’s basic social structure expressed in the language of systems theory, and it supports the thesis that the synthetic entity responsible for social functioning, such as the state, is correlated with the principles of justice as proposed by Rawls.
Go to article

Bibliography

Bertalanffy L. (1984), Ogólna teoria systemów. Podstawy, rozwój, zastosowania, przeł. E. Woydyłło‑Woźniak, Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Bocheński J.M. (1986), The Concept of the Free Society, „The Monist” 69 (2), s. 207– 215.
Bocheński J.M. (1993), Przyczynek do filozofii przedsiębiorstwa przemysłowego, przeł. J. Garewicz, w: J.M. Bocheński, Logika i filozofia, red. J. Parys, Biblioteka Współczesnych Filozofów, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Bunge M. (1979), Treatise on Basic Philosophy, vol. 4: Ontology II: A World of Systems, Dordrecht – Boston – London: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Ingarden R. (1972), Książeczka o człowieku, Kraków: Wydawnictwo Literackie.
Ingarden R. (1974), Wstęp do fenomenologii Husserla, przeł. A. Półtawski, Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Ingarden R. (1987), Spór o istnienie świata, t. I, t. II, cz. 1 i 2, wyd. III, Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Kaczmarek J. (2008), Indywidua. Idee. Pojęcia. Badania z zakresu ontologii sformalizowanej, Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.
Kaczmarek J. (2016), Atom ontologiczny: atom substancji, „Przegląd Filozoficzny – Nowa Seria” 4 (100), s. 109–124.
Rawls J. (1971), A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rawls J. (1993), Political Liberalism, New York: Columbia University Press.
Rawls J. (1999), The Law of Peoples, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rawls J. (2001), Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, red. E. Kelly, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Stróżewski W. (2003), Ontologia, Kraków: Znak – Aureus.
Wenar L. (2021), John Rawls, w: E.N. Zalta (red.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Summer 2021 Edition, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/rawls/.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Janusz Kaczmarek
1
ORCID: ORCID

  1. Uniwersytet Łódzki, Instytut Filozofii, ul. Lindleya 3/5, 90-131 Łódź

This page uses 'cookies'. Learn more