This paper presents an outline of the relationship between the categories of living individual, organism and life. I argue that although these categories are related with each other and often treated as the same, we should strive for their separation. The main argument for the distinction between the individual and life is of a methodological character: the definitions of life are mainly interested for astrobiologists and scientists working in the field of origin of life or artificial life, while the individual is important, among others, in standard evolutionary biology and ecology. Among the concepts of living individual various forms of evolutionary definition (individual as a unit of selection) currently dominate. The living individual understood in this way is not identical with a structurally limited and functionally integrated self-sustained entity, which is usually called “organism.” Moreover, the explanatory success of the evolutionary concept of individual, in my opinion, implies the adoption of some version of the evolutionary definition of life. In the last part of this paper I propose a process-evolutionary definition of life, which also indicates a relationship between the three aforementioned categories.
The aim of this paper is to discuss possible connections between the categories of mind and life. Some authors argue that life and mind are closely connected or even are two sides of the same phenomenon. I analyze and examine this thesis in the light of different approaches to defining life: the metabolic approach (which stresses the importance of self-maintenance and self-making) and the evolutionary approach (which focuses on evolution by natural selection). The first way of defining life is Maturana and Varela' conception of autopoiesis, the second is Korzeniewski's cybernetic definition of life and van Hateren's modified Darwinian definition of life. Especially interesting is the possibility of connecting mind and life in the evolutionary framework. The text does not provide exact results, but rather it proposes possible modes of thinking of the relation of these two categories.
Shaping a space shouldn’t be an endless expansion of the built environemnt. New districts and new cities should be more than collections of houses, quickly produced and placed without any overarching concept. They should present streets, squares, axes, directions, as features of the area's composition. An ordered space is a sign of true modernity.
The main goal of this article is to characterise and compare some aspects of Hilary Putnam’s referential theory of meaning and Robert B. Brandom’s inferential theory of meaning. I will do it to indicate some similarities and differences in these theories. It will provide an opportunity for a deeper understanding of these theories and for a more adequate evaluation of how they describe and explain the process of meaning acquisition of linguistic expressions.
In his theory of meaning Putnam emphasises the importance of reference understood as a relationship which connects linguistic expressions and extra-linguistic (empirical) reality. Brandom acknowledges inference as a main category useful in characterising the meaning of expressions used in premises and a conclusion of inference. But his theory of meaning is criticised for minimalising the role of an empirical component (demonstratives etc.). He tries to defend his standpoint in the anaphoric theory of reference.
Putnam like Brandom claimed that we – as cognitive subjects – are not in a situation in which we learn about the extra-linguistic reality in a direct way. It is the reality itself as well as our cognitive apparatus that play a role in a cognitive process.
University and the Church need each other. Following the example of Christ incarnated, Christianity “incarnates” the spiritual. The Church and theology need university and cooperation with other sciences to be able to “incarnate” Christ’s issue into our world. Th e university, on the other hand, needs the Church and theology because otherwise it would be deprived of cultural and spiritual foundation: there is no alternative to a discussion about Christ (God and a human). Theology is sometimes defined as scientia fidei; it is determined by the mind and faith. It’s a discussion about God, but due to the Christ event it is also a discussion about mankind. Th erefore it has the form of a dialogue, a discussion. The dialogue is always held in a specific context (nowadays postmodern), in which theology not only has to ask but also answer the question about the meaning. In this sense it is wisdom. Theology as a discussion has to approach the most urgent human problems. These include agnosticism towards which Benedict XVI suggests the “veluti si Deus daretur” rule, relativism in case of which theology cannot stop asking about truth, despair in case of which theology reminds about God, in whom there is no darkness.
Artykuł składa się z części krytycznej oraz pozytywnej. Część krytyczna stanowi polemikę z dwoma najbardziej rozpowszechnionymi uzasadnieniami na rzecz utożsamienia całkowitej niewydolności mózgu (tzw. śmierci mózgowej) ze śmiercią człowieka. Zgodnie z jednym z nich, śmierć ma miejsce wtedy, gdy dochodzi do somatycznej dezintegracji organizmu. Natomiast drugie uzasadnienie, zaproponowane w 2008 r. przez President’s Council on Bioethics, utożsamia śmierć z utratą zdolności do samozachowania. W części zawierającej pozytywną argumentację autor przedstawia alternatywną koncepcję, według której śmierć, w znaczeniu, jakie jest istotne z perspektywy praktyki medycznej, jest tożsama z nieodwracalną utratą cech stanowiących o tym, że dana istota posiada status moralny. Nowa koncepcja pozwala utożsamić stan całkowitej niewydolności mózgu ze śmiercią człowieka oraz daje podstawę do opracowania bardziej precyzyjnych medycznych kryteriów śmierci.