The article aims to briefly present Peter Strawson’s view expressed in his seminal article Freedom and Resentment (1962). We start with certain remarks on the position of the article among other works by Strawson and on reasons of its vast popularity manifested by many modern authors interested in the issues of responsibility or free will. Next, we move on to the issue of interpretation of the central thought of Strawson’s work. To do this, we present the most common interpretation, which at the first glance seems to express the core of Strawson’s view in a fairly convincing way. Then we adopt a slightly different perspective on the main line of reasoning in the article in question and in this context we try to interpret its general message. We argue that the main topic of the article is the philosophical issue of punishment. For this is the problem which – if we are right – is the proper object of the debate between an optimist who is also a compatibilist and a pessimist who is also a libertarian.

This article asks the question to what extent Ryszard Nycz’s ambitious project of cultural practice outlined in his book Culture as Verb succeeds in opening up ‘a new form of knowledge’ and thus equipping the humanities with a fresh validity. Nycz takes up the poststructuralist concept of the humanities as a site of alternative or subversive knowledge, founded on the principles of interpretation and textual dispersion, and refocuses it on involvement (participation) and binary oppositions (borders), i.e. human vs. nonhuman, or nature vs. culture as a construct. The article, rather than addressing the issues of involvement and borders (liminality), concentrates instead on the contradictions that Nycz’ s theory gives rise to when applied to history, time and the emergence of subjectivity (identity). There is nothing objectionable about the proposition that temporal change is at the very core of culture, yet its locus must be sought not in the proclamations of individual agents, but in the conceptual ruptures that expose and reveal the boundaries of (collective) consciousness and unconsciousness, i.e. the operation of contingency.

The author tries to explain what consequences for social morality ensue from the assumption that moral attitudes are expressed not only in words but also in reactive attitudes. P.F. Strawson assumes that acts of resentment can alter attitudes of those who have triggered them by their behavior. On the other hand, we are ready to control our outbursts of short temper and anger to a certain degree if we take into account agents’ motives and their limited ability to exercise self-control. Moreover, it seems that reactive attitudes – though less precise than verbal rebuke – are more frank and straightforward. Nevertheless, why must I, when I hear a mediocre academic researcher brag over and over again about his apparently essential contribution to philosophy, curb my moral assessment of his self-importance to the level of my irritation? Why should I feel constrained to keep my moral disgust in tune with my impatience mixed with amusement? Why shouldn’t I continue to believe that I can be an amiable character and a rigorous moral person at the same time?

The paper tries to defend the thesis that it is impossible to decide upon moral issues without any references to the ontology of the world we live in. An illustrative example of the main argumentation line is the choice made by Cypher—a second plan character in the movie Matrix. Cypher decides to betray human rebels fighting against machines for freedom and, as a reward, accepts affluent life in the virtual reality. His choice seems to be superficially reprehensible because of the abandonment of the real world and authentic life. However, one can argue that the dichotomy between the real and virtual world is seeming. By choosing the virtual reality Cypher decided to act in a world which, like the real world, makes it possible to be a moral subject and enables authentic experience. The difference between both the worlds lies in the type of determination limiting any conscious subject. Cypher prefers to live in a world determined by the algorithm of Matrix more than in a world where his behaviour is determined by genes and other biological factors.

The normative system of Bogusław Wolniewicz (1927–2017) can be subsumed under three categories: (1) pessimism (fatalism, or ‘tychism’ in Wolniewicz’s terms), (2) moral determinism (‘non-meliorism’), (3) conservatism (‘right-hand orientation’). Ad (1) Wolniewicz was pessimistic in two ways: he believed human life to be tragic (fatalism) and was also convinced that most people are guided by bad instincts (dualism). Ad (2) Wolniewicz believed that moral character was biologically determined and immutable. But his strong position on this subject ignores the classical view of Aristotle or the Stoics for whom moral character (or conscience) was acquired by habit and shaped deliberately. Ad (3) I suggest that a good historical example of conservative tendency was Critias of Athens. His famous fragment of the Sisyphus contains the idea of a supremacy of laws over human passions, and reduces religion to a supportive role with respect to ethics and politics. Wolniewicz’s dualism of right-hand and left-hand orientation encourages me to distinguish between a right-wing and a left-wing perception of value. For a leftist, value is intensity of a chosen feature (progressive value), whereas for a rightist, value is an area of freedom between inacceptable extremities (modular value). On these premises I propose a simple model of axiological conflict between left-wing and right-wing citizens.

Bogusław Wolniewicz presented his axiological system in four volumes of Filozofia i wartości (“Philosophy and Values”: 1993, 1998, 2003, 2016). For Wolniewicz, just as for his mentor Henryk Elzenberg, axiology is openly assertive and encompasses a painful confrontation of opposite moral beliefs. Wolniewicz’s vision of the reality is gloom, bitter, dramatic and deeply pessimistic. In history he detects unwelcome contributions of demonic powers (Manichaeism), he also believes that human moral character is genetically given and immutable (determinism), that some people are deprived of conscience (dualism), and that the tendency toward evil cannot be reformed (non-meliorism), human reason is not sufficient for a morally good action (voluntarism), while the so-called free will is no more than a manifestation of instincts (irrationalism). Everyone follows their pleasure (hedonism), but not everyone seeks pleasure in the same actions. In particular, some people take pleasure in cruel and destructive behaviour (demonism), while some others mind their own business (utilitarianism), and rare are those who devote themselves to higher values (perfectionism). Religion is a human invention and it emerges as a natural phenomenon in reaction to the fact of mortality. The institution of the Church should nevertheless be honored even by nonbelievers because it supports conservative values. In contemporary Western civilization a crisis can be observed between the conservative part of society (‘right-handed orientation’) and the liberal one (‘left-handed orientation’). Hateful emotions appear on both sides and are dangerous to Western unity. Conservative orientation is attached to the idea of fate, i.e. irrational power that occasionally turns human life into tragedy (fatalism). Wolniewicz’s vision is close to the theology of St. Augustine (original sin, predestination, radical dualism of good and evil) but without a consolation in hope for immortality.

Henri Bergson as well as Gaston Milhaud undertake a radical critique of the conception of radical determinism because they both think that mind is able to act in a free and creative manner. In the article, I examine to what degree their arguments, aimed to prove this autonomy, converge. I inquire whether their endorsement of freedom of the mental acts led the two philosophers to the same conclusions regarding the cognitive extent of the intellect and therefore the parallel description of the status of scientific cognition.

W artykule zestawiam ze sobą i zarazem oceniam dwa zupełnie odmienne sposoby ujmowania rzeczywistości moralnej. Immanuel Kant stworzył nie tylko bardzo wymagającą, ale zarazem zawiłą, sztuczną i nieempiryczną etykę. W dodatku jest ona mocno obciążona metafizycznie, a nawet teologicznie. Natomiast Peter Strawson w artykule z 1962 roku dokonał naturalistycznego i realistycznego opisu rzeczywistości moralnej.

Przez twórców Poznańskiej Szkoły Metodologicznej rozumie się badaczy skupionych wokół Jerzego Kmity, Leszka Nowaka, Jerzego Topolskiego i Jana Sucha. Założenia badawcze kultywowane przez krąg poznańskich uczonych dotyczą warstwy ontologicznej oraz metodologicznej. Wśród twórców pewne istotne rozbieżności odnoszą się do zasady abstrakcji i w konsekwencji metod badawczych stosowanych w naukach społeczno-humanistycznych. Podczas gdy Leszek Nowak był przekonany, że główną metodą badań naukowych we wszystkich dziedzinach jest metoda idealizacji, to Jerzy Kmita sądził, iż nauki społeczno-humanistyczne głównie stosują nie metodę idealizacji, lecz metodę wyodrębniania w badanym przedmiocie układów relacyjnych za pomocą abstrakcji izolującej. Pojawienie się w naukach społecznych, a ściślej w polskiej humanistyce, zjawiska, które później miało uzyskać miano Poznańskiej Szkoły Metodologicznej, datuje się od 1970 roku. Przyjęty program badań metodologicznych w Polsce stanowił zapowiedź nowego stylu prowadzenia refleksji metodologicznej, stylu skrupulatnie zresztą później realizowanego. Najbardziej intensywny rozwój ośrodka poznańskiego przypada na lata siedemdziesiąte i dalsze. Do Poznańskiej Szkoły Metodologicznej należą jednak nie wszyscy metodologowie tego ośrodka. Ewolucja poglądów głównych twórców Szkoły świadczy, iż wiele idei ulegało daleko idącym przekształceniom. Modyfikowane, osiągały nieraz postać zaprzeczającą ich pierwotnej wersji.