The question about theology is, indeed, the question about the cognitive role of faith, a mutual relationship between faith and mind, as well as cultural, social and existential consequences of accepting or eliminating faith in the cognitive (scientific) process. While developing in the space of thought, theology seeks rational arguments speaking in favour of God’s answers to existential questions. In his publications and teachings J. Ratzinger/Benedict XVI gives much attention to these issues, as they are particularly topical and important for the contemporary civilisation. He teaches that faith releases the mind (makes it independent, non-ideologized), opens it to the truth, the learning of which constitutes the key objective of all scientific research. Recogni-tion of the priority of gifts, God’s grace, who makes Himself known through his Word and actions is an important pre-requisite for theological cognition. Ultimately, it has a christological sense: Son knows His Father and wants to reveal the Mystery of God. As scientia fidei, theology has got potential to give relational and holistic character to cognitive actions, thus made them acquire sense transcending their temporary use-fulness. Theology, faithful to the Church, contributes to the development of the world and men in the deepest meaning of the word – it leads to salvation, finding fulfilment in God Himself.
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.
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.
This contribution to the critical discussion of Ryszard Nycz’s Culture as Verb draws on his use of the parts-of-speech model to submit another formula of conceptualizing culture, based on the adverb, and complementary to the already existing approaches. They can be divided into three classes: those that treat culture as adjective (i.e. all epiphenomenal interpretations which view culture as a set of attributes), those that treat it as noun (i.e. an object, a separate academic discipline), and those that focus on action and the processual nature of culture (hence culture as verb), and even – in association with pragmatist and performative theories of language and the more recent ‘Activist Turn’ in the social sciences – have come to regard culture as culture-in-the-making, constituted and sustained by action (activities, performances). Most important for the adverbial approach are the modalities of culture, manifested in a variety of life styles. The study of culture as adverb (‘how’) can be pursued independently of the trench wars of cultural determinists and functionalists. Responding directly to Culture as Verb, qualifi ed as, chiefl y, an epistemological study, the article calls for a closer examination of the ontological implications of Nycz’s project of reinventing the humanities.
The author shows the activity of the inhabitants in the process of revitalization which took place in Poznan at the turn of the 20. and 21. century. Overview of actions demonstrates the transformation of instruments and methods of conduct, but also is a presentation process of self-education of all participants: the associations, municipal authorities and residents. Relevant are also the examples of intentional educational and cultural initiatives addressed to the residents and held with residents in the framework of the Urban Renewal Program. Accumulation of these activities led to stimulate of civic awareness, neighborly relationship and local identification, but also initiated the transformation of individual mental. As a result, they developed a multi-threaded relationship: realization by the people of the right to co-decision and shared responsibility influences the attitudes of representatives of the local authorities and a kind of reciprocal social education, leaning to the subjective treatment of all participants of social processes.