In this article I want to continue the characteristics of philosophical methods specific to analytical philosophy, which were and are important for Professor Jan Woleński. So I refer to his work on the methods of analytical philosophy, but I also point out a few new methods that have grown up in the climate of studies of philosophers, especially analytical ontologists. I will therefore describe the following methods: generalization, specialization, formalization, de-formalization and topological hermeneutics. Instead of the term “method” I use interchangeably the terms “operation” or “procedure”. I will show that each of these operations makes an important contribution to ontological investigations, and, in particular, to formal ontology.
The Euclidean ideal of mathematics as well as all the foundational schools in the philosophy of mathematics have been contested by the new approach, called the “maverick” trend in the philosophy of mathematics. Several points made by its main representatives are mentioned – from the revisability of actual proofs to the stress on real mathematical practice as opposed to its idealized reconstruction. Main features of real proofs are then mentioned; for example, whether they are convincing, understandable, and/or explanatory. Therefore, the new approach questions Hilbert’s Thesis, according to which a correct mathematical proof is in principle reducible to a formal proof, based on explicit axioms and logic.
In this paper, we indicate how Jan Woleński’s non-linguistic concept of the norm allows us to clarify the deontic relationship between sentences and the given normative system. A relationship of this kind constitutes a component of the metalogic of relating deontic logic, which subjects the logical value of the deontic sentence to the logical value of the constituent sentence and its relationship with a given normative system in the accessible possible worlds.
Artificial Intelligence, both as a hope of making substantial progress, and a fear of the unknown and unimaginable, has its roots in human dreams. These dreams are materialized by means of rational intellectual efforts. We see the beginnings of such a process in Lullus’s fancies. Many scholars and enthusiasts participated in the development of Lullus’s art, ars combinatoria. Amongst them, Athanasius Kircher distinguished himself. Gottfried Leibniz ended the period in which the idea of artificial intelligence was shaped, and started the new period, in which artificial intelligence could be considered part of science, by today’s standards.
Roman Suszko said that “Obviously, any multiplication of logical values is a mad idea and, in fact, Łukasiewicz did not actualize it.” The aim of the present paper is to qualify this ‘obvious’ statement through a number of logical and philosophical writings by Professor Jan Woleński, all focusing on the nature of truth-values and their multiple uses in philosophy. It results in a reconstruction of such an abstract object, doing justice to what Suszko held a ‘mad’ project within a generalized logic of judgments. Four main issues raised by Woleński will be considered to test the insightfulness of such generalized truth-values, namely: the principle of bivalence, the logic of scepticism, the coherence theory of truth, and nothingness.
It is a Preface to Volume 9:3/4 that has brought a renewed focus to the role of truth conceptions in frameworks of semantics and logic. Jan Woleński is known due to his works on epistemological aspects of logic and his systematization of semantic truth theory. He became the successor and the worthy continuer of prominent Polish logicians: Alfred Tarski and Kazimierz Ajdukiewicz. This volume is collected on the 80th anniversary of Woleński’s birth and draws together new research papers devoted to judgments and truth. These papers take measure of the scope and impact of Woleński’s views on truth conceptions, and present new contributions to the field of philosophy and logic.
In the paper, there is presented the theory of logical consequence operators indexed with taboo functions. It describes the mechanisms of logical inference in the environment of forbidden sentences. This kind of processes take place in ideological discourses within which their participants create various narrative worlds (mental worlds). A peculiar feature of ideological discourses is their association with taboo structures of deduction which penalize speech acts. The development of discourse involves, among others, transforming its deduction structure towards the proliferation of consequence operators and modifying penalty functions. The presented theory enables to define various processes of these transformations in the precise way. It may be used in analyses of conflicts between competing elm experts acting within a discourse.
We discuss a theory presented in a posthumous paper by Alfred Tarski entitled “What are logical notions?”. Although the theory of these logical notions is something outside of the main stream of logic, not presented in logic textbooks, it is a very interesting theory and can easily be understood by anybody, especially studying the simplest case of the four basic logical notions. This is what we are doing here, as well as introducing a challenging fifth logical notion. We first recall the context and origin of what are here called Tarski-Lindenbaum logical notions. In the second part, we present these notions in the simple case of a binary relation. In the third part, we examine in which sense these are considered as logical notions contrasting them with an example of a nonlogical relation. In the fourth part, we discuss the formulations of the four logical notions in natural language and in first-order logic without equality, emphasizing the fact that two of the four logical notions cannot be expressed in this formal language. In the fifth part, we discuss the relations between these notions using the theory of the square of opposition. In the sixth part, we introduce the notion of variety corresponding to all non-logical notions and we argue that it can be considered as a logical notion because it is invariant, always referring to the same class of structures. In the seventh part, we present an enigma: is variety formalizable in first-order logic without equality? There follow recollections concerning Jan Woleński. This paper is dedicated to his 80th birthday. We end with the bibliography, giving some precise references for those wanting to know more about the topic.
In this paper, the theory of necessity proposed by Robert Grosseteste is presented. After showing the wide range of various kinds of determination discussed by him (connected with: (1) one’s knowledge about the future, (2) predestination, (3) fate, (4) grace, (5) sin and temptation), a different context of Grosseteste’s use of the notion of necessity is analyzed (within logical and metaphysical approaches). At the heart of his theory lie: the definition of necessity, which is that something lacks the capacity (posse) for its opposite, and the distinction between two perspectives within which we can consider necessity: (1) the one according to which the truthfulness of a dictum determines that it cannot be the opposite, (2) a pre- or atemporal one, as if something had not yet begun. On these grounds, Robert explains that God’s omniscience is compatible with contingency, including human free decisions. Robert’s theory is still relevant and useful in contemporary debates, as it can provide strong arguments and enrich discussions, thanks to the twoperspectives approach, which generates nine kinds of positions on the spectrum of determinism and indeterminism.