We show that the formula CLpEqLq axiomatizes Lukasiewicz’s modal logic and that there exists no shorter axiom for it.

The aim of the article is to analyse Joseph M. Bochenski’s superstitions in logic with reference to issues of pluralism in logic, which is widely discussed in the contemporary philosophy of logic. I concentrate on a superstition known as “relativity in logic”. It emerged contemporarily with the construction of non-classical logical calculi. I make an attempt at considering logical pluralism in the sense of co-existence of infinitely numerous logical systems as ruling out the unity of logic and negating its normative nature. I also try to determine if it is possible to deduct relativity in logic from the fact of logical systems pluralism.

The relation between linguistics and logic is analysed in the paper. Its starting point are two discussions between logicians and linguists that took place in recent years. The main points of these discussions were presented and it was argued that they are based on some misunderstandings. Thereafter, the author tried to determinate the domains of linguistics and logic in more precise way and to show the differences between these domains.

There is a need of the language to be a proper tool for transferring of all the riches of our thoughts. We consider the abstract thinking as one of the higher activities of human mind. That kind of thinking has its use in the domain of metaphysics. Considerations concerning language as proper for communication in metaphysics became the subject of the work Language and the Real World by Mieczysław Albert Krąpiec. After analysing Krąpiec’s work, one can conclude that natural language requires certain clarifications to be a communication tool corresponding with metaphysics. Well, it would be needed to extract a refined language in the context of the natural language. In order to extract it one would require a description of a dictionary and a definition of the rules for constructing well-formed formulae. After the analyses it turned out that the dictionary of the language in question would be a set of names. In turn syntax rules of that language should be based on a relation defined in the set of names. A relation that would be suitable to formulate these rules is known to linguists as hyponymy.

Celem rozważań podjętych w artykule jest rozpoznanie etycznego wymiaru obywatelskiego nieposłuszeństwa. Stawiając sobie takie zadanie, autorka zastanawia się, czym różni się nieposłuszeństwo obywatelskie od innych form społecznego sprzeciwu, a także usiłuje rozpoznać jego istotę. W tym celu identyfikuje kluczowe cechy oraz przedmiot aktu nieposłuszeństwa. Wyjaśnienie, na czym polega obywatelski charakter omawianego działania, pozwala na omówieniejego moralnego i etycznego znaczenia. Podkreślając osobowy charakter obywatelskiego nieposłuszeństwa, autorka ujmujeje jako wyraz etyczności.

It has been a long time since the ability to create is not percieved only as the domain of poets and artists, and the eventuality of deliberating over its nature is not restricted only to aesthetics. In the present analyses I would like to show this modern and postmodern variety of the studies on the creatio phenomenon, which today is often to be comprehended as the universal human creativity (described mainly by psychologists and educators). By introducing the fundamental considerations over the traditional and non-traditional definitions and explanations of creativity, this article has to facilitate at the same time the task of raising more specific and detailed issues (which I partly describe in the article “On the main dilemmas of the philosophy of creativity: A synthetic view of the contemporary research” in this volume of Roczniki Filozoficzne).The present introduction to the philosophy of creativity field will be made in three main steps: (1) by evoking some previous philosophical analyses, (2) by describing the traditional and modern ways of defining the concept and (3) through showing the selected psychological theories of the process of creating the new, valuable and original artifact.

Contemporary philosophical studies on creativity of humans are not narrowed only to the descriptions of the geniuses’ lifes and to the aesthetical analyses of the original artifacts. With the modern extension of the creatio concept (which is now often understood as an universal ability of all men to create), the enlargement of the possible studies to be done in the field od philosophy of creativity have appeared also. At the same time—the new dilemmas to solve have come out.In the present article I show the diversity of contemporary research on the creativity phenomenon by (1) delineating the main opposition voices in this research and by (2) describing some of the leading trends in the field. There will be raised such problematic issues as: elitism vs. egalitarianism of creativity, the place of consciousness and rationality in the creative processes, the nature of the scientific creativity, the intercultural perspective in the research, naturalizing the phenomenon and also the possible functions of the imagination and pretend play in shaping the creative abilities ofhumans.

Science fiction is often described as a literary genre well suited to philosophical speculation. SF and philosophy share a common interest in the question of immortality, and comparisons and contrasts can be made regarding their respective treatments of the theme. We propose here a sketch of a taxonomy of different models or pictures of immortality offered by philosophers and SF writers. After noting important difference in these models, we suggest that some problems and concerns expressed by philosophers and SF writers alike are the result of conflating different models. It is our hope that these comparisons provide a preliminary sense of the way SF can be said to function as philosophical discourse.